Commons Sitting of 17 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 6 to 13; 3a; 14 to 19; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 9a; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES, Votes 1 to 9; 9a and 9b; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 1 and 2; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY, Classes I and II.
Resolutions [August 16] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Public Works Loans * [295]; Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention [277]; Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables) * [296].
Committee—Report—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) [286]; Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure * [290]; Trial of Lunatics * [292]; Revenue and Friendly Societies * [269].
Third Reading—Statute Law Revision * [291], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) [155]; Local Government Board (Scotland) [251]; Medals [188], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PARLIAMENT—STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 33 read.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he had two alterations in the Standing Orders relating to the Private Business of the House to move; but he would not take up more of the time of the House than would be necessary to explain the nature of the Amendments. The first Amendment applied to Private Bills, which contained provisions with respect to the use, inspection, or verification of weights and measures; and it required all such Bills to be deposited at the Board of Trade in the same manner as all other Private Bills. The second alteration applied to Tramway Bills, the provisions in regard to crossing public roads which applied to railways. There had been a recommendation to this effect from the Committee on Tramways. The difference between a railway and a tramway was becoming less and less every year. Tramways were now propelled by steam,

  953
  and it was considered that they ought to he under the same conditions as railways. He begged to move the first Amendment for the alteration of Standing Order 33.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 8, after the words "tidal waters," to insert the words "a printed copy of every Bill containing provisions with respect to the use of weights and measures, or the inspection or verification of the same, shall he deposited at the Standard Department of the Board of Trade."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Order 155 read.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "Railway," to insert the word "Tramway."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Amendment agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882-THE MAGISTRACY,
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a man named Fenton O'Brien was brought up at Mountrath on the 9th instant, before Messrs. Smith and Le-strange, resident magistrates, charged with a violation of the 9th section of the Crimes Act by having kicked a burning effigy of Carey against the leg of a policeman at Mountrath on the 1st instant; whether the only other policeman present, and whose view of the transaction was wholly unobstructed, failed to corroborate the evidence of complainant; whether three respectable witnesses distinctly contradicted the evidence of the constable, and swore that, instead of kicking the effigy against him, defendant turned it over with his foot, saying, at the same time, "It's out;" whether the magistrates found defendant guilty, and sentenced him to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour; whether counsel for defendant requested the magistrates to increase the term, so that he might have an opportunity of getting the decision reviewed; whether, on refusal, counsel stated that the defendant committed no offence, and immediately left the court; whether the magistrates after wards reduced the term to seven days; and, whether either of the magistrates has been called to the Bar or admitted as a solicitor;
  954
  if not, which of them is the gentleman "of whoso legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Fenton O'Brien was charged with assaulting a constable in the manner stated. The magistrates believed, on the evidence adduced, that he was guilty, and convicted him. The evidence for the defence was inconsistent and unreliable, and did not disprove the charge; while witnesses as to character produced by the defendant admitted that he had been convicted of perjury as well as assault. The magistrates refused to increase the term of imprisonment to 31 days to give the right of appeal, on the ground that the offence was clearly proved, and they considered 14 day s' imprisonment sufficient punishment. After the defendant's counsel left O'Brien himself addressed the Court in mitigation of his sentence, pleading his circumstances—he being a mason working at a contract—and promising future good conduct, and the magistrates consented to reduce the sentence to seven days. Neither of the magistrates is a barrister or solicitor, nor does the Prevention of Crime Act require it. Mr. Smith, R.M., for many years an officer of Constabulary, is the gentleman of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied.
  MR. HEALY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise, during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Act, that one of the two magistrates should be of the Legal Profession?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that no promise of that kind was given. What was promised was that the Lord Lieutenant should be satisfied as to the legal qualifications of one of them.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the difficulty of the teachers of National Schools in Ireland, especially in poor rural districts, in raising the amount of local aid required to secure the second moiety of Results Pees, the Government will consent to pay both moieties of Results Pees unconditionally till the case of the teachers be finally settled?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This is a matter for the consideration of the Treasury rather than of the Irish Government. It

  955
  is a proposal which I think it is extremely unlikely their Lordships would entertain, and I cannot undertake to press it upon them.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as a comparison is made in official Blue Books of the percentages of passes in reading, writing, and arithmetic in the National Schools in England, Ireland, and Scotland, would the teachers of Ireland be allowed the same facilities for carrying on their work, by the use of the best text books on the respective subjects, the same as are allowed to the teachers of England and Scotland, provided these books do not contain anything objectionable either in a sectarian or political point of view?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question is asked in the interests of education, and the course which the hon. Member indicates as desirable appears to be that adopted by the Commissioners of National Education. They do not insist upon the use of the books mentioned in their official list; but they require that the titles of any others proposed to be used shall be submitted to them for approval. They never refuse to sanction the use of unobjectionable books; but they always prohibit the use of books specially prepared for cramming purposes.
  MR. CALLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Board have prohibited the use of the Christian Brothers' geography?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of that Question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that the supply of books to the National Schools is practically a monopoly, and that facilities are only given to a certain set of books, while obstructions are placed in the way of others; and is it not a fact that competent educational authorities have pronounced many of the works favoured to be the most valueless text-books that ever were printed?
  [No reply was given.]

  GUN LICENCES (IRELAND)—PALLASKENRY PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Richard Radcliffe, the caretaker
  956
  of Mr. Sheehy (Coroner) Shannon-grove, county Limerick, has been refused a licence to have a gun for the protection of Shannongrove House and Farm, although he (Radcliffe) produced a licence to carry arms in Kerry where he was recently a caretaker of Mr. Browne; whether the Resident Magistrate was, at the time of such refusal, aware that Mr. Sheehy's house was broken into at night in his absence; whether he can state how often the Resident Magistrate attended the District Sessions at Pallaskenry for the last six months; and, whether the said Resident Magistrate gave, at the same time, a licence to Patrick White, of Shannon-grove, and upon what recommendation; and, whether said Patrick White is only a fisherman, and is suspected of poaching, and has been summoned for shooting a valuable dog, the property of said Mr. Sheehy, on said farm?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that Captain Hatchell, the Resident Magistrate of the district, has never been applied to for a licence for Richard Radcliffe. The Resident Magistrate has attended Pallaskenry Petty Session six times out of ten during the last six months. The case of Patrick White was not referred to in the hon. Member's Question as it originally stood. The additional paragraph was sent to Ireland for inquiry when it appeared on the Paper yesterday; and the reply has not yet been received.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—INSTRUCTION OF CHILDREN IN DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what authority he stated that there was a Catholic monitress, or any Catholic official, to instruct the Workhouse children in Donegal; if he will give the name of the Catholic monitress, and say if the person in question is a pauper, aged eleven years; whether, if this child be the "Catholic monitress," it is the fact that, on an examination in second class last year by the National School Inspector, she failed to pass; whether she teaches catechism at the suggestion of Mr. M'Farlane, L.G.B. Inspector; and, if not, by whose instructions she does so; if there is any difficulty in his ascertaining whether the Rev. H. M'Fadden, P.P., after his resignation as chaplain,

  957
  is now paying a catechist out of his own pocket to instruct pauper children in the parish church; and, whether the spiritual destitution, which prevails in the Donegal Workhouse amongst the Catholic inmates, is such as would justify him, as President of the Local Government Board, in over-riding the authority of the guardians in order to provide a remedy?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Notice given of this Question was not sufficient to allow of a reply being received from Ireland. He would answer the Question on Monday.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask it again on Monday. The Question, however, was the same as that already asked; and if the Local Government Board pleaded want of Notice they were guilty of want of candour.

  TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN—LEASES.
  MR. FINDLATERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he is aware that the Board of Trinity College, who have from time immemorial been in the habit of making forty years' leases of building lots in Westland Row and other parts of the city of Dublin, and of renewing such leases to their tenants upon certain terms, have now intimated that they will not renew them upon any terms; and, if so, whether, having regard to the hardship inflicted upon subtenants who hold by leases containing toties quoties covenants for renewal, which they took upon the faith of the immemorial practice before referred to, it is the intention of the Government to interfere by legislation on the subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): The Board of Trinity College has, I believe, intimated its intention of ceasing to renew leases of buildings after their expiration. The phrase "time immemorial" is hardly applicable, as the original leases never existed in the period between 1810 and 1825. The original terms were 40 years, and on the expiration of the present renewed terms, the tenants who are middlemen will have held at the old rents for periods of 88 to 90 years. I need hardly inform my hon. Friend that it is not the intention of the Government to interfere in the matter. No hardship appears to have been complained of by the under-lessees as far as I am aware.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council will now put in force the provisions of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," in order to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia from the herds of the United Kingdom; the disease being now confined to a very few herds?
  MR. DODSON: I am glad to be able to state that this disease has been steadily declining since the passing of the Act of 1878; and it is much to be desired that local authorities should exercise more freely than they do the power which they possess, under Section 21 of that Act, of slaughtering healthy animals that have been in contact with diseased animals. The Privy Council are constantly calling the attention of local authorities to the expediency of adopting that course; but I must remind my hon. Friend that the Privy Council has not any power to order the slaughter of healthy animals in the case of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. That power rests entirely with the local authority.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the report contained in the "Times" of the 15th instant of twelve Canadian cattle being conveyed from Liverpool to Bristol whilst suffering from foot and mouth disease is correct; and, if so, what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such a reckless means of spreading disease amongst the herds and flocks of the Country?
  MR. DODSON: The Canadian animals found in Bristol Market affected with foot-and-mouth disease came from Liverpool. Wherever landed, they could not have got out of the foreign animals landing place unless they were free from disease. We are informed that they had been in contact in Liverpool Market with Irish cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. They arrived at Bristol on the 8th instant, and the disease appeared on the 11th instant. All have been slaughtered since.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether any inquiry has been made to ascertain the correctness of the following statement contained in a letter to the "Times," of the 30th ultimo, from Mr. Moffat, Agent of the United States Department of Agriculture—
  "For two years not a case of disease (foot and month) was brought to the attention of the United States Commission, except in two instances of freshly imported consignments from Great Britain;"
  and, that, seeing that the disease rarely exceeds three days in developing itself, and as the passage occupies an average of nine days, and as upon arrival animals are subjected to ninety days' quarantine, if he could explain how it was possible that animals imported from Great Britain could convey it into that Country?
  MR. DODSON: No inquiry was necessary, because it is an undoubted fact that foot-and-mouth disease has been exported from this country into America. The beginning of it, however, was that in 1881 we received a cargo from America suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and shortly afterwards we heard that a cargo of Jersey animals had been shipped for America in the same vessel. We telegraphed the fact to the American Government, and on the arrival of the vessel in America the cattle were found to be affected with the disease. A similar case occurred during this year, when a cargo of Channel Islands' cattle landed at Baltimore were found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. The incubation of the disease is from two to four days; but it takes from two to four weeks to pass through a herd, according to the number, and there is nothing Strange in its lasting during a voyage across the Atlantic. The quarantine of 90 days is no security against the indirect introduction of the disease by means of persons and things in the quarantine station passing out of it. It only secures safety from the particular animals placed in quarantine.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— PAYMENT OF OUTDOOR RELIEF.
  MR. CAINEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that it is usual in some unions for the payment of out-door relief to be distributed in public-houses; and, if he will issue an order from the Local Government
  960
  Board prohibiting such distribution in future?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Local Government Board are not aware that it is usual in some Unions for the payment of outdoor relief to be distributed in public-houses. If the Board are informed of the facts of any case where such an arrangement is made they will communicate with the Guardians with a view to its discontinuance.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he had two cases which he would bring to the knowledge of the right hon. Baronet.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— CASE OF SAMUEL LEATHAM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a man named Samuel Leatham was murdered at Cork by two detectives at 10.30 on the night of the 30th ultimo; whether it is the fact that the district head constable and a number of the police endeavoured to shield the murderers from the sub-inspector; whether one of the principal witnesses was prevented from giving evidence on the inquest; if so, why so; and, what action the Government intend to take against the detectives?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The matter referred to in this Question is to-day the subject of investigation at Petty Sessions. It would, therefore, be obviously improper for me to make any statement on the subject. It is important enough for Assistant Inspector General Reed to have been sent down from head-quarters to be present at the inquiry.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state why the recommendations of the Visitors of the Royal Military College, made in 1880 and concurred in by his predecessor, in regard to geometrical drawing and modern languages, have not been attended to, as stated by the Visitors in their last Report?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, this subject formed part of the larger question of the tests to be required from candidates for admission to the Army, which was now under consideration. The recommendations of the Board of Visitors would receive due attention.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR—THE DEPARTMENAL COMMITTEE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Attorney General, If it is true that the Departmental Committee which has for some months been engaged on the question of the Public Prosecutor, has adjourned to next winter without coming to any conclusion or making any Report?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Departmental Committee referred to had concluded its labours and made no Report. The fact was that there were Members of that Committee who had little time at their disposal, and the Committee could not meet more than once a-week. The Committee had sat after the time when Parliament was usually prorogued, and that had been found inconvenient, especially to non-official Members. They felt that any recommendation that could be made and laid before Parliament could not be acted on till next Session; and he was sure it was an advantageous course to postpone the consideration of their Report.

  EGYPT—THE ALEXANDRIA INDEMNITY COMMISSION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether anything has yet been done to decide on the claim of the representatives of the late Mr. Ribton before the Indemnity Commission at Alexandria; and, what is the cause of the delay on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Ribton's claim has not yet been decided upon. The smaller claims were dealt with first. Mr. Ribton's claim, which is among the larger amounts, will, it is understood, come up shortly for decision. I may add that the Commission is an International one, over which Her Majesty's Government have no control.

  PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION.
  MR. AGNEWasked the First Commissioner of Works, If it is his intention,
  962
  during the recess, to make arrangements whereby, upon the re-assembling of Parliament, Members may be afforded facilities for telephonic communication?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My hon. Friend is apparently not aware that the telephone has already been introduced into this House—one at the Members' entrance and the other in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  MR. AGNEW: I wish to say, Sir, that that fact is not generally known to hon. Members.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can the First Commissioner of Works give a single instance of the telephone being used except by Members of the Government, or name a Member outside of the official circle who is aware of its existence?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I cannot say to what extent hon. Members are aware of the fact; but the telephone was introduced into this House about a fortnight ago.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are any more agreeable secrets of this sort which he has to disclose?
  MR. CAINE: I may say the telephone has been up quite a fortnight. That one at the entrance is visible to the naked eye when you pass.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— CODE 848.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table Code 848 of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if he intends to maintain the Rule in force?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Code has hitherto been held to be a privileged document, and must continue to be so. Till the hon. Member withdraws the imputation which he made yesterday, under privilege of Parliament, and with the publicity of Parliament, on a woman who cannot defend herself, I can answer no further Questions in connection with this subject.
  MR. HEALY: Of course, the statement of the Chief Secretary is intended to protect Sub-Inspector Cameron from the discharge which an ordinary member of the force would receive, as a disorderly person?

  RUSSIA—THE EXPULSION OF JEWS FROM ST. PETERSBURG.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the case of the representative of the firm of Messrs. Raphael, Tuck, and Sons, of Coleman Street, London, a British subject, who, although travelling with a passport issued only fourteen days before by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was expelled from St. Petersburg on his arrival on Wednesday, the 15th of August, because he was a Jew; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to prevent a repetition of such treatment to British subjects on account of their religion?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; a letter was received yesterday from the firm, and Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires will be directed to report upon the facts of the case, in order that the Secretary of State may consider what steps can be taken in the matter.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a Question with regard to the Business for to-morrow. It "would be convenient to know, supposing that, by misfortune, Supply should not be finished to-night, what Business will be taken to-morrow; and, especially, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to go on with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill?
  MR. GIBSONasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplated proceeding further with the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Votes in Supply had been taken until 3 o'clock that morning; and, whether he could undertake to prevent a repetition of that proceeding during the remainder of the Session, even at the risk of personal inconvenience to Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. BIGGARasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that he would to-morrow bring forward the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. CALLANasked, Whether, considering that a Select Committee had last year revised the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it to be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with that Bill, and to obtain the sanction of Parliament to a much desired reform?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go forward with the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill at whatever time it may come on. I desire that there should be no mistake or misapprehension upon that point. With regard to the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I can only say that I am very sorry that it should have been found necessary to prolong the Sitting in Supply to so late an hour as 3 o'clock in the morning, which, I am aware, should not be done until towards the very close of the Session, and when the date of the Prorogation has actually been fixed. It was, however, done last night by the will of the House. [Cries of "No!"] I do not understand that any effort was made to induce the Committee to report Progress. There was no Division taken on the point. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The Committee gave way.] Well, if the Committee gave way, I do not see what there is to complain of. Had the Government seen any indication that it was the feeling of the Committee that Progress should be reported, they would have assented to that course being taken. I am sorry if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suffered inconvenience from the course that was taken; but we have now merely a choice of inconveniences—everthing is inconvenient at this period of the Session. We made the best choice in the circumstances that we could, having regard to the state of Public Business. With regard to the Business for to-morrow, I am sorry to say that since I last addressed the House on the subject of the course of Business we have lost all hope of being able to finish Supply to-night, because we certainly could not hope to get through the other Business of Supply to-night in time to enable us to redeem our pledge not to take the Army Votes after a particular hour. We must, therefore, proceed with Supply to-morrow, when it

  965
  may take some hours. That being so, we do not think that it would be fair to ask the House to take the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill to-morrow. Then, inasmuch as we have appointed Business for Monday and Tuesday, the question arises, When are we to proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill? Looking at the nature of that Bill, I do not think that it will require any lengthened discussion, and therefore we intend to fix it for the first Order of the Day on Monday. It then remains to be determined whether we shall take the Indian Budget as the second Order of the Day on Monday after the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, or postpone it until another day. It cannot be made the first Order of the Day until Wednesday, because on Tuesday we must take the Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bills, if those Bills should have come down from the House of Lords by that time. We shall endeavour in the course of the evening to ascertain whether it will be most agreeable to the House to take the Indian Budget as the second Order of the Day on Monday, or as the first Order of the Day on Wednesday.
  MR. BIGGAR: In reference to the Union Officers' Superannuation Bill. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong opposition of the Irish Members to this Bill, and to the fact that it would prolong the Session if persevered with, he would not consider the advisability of dropping the measure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think there is a very large proportion of the Irish Members against the Bill—unless, indeed, the hon. Member himself constitutes that very large proportion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired whether it was intended, as the right hon. Gentleman's statement seemed to imply, to take the Appropriation Bill as a late Order every day, and never to give it precedence?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that they must undoubtedly take the Appropriation Bill according to the usual course. From the time they introduced it they must have it as the first Order of the Day.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision with regard to the Indian Budget, which had already, in spite of many promises, been put off for a long
  966
  time, and which had been formally fixed for Wednesday. Several influential Members had arranged to come a considerable distance on Monday on account of the Indian Budget.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped that, as it had been found necessary to devote Monday to another measure, the Indian Budget, on whatever day it might be considered, would not be taken at a late hour.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill was discussed at great length by a Committee upstairs; and he understood that the Attorney General was going to throw over some of the decisions of that Committee. Such an important measure could surely not be adequately discussed, under the circumstances, at this period
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked that, viewing the origin of that Bill and the time bestowed on it by the Grand Committee, it would not be right for the Government to take the responsibility of withdrawing it from the House. They felt that the House and not the Government should decide on the question whether it should be proceeded with or not. With regard to the Indian Budget, he agreed that it ought not to be brought on at a late hour. He entertained the hope that the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill would not occupy more than a couple of hours, and in that case it might be preferable to go on with the Indian Budget on the same evening. He would, however, as he had said, endeavour to ascertain the general sense of the House on the question whether the Indian Budget should be the second Order on Monday or the first Order on Wednesday.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether the arrangement to take the Medical Act Amendment Bill on Tuesday would hold?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; on Tuesday, after the Lords' Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bills have been disposed of.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Speaker whether it would be competent for the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) to bring forward on the Indian Budget the question of the Indian Criminal Jurisdiction Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: I consider that on a Motion relating to the Indian Budget it would be open to the hon. Member to make general observations on the Bill referred to.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  FRANCE—THE FRENCH PYRENEES— SUPPOSED CASUALTY TO THE REV. MERTON SMITH.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the noble Lord, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information with regard to the Rev. Merton Smith, who is said to be missing in the Pyrenees; and, also, whether it is their intention to make some inquiry into the subject?
ORDERS OF THE DAT.
  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Courtney.)
  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. BIGGAR, who had on the Paper a Notice to move that the House go into Committee that day three months, observed that, although the Bill contained the pleasing proposal that £40,000 should be granted for the purpose of proposed tramways in Ireland, this proposal had such conditions attached to it as deprived it of all its attractiveness. There were several districts in the West of Ireland where it would be unreasonable to expect a tramways line to pay; and yet in many of these places there would be an agitation got up to bring them within the operation of the Act. For example, take the district from Clifden to Galway—a line between these two places would never pay. The population was sparse and poor, and the produce would never be equal to the maintenance of a line. Even in such a prosperous district as that between Ballymena and Larne a narrow-gauge railway barely paid working expenses. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would withdraw the Bill and introduce it next Session, at a period when it could be fully examined and discussed. The second part of the Bill—namely, that
    968
    relating to emigration, was opposed to the first part. The Government proposed, in the first place, to construct tramways for the accommodation of the people in the poor districts of Ireland, and then they proposed to remove from the country the very people who would be likely to receive any advantage from tramways. This scheme of emigration was promoted by a number of busybodies of the Exeter Hall type, the same class who sent missionaries to the negroes and supplied them with rum and Bibles. These people thought they knew the interests of the Irish people much better than their own Parliamentary Representatives; but the Irish people would be much obliged to these meddlers if they left them alone to manage their own affairs. The Government ought to be ashamed of their measure. With regard to the last part of it, he could not believe that it was seriously proposed. The Land Commissioners had at present power to sell lands to the occupying tenants; but if they, who required no profit, were unable to carry into operation the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, how was it possible that a public Company, which would require a profit, could do so? He entirely dissented from the opinion of the Chief Secretary, when he said that he did not believe in any system of peasant proprietary in which the tenant had not to supply a material part of the purchase money and be bound to repay the loan within a limited time. The Purchase Clauses of the Land Act would never succeed until the total amount of the purchase money was advanced to the tenant; and he contended that the tenant's interest in his occupation afforded ample security to the State for the repayment of the loan.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose his Amendment that the House go into Committee on the Bill this day three months?
    MR. BIGGAR: No, Sir; but I will divide against going into Committee.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that, as a friend of Ireland, he was extremely sorry to hear the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). Any Irishman who had any true affection for his country ought to thank the Government for having introduced this Bill. As a matter of fact, the present Session was the first in his recollection in which any remedial legis-

    969
    lation for Ireland had been brought in; prior to this he had regretted the indisposition on the part of any Government to introduce measures that would tend to the development of the resources of Ireland and to contribute to her material prosperity. During the present Session three measures of that character had been introduced, two by Irish Members, and the third by Her Majesty's Government, all of which were calculated to do good to the country—he referred to the Fisheries Bill, which was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, which was calculated to confer material benefits on a portion of the community hitherto greatly neglected; and the Bill now before the House, which was also calculated to do much good. Having sat for some weeks this Session on a Select Committee, he had had an opportunity of hearing most convincing evidence that one great want in Ireland was the want of communication, especially in the Western parts of the country, where there was a great absence of facilities for conveying the agricultural produce to market. Evidence had also been produced before the Committee with respect to the fisheries; and it was stated that in many places after great catches of fish the fishermen were obliged to leave the fish on the shore because they had no means of taking it to market. He thought, therefore, the introduction of tramways and railways was most important, and he gave the project his cordial support. He also approved of the clause by which the amount to be advanced by the State to assist emigration was raised from £100,000 to £200,000. He agreed with the Irish Members that emigration, in the long run, would be a bad thing for Ireland. He believed if the resources of the country were properly developed it would support a larger population than it possessed at present; but they must deal with circumstances as they existed, and when they found there were certain districts where the people where starving, where if they had the land for nothing they could not live upon it, he considered they were justified in resorting to the temporary remedy of emigration. When the Government introduced their Coercion Bill he asked them not to forget that there were loyal and peaceable people in Ireland who ought to be considered.
    970
    The Chief Secretary had not forgotten his appeal, and had introduced this useful measure. Therefore, while differing from the Government on many points, he thought they had done that, in the present instance, which entitled them to the gratitude of Ireland and the Irish Members.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he rose to state that he differed from the hon. Member for Cavan as to the utility of a line of tramways in Connemara. There was a dense population along the coast, and such a line would be largely used not only by tourists, but by the people of the district. Everyone, in Connemara wanted this mode of communication. He regretted the objection of the hon. Member for Cavan. He believed a certain canal that turned out badly was at the bottom of his hon. Friend's opposition to this sort of legislation. In his (Colonel Nolan's) opinion, the poorer a district was, the more it needed the construction of tramways to open up its resources.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Cavan in his objection to the Bill; and if he went to a Division against it he would vote with him. He (Mr. Healy) was of opinion that the Government had brought in this Bill at the bidding of interests to which they ought not to have submitted, while they always rejected the representations of Irish Members with contumely and scorn. The emigration part of the Bill had been introduced in deference to Mr. Tuke and the Exeter Hall party, and the tramways portion to please promoters. There was no demand from Ireland for either section of the Bill. The tramways part of the measure was simply iniquitous. The unfortunate taxpayers, who had no voice in the matter, would have to pay the whole of the money; while the landlords—or, in other words, the grand juries—who were to decide what tramways were to be made and where, would not have to pay anything. Under the Bill the unfortunate ratepayers of the country, weighed down already with the blood tax, the police tax, and the rack rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners, would be fleeced just as the ratepayers of the County Waterford had been fleeced for the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway. The right hon. Gentleman, who knew nothing about the

    971
    matter, indeed, proposed that the presentment Sessions should have a voice in the question. But the grand jury pricked a certain number of ratepayers, of whom half were chosen by ballot, to form the Presentment Sessions, so that the ratepayers chosen-would approach the landlords in position. The right hon. Gentleman would say that the grand jury was the only body to whom the matter could be left. Whose fault was that? Had not the Irish Members year after year urged the Government to do away with the grand jury system? One clause actually proposed that the grand jury might charge such baronies as they thought proper, and at such a rate as they pleased. Why, the grand jury might run a tramway through one barony and throw the tax for it on another. He was surprised that the Chief Secretary, with all his ignorance of Ireland, could propose such a scheme. He never knew a more monstrous Bill. There was no health or soundness in it. If the right hon. Gentleman really desired to benefit the Irish people—from whom the Prime Minister, since he first became Chancellor of the Exchequer, had obtained a greater amount of money than Germany had wrung from Prance as her War Indemnity—let him put the 2 per cent on the State first; and then, if that were not found to be sufficient, let the baronies be called upon to supply the deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was very careful about the money of the State, and very liberal with the money of the unfortunate ratepayers who would have to pay for these speculative schemes. With regard to the emigration scheme, let the Government emigrate as many as they could. They were sending out to America recruiting sergeants of agitation, who would go out with hatred in their hearts, and would learn in a free country what freedom meant. He promised the Government the more they sent out to America the greater would be the terror they would inspire when they got there. Those people would not be the poor miserable peasants they had been shipping off like cattle, but educated men; and their children would, he hoped, be in Office in that great Republic which had done so much for Ireland. The Government were sowing dragons' teeth, and he wished them joy of the harvest they were destined to reap.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) really believed—as he presumed from his speech he did—that the motive of the Government in bringing in this Bill was one of ill-nature and ill-will towards Ireland, he was welcome to his opinion. The only other motive suggested for the Bill was that it was brought in to please Exeter Hall and a set of gentlemen who were his (Mr. Trevelyan's) personal friends. Well, he had to plead guilty to never having been inside Exeter Hall in his life. No doubt, in so far as the Bill dealt with emigration, it consorted with the scheme promoted by Mr. Tuke and the hon. Members for Carnarvonshire and Bedford (Mr. Rathbone and Mr. Whitbread) and their coadjutors; but the suggestion, as to the largest and most important part of the Bill, that it had been brought in to please certain contractors who were friends of Ministers, was preposterous. It had been his misfortune never to have had anything to do with public Companies; and, so far as he knew, until this Bill was actually on the Table of the House, he had never had a conversation with a contractor in his life. The only motive which the Government could have in this matter was to do good to Ireland; and no other that could hold water for a moment had been suggested. The hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), in his kindly speech, said that the Government had this year endeavoured to bring in remedial measures. That had been repudiated by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who said the Government had accepted nothing for the benefit of Ireland from the side of the House on which he sat. Now, taking as a definition of "benefit" the lending or allotting of public money, he would remind the House that two Bills had been brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite with that object. Under one of those Bills £250,000 of the Church Surplus had been expended in a manner which he believed to be very pleasing to Ireland; and the new clause in the Labourers Bill, by which loans were to be granted out of the Exchequer, would, he believed, accord thoroughly with Irish ideas. Both of those Bills were accepted by the Government with the single desire to meet Irish wishes. If the hon. Gentleman thought the Government had any elec-

    973
    tioneering motives in what they had done, he gave them credit for more stupidity than he should have thought possible. It was said that the Bill was lavish of the money of the ratepayers and careful of public money. But when the hon. Member talked of the unfortunate peasant having to pay his money for the benefit of English contractors, he forgot that the Irish peasant would have between him and his liability to pay several parties whose interest it would be to protect him. It was also objected that the Bill was to be worked through the grand juries. Whatever charges might be made against grand juries, he had never heard of their being anxious to promote the interests of English Companies established in Ireland. The main objection he had heard taken in private conversation to grand juries having to administer the Bill was that they probably would not use the powers which were given them by the Bill. He repeated that the only persons whom it was intended to benefit were the peasantry of the districts which would be affected. It might be that grand juries were not the best administrative agency which could be devised; but surely hon. Members did not wish the Bill to be postponed until a new Local Government Bill had been passed for Ireland. He was glad, however, to observe that, though there were 10 pages of Amendments, with some of which it would be impossible for the Government to agree, the greater number of those Amendments were of a practical and useful character, and obviously devised with the object of making the Bill a practical and efficient measure. While, therefore, he accepted any blame that might be deserved for bringing on the Bill so late in the Session, he did not hesitate to ask hon. Members to let them go at once into Committee, and proceed to the consideration of these Amendments.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he could not agree with the criticisms of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan. Six ratepayers could petition against the application of the powers of the Bill to a particular district, and the provisions sufficiently met the objections of his hon. Friend. He welcomed the measure as one which was likely to open up the resources of Ireland. There was great wealth in many Irish counties. In Clare there
    974
    were rich lands, which only required improved communication for their produce to find an accessible market, and the coasts of Donegal teemed with fish, while the peasantry were in a state of chronic semi-starvation. As to emigration, he was as strongly opposed to it as the hon. Member for Monaghan, not, however, from any sentimental feeling that the people should cling to the country, but because, as long as one of the resources that God gave them in their native land remained undeveloped, he held it to be a monstrous thing that one human being should be forced out of the country. He would support the Bill, although he wished the Government had been more liberal in its aid.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTprotested against the Bill, not only on account of the late period of the Session, although that was a sufficient objection, but also because no sufficient warning of its introduction had been given. He protested also against the Government introducing another measure in relief of Irish distress, without giving the House time to investigate its merits. In London there were hundreds and thousands of persons who were in as absolute want as any of the distressed peasantry of Ireland. Yet the Government had induced one of their own supporters (Mr. Broadhurst) to withdraw a Motion of great importance, which proposed to deal with the housing of the poor in the Metropolis. Distress was hardly less prevalent in England and Scotland than it was in Ireland; and no sufficient reason had been given for such exceptional legislation. The Government, in deference to the wishes of the Irish Members, had withdrawn the Police Bill and the proposal to extend the Bankruptcy Bill to Ireland, alleging as an excuse for their conduct, that time could not be found for those matters; yet they now found time to press forward the present Bill, which proposed to devote a large sum of public money to the relief of distress in Ireland. In conjunction with other recent proceedings of the Ministry, it looked very much like a fresh bargain with the Irish Party. He protested against the transaction as unfair to the loyal poor in England and Scotland.
    MR. BARRYsaid, that, although the Bill might be open to criticism in some points, he thought the first part of it, relating to tramways, was calculated to

    975
    do good, and he hoped his hon. Friends would allow the Bill to go into Committee. He argued, however, that at present the measure contained no provision for securing the regular payment of dividends to investors, and that unless it were amended in that respect the development of tramways would be retarded. Although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Monaghan in his sweeping criticism of the Bill, he did agree with him very much in the protest he made against entrusting the administration of the Bill to such unpopular fiscal bodies as the grand juries.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he could not agree with some of his hon. Friends in their wholesale condemnation of the Bill. (Ministerial cheers.) He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should cheer him. The opposition of the Irish Members was chiefly confined to the Emigration Clauses; and he thought, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) at Devonport, in which he stated that he had invited Mr. Tuke to commence this system of emigration, it was hardly possible that the Irish people could view the scheme without suspicion and aversion. During the last four years Ireland had lost a population of 100,000 a-year; and, unfortunately, the children she lost were those whose loss she could least afford. It was the young, the strong, the well-to-do people that Mr. Tuke's Committee had been picking up, while the old and helpless were left behind. He did not attach a feather's weight of importance to the rose-coloured representations which came from emigration agents. He wished that from the beginning the Irish Members had set their faces against it, and told Earl Spencer that the Irish race would stand it no longer. Stronger men than he had burned their fingers over the same policy. Cromwell's rough-and-ready system was not a bit more detested by them than Earl Spencer's genteel process of starving the people into submission, and then driving them away under the guise and cant of philanthropy. Those Englishmen who went over to Ireland to patronize the people, and, meddling in matters which they did not understand, skimmed away the cream of the rural population, presumed too much upon the indulgence that had been extended to
    976
    them, and in future they would encounter the hostility of the whole Irish race. He hoped his hon. Friend would not challenge a Division on this subject. For his part, he would be guided by the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), whose judgment he had never known to fail. As to his (Mr. Brien's) opinion of the Bill when it was first introduced, perhaps the less said the better.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, that, while giving the Government credit for good intentions, he entirely agreed with the strictures passed upon the Bill by the hon. Members for Cavan and Monaghan. The tramway scheme was, in his opinion, ill-digested, and would work badly. No doubt, however, it could be amended so as to render it less liable to criticism than it was now; but there was every probability that it would, if passed in its present shape, give rise to bogus speculation and jobbery. He thought they ought to be content with the protests they had made, and ought not to divide the House.
    MR. DALYsaid, he intended to vote for the Bill, because it would be of great benefit to the Irish people. He thought it would be a grave responsibility for any Irish Member to take upon himself to endanger the passage of such a Bill. He gave it his hearty support, on the principle of the German proverb—"If you can't get what you like, like what you get."
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was in favour of the tramways scheme; but he strongly objected to sandwiching in the measure the proposal with regard to emigration. He suggested that a plan should be adopted which would enable the promoters and opponents of any railway or tramway to Be heard in Ireland, so that they might be spared the trouble and expense of appearing in London. He hoped, however, his hon. Friend would not divide the House on the question in deference to the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Yet he had not much faith in the Lord Lieutenant, because he believed that the views of two landlords and one bailiff would have more influence with him than the representatives of a whole barony of the ordinary population.
    MR. O'KELLYalso appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan not

    977
    to divide the House. He believed the Bill contained some provisions which could be made beneficial to many parts of Ireland. If the Government would accept such Amendments as would create a more perfect control over the working of the Bill, it would be deprived of many of the features which the Irish Members deemed obnoxious.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  POWERS OF GRAND JURY TO GUARANTEE.
  Clause 1 (Grand Jury may present in favour of baronial guarantee).
  MR. LEA, in rising to move, after the word "any," in line 7, the insertion of the words "narrow gauge Railway or," said, he had taken a somewhat strong view of the benefits which were likely to accrue in the West of Ireland if this Bill were passed; and, therefore, in order not to retard its progress, he would confine what he had to say to the fewest possible words. He did not know whether the Government would be able to assent to the proposal he made or not; but there were two reasons why he had placed it upon the Paper. If the Bill was to be effective at all, it must provide for the construction of something better than a tramway running alongside the roads in the county of Donegal. He was told that there were provisions in the measure which authorized the compulsory purchase of land; and as it would be necessary, in many instances, to make wide deviations from the high road, in that case it would amount, practically, to the making of a narrow gauge railway. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that the object he had in view was already included in the Bill he should certainly not press the Amendment too strongly upon the Committee; but he should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could accept the words he proposed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after "any," insert "narrow gauge Railway or."—(Mr. Lea.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that,
  978
  since the Bill had been introduced, representations had been made to the Government as to the desirability of extending its provisions so as to cover the case of narrow gauge railways, or what were known as "light railways." As the Bill stood, it was possible that it did not go so far; but hitherto there had been no definition in any Statute of what a tramway was, and a tramway might be a railway, or a railway might be a tramway. The Bill contained no provision in regard to a limit of deviation, and it repealed part of the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1860, by which means it would have the effect of giving compulsory powers to take land wherever it was necessary to do so for the purposes of the Act. The construction of lines, even in places not in the immediate vicinity of public roads, might be involved under the Bill, inasmuch as it might be a necessary portion of the tramway scheme to work the line by steam power; and it was not, in the opinion of the Government, very important whether the provisions of the Bill were carried out by a tramway or a railway. But in the Acts of Parliament, called Tramway Acts, a tramway was spoken of, and not a railway; and he proposed to extend the definition to railways, so that by the term both tramways and light railways might be included. He thought the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) would be obtained best by the introduction of a definite clause at the end of the Bill, declaring that in this and other Acts of Parliament the word "tramways" should be taken to include a light railway. If the term "light railway" was not a sufficient definition, he would undertake to bring in words on the Report to carry out the object his hon. Friend had in view. He hoped this assurance would be satisfactory.
  MR. BIGGARwished to state the reason which induced him to propose the Amendment which stood in his name. He presumed the object of the Government was to make the Bill as successful as possible; but although he entertained objections to the measure, if the Bill was to be of any service at all, it should be so framed as to give some assurance of success. The Amendment proposed to include narrow gauge railways as well as tramways; but there would be great disadvantage in constructing

  979
  a railway as compared with a tramway. In the case of a tramway they would pay nothing for the land, because the tramway would run over the public roads; and it would make an enormous difference in the expense of the Company, both in reference to legal proceedings and the obtaining of compulsory powers of purchase, if they were to construct railways. For this reason, he was of opinion that a tramway would be much more preferable than a narrow gauge railway, or any railway at all where it would be necessary to prepare a permanent way. In constructing a permanent way, it would be necessary to make cuttings and embankments, and to incur a large amount of expense. If tramways were to be successful, they must be on the same gauge as tramway lines already existing. He presumed that, as a rule, the tramways would terminate in the neighbourhood of some railway station, and if that were so then the tramways would be able to borrow or hire from the Railway Company all the rolling stock they required; but if a Tramway Company, with a short line, found it necessary to keep up a stock of waggons and a permanent staff, the result would be that all the revenue would be used up in the expense. He certainly thought that no encouragement ought to be given to narrow gauge railways, and that a provision should be inserted in the Bill that in every case where a tramway terminated near a railway station it should be of the same gauge as the railway in connection with which it ran. In that way, no doubt, these tramways might be made of immense value as feeders to the railways, and the railways would in the same way contribute indirectly to the traffic upon the tramways; but to call upon a tramway to keep up a permanent staff of engineers and coach builders, and all the requirements of a Railway Company, must, in his opinion, end in disaster.
  MR. LEAintimated that, after the statement which had been made by the Attorney General for Ireland, he would not press his Amendment.
  DR. LYONSexpressed a hope that the Attorney General would take care that the term used in the Bill was such as would put the Tramway Company beyond the possibility of litigation afterwards. Although the term "narrow
  980
  gauge railway" was very well understood, he was afraid that the term "light railway" might give rise to difficulty.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the Government would not pay any attention to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). On the contrary, he thought the definition "light railway" would obviate the difficulty which his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had very properly pointed out. If the definition were made "narrow gauge railway," he (Mr. O'Kelly) thought they would introduce into the future construction of these lines the difficulty which his hon. Friend was afraid of. If the Government accepted the definition "light railway," then the question of gauge could be left to the decision of the people who constructed the line. He had placed an Amendment upon the Paper with a view of providing that the expression should be "light railway;" but as the Government had practically accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea), and were anxious to meet the suggestions which were made, he should not propose his Amendment. he thought the proposal of the Government would meet his views.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would express a hope that on future occasions the Government would get rid of the word "tramway" altogether, because it was a word that had no definite meaning, and only led to confusion. Since the Bill had been introduced he had been very anxious to find out what the word meant; but he had altogether failed. The Government would be aware that in America it was discarded, and instead of "tramway" the word used was "street railway."
  MR. PARNELLasked the Attorney General for Ireland if he was to understand that the 42nd section of the Tramways Act was repealed by this Bill? As far as he could make out, if that section were not repealed there would be no compulsory powers under the Bill for the purchase of land; and it would be utterly impossible to make "light railways" in the way proposed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was proposed to repeal the 42nd section of the Tramways Act; and whether it was called "railway" or "tramway" was a matter of very little consequence.
  MR. GIBSONasked if the Bill placed tramway construction on the same footing as that with regard to railways?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he was not quite certain what his right hon. and learned Friend meant. Did he mean in regard to legal machinery?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he meant the compulsory taking of land.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that would be precisely the same as under the present Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER) moved, in line 7, after the words "promoters of any tramway," to insert the words "being a public Company." It was not intended that statutory powers to make a tramway, and compulsory powers to take land, should be given to individuals. The Light Tramway Acts conferred powers upon individuals; but it was intended that this Act should apply exclusively to Directors of Public Companies.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "tramway," insert "being a public Company."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought that the grand juries and public authorities would, under the Amendment, be precluded from making tramways; and that, he thought, would be a most unwise provision. He was of opinion that the most economical way of making these tramways would be for the counties to make them themselves. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was afraid that the expense of making and working a tramway or light railway would swallow up all the profits; but if the public authorities or the grand juries were allowed to enter into the contracts, he believed they would not do so unless they felt that they could do the work economically.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the difficulty might be met by allowing persons, whether incorporated or not, to make an application for an Order in Council under the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) was a perfectly novel one. It had never been suggested to the House, and had certainly not been included in any Tramway Act now existing, that the grand juries should have power to undertake works of this kind, which were altogether distinct from their proper functions. The suggestion contained in the Bill was that the powers should be given to the Tramway Company with a Government guarantee. The clause, as it stood, would not meet the case of grand juries or public authorities at all. It provided that it should be lawful for the promoters of a tramway to make application to the grand jury for any county under the Tramway Acts; but it did not give authority to the grand juries to confer such power upon themselves.
  MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, that Municipal Bodies and Corporations were entitled to make tramways in districts under their jurisdiction.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, his argument was that the Bill should not exclude these public Bodies; and he thought if they were going to insert the words "public Companies" they should also extend the clause to public Bodies. His suggestion was that they should either leave out "public Company" or add "public Bodies."
  MR. DALYsaid, he believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) were agreed to, the whole Bill would be a failure. The grand juries were generally representative men, and ought not, in their individual capacity, to exercise powers of this kind. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Member would not bear the test of examination.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the object of the Bill was to establish better means of communication. At present, the grand juries made the roads, and the proposal was that they should be able to place lines of railway upon them. He could not for the life of him understand why an individual or a grand jury desirous of making a tramway in the interests of the public should not be at liberty to do so. Why should they be absolutely excluded? The guarantee would be just the same in the case of an

  983
  individual as in the case of a Company. It was quite possible that there might be individuals willing and able to undertake the work; and he did not see why it should be imperative that the application should only be made by a public Company.
  MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that the Attorney General for Ireland was really delaying his own Bill. He thought it would be better to pass the clause in the shape in which it was originally introduced. The words "promoters of any tramway" were quite wide enough. Therefore, cui bono the definition. It was totally unnecessary, and did no good.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that there was a provision in this Bill enabling a grand jury to take over and carry out works which had failed, and to charge the expenses on the county. If a grand jury were to be allowed to do that, he did not see why it should not be competent to them to construct a line.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) seemed to think that if the words "public Company" were not inserted it would be open to any swindlers to go over to Ireland and promote a scheme; but the hon. Member must be unaware of the financial history of the country, which showed that all the great swindles had been promoted by public Companies. He himself should have much less confidence in a public Company than in a private individual. The grand jury system was a system which Irish Members had always denounced, and he could not understand why any greater powers should be given to them than they now possessed. He hoped the Government would not, under any circumstances, yield to pressure to give them any powers beyond those contained in the Bill. All the purposes of the Bill would be equally well met if the Attorney General for Ireland did not insist on this addition, but would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was almost disposed to think the Bill would not pass this Session. Yesterday he thought it would pass, and he hoped it would, for it contained many good things; but this Sitting was now half over, and the Committee were discussing the 1st line of the 1st clause. It was quite clear that unless there was great forbearance on all sides there would not be a
  984
  shadow of a chance of the Bill passing this year.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Amendment had been carefully thought over by his right hon. and learned Friend by the light of his experience of tramways and the Tramway Acts; and he considered the Amendment desirable.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, these words might include other public Bodies than public Companies, such as Town Councils.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he strongly objected to the suggestion that the grand juries should be asked to take over tramways and to work them. If the promoters found that they were unable to pay the principal and interest and the preliminary expenses of an Act of Parliament, then it might be depended upon that the grand juries would not be more successful. The proposal, in point of fact, amounted to this—that if a line was successful, then the promoters would get all the profit; but if it were not successful, then that somebody else should reap the loss.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought the proposal would involve considerable difficulties, because the County Treasurer and the County Surveyor had certain powers which it would be most undesirable to give to the grand juries in reference to tramways.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the next Amendment was one in his name, to leave out "grand jury" and insert "Poor Law Guardians." He had put down the Amendment as a protest against the slipshod way in which the Bill had been drawn. The Government did not care to provide any other machinery than that of the grand juries as the easiest way of getting the Bill through the House. The Government admitted that it was their intention to create Local Government Boards; but it would appear that the whole system of local self-government was to be thrown upon the grand juries, and there was no proposal in the present Bill to amend that system. No doubt the Poor Law Guardians had power over a limited area as compared with the grand juries. But what was it the Government were going to do? There might be a proposal to construct a tramway which would run through two or three counties; and in

  985
  that case there would be just the same difficulty as if they were dealing with two or three different schemes. Take, for instance, a line from Sligo to Bundoran. It would have to run through portions of the counties of Sligo and Donegal, and probably Leitrim, and it might be necessary to consult three Grand Juries. Therefore, as a protest, he would move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out "Grand Juries," and insert "Poor Law Guardians."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Grand Juries' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member were adopted, the machinery of the Bill would necessarily fall to the ground. The hon. Member had suggested an argument which might be carried to a very considerable extent. The Unions were not always coincident with the area of taxation in which it was necessary to raise the guarantee. Unions might extend into two and sometimes three counties; but they had nothing to do with the levy of the rates; and they would be much more non-representative in respect of this Bill than the grand juries. He had already entered at considerable length into this question in reply to the hon. Member on the Motion for going into Committee; but he understood the hon. Member simply to move the Amendment by way of protest. The framers of the Bill had sifted the question carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that where a tramway ran over more counties than one, it would be necessary for the promoters to make their terms with one grand jury after another. It was almost impossible to form any system by which different grand juries could work together; and the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member would necessitate an entire re-modelling of the Bill.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was founded on a real knowledge of the country, much superior to that of the draftsmen of the Bill. The grand juries were not the persons who had to pay the tax; whereas the Poor Law Guardians were constituted one half of magistrates and the other half of ratepayers, the latter being
  986
  occupiers who were resident, and were required to pay their proportion of the tax. The Poor Law Guardians were also elected, and, being residents, they had a much better knowledge of the requirements of a district than the Grand Juries could have. He knew there would be great difficulty in re-arranging the Bill; but the same difficulty would occur in the case of grand juries where it was necessary to construct a line in two counties. The instance mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) of the construction of a tramway between Sligo and Bundoran was a case in point. There were only two Unions to deal with, and there would be much less difficulty in dealing with them, than if there were a divided jurisdiction between two or three counties. At the same time, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, as it would necessitate an alteration in the Bill and its entire re-casting. If it were not for that reason, he would certainly recommend his hon. Friend to go to a Division.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, the effect of adopting the Amendment would be, in the case of tramways for a short distance—say four or five miles—to prohibit them altogether, if there were several; jurisdictions to deal with.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would allow the Amendment to be negatived.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR moved, in line 9, after "proposed," to insert "one condition being that the trains shall run at least twice each day on every day except Sunday and Christmas Day." He knew that in many parts of Ireland it was not considered necessary to run trains on Sunday, and he had no wish to bind Tramway Companies to do so. The sole object of the Amendment was to secure that the working of the tramways should be bonâ fide. If the Government were going to pay 2½ per cent. it might be said that running a tram once a-week was actually working the line. He thought a Company should be bound to run a tram twice every day at least, once in the morning and once in the evening each way. If that were not done, he thought the intention of the Bill would not be carried out. On the other hand, if a train were only run once a-day in each direction, it would scarcely provide sufficient accommodation for the public,

  987
  and would not be in compliance with the understanding under which these powers would be conferred.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 9, after "propose," insert "(one condition being that the trains shall run at least twice each day on every day except Sunday and Christmas Day)."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had asserted that he was anxious to protect the ratepayers by the present Amendment. What he was really doing was this—imposing on the locality the charge of running two trains a-day, even although one train was amply sufficient for the accommodation of the district. Surely that was not what the hon. Member meant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved, in line 9, after the word "baronies," insert "except the baronies specified in the Schedule to this Act." His object was to except certain specified baronies in the West of Ireland from the provision with regard to guaranteeing baronies." The Committee were not called upon now to determine the extent of the district to be excepted; but, if the Amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary to propose a Schedule in which they would Be sketched out. That, however, would be a matter for subsequent consideration. He reminded the Committee that in an Act passed some time ago the Unions of Swinford, Clifden, Newport, and Oughterard were included and specified in a Schedule. He considered the Amendment to be one of great importance, and for reasons that might be briefly stated. He did not propose to dwell upon the attention of the Committee for a moment beyond what was absolutely necessary. He only wished to say that it was the poorer districts which stood more in need of communication; and there could be no doubt that, so far as public objects were concerned, they would be best served by bringing aid to those districts in the matter of communication as cheaply and rapidly as possible. He ventured to propose the Amendment, in the belief that, in the long run, the Treasury would not be losers. In some of these poorer districts
  988
  it would be found that the baronies could not conveniently make the sacrifices demanded of them; whereas there was a likelihood that if tramways were made, although they might not be immediately remunerative, in the course of 10 or 15 years the circumstances would be very different, and the utmost advantage would be derived from the tramways constructed. The adoption of this proposal would make a very great difference to the poorer baronies, by enabling them to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "baronies," insert "except the baronies specified in the Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were extremely anxious not to approach the consideration of the Bill in a spirit which could in any sense be called ungracious or arbitrary. At the same time, they did approach this Amendment, which was moved by an hon. Member whose suggestions in all matters relating to the prosperity of Ireland were entitled to respect, because they were always made in a manner most agreeable to the House in which he always brought them forward, with a distinct negative. It would really be a waste of the time of the Committee, if he did not at once state what those proposals were, which under no circumstances the Government could accept. The present proposal of the hon. Member was one for which he allowed there was a great deal to be said; but, on the other hand, it was one which had been considered over and over again by those Members of the Government who had been specially engaged in framing the Bill, because it lay at the very root of the arguments upon which the Bill was founded. The Government had come to the conclusion that it could not ask the taxpayer to extend his obligations further than were contained in the four corners of the Bill. He considered it absolutely essential that for every penny advanced by the general taxpayer on this guarantee the locality should produce, at least, another. To accept the Amendment of the hon. Member would really be to open the door to a proposal altogether inconsistent with this prin-

  989
  ciple. The hon. Member, later on—he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he was in Order in referring to the subject—proposed that the Government, in a scheduled district, should guarantee the whole of the money. The proposal of the hon. Member really amounted to this—that the Government should institute a better and more valuable stock than any stock that already existed in the world. The hon. Member said the Schedule would only apply to certain districts. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could only say that if the Government seriously entertained and discussed the proposal now before the Committee, the Schedule the hon. Member proposed to insert would be very much widened; and there would be no Representative of any county in Ireland who would not consider it a matter of honour and duty towards his constituents to insist that his county should be put into that Schedule. What the hon. Member proposed to do was what many counties in England and Scotland would be very glad to do. He (Mr. Trevelyan) himself lived in a county where for 60 miles there was no railway or tramway at all. The district was an agricultural one, in many respects resembling Ireland, and the locality itself was too poor to supply the deficiency. If they could only have a proposal of this kind in a Bill of this nature they would jump at it with alacrity. He could assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government dare not from that Bench ask the general taxpayer to make any further concession in this direction.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas sorry to say that he had not been convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. There might be good reasons for not assenting to the Amendment; but he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated them in his speech. The Government proposed to give to the poor people of Ireland certain aid, in order to insure their future prosperity; and he believed they could only reach the extremely poor districts by the adoption of some such proposal as this.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, his general argument was that tramways should not be made that could not reasonably be expected to pay, and that wherever tramways could reasonably be expected to pay the locality should be required to put the provisions of the Bill in force.
  990
  Although it was not necessary to name him, an hon. Gentleman, to whose opinion he attached much weight, and who possessed a considerable amount of knowledge in regard to tramways, having had to do with the working of them, as well as their construction, was of opinion that the Bill would be of considerable advantage, even in the district which the hon. Member took so deep an interest in.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, they were not now called upon to decide whether the Treasury should guarantee the whole 4 per cent. That was not the question before the Committee. The Chief Secretary had somewhat confused the issue in his speech. Later on they would have to determine whether the Treasury should guarantee 3 or 4 per cent, and call upon these poor baronies for 1 per cent. If the Committee agreed to his Amendment, what they would do would be to leave the Committee free to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. S. Buxton) in reference to the guarantee. It would be utterly impossible to relieve poor districts, unless this Amendment were adopted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after "dividends," insert "not exceeding four per cent."—(Mr. Lalor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because it might have the effect of rendering the Act inoperative in the poorer baronies. The grand juries must make the bargain, and get the money in the open market.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had not seen the Amendment of the hon. Member on the Paper; but he understood that it was of a similar character to one of which he (Mr. Healy) had given Notice in regard to line 21—namely, that the guarantee of the grand jury should not be more than 2 per cent. He should like to know from the Government the grounds upon which they opposed that proposal. He did not know what more the promoters could want than a guarantee of 2 per cent from the State and 2 per cent from the barony; and he thought it was a monstrous thing to leave the

  991
  grand juries to impose such, a rate of interest as they pleased. The Committee must remember that in this case the tax was not to be divided, as in the case of the poor rate, between the owner and the occupier. It was the unfortunate tenant who would have to pay the whole of the tax, and the landlord none. The proposal contained in the Bill was a most objectionable one, because the landlords who would not pay the tax were, nevertheless, required to fix a rate of interest, and they were to be in a position to guarantee that interest to an unlimited extent, although not one single penny of it, when imposed, would they have to pay. He could not see how the Government could resist this proposal—indeed, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) gave the grand juries far too much power. He (Mr. Healy) thought 4 per cent was too extravagant, and his Amendment fixed 2 per cent. which he regarded as a more reasonable figure. Why was the right hon. Gentleman so anxious about the State, and so careless about the cesspayer? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be dreadfully anxious that the British ratepayer should not contribute more than 2 per cent; but he was very careless about the Irish taxpayer, who was to pay an unlimited amount. He (Mr. Healy) should certainly support the hon. Member for Queen's County, if he made the Amendment 2 per cent and went to a Division.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he hoped the Government would give way. It was highly objectionable to give unlimited taxing powers to the grand juries. It was still more objectionable to give these unlimited powers of taxation to the grand juries when it was known that they would have to contribute only a small portion of the money themselves. It might be said that there was a provision in the Bill which allowed only six county cesspayers in any barony to present a petition of appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against the presentation of a grand jury; but it would be impossible for any six cesspayers to get up an organized opposition to the will of the grand jury. It was absurd to suppose that they would incur the expense of an appeal of this kind. When the Chief Secretary introduced the Bill a few
  992
  nights ago he understood him to say that the amount of the guarantee from the State would be 2 per cent. and that there would also be a guarantee from the ratepayers of the district of another 2 per cent. To show that that was what the right hon. Gentleman intended, the right hon. Gentleman went on to add that the stock would be saleable in the market at a price which would leave a large profit above par. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would sell for 112 or 116, so that the promoters of any scheme would be well paid if they got a good guarantee from the county of 2 per cent. and also a guarantee of 2 per cent from the State. Two per cent from the State would sell in the market for 60, or a little more, and 2 per cent from the county would sell for 50.
  MR. DALYsaid, that, if he understood the guarantee of 4 per cent provided by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor), it meant that 4 per cent should be guaranteed by the grand juries. But there were hundreds and thousands of debentures which were sought for with avidity which did not pay 4 per cent; and he thought the hon. Member for Queen's County was perfectly right in proposing to limit the discretion of the grand juries. Certainly, 4 per cent would afford a sufficiently wide margin. The State then came in and reduced the guarantee by 2 per cent. leaving the tax on the ratepayers only 2 per cent.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, in the richer baronies, where the credit was good, no doubt 4 per cent would be a sufficient guarantee; but in the poorer baronies he very much doubted whether it would be sufficient. If the Amendment were adopted he was very much afraid it would have the effect of throwing the whole expenditure upon the richer counties, and of excluding the poorer districts.
  MR. DALYsaid, that, if tramways could not be constructed in the poorer districts, because it was impossible to give a guarantee of 4 per cent. then, à forliori, they ought not to be asked to construct them at all.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that it was the practice for local authorities in England to borrow money on the credit of the rates; and rich Corporations, like those of London and Liverpool, could

  993
  borrow money readily at 3½ per cent; whereas many small Corporations could not borrow at all, or, at all events, not at a less rate than 5 per cent. He did not see how it was to be supposed that baronies in Ireland in the poor districts would be able to borrow money at a lower rate than important boroughs in England, who found 5 per cent the lowest rate at which they could borrow.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the Amendment was based upon a perfectly sound principle. These tramways were practically guaranteed railways, and the point in dispute had reference only to one-half of the guarantee. The lenders of money would not dispute the 2 per cent guaranteed by the State. It was only the other 2 per cent that there would be any question about, and if the Government thought 2 per cent too little, then he would suggest that it should be 4½ per cent. At any rate, the Government ought to fix the maximum rate of interest to be granted, and not leave the grand juries in Ireland unlimited power in the matter.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could confirm the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He had a paper in his hand which gave a list of the loans borrowed under a guaranteed rate of interest, and he found that the average rate at which Irish Corporations could borrow money was 5 per cent. Therefore, in the interest of the practical working of the Bill, he was afraid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought 4 per cent would be quite sufficient to fetch the money. He was afraid this would be an Act to facilitate the getting of a high rate of interest from people who were least able to pay. If the grand jury had the power to make the interest 5 per cent. the contractors would act accordingly, and demand that rate without lowering the contract price. Four per cent was sufficient to get the money in every enterprize that was at all feasible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the words 'not exceeding five per cent' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BIGGARproposed, in line 12, after "Act," to insert "and bonâ fide expended on permanent way and rolling stock." His object in this Amendment was to impose some check upon the contractors. The nominal capital might be £1,000, for instance, and yet the total value of the property, if the Act were passed in its present shape, need not be more than half that amount. His desire was that the grand jury or the Board of Works should see whether the money for which they made themselves liable was properly laid out. The words "paid up capital" were too vague.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after "Act," insert "and bonâ fide expended on permanent way and rolling stock."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it must be obvious to the Committee that this Amendment could not be accepted because, under it, it would be impossible for a Company to have one farthing of capital except such as was actually expended in the rolling stock and the permanent way. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that the subject-matter of the Amendment would arise on Subsection 4. The matter could then be discussed, and, therefore, he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his present Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYproposed to leave out from "Act," in line 12, to "baronies," in line 16. If the contractor did his work badly and the tramway could not be used, the consequences would fall upon the unfortunate barony or baronies. The contractor might do his work in a ship-shod manner, and yet the barony and not himself would be the sufferer. There was a Railway Company in Ireland which had become bankrupt. They borrowed money from the Board of Works, and the line was now in the hands of the Board of Works, but they were not obliged to work it. An attempt was now being made to make an unfortunate barony do what the Board of Works did not do. "What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander." Either they should not compel a barony to work a dilapidated tramway, or they

  995
  should compel the Board of Works to work the Portumna Railway.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, leave out from "Act," to "baronies," in line 16.—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, they had provided against a swindling contractor laying down a line that would not work, by securing a local supervision. Baronies and the grand juries would have to see that the line was properly made, and that they got value for their money. If a line that was properly laid did not pay, all they had done was to take power for the grand jury to make arrangements for the working of the line.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARproposed, in line 18, after "presentment," to insert—
  "Setting forth the amount of present traffic over proposed line, nature of the district, and any further information they can, calculated to inform the Lord Lieutenant that the undertaking is a sound one."
  The intention of the Amendment was that the Lord Lieutenant should not give his sanction to a scheme that it was perfectly evident could not pay. He (Mr. Biggar) was anxious that these tramways, when made, should succeed, and he thought the proposition he now made was perfectly reasonable.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 18, after "presentment," insert "setting forth the amount of present traffic over proposed line, nature of the district, and any further information they can, calculated to inform the Lord Lieutenant that the undertaking is a sound one."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) might be assured that the Lord Lieutenant and the Board of Works would take good care to acquaint themselves with the character of the traffic and the prospects of the district. These words would be mere surplusage, and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARproposed, in line 19, to leave out "baronies," and insert—
  996
  "District, so that no ratepayer shall he chargeable whose holding is more than three miles distant from any part of the Tramway."
  There were some parts of baronies in which, for a variety of reasons, tramways could not be laid down. A large river or mountain might prevent the existence of a tramway in a particular part, and it was quite easy to understand, therefore, that there were some persons who would not reap the slightest advantage from a tramway. His wish was that only those people who received any benefit from the tramway should be called upon to pay for its construction. In the county of Waterford the grand jury paid as much as £14,000 a-year to a line which barely paid the working expenses, and he knew there were many farmers in the county who did not get the slightest advantage from the railway. The nearest station was more than five miles from the town of Waterford. The farmers used their carts, and the result was the railway was of no service to them, although they paid very dearly for it. It was but reasonable that the persons living a given distance from the tramway should not pay anything towards its construction and maintainance.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 19, leave out "baronies," and insert "district, so that no ratepayer shall he chargeable whose holding is more than three miles distant from any part of the tramway."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'baronies' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, it was desirable there should be some modification of the words of the clause. As the clause now stood, it would be only competent for the grand jury to place taxation in respect of the tramway upon the whole barony. On account of the lay of the country, and the shape of a district, it would be, in many cases, impossible for some persons—those, for instance, who lived at the far end of a barony—to receive any benefit at all from a tramway; therefore, it should be competent for the grand jury to exercise their discretion as to what part of the barony they should place the assessment upon. He would, however, suggest the insertion of the words "such baronies or parts of baronies," in lieu of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan had pointed out a possible grievance. There might be persons who could not possibly be benefited by a tramway. He (Mr. Chamberlain), however, preferred the words suggested by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) to those proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).
  MR. BIGGARasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "baronies," to insert "or parts of baronies."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. LALORproposed to insert, after "rate," in line 21, "not exceeding five per cent per annum."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after "rate," insert "not exceeding five per cent per annum."—(Mr. Lalor.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, to omit "as the grand jury may determine."—(Mr. Lalor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was afraid that if this Amendment were adopted the grand jury would have no option but to pay 5 per cent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOTTENHAMproposed to insert, as a consequence of the Amendment accepted a moment ago, after "baronies," in line 24, "or parts of baronies."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to insert, after "baronies," "or parts of baronies."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BIGGAR, in order to obtain an expression of opinion from the Government, moved, formally, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from "and" to "completing," in line 26. He feared that the grand jury would not only be liable for the guarantee of 5 per cent. but for a much larger sum. In his opinion, 5 per
  998
  cent should be the highest possible limit that the grand jury should have to pay.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from "and" to "completing," in line 26.—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the words proposed to be left out were consequential upon the retention of the words at the end of the 1st sub-section of the clause. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it was only a permissive power that the grand jury had.
  MR. HEALYsaid, there was a slight danger, now that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had been adopted, that the grand jury would proceed in the same way that the Lord Lieutenant had proceeded under the Crimes Act. Something ought to be done to prevent any invidious exemptions being made.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he did not think that any one individual could carry 22 other people with him in favour of the exemption of his property from the assessment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). He knew it was only optional; but the grand jury could give this 5 per cent. and then as much more as they chose to spend.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that all the grand jury was limited to was the amount of the dividend. As he pointed out before, if a tramway did not pay working expenses, the grand jury, having guaranteed the 5 per cent. must have the option to spend whatever additional sum might be required in order to get a workable property.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had now to propose an Amendment as a consequence of certain suggestions put into his hands by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea). The hon. Gentleman had pointed out to him that Sub-section 3 was too unelastic and narrow, and provided only one method of local control, which in the case especially of a Company which was engaged in working one or more tramways would so overweight

  999
  the Board of Directors as to very seriously impede the working of the concern. The new sub-section he (Mr. Trevelyan) now proposed provided for such larger or smaller amount of local control over the line as might be necessary in each particular case, in view of the enactment that the baronies should in all cases be represented by a representative sitting on the Board of Directors. The Government did not absolutely hold to the Amendment, but they thought that probably it would, on the whole, meet the views of hon. Members. He certainly thought the former enactment was far too narrow, and might have very seriously, under certain circumstances, interfered with the proper working of the tramways. He begged to move, in page 2, to leave out sub-section (3), and insert,—
  "(3.) The presentment shall provide that the barony or baronies which it is proposed to charge with any part of such guarantee shall be represented in the direction and supervision of the affairs or finance of the Company, so far as relates to the said Tramway, or the part or parts thereof, in respect of which such barony or baronies are proposed to be charged. This may be done—(a) By enabling the presentment sessions for such barony from time to time to elect a director or a local consulting director or directors of the Company as the grand jury think necessary; (b) By enabling such presentment sessions from time to time to appoint an auditor, with power to inspect the books and accounts of the said Company at stated and reasonable times; (c) By enabling such presentment sessions from time to time to appoint a delegate or delegates to attend and vote at the general meetings of the Company under such conditions as may be prescribed; (d) By any combination of the foregoing arrangements deemed proper."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, his idea was that the success of the Bill depended very much upon some public-spirited gentlemen forming themselves into Companies totally apart from the promotion money. He approved of the sub-section proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, though he should have to propose some verbal Amendments to which he understood the Government did not object.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 1, after the word "baronies," to insert the words "or parts of baronies."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, sub-section (a), line 2, after the word "director," insert "or directors."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he agreed that there might be so many ratepayers represented that the Directors of the Company would be altogether swamped. He thought that there should be some limit, and would suggest that the number of Directors elected by the Presentment Sessions should in no case exceed three, which would prevent the Company's Directors being over-weighted.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Government were willing to accept this Amendment. He should not think it likely that the baronies would overburden the Board by sending an unnecessary number of Directors. Again, the shareholders were to be guaranteed their interest by the ratepayers, and could have no reason for objecting to the baronies being represented in the manner proposed.
  MR. TOTTENHAMcontended that some limitation was necessary. The Directors representing the baronies would probably have little acquaintance with the proper management of the affairs of a Tramway Company, and it might very easily happen that the number of inexperienced persons on the Board of Direction would be greater than those who were competent to manage the Company's affairs. He believed that people about to find the money in the first instance for capital would wish to see how the Board of Direction was to be constituted, and when they found that their Directors were going to be in a minority they would think twice before they paid their money into the concern. In this way the operation of the Bill would be impeded, and therefore he suggested the limitation of the number of representatives from the baronies.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they wanted the work in connection with Irish Tramways to go forward, and they believed it would prove successful. He knew from experience that it was undesirable there should be a large number of Directors on the Boards of these Companies, and he regarded three representatives from each barony as too

  1001
  many—one consulting Director would, in his opinion, be sufficient.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was based on the assumption that the number was compulsory; but that was not the case. It could not be supposed that the baronies would want to overweight the Board; they could only wish to see so many Directors upon it as would be necessary to work the Company properly.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he remained of the same opinion as that which he had already expressed—namely, that those persons who found the money would like to understannd by whom it would be managed after it had been subscribed. He was confident that if the clause remained in its present form—if the number of baronial representatives was unlimited—it would militate against the operation of the measure.
  MR. DALYagreed that it was undesirable to have a preponderance of persons on the Direction of the Companies who were practically unacquainted with the working of tramways.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, as the Bill was a good one, he thought it better to allow it to pass as it stood, than to prevent its becoming law by attempting to amend it at that period of the Session.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he proposed to move to leave out the word "Company" from Sub-section (b) in order to insert the word "Tramway." The object of this Amendment was that the auditors should only have access to the accounts in which the baronies were interested. he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the alteration.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare, but preferred to retain the word "Company." The Government would agree to the insertion of the words "relating to the said tramway at stated and reasonable times."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, alter the word "Company," in Sub-section (b), to add the words "relating to the said tramway at stated and reasonable times."—(Mr. 0'Shea.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that unless some restricting words were added to Sub-section (c) the delegates appointed by the Presentment Sessions would be constantly bringing forward questions with which they had no concern whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to add a few words after the word "vote," the action of the delegates could be easily confined to the particular business they were concerned in.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, sub-section (c), after the word "Company," insert "on business relating to the said tramway."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MARUMsaid, it was his contention that the salaries of the Directors and officers of the Company ought to be under control, and therefore he proposed that power should be taken to lay down a scale of payment subject to revision when necessary.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "prescribed," insert sub-section (c.)—
  "The presentment may lay down a scale of payment for the directors and. officials of the Company, and may provide for the revision of such scale."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be their inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the original objection entertained by the Government to the Amendment of the hon. Member was that it assumed that in all cases the Directors would be paid, whereas they had supposed that the work would be done for nothing. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was willing to accept the view that there should be payment, he would then gladly adopt the suggested Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman constituted a new declaration, distinct from the object of the sub-section which he proposed to amend, it would be better if the Amendment were withdrawn, so that it might be added in the shape of a new sub-section after Sub-section (d). The Government had no objection to the wording of the Amendment, which was quite correct.
  MR. MARUMsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendnent, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 2, at the end, by adding the following subsection:—
  "(b) Nothing contained in this Act shall operate to prevent a Company from promoting, constructing, and working two or more different Tramway undertakings: Provided always that such Company shall keep separate capital and revenue accounts for each Tramway."
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the grand jury should not alone have the power to decide as to whether a tramway should be made or not. The Amendment which he was about to move to Clause 2, and for which the Amendment to Clause 1 was intended to prepare the way, provided that an appeal should lie from the grand jury to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, at end of Clause, add—"If the Grand Jury shall decide against the proposed Tramway, they shall make a report to the Lord Lieutenant in Council stating their reasons for refusing the proposal."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, because its effect would be to authorize taxation of the ratepayers without the sanction of the properly constituted body in whom the power to tax them was vested.
  MR. HARRINGTONsuggested that the words "with the sanction of" might be inserted.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he must complain that there was no time to discuss the Bill, and he had no alternative but to withdraw the Amendment. The argument of the Chief Secretary, however, had no weight with him.
  MR. BARRYsaid, he thought the Committee were anxious that the Bill should pass that day. At the same time, he would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of giving some indication that he would consider this question further on a future stage of
  1004
  the Bill. Seeing how the Amendment was safeguarded by other Amendments, he thought the Government might accept it. It was quite possible that, without some such Amendment, the feeling of the people might be in favour of the construction of a tramway, and yet that the grand juries would object.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was the one point of the Bill upon which he considered that he should be justified in occupying the attention of the Committee. One district which had been brought forward and urged upon Her Majesty's Government as illustrating the necessity of some such measure as this was the district of Loughrea. Now, what was the history of the district of Loughrea in regard to the communication which a measure of this kind would facilitate? There was a small piece of railway required in order to connect that town and the district with the general railway system of the country, and the length was, he believed, only a few miles. The Bishop of the diocese in which Loughrea was the central point had urged in every way he possibly could upon the Government the necessity of supplying this connecting link, and he believed that both the late Chief Secretary and the present Lord Lieutenant were anxious to facilitate the efforts of the Bishop to secure the benefits which the completion of the communication would supply. What, then, bad been the sole obstacle to the construction of the line? Simply a resident landlord and the grand jury of the district; and what had taken place there had also taken place in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give the ratepayers an opportunity of appealing against decisions which might so seriously affect them.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought that both the landlords and the ratepayers had the same object in view. If the majority of the ratepayers were anxious to have tramways, and to bear their portion of the expense, they might depend upon it that they would have them; and, on the other hand, if they were not considered of advantage, no provision would be made for them. He admitted that the representive authority in the Bill for the representation of the locality was not entirely satisfactory. But let the Committee consider what the alternative was which it was proposed

  1005
  to substitute. The alternative was 100 cesspayers rated to the extent of £5 per annum, or any Town Commissioners or Corporation upon the line of the proposed railway, so that those who might only have a small interest in the line would, if that proposal were adopted, on obtaining the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, have a taxing power over the whole of the barony. That, he thought, was a monstrous proposition. The Government desired to secure for Ireland a more satisfactory system of local government, and he hoped that Parliament would not separate without taking some step in that direction. At the same time, they could only, at the present moment, deal with what they had actually before them.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Government whether, if they could not accept the series of Amendments proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Colonel Nolan), they would not accept the first of them which called on the grand jury to make a report to the Lord Lieutenant in Council stating their reasons for refusing the proposal? Of course, if their reasons were satisfactory, no effect ought to be given to them. He trusted that any idea of referring the question to the Report stage of the Bill would not he entertained.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. POSTER)said, he was anxious to get on with the Bill, seeing the limited time at their disposal.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he quite agreed with the Attorney General; and, although he believed that nearly the whole of the Irish Members would vote with him (Colonel Nolan), he thought the best course would be to withdraw the Amendment. He was not at all prepared to admit the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, because the cesspayers would not be able to tax the ratepayers at all, but they would only have a right to be heard, and it would be the Lord Lieutenant who would tax them.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that unless something was done to make provision for the special meeting of the grand juries, it might be desirable to have some arrangement by which they could meet within a reasonable time after the passing of the Act. Otherwise there would be a long delay, and it might not be possible to arrange at the Winter Assessment
  1006
  Assizes for all the presentments, the consequence of which would be to throw them all over until March. Without pretending to foresee all the difficulties in the way, he thought the principle was right that some arrangement should be made, even if it involved a slight additional expense in sending one or two of the Judges to meet the grand juries, and hold a proper Presentment Sessions. If that were done, some of the tramway lines now projected might be carried out in the course of two or three months; and, during the winter, arrangements might be entered into for commencing the works. It was quite possible, by a plan of that kind, for some tramways to be brought into operation early, which he thought would give great satisfaction to the community. He would, therefore, ask the Attorney General if he saw any difficulty in the way of accepting that arrangement; and, if not, whether he would take the matter into his consideration? In his (Dr. Lyon's) opinion, it would save much unnecessary expense if the matter was disposed of at an earlier Assize.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)wished he could see his way to an arrangement of that kind; but he was afraid that it was not possible to summon the grand juries in order to hold Special Presentment Sessions for carrying out the provisions of the Act. What might happen was this, that the grand jury would be summoned in one county and not in another. It was obvious that there would be a great rush of persons who were anxious to obtain the benefit of the Act; but there might be one Sheriff who would say that he would not summon the grand jury, while another would be anxious to do so, and thus they might open the door to something almost in the nature of jobbery. He thought it would be better that the autumn and winter months should be employed by the promoters in getting up their schemes and arranging their plans. They would then obtain a fair start, and be better able to come before the Assizes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Petition of appeal against presentment).
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, the number of cesspayers under the Bill who, by appealing to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against the presentment of a grand jury, could prevent a tramway from being made was six. The consequence was, that a certain number of persons paying £60 a-year in the shape of county cess might be able to prevent a tramway from being constructed; and, of course, in the case of a short line, the promoters could not possibly afford to come to Parliament for their Bill. Under those circumstances, he would move to substitute 20 cesspayers for six.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, leave out "six," and insert "twenty."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was willing to admit that the Bill was drawn up rather wide, and he would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsuggested that, instead of 20, the number should be 100.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must decline to accept 100.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that as 100 was objected to, would the right hon. Gentleman accept 50 instead of 20?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought that 20 was a fair number.
  Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, the next two Amendments he had to propose hung together, and the effect of them was to provide that the 20 cesspayers collectively should pay one-fourth, or upwards, of the county cess.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after "one," insert "collectively."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'collectively' be there inserted."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the second Amendment which his hon. Friend Mr. O'Shea had placed upon the Paper was scarcely fair and reasonable. So far as he (Mr. Parnell) could see, it
  1008
  provided that 20 cesspayers should pay one-fourth of the cess. There might be 20 cesspayers very much against the tramway, and yet not sufficiently rich, or possessed of sufficient property in the county to enable them to have their views properly represented.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that if his hon. Friend considered one-fourth too much, he would suggest one-eighth.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he thought one-fourth ought to be retained in the Amendment as it was. Surely, one-fourth was a sufficiently small minority to enjoy the power proposed to be conferred upon them.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that what he was anxious to prevent was the possibility of anything in the shape of jobbery. For instance, a tramway five or six miles long might be proposed, and the promoters might feel disposed to go to the cesspayers and offer inducements to them to support the proposal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the Committee that the Amendment now before the Committee is the first Amendment, which relates simply to the insertion of the word "collectively."
  Question, "That the word 'collectively' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after "pay," insert "one-eighth or upwards of the."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought the Amendment a very fair one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'SHEAmoved to strike out the last paragraph of the clause—namely,
  "Such petition of appeal shall operate in the same manner as a petition of appeal under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts to prevent the Order in Council from taking effect unless confirmed by Parliament."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, leave out all after "presentment" to end of Clause.—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINaccepted the Amemdment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MARUM MR. MARUM moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
  "The Lord Lieutenant in Council may, upon the application of such promoters, award costs to an amount not exceeding the sum of ten pounds against any such person or persons groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously presenting a petition of appeal."
  He thought there ought to be some provision, not only in regard to the number of cesspayers presenting a petition of appeal; but also that there should be a penalty for the frivolous and vexatious presentation of a petition. He had, therefore, put down this Amendment in order to prevent such frivolous petitions. It was quite obvious that when a tramway was promoted, it might be easy to get up a number of cesspayers to act together in opposition, and in that way to defeat the measure; and to counteract any action of that kind, where it was palpably groundlessly taken, this proposition, he believed, would have the effect of preventing groundless, frivolous, and vexatious petitions of appeal, on account of the expense which might in such cases be thrown upon the petitioners. Perhaps persons who would commit an act of the kind would not think very much of paying £10 in costs; but he would make the proposition, and leave it in the hands of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 28, at end of Clause, insert—"The Lord Lieutenant in Council may, upon the application of such promoters, award costs to an amount not exceeding the sum of ten pounds against any such person or persons groundlessly or frivolously or vexatiously presenting a petition of appeal."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought that, after the Amendment already accepted by the Government, the proposal of the hon. Member was quite unnecessary. There must now be 20 people joining together who must pay collectively one-eighth of the entire county cess. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 (Order in Council may adopt the presentment of the grand jury).
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper empowering
  1010
  the Lord Lieutenant in Council to inquire into the necessity for any proposed tramway, and to make an Order rendering the barony responsible for such sums as he might decide, which Order should have the same effect for all purposes as if it had been a presentment of the grand jury. He would not, however, move that Amendment at present.
  Clause agreed to; and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Baronies to contribute pursuant to their guarantee).
  MR. O'SHEA MR. O'SHEA moved an Amendment to provide that during the continuance of the guarantee the net receipts from the tramway should be applied to the payment of a dividend, after deducting from the gross receipts the expenses of the tramway, as well as the management and working of the tramway.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, after "working," insert "and proper maintainance."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, leave out "Company," and insert" Tramway."—(Mr. O' Shea.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Company' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOTTENHAMsuggested that the word "Tramway" should be inserted before "Company."
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that would not carry out the object he had in view, because there might be several Tramway Companies working several tramways.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that if they struck out the word "Company," and inserted "Tramway," the clause would have no sense, because a tramway had no capital. It was the Company which had the capital.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would, perhaps, be better to substitute the words "so much of the share capital applicable to such Tramway."
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that suggested by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, after "Company," insert "applicable

  1011
  to such Tramway."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'SHEA MR. O'SHEA moved a Proviso to enact that the sums required to pay a dividend or to make up a deficiency should be charged upon the barony chargeable under the guarantee—
  "Unless an appeal to the Board of Trade founded upon an affidavit sworn by the auditor or other person appointed by the grand jury, under Clause one, and specifying unjust or improper charges in the accounts relating to the Tramway."
  The object of this Amendment was to provide that it should not be necessary to bring in certain machinery provided for afterwards by the Bill, unless there was real cause for it. Under ordinary circumstances everything would go on in an easy way, and there would be no necessity for constant litigation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 3, after "shall," insert "unless an appeal to the Board of Trade founded upon an affidavit sworn by the auditor or other person appointed by the grand jury, under Clause one, and specifying unjust or improper charges in the accounts relating to the Tramway."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. He was not anxious to have any more administration thrown upon himself in connection with the affairs of Ireland. As the Bill was drawn, all the Board of Trade had to do was to appoint an arbitrator in a case in which an arbitration was to be held; but his hon. Friend proposed to make the Board of Trade actually responsible for the works. If this were done at all, it ought to be done by the Irish Department.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman objected, he would not press the Amendment.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it appeared to him that the Board of Trade would not be the proper authority.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)remarked, that under the Bill the machinery was the same as that already employed where guarantees were given.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Repayment by Company of money contributed by the baronies) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Amount to be paid by baronies).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 3, line 34, by leaving out from "time" to "appointed."
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. and learned Col league (Mr. Gibson), he would move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, at the end, add—"It shall not be lawful for any county surveyor, liable to be appointed an arbitrator under this provision, to promote or have any pecuniary interest in or connected with any proposed Tramway."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "proposed Tramway," to insert the words "in the county of which he is a surveyor."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must confess that he did not like the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend; but he preferred the Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper. No doubt, it would be a dangerous thing in dealing with a public officer to allow him to have an interest in any matter in which he might be called upon to give a decision. It might lead to what was called in another country a certain amount of "logrolling," and he thought that, like Cæsar's wife, all public officers should be above suspicion.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7 (Sums mentioned in certificates to be presented by grand jury and paid by county treasurer).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to move, in line 31, to leave out the words—

  1013
  "In like manner as any presentment made under the authority of an Act passed in the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter one hundred and sixteen, and any Act amending the same; and if the grand jury fail to present the sum, or any part thereof, contained in any such certificate, together with the costs and expenses of levying the same,"
  and to insert "equal parts off the owner and the occupier." The object of the Amendment, which had been alluded to several times in the discussion of the Bill, was to divide the guarantee into different parts between the owner and the occupier in the same manner as was done in the Relief of Distress Act, which permitted tramways to be made under somewhat similar provisions to those contained in the present Bill, except that the Government did not advance part of the guarantee. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It might prevent some tramways from being made in some localities owing to the unwillingness of the landlords to take their share of the guarantee; but he did not think that, when a tramway was likely to be of any advantage to the community, this provision would be likely to prove a hindrance.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 31, leave out from "in" to "some" in line 35, inclusive, and insert "equal parts off the owner and the occupier."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he presumed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who acted with him desired the Bill to be effectual when it was passed; but the effect of adopting this Amendment would certainly be to prevent a great number of claims from being brought forward. Whatever might be said in favour of the proposal some years ago, the Land Act had entirely altered the conditions under which it could now be made. The owners had now no opportunity of increasing their rents or enhancing the value of their property, and, therefore, the conditions which formerly applied did not apply now.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork and himself had argued this question upon the second reading of the Bill, and the
  1014
  argument which had just been used by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) was also brought forward. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was certainly of opinion that if the Amendment was pressed, they would make so little progress with the Bill as to endanger the passing of it altogether.
  COLONEL NOLANsupported the Amendment. He doubted very much whether the landlords would be opposed to the construction of the tramways. On the contrary, he believed that a good many persons on the grand juries would be equally interested in their construction with the occupiers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8 (Application of Act to cities and corporate towns).
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he moved to leave out the last paragraph in the clause, which provided that—
  "Nothing contained in this Act relative to the mode of enforcing payment of any sums due on account of a baronial guarantee, or as to the levying of moneys for making such payment, shall prejudice or affect any action or proceedings which may he taken by any person or persons to whom any money is due on account of such guarantee."
  His object in moving the Amendment was to avoid litigation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, leave out lines 30 to 35.—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SMALL MR. SMALL moved, at the end of the clause, to add the following Subsection:—
  "Nothing contained in the forty-second section of 'The Tramways (Ireland) Act, I860,' shall apply to any Tramway undertaking under the provisions of this Act."
  The Government had already accepted the principle, and the only question was the way in which it was to be carried into effect. He thought the way he now proposed was the most convenient and proper one.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, at the end of Clause, to add the words—"Nothing contained in the forty-second section of 'The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860,' shall apply to any Tramway undertaking under the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Small.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he regarded the proposal contained in the Bill as much more convenient than that suggested by the hon. Member, and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not insist upon the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

TREASURY CONTRIBUTION TO GUARANTEE.
Clause 9 (Treasury contribution to baronial charge) agreed to.
TREASURY CONTRIBUTION TO GUARANTEE.

  ENACTMENTS AS TO ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  Clause 10 (Provision shall be made by Order in Council for the working of line).
  MR. LALORsaid, he had placed various Amendments upon the Paper which were preparatory to the insertion of the following Sub-section:—
  "Should the Company fail to complete the undertaking within the stipulated time, having expended the estimated and guaranteed amount, and should the guaranteeing baronies he called on, in consequence, to contribute money in order to complete the Tramway, the amount so contributed by the guaranteeing baronies shall be deducted from the amount already expended by the Company, and on the balance alone shall the guaranteeing baronies be obliged to pay the guaranteed dividend; should the Company having completed the necessary arrangements in conformity with the requirements of this Act, and having commenced the execution of the works in connection with a Tramway, fail to continue or complete the execution of such works within the prescribed time, and before the estimated amount necessary for the purpose has been expended. In that case the Company shall forfeit to the guaranteeing baronies any portion of the work that may have been executed without receiving any remuneration whatever, and shall not be entitled to receive any portion of the guaranteed dividend on the amount so expended."
  The sub-section was directed against bogus Companies who might try to force themselves upon the ratepayers for their own pecuniary interests without taking into account the interest of the ratepayers themselves,
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 18, after "completed," insert "by the Co."—(Mr. Lalor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he thought he fully understood the object the hon. Gentleman had in view in submitting this Amendment. The proposal was to require the baronies themselves to contribute a portion of the expense of the construction of the tramway. That would, of course, be a better guarantee for the carrying out of the work; but he thought the proposal of the hon. Member went a great deal further than that. If the hon. Member would allow the matter to stand over until the Report stage of the Bill, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would see if he could not do something to meet the hon. Member's views.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

PART II.

  EMIGRATION, AND PURCHASE OF LANDS BY PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  Clause 11 (Emigration).
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had placed two Amendments upon the Paper, and he did not imagine that after the debate which took place on the second reading of the Bill either of those two Amendments would be opposed. They were as follows:—The clause proposed that—
  "In the twentieth section of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882, enabling grants to be made in aid of emigration, the sum of two hundred thousand pounds shall be substituted for the sum of one hundred thousand pounds."
  He proposed, after the word "pounds," to insert—
  "and the sum of eight pounds shall be substituted for the sum of five pounds, in any case in which the Lord Lieutenant shall so direct,"
  He then proposed to add this Proviso—
  "Provided that, to an extent not exceeding fifty thousand pounds, the moneys to be hereafter granted by the Commissioners of Public "Works under the said section may be applied for the purpose of paying for or assisting in the removal of persons or families from districts or places within the unions referred to in the said section to other places in Ireland, whether within such unions or not, and their settlement

  1017
  there, or for other purposes incidental to such removal and settlement. Such grants shall only he made on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, and on such terms as he may approve."
  He thought they were all agreed that if a scheme of migration was adopted by the House, the Lord Lieutenant, in those cases where poor people wished to go further inland, should be able to secure that they should go there in a decent and comfortable manner. The second paragraph of the clause had been carefully considered in substance by himself, and also in its drafting by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. Its object was to carry out the concession or agreement which the Government had arrived at in obedience to the general wish of the House as expressed in several, if not in all, quarters. He begged now to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 21, after "pounds," insert "and the sum of eight pounds shall he substituted for the sum of five pounds in any case in which the Lord lieutenant shall so direct."—(Mr. Trerelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause was widely drawn; and he thought, on the whole, there were advantages in providing that a clause of this kind, dealing with a subject which had not been tried under these conditions, should be widely drawn. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman required that the experiment should be conducted under the supervision of the Irish Executive. He looked upon that proposal as a reasonable and prudent one. It was not desirable that such a provision should be used in any way for purposes of jobbery; and, especially for his hon. Friends and himself, he might say that they were desirous that every possible safeguard should be inserted in the Bill so as to prevent any abuse or any evasion of the intentions of Parliament. He had placed on the Paper some small and trifling Amendments to the Purchase Clause of the Bill, which, in his opinion, would tend to make the clause a workable one, and ensure that there should be no failure in carrying out the scheme. He did not propose to persevere with these Amendments at the present
  1018
  moment; but he hoped that, at the proper time, the right hon. Gentleman might be able to accept them, so as to make the Irish Members feel confidence that they were not committing them-seves to what would be a failure.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but he desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this was the first time the Government had made any proposal of this kind; that hitherto they had studiously avoided making such a proposal; and that they had over and over again pointed out the danger of such a course. They had introduced into the present Bill a proposal to give £100,000 expressly for emigration, which was exactly the sum which was cut out of the Bill last year; because, if he recollected rightly, the sum of £200,000 proposed in the Bill of last year was reduced to £100,000. The Government, after mature consideration, named a sum of £100,000 in the Bill, believing that it would effect the object they had in view—namely, the relief of the chronic distress which had existed from generation to generation in certain districts in Ireland. But now, all in a moment, with what view he would not pause to inquire, the right hon. Gentleman turned round upon the proposal he had made before, and, deliberately abandoning his original plan, proposed that £.50,000 should be spent in migration instead of emigration. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to that fact, because, in his opinion, it was an important deviation from the ordinary scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and some explanation of the new departure was required at the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in regard to the arrangement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman believed to underlie this concession of the Government, if it was a political arrangement it was one of the most sensible he had ever heard of. Certainly, an arrangement which met with the approval of such different sections of the House represented by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. S. Buxton), and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr.

  1019
  Parnell), must be satisfactory to the strongest Government that ever existed. It was quite true that on a former occasion he had argued with great earnestness against any scheme which might commit the Government to a very indefinite enterprize in the direction of migration. It was, however, a very different thing to commit the nation to the proposal of immense loans which would would never be repaid, and to give, once for all, a very small definite sum out of the Irish Church Surplus in order to try an experiment with regard to which Irishmen, and a good many Englishmen interested in Ireland, would never be satisfied until it had been tried. That was the exact state of matters. He did not retract one single word which he had uttered on economical subjects during the Session; and he must remind the Committee of the terrible attacks the Government had endured upon that question. He would only say that, in the main, his opinion had not in the least degree changed.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had introduced controversial matters into the observations he had just made, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was exceedingly sorry that time did not permit him to answer them. They were giving, under this proposal, the widest possible discretion to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He would only express a hope that the arrangement connected with the expenditure of this sum of £50,000 which was to be devoted to the scheme of migration would be entrusted to men whose action would be likely to bring about good results. At present they were giving the widest possible discretion to the Irish Executive, who did not believe in the efficacy of the proposed plan. He hoped that they would entrust the actual work to those who did believe in it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was of opinion that migration would not succeed unless it were accompanied by an extension of agricultural education. Under the scheme persons would be removed who at present did not know how to cultivate their holdings to other parts of Ireland. He was afraid that the success of the scheme would not be very great, and it certainly was a proposal which had never been contemplated
  1020
  by those who took an interest in reclamation, which was the proper thing to be combined with migration and agricultural teaching. To transfer ignorant peasants from bad land to good land would do little good unless they were, at the same time, taught agriculture, and how to work their holdings.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, insert—"Provided, That, to an extent not exceeding fifty thousand pounds, the moneys to be hereafter granted by the Commissioners of Public Works under the said section may be appied for the purpose of paying for or assisting in the removal of persons or families from districts or places within the unions referred to in the said section to other places in Ireland, whether within such unions or not, and their settlement there, or for other purposes incidental to such removal and settlement. Such grants shall only be made on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, and on such terms as he may approve."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD moved to add a Proviso to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, just agreed to.
  Amendment proposed.
  In page 7, to add at the end of Clause—"Provided, also, that the liability of the Consolidated Fund contained in the twentieth section of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act in respect to grants in aid of emigration shall not apply to this Act."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolution [16th August] reported.
  First Two Resolutions agreed to.
  Third Resolution postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered this day.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether the Army Estimates would be taken as the first Order of the Day to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Estimates referred to would be taken to-morrow. At the Evening Sitting the Civil Service Estimates would be proceeded with; but the postponed Votes relating to the Offices of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary would not be taken.
  In answer to Mr. PARNELL,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Vote for the Queen's Colleges (Ireland) would be taken early.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that some time ago the Prime Minister had given a distinct pledge that a fitting opportunity would be allowed for the discussion of the Army Votes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Army Estimates could not be taken first to-morrow, as the Civil Service Estimates must be disposed of before any other Votes were considered.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that six or seven weeks ago a distinct pledge was given that the Army Estimates would be brought on at an early hour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that during the present week it had been clearly intimated that the Army and Navy Estimates would not be taken until after the consideration of the Civil Service Estimates.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would put off the Army Estimates until Monday? Nothing would be gained by not treating the House fairly.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Government had two objects in view. One was that the Estimates should be fairly discussed, and the other that the Session should come to an end as soon as possible.
  MR. CALLANwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought
  1022
  the convenience that would accrue to Members if the Session were brought to a close without delay of greater importance than the proper discussion of financial questions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)replied, that his opinion would depend on the circumstances of the case. If the House was to rise by a particular date, the Votes must be taken in a certain order.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (1.) £14,250, to complete the sum for Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation.
    (2.) £7,749, to complete the sum for the London University.
    (3.) £2,400, to complete the sum for Aberystwith College, Wales.
    (4.) £4,000, to complete the sum for the Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report).
    (5.) £570, to complete the sum for the Transit of Venus.
    (6.) £255,723, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he must express his regret that this Vote was brought on at so late a period of the Session. Even now, however, he could not allow it to pass without calling attention to one or two practical points of importance. The Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland presented this year showed one rather discouraging fact when considered in connection with the rose-coloured descriptions of education in Scotland which were sometimes given. The Report showed that the ratio of average attendance on population of school age was about 3 per cent lower than in England. It showed a falling off of 500 in the number of

    1023
    children between 13 and 14 on the registers, and a similar falling off in children above 14, and further that the education of children over 10 years of age was sadly defective. Of the children over 10 presented for examination, 30 per cent were presented for Standards suitable for children of seven, eight, and nine years of age. The Appendix for this year had not yet been published, but, according to last year's figures, the number of children on the roll in Scotland between 13 and 14 was 26,900, and between 14 and 15, 14,700, or 41,700 in all, of whom only 5,478 were presented in their proper Standards. That showed that the attendance of scholars was not defective, but that there was something very wrong in the system of education. There were upwards of 14,000 children between 14 and 15 on the registers, and it required not only these children, but 26,000 in addition between 13 and 14, to make up the 5,400 presented for Standard VI., which ought to be passed between 12 and 13. Last year the percentage of children presented for the three higher Standards who passed in the three R's was 63 per cent for the Fourth Standard, 61 for the Fifth, and 66 for the Sixth. That showed that one third of the entire number of children presented in the three higher Standards failed in one of the elementary subjects. But that was not merely one-third of the children who were on the registers, but one-third of the children who had qualified for examination. In Scotland there were 761 schools, accommodating from 60 to 100 pupils each. These constituted one-fourth of the entire number of inspected schools. In the schools accommodating 60 only one teacher was required, and that teacher was required to teach all the Standards up to the Sixth, in addition to special subjects. That arrangement must create such a sub-division of the teacher's time as to prevent his giving a proper attention to the various pupils; and that he thought, to some extent, explained the lamentable failure of the scholars in Scotland in regard to the high Standards. In the schools accommodating an average of 60 to 100, a pupil teacher was required in addition to the head master; but the pupil teacher took the infants in the First Standard, and the head master had still to attend to so many Standards that he could not take proper advantage of the
    1024
    attendance of the scholars. At the present moment, when the age of compulsion was prolonged by a year, it appeared to him a very important matter that no effort should be spared to secure that the best educational use should be made, if the opportunity afforded; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would inquire into it with a view to remedying this defect.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he shared the regret of the hon. Member at the late period of the Session when the Education Vote (Scotland) came forward; but he was thankful that he was not in a position to take such a desponding view of education in Scotland as his hon. Friend had done. The standard of education in Scotland had grown very much year by year; because, when he compared the position of Scotch education to-day with its condition when the Act of 1872 was passed, he found, not only a marvellous improvement, but a steady annual increase. The best test of what was doing in education in that country was the percentage of the children in the schools who were in the higher Standards. When the Act was passed, the number of scholars presented for examination in Standards IV. to VI. was 35,502, which represented a percentage of 27·33; but it was to be remembered that those 35,502 were a percentage of the children upon an average attendance of something under 250,000. In 1873, the number of scholars had risen to 36,900, or 27·46; in 1874, which was a year of transition, the Code being changed by Standard II. of the previous Code becoming Standard I. of the New Code, the number was 36,240; in 1876, the number of children presented in the higher Standards fell to 33,538; but, in 1876, it rose to 43,000, and went on rising to 57,327 in 1877, 71,731 in 1878, 85,890 in 1879, 102,259 in 1880, 112,462 in 1881, and 117,677 in 1881. 36·69 of all the scholars were presented in the upper Standards. It was quite true that, in proportion to the population, there was not the same number of children in attendance in Scotland that there was in England. The reason of this was that the climate of Scotland did not favour the sending of children to school at so early a period as in England. In England, children were often sent to school at from three to five years of age; but

    1025
    that was almost unknown in Scotland, while in England the attendance was much more strictly enforced than it was in the Northern part of the Kingdom, and the consequence was that the ages of the scholars ranged very much higher in Scotland than in England; but the attainments were higher, the percentage of specific subjects was much higher, and the earnings were also very much higher than they were in England. He admitted that there was room for improvement in the average attendance. Greater regularity was wanted. He had had the pleasure of seeing Dr. Kerr, one of the senior Inspectors, the other day; and he had said that, so far from the children being over-pressed, they could rise a Standard a-year as half-timers, and were doing it with marvellous regularity in Scotland. Scotland had an excellent body of teachers, the Training Colleges were good, and were very much helped by the Universities. It was an excellent thing to know that a large number of the school teachers availed themselves of the advantages of University teaching, and that gave a high tone to the education in the Scotch schools. He hoped that would go on; but he also looked for a good deal more in the future, because there had not been that progress during the last few years that was desirable. What was wanted now was regularity of attendance. He was told there was an improvement; but he hoped for more from the operation of the Act passed through that House a few days ago. He believed the Scotch school boards had been very much hampered and handicapped by the defective condition of the law that it was intended to amend; that Act would give them increased power, and when it came into operation he believed there would be a very much better average attendance, and he hoped that something more would be done for those poor half-timers who, in one part of Scotland, were found to be in a most disgraceful condition—a condition that really constituted a blot on Scottish education.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked his point, which was that out of 41,700 children of an age to be presented in Standard VI. only 5,478 had been presented.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that was entirely due to the want of punctual and regular attendance in the earlier years
    1026
    of school life. Besides, Standard VI. in Scotland was tolerably high, and included specific subjects—Latin, and very often Greek.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had given the correct explanation of the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, in saying that the unsatisfactory result referred to was due to the want of regular attendance on the part of the children. In his opinion, the unsatisfactory percentage of passes might, to some extent, be accounted for by the difficulty of getting children of tender years to attend school so regularly as they did in England. If there was any strain felt in the schools in Scotland it was in the very lowest Standard; and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would give some relaxation of the Code in that respect, he would do what educationists in Scotland would regard as a great favour. With reference to the strain upon scholars of which they had heard when the English Vote was under consideration, he thought the experience in Scotland was that, with the exception of the very lowest Standard, there need be no strain whatever, provided that the schools had a sufficient and an efficient staff of teachers, and that attention was paid to the attendance; and, above all, that a continuous and steady effort was made in the schools all through the school year, and not for the last few months of it alone. He was in a position to give the Committee an example of what might be done without the slightest strain on the scholar through attention being paid to the principles he had indicated. He referred to schools in Glasgow under the School Board. The school board of that city had paid great attention to those matters. He had the particulars relating to several schools in Glasgow; but he would only ask the attention of the Committee to the particulars of one out of five or six schools of which he had reports, and in doing so he would not conceal the fact that he took the best out of that number. In this school under the Glasgow School Board, with an average attendance of 818 pupils, the number qualified for examination in Standards was 811, and of these the number presented was 799, or 98 per cent. The percentages of passes of the number presented were—in reading 98·8, in writing 98·2, and in arithmetic

    1027
    98·7; while the grant earned by the school was for every scholar in average attendance £1 2s. 9d. That result had been attained without any strain whatever on the pupils; and the secret of success was that there was no relaxation of attention on the part of the teachers. With regard to regularity of attendance, he might mention that the School Board of Glasgow had adopted a plan which he thought was worthy of imitation. They had offered small prizes to children who were never absent a single day or a single attendance, and who passed the standards regularly; and the result was that last year, with a roll of 42,000 children in the public schools in Glasgow, there were between 15,000 and 16,000 scholars never absent one day for several months, and that from September to May, which might be considered the school session, there were 3,000 scholars who had never once been absent. This he gave as an illustration to show that by attention on the part of the school managers a great deal might be done in the way not of forcing, but of encouraging the scholars to regular attendance. They heard, when the English Vote was under consideration, of the importance of seeing that scholars were not suffering from being under-fed, as well as from being overworked. In Glasgow there was a very useful work done by day industrial schools. The poorest of the children were provided with food as well as education. That, however, was not under the School Board. He ventured to say that school boards should not mix themselves up with outside work of that kind; but they could do a great deal by way of co-operation. He thought that one of the attendant defects or disadvantages connected with the system of school boards was that a number of people who used to find a great deal of interest in school management were now, as it were, thrown out of occupation; and it was a misfortune if the interest in schools was to be confined solely to the members of school boards. Now, here, in the work of providing day industrial schools for the poorest children, such people would find a useful field of work. But this work might be done upon a much smaller and less ambitious scale. They had a very interesting statement while the English Vote was being considered as to what was done
    1028
    in a country village in Devonshire in the way of providing the scholars with dinner. He would, with the permission of the Committee, state, in a few words, what was done on a humbler scale in a country school in Scotland. He did so, because what was done there might be done elsewhere. The place he had in his mind was Farnell, in Forfarshire. It was a small parish, with a population of about 600. It was a compact parish, with an area of about six square miles. The minister of the parish, who was a member of the school board, was struck, some years ago, with the suffering or hardship on the part of many scholars because of the cold in winter, and the want of a comfortable meal. He found that the attendance in inclement weather was irregular, and he suggested that a warm dinner of some kind should be got for the scholars. The result was the establishment of a school soup kitchen, not connected with the school board, but still with the co-operation, and consent, and assistance of the board. The soup kitchen had been in existence for five winters, and he might, in a few figures, give the result. The meal which was supplied to the scholars would, perhaps, appear to English Members something almost contemptible; but in Scotland their ideas on the subject were plainer and less ambitious, and they considered a bowl of soup not a bad dinner. The bowl of good soup was all that was given. The spoon belonged to the scholar, who brought it with him in his satchel. The soup was not given for nothing; but each scholar paid one halfpenny per day for it. There was this discount given—that a family of any number was supplied with soup for one penny per day, so that three or four children, if of one family, got their share for one penny. The soup was prepared in a place adjoining the school, and the preparation of the soup was under the charge of a woman receiving from the school board—and this was the only charge which fell on the school board—a wage of 1s. per day, or for the three months of the winter £3 5". For this expenditure something was received in the way of instruction, inasmuch as the elder girls assisted the woman in cooking the soup, and received a practical lesson in domestic economy. The average attendance at this school last winter was 114, while

    1029
    the average number of portions of soup served daily was 110, showing that nearly all the scholars took the soup. The expenditure for the soup kitchen was £10 1s. 11d; but, in addition to that expenditure, gifts of vegetables, meat, and the like, were received from parishioners, the value of which was estimated at £10. The money expended, however, was only £10 1s. 11 d. The income received from the sale of soup was £9 7s. 3d., and the Curling Club of the parish handed over a prize of £ 1 they won, so that the income was £10 7s. 3d., a few shillings more than the money spent on the dinner. The dinner might be said to pay itself, inasmuch as it was no expense to the parish, except in so far as voluntary donations were given. What were the results? One result had been that the school had gained an additional grant to the extent of £10 from the Education Department; and beyond that, he was assured that this winter dinner had had the effect of improving the health and spirits of the scholars. There had been no epidemic in the school, while there had been epidemics in neighbouring parishes; and the average attendance had increased since this dinner had been established. There had been no other change—the population of the parish had remained the same, the teachers were identically the same—yet, since the dinner was instituted, five years ago, the average attendance had increased from 90 to 114, and the grant from £89 to £99.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I think you have said the children are charged one halfpenny per day for the cost of the soup. Do they bring their own broad?
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he ought to have mentioned that they got no bread. They had to bring bread if they wished it; but he believed that many of them took no bread; they were satisfied with the soup. The plant to start the kitchen was supplied by donations from parishioners, the value of it being about £7. With regard to specific subjects and elementary science, he believed there was not much done in the way of teaching science in the schools of Scotland. He thought this branch was useful or the reverse, according to whether it was well taught or not well taught. Where badly taught it was useless, and it was a very great strain upon both teacher and scholar.
    1030
    Where it was taught from text-books it was useless. It was so stated by the Commission who reported on this subject some time ago; their statement being that it appeared more reasonable that elementary science should be taught by object lessons only; and he hoped they would soon see the day when the Department would give some substantial grants to teachers who did their work efficiently in giving science lessons in that way. The specific subjects which might be regarded as of a more educational nature, and were sometimes called University subjects, had always been taught in Scotland; and although in many schools they were not taught to the same extent as they used to be, he believed there was not much falling-off in that respect. He hoped they would always remember that the teaching of the higher branches, when done well, was in no way a hindrance to the proper teaching of the more elementary branches; in fact, in the words of the Report which had been made on this subject some time ago, it was not only possible to combine thorough elementary teaching with instruction in the higher branches, but any separation of these subjects was detrimental to the school, and dispiriting to the master. There was one subject in connection with the teaching of the higher branches in regard to which, on one or two occasions, he had taken an opportunity of putting Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella)—he meant the inspection of higher-class schools. It was felt a grievance in Scotland that the provisions of the Act of 1878 with regard to the inspection of higher-class schools had never been acted upon. He noticed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) looked to the Secretary to the Treasury, and he believed the Treasury were in this matter more to blame than the Education Department. He had always understood that the reason why the provisions of the Act had never been carried out was that the Treasury had regarded the provisions as only permissive; and in that way they had, in the estimation of educationists in Scotland, neglected the intention of the Legislature in passing the provisions. It would be of the greatest consequence to education in Scotland that there should be a uniform system of inspection for the

    1031
    higher-class schools. The cost to the Treasury would not be more than a mere trifle—something between £400 and £500; and for the expenditure there would be gained the great advantage that all the higher-class scholars in Scotland would be under the same kind of inspection. With Government inspection there would be much greater confidence felt in the instruction given. There was another matter on which educationists in Scotland had a grievance—and he hoped there might be some removal of the grievance before long—and that was that no grant was given to any schools the fees of which averaged more than 9d. per week. He did not ask that that should be entirely removed; but it would be a very great advantage if the Department would allow a portion of a school to be relieved from the restriction. The working of this 9d. per week limit at present was rather unfortunate. There were Schools in large towns where the people would willingly pay a higher fee than was asked, but where the fee was kept low in order not to lose the benefit of the inspection of the Department. The Report of the Scotch Education Department this year referred to a matter in which many were doubtless interested. It appeared there was a large number of inefficient uninspected schools to which children whose fees were paid by public bodies were sent. That was a surprise to many, and it was desirable that children whose fees were paid by a Parochial Board, or any such body, should be sent only to inspected schools. They had heard of the unsatisfactory schools in one town of Scotland for half-timers; but he believed there were schools for whole-time children which were very unsatisfactory, both as regarded accommodation and teaching. He did not know why all school boards should not exercise the power which he knew some school boards had exercised, of visiting all schools in order to see what the school provision of their district was. He was told that some boards fancied that they had not power to inspect schools; but one school board, he knew, the operations of which were very large, went on the principle that it was their duty to ascertain the nature of all the schools in the place, and where they found schools unsatisfactory in regard to accommodation or teaching that they
    1032
    should take no account of these whatever, and provide for the educational wants of the districts as if these schools did not exist. He hoped that statement might help to give greater courage to school boards to ascertain the condition of schools other than their own. If there was any want of power to make the inspection which was necessary to ascertain what school accommodation existed, and what additional accommodation was wanted, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take means to give school boards that power.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he wished to raise a somewhat peculiar point, which had its origin in the statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) as to the possibility of the superintendence of education being taken out of the control of the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be necessary to consider the question, and that it was left to the consideration of the Select Committee which had been appointed in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock). If that subject was to come under their consideration, he (Mr. Buchanan) held that the Select Committee appointed was not such as would adequately enable a thorough investigation to be made, and a satisfactory decision to be given. The only two Scotch Members were his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); and, of course, no two Gentlemen were more competent to decide on Scotch educational questions, but he believed that on this particular question their views were already well known to the House; and if this was to be an impartial inquiry it would be necessary that there should be some Representative, he would not say on the other side, but who would look at the question in a different light. If the right hon. Gentleman next Session moved the re-appointment of the Committee, he should endeavour to ascertain definitely if this matter was to come under their consideration; and, if so, he should feel fully justified in moving that the constitution of the Committee might be somewhat amended.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, be regretted that there were so few Members in the House to hear the exceedingly interesting speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell). One of the points to which he desired to allude was the inspection of the higher-class schools in Scotland. The clauses of the Act of 1878, in the opinion of the Treasury, left it optional for the Department to inspect the higher schools.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: The clause says—"It shall be lawful."
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that was so; but that was considered not obligatory, but optional. But after the Education Endowments Act last year power was taken to inspect the endowed schools of Scotland; and when the machinery was brought into operation it was to be hoped that the same machinery might be applied to the higher-class schools, so that the work might be done more economically than if it were to be taken by two independent authorities. With respect to the abolition of the 9d minimum, he confessed that he regarded with very grave suspicion any extension of the limit beyond the 9d. in the public schools, because it simply subsidized the better class of schools. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities gave a case where the grant amounted to 22 s. 9d. per head per scholar. That was a very considerable grant; and if they doubled the grant, and gave it to 1s. 6d. fees, they practically largely subsidized a middle-class school. If they subsidized middle-class education they degraded the school in this way—that they created a class of public schools supported out of the rates and grants, to which schools the poorer classes could not have access because of the fees. That was a very doubtful question. He knew the Glasgow School Board were in favour of it; and, as he was going to Glasgow this year, he hoped to have an opportunity of examining the question on the spot. As to the payment of fees in private adventure schools, he held that the public money ought not to be spent in subsidizing schools which were practically inefficient. Henceforth, no fees were to be paid from Public Services except to public inspected schools. That, he thought, would bring to an end a great deal of that inefficient education
    1034
    which had been too much encouraged by some school boards in Scotland giving subsidies to schools that were practically inefficient.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £12,852, to complete the sum for Universities, &c. in Scotland.
    (8.) £1,700, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c. in Scotland.
    (90 £10,000, Scottish Historical Portrait Gallery.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked whether this was not a Supplementary Estimate? He thought they had a right to call for an explanation of the reason why this money was asked for.
    MR. COURTNEY, in response, stated that a private donor had made an offer of £10,000 for the establishment of a Scottish Historical Portrait Gallery, on condition that a similar sum was contributed by the Government. This Gallery would be attached to the suite of rooms in the Scottish National Gallery. The sum of £20,000 would be kept as a capital sum, and the interest of it expended on the purchase of historical portraits. This was a gift once for all, and there would be no additional charge for maintenance.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £408,339, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that on this Vote he wished to ask a question as to a matter affecting the Albert Agricultural Model Farm. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would remember that a year or two ago the Government promised to grant an additional £100 or £200 a-year to enable experiments to be made in regard to the potato disease. He (Mr. Healy) desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information as to whether or not the Model Farm had been used for that purpose? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) had taken the matter up during the time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Office; and a promise was made that this amount should be given for experimenting in regard to matters connected with the potato disease. He failed to: find any charge in the Votes for the full filment of that promise, and he did net

    1035
    know what the result had been. Would the Government say whether they knew anything about it?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he knew very little about the matter; but during the past two months he had made inquiries in regard to it, and had been informed that the experiments were being very carefully carried out, and that by about October they would be sufficiently advanced to enable another annual Report to be furnished. No doubt, if he had had any knowledge that this question was going to be asked, he would have been prepared with details; but the impression on his mind was that the experiments were engaging attention, and that there was an amount of money being spent on them.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was aware that the system of public education in Ireland was different from the system in England; but still the Commissioners were bound by certain rules which ought to have the force of a Statute. It had come before the Committee on Public Accounts that the Commissioners had in their discretion distinctly infringed the rules, or that they had considered, on special occasions for special reasons, that they could set the rules aside. The Treasury, in answer to a question put to them, had strongly taken an opposite view, and had contended—as he thought, justly—that the Education Board were bound to abide by those rules. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners were prepared to be guided by the Treasury letter, and to abide by these rules so long as they existed? If it was found that the rules were not workable, then let them be altered; but, so long as they existed, the Department ought to be bound to abide by them.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Treasury were not at all disposed to depart from the position taken before the Committee on Public Accounts. He had no doubt these rules must be considered binding. If found inconvenient, the proper course for getting them altered would, no doubt, be taken.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had a word to say on this Vote on a subject which was engaging considerable attention in Ireland—he referred to the manner in which the National Board of Education treated the Irish language. It was well known that there were in Ireland some
    1036
    hundreds and thousands of people who could not speak a word of English. The Government and the people of England ignored the fact as much as possible; but, unfortunately, at the recent trials in Ireland, this fact was brought only too painfully before the notice of the country. Some of the people who were placed on their trial could not speak a word of English, and could only be communicated with by pantomime action until the services of a policeman-interpreter were obtained. The Board of Education gave little attention to Irish—not even to place it on the same footing as French. The people who did not know a word of English were taught to read English reading lessons with as much success as would attend an effort to teach English children Greek without a grammar or vocabulary. In the West of Ireland the unfortunate urchins at school were put through their lessons in English, and taught to read that language without knowing a single word of it, and taught to spell just as if they were parrots. The thing was so comical, so ridiculous, that it could not possibly occur in connection with any other institution than the Irish Board of Education. It had been shown, over and over again, that they could teach the people to read English far quicker and far better by means of first teaching them their own language. Teach the people to read in their own language, give them a grip of the language in which they talked, and thought, and lived, and then teach them English by aid of Irish instruction books. Some time ago it was not thought extraordinary for a boy to be taught Greek by means of a Latin instruction book; but that system had been condemned, and was now abandoned. In the West of Ireland—indeed, almost all over the country—they had schools in which the children could not speak a word of English, and yet in which they were required to read their lessons in English. They went through the pantomime of spelling in English before the English Inspector, who gave the result fee for this absurdity. Not only was this the case, but the parents of these children, knowing that the English language was the only means their sons and daughters would have of getting on in future life, especially if they went to America, would not talk to them in

    1037
    Irish. These parents might be intelligent people enough in their own language, but could not communicate their ideas fluently in English, owing to their want of knowledge of English; and the result was that the minds of the unfortunate children were stunted, knowing little of either English or Irish. The conduct of the Board of Education was extraordinary. For £1,000 or £2,000 a-year they would be able, from the numerous monitors and teachers who were sent up from the country knowing Irish fluently, to give the children who required it instruction in Irish, and cheap instruction. Books could also be printed in the Irish language, by aid of which they would be ultimately able to teach the children to read English. But what was the result of the present system? Why, that the children neither knew Irish nor English. When they came to England, if their necessities brought them to this country, they were laughed at—when they went to America also they became the laughing-stock of the people, who did not, by the way, laugh at Germans or Italians for not knowing English, because they were not expected to know it. Sir Patrick Keenan, the distinguished and able Resident Commissioner and chief official of the National Education Board, who was sent out to Malta—the Government regarding his educational services so highly—to make inquiries on the subject of education in Malta—the children there speaking either Arabic or Italian, or, at any rate, not speaking English—had made several statements with regard to this question of teaching the language of the country which were worth repeating. The question that he (Mr. Healy) was now raising had been raised with regard to Malta. The idea had been to root out the Maltese patois; but it had not been successful. When Sir Patrick Keenan was examined before the Royal Commission of 1868, Professor O'Sullivan asked him—
    "Have you ever turned your attention to the subject of the instruction of the Irish-speaking part of the population?—Very much. I have had, on different occasions, to consider that question minutely.
    "In what parts of the country is Irish still spoken to any considerable extent?—In the counties of Galway, Mayo, Kerry, Cork, and Waterford—these are the chief. In the county of Galway 62·1 per cent of the people speak Irish.
    1038
    "Has the National Board over made provision for teaching the people through the medium of the Irish?—I am very sorry to say it has not.
    "What is your opinion with regard to instructing the people in Irish with a view to their learning English?—I believe it to be next to impossible to teach, skilfully and effectively, the Irish-speaking population by the ordinary process adopted in our schools, which at once gives them the English alphabet, English books, and English everything, without reference to translation into or from their vernacular language.
    "In your opinion, they would, if taught Irish, learn English better?—I think those who desire that the people shall soon speak English—and every lover of his country must be desirous that they shall—should teach them, in the first instance, to read Irish, in order that they may all the more readily and naturally soon afterwards learn to read English.
    "Would you propose that they should learn Irish only at first, or both Irish and English together?—I propose that that should be done which is done in Scotland, and of which the present Scotch Commission approve for Scotland. I propose that the children should commence their school education in Irish books, and that their instruction in English should begin when they have learned to read Irish.
    "Do you think those who read Irish and subsequently learn to read English will continue to read English?—I think they will be through life afterwards an English-reading people.
    "Have you ever drawn attention to the subject of teaching Irish to the Irish-speaking people?—I have, in various Reports, drawn attention to the subject.
    "Did you recommend to the Commissioners the plan you have now stated?—Yes; I recommended a plan something to that effect.
    "At what period?—I recommended it in 1855, and again in 1856, and I think again in 1858.
    "No step has ever been taken on the subject?—No; my project was not favourably received."
    The following was also very interesting, which was taken from the Report of the National Teachers' Congress held in 1874:—
    "The parents in Irish-speaking districts have not English enough to convey their ideas, except such as relate to the mechanical business of their occupation. Hence they are not able in any degree to cultivate or inform the minds of their children—though often very intelligent themselves—who consequently grow up dull and stupid, if they have not been suffered to lose the Irish language, or to drop out of the constant practice of it."
    Further on Sir Patrick Keenan said—
    "The shrewdest people in the world are those who are bi-lingual; Borderers have always been remarkable in this respect. But the most stupid children I have ever met with are those who are learning English whilst endeavouring to forget Irish …. the natural result is that the English they acquire is very imperfect."

    1039
    He would call attention to the fact that people who only spoke Irish in Ireland at the present time suffered the most tremendous disadvantages. If a man came up in a Court of Petty Sessions, as was very frequently the case, and took the book in his hand, and happened to know enough English to be able to say "thank you," he would not be allowed to give his evidence in any other language than English. That was obviously very absurd, because a Russian might be able to say "thank you" without knowing anything more of English than those two words. He (Mr. Healy) had himself heard from a person present only recently in the Land Court at Ban-don of a remarkable instance of the unfairness with which Irish-speaking witnesses were treated when they came forward to give evidence. A witness was asked a question as to rental, and in reply to his interrogator said he could only express himself in Irish. Well, directly he made that statement there was a howl amongst the barristers, and they insisted that he should give his evidence in English, and he had to do so. Later on some question as to rent turned up, and the man made use of the words "£50 a-year." If it had happened that that statement was near the mark, it would have been put down that he was a perjurer, and the case would have been dismissed, and a fair rent, perhaps, would not have been fixed; but it was plain to everyone that "£50 a-year" was not what the man meant to say. The services of an interpreter were availed of, and it was found that the man really meant £30 a-year. Here, then, was a case where a man's whole life would have been affected by a question of words, for it made all the difference in the world to a tenant whether he was charged a high or low rent. It was a very common thing that a person might be able to express his views on matters that were not complicated in a language, when he would altogether break down in matters of detail, particularly when he had to deal with figures. Irish children did not get a very extensive amount of learning of English in the schools, and they suffered from that all their lives. His suggestion was that some £2,000 or £3,000 should be devoted to the systematic and scientific teaching of the Irish language to schoolmasters who came up to the
    1040
    model schools in Dublin and elsewhere, and who already knew something of Irish, so that they might be able to train the children under their care in that language. He would point out to the Committee that although England and the English Government neglected the Irish language in the way in which they had been doing, yet German students were continually pouring over to Ireland, doing their best to learn the language. Only recently, also, in the Royal Irish Academy, he saw a Frenchman, who did not know a word of English, translating Irish into the French through the medium of a young man who was acquainted with the Irish and the French languages. Professor Windisch had published a grammar in Irish, and had himself dwelt upon the necessity of teaching the language. It was really too bad that some little endeavour was not made by the English Government to cultivate the scientific teaching of the language. No one could ever have studied the language, or have inquired into it, without coming to the conclusion that it was a most interesting branch of learning. The language was a most peculiar and interesting one; and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he would be doing a graceful act, and an act which would go far to soften the prejudices which his action in other respects created in Ireland, if he would undertake to look into this subject, and endeavour to meet the views which he (Mr. Healy) had tried to express. The right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to satisfy the national feeling in Ireland on this point, and should put some sum of money aside for teaching the masters who came up to the training class a thorough knowledge of Irish. It would be better for English teaching, and for Irish also, if this were done.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he should like, as a Scotch Member, to join in impressing on the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the educational importance of the question raised by the hon. Member for Monaghan. There was a corresponding question in regard to Scotland, and another in regard to Wales. In Scotland he believed, officially, little or nothing was done to teach Highlanders to read in their native tongue. But there were voluntary schools in the Western Islands, chiefly

    1041
    conducted by a society of ladies, who had always held that the best way to convey a knowledge of English to the Highlanders was to instruct them first in reading Gaelic. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) seemed to think that he might be suspected of national prejudice or narrowness of view; but it would be remembered that the hon. Member had fully acknowledged the importance of teaching English to the Irish people, and had said that the Irish parents recognized the necessity of such a course. The question that he raised was, whether the proper way to teach English to the Irish-speaking children was by using none but English books—whether the better way to teach them English was not to begin with Irish books? He (Mr. C. S. Parker) was inclined to agree with the hon. Member that it might be better to teach a foreign language by teaching children in their own tongue first. It was certainly undesirable, as the hon. Member had pointed out, to teach a language which was to be the most useful to them in after life as they might teach a parrot. Even English children might often be found reading books in which the language was too hard for them, and gabbling out words which they did not understand. If teaching of that kind was unsatisfactory even amongst children learning their mother-tongue, how much more so when every word was new to them? The children of poor parents in the West of Ireland were under a great disadvantage through not being able to understand the spelling of their own language, which was exceptionally difficult. If the National Board of Education would recognize the difficulties of the case, and would endeavour to teach the English tongue through the Irish, it seemed to him that they might be taking the best means to spread a knowledge of the English language more rapidly and more effectually. But he should like to say to the hon. Member for Monaghan that in one respect the remarks he had made were too highly coloured by national feeling—namely, in so far as he laid the whole blame in regard to this matter upon English institutions. By his own account, part of the blame should be laid elsewhere—namely, upon the Irish parents who declined to speak the English language to their children; they could not lay
    1042
    the blame of that upon the English. If time were not so precious, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council what he had done in regard to the Welsh and Gaelic languages; but, at any rate, he would join in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to grant a little more money for the experiment of teaching Irish, or, at least, to apply his mind to the question whether the English language could not be more effectually taught in Ireland through the Irish.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. Parker) had done well in not calling upon the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to give his experience on this question. The right hon. Gentleman had had considerable experience in Wales; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had found, from private conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, that his deduction drawn from that experience was not favourable to the views of the hon. Member who had last spoken. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had stated what was a very interesting fact—namely, that the Welsh children were exceedingly bright and clever from the fact that they had a bi-lingual language. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in order to bring out their cleverness, it had been found necessary to appoint Inspectors who knew Welsh, and that whilst the children were examined in English, as in a foreign language, as hon. Members would have been examined in Latin at school, the details of the examination were conducted in the language familiar to the children. It was certain that of all questions this was one that most required experience, and scientific experience, to discover what was the best method of teaching the language which he thought he gathered from the hon. Member for Monaghan's speech that it was most important these children should be instructed in—namely, the English language, which was the language of the majority. So far as he could gather, in Ireland, Irish was the language of the minority; because whilst the people who could speak Irish were very numerous indeed, there were very few who could not speak English. [Mr. HEALY: There are 300,000.] He (Mr. Trevelyan) was not acquainted with the precise

    1043
    statistics; but, no doubt, there were a great many who spoke Irish and English, probably very imperfectly; but he believed the number who could not speak English at all was very small. But that was a point upon which it was necessary to make inquiries from those who had experience. The hon. Member had stated quite enough to interest anybody who had education at heart; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) would certainly make it his duty—and a pleasant duty it would be—to inquire into the matter when he got to Ireland. He would undertake to set Sir Patrick Keenan at work in procuring information from those persons who were concerned in the education of Wales and the Western Islands. He hoped to be able to give a full report of this question next Session—a much fuller reply than he could now. At this moment he had only one feeling, and that was that the effect of Irish education would be that the children should leave school instructed in that language which would serve them well in future life—namely, that which they all in the House of Commons spoke.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he should not have taken part in the discussion, if it had not been for the absurdity of some of the views which had been laid before the Committee. He had lived for 25 years amongst the people of Ireland, and in the course of that time he had been brought into contact with all classes of the population, both at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions, and on Boards of Guardians—[An hon. MEMBER: And at evictions.]—and other places where one was likely to come into communication with the people; and all he could say was that in the county he was most connected with, in the whole course of that time he had only known it necessary on one occasion to make use of an interpreter. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and other hon. Members would have them believe that the majority of the population of Ireland were Irish-speaking.
    MR. HEALY: I did not say the majority.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: I think the hon. Member mentioned 62 per cent.
    MR. HEALY: In Galway.
    MR. TREVELYAN: One county.
    MR. HEALY: I read from the Report of Sir Patrick Keenan in which he mentioned
    1044
    62 per cent in the county of Galway.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he could so far bear out the hon. Member's statement as to Galway as to say that the one occasion when he did happen to require the services of an interpreter was one Winter Assizes at Carrick-on-Shannon. A large number of the witnesses from Galway, 33 per cent of them, were unable to speak with sufficient fluency, and the services of an interpreter had to be engaged. But that was the only county in which Irish was spoken to any extent. He should not have found it necessary to take part in this discussion had it not been for the utter absurdity of some of the statements which had been made.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he adopted the same view as his hon. Friend who had just spoken. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members from Ireland called out "Hear, hear!" but he would remind them that before most of them were born he had travelled through a great part of the country, and was now speaking of his experience of it. When the hon. Member for Monaghan spoke of hundreds of thousands of people who spoke only Irish, he could only say that you might travel through the North and West of Ireland, where he had frequently been, and seldom—except, perhaps, in Donegal—would you come across a man who would not understand you if you spoke English. [An hon. MEMBER: Galway.] Yes; he included Galway, and the neighbourhood of Maamtrasna too, where those horrible murders were committed of which the hon. Member might have heard. In Donegal he was furnished with a shibboleth, in order to enable him to get some potheen. He was informed on that occasion that if he wanted potheen he must ask for what he wanted in Irish, and when he used the words which he had been taught he got what he wanted. He was astonished to hear the statements which had been made by hon. Members to-night, as it was contrary to his experience in travelling through the North and West of Ireland, where he never found, save on the one occasion to which he had referred—and he was not sure that even then the ignorance was not assumed—that the people did not understand English. He was not at all opposed to the extension of the

    1045
    Irish language, and should be sorry that a language which had a history and annals of its own should be extinguished; but to toll him that they should go to the great expense of teaching English through the medium of Irish was to tell him a thing which he did not for a moment believe to be necessary. He should think there were few scholars—save, perhaps, in some isolated districts of the country—who he would not say were thoroughly acquainted with English, but still knew enough of its elements for education to be given in that language.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said what was so satisfactory that it was not necessary to pursue the question any further. The point was not whether the people knew English or not; but Sir Patrick Keenan insisted upon this—that the people knew English so imperfectly, and were so improperly educated in the vehicle through which they were going to learn that language, that they seldom got a sound instruction in it. Sir Patrick Keenan said that the people had got a hazy knowledge of English owing to the fact that those who taught them did not know the language of the people, and they could not make themselves understood in it. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to another portion of this Vote. He had frequently moved in the House for Returns as to the Model Schools. These were put down as entailing an annual expenditure—in addition to the account for construction, which was £160,000—of £36,000 a-year. He wished to know what good were these schools doing? The school in Dublin was, no doubt, doing something; but the late Chief Secretary had given him a Return of the Model Schools throughout Ireland, according to which it was clear that these schools were only attended by the children of well-to-do people—by children of parents who were well able to pay for their education. This £36,000 was forced upon Ireland—Ireland did not require it. It was spent upon a very few only, and even that few were perfectly able to pay for their own education. The right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor gave him statistics showing that there were £160,000
    1046
    spent on the construction of the schools, and that the annual grant was £36,000. The students numbered only 11,000. Who were the students, or rather who were their parents? Agents and managers, 344; architects, 29; artists, 30; clerks, 842; farmers, 827; Government employés, 210; medical doctors, merchants, and traders, 281; gentlemen of no profession, 164; police, 256; railway employés, 197; well-to-do tradesmen, 2,429; &c. These were not the subjects or objects for free National Education; and, even if they were, the number was a very small number to be taught for £36,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had defended the system; but he promised that the subject should receive careful attention.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would draw the attention of the Committee to this—that the Commission of 1869 made some suggestions in regard to these schools. He could bear out what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the class which attended the schools in the City of Cork. They were hardly fit subjects for almost gratuitous education—or, at any rate, very few of them were. The children who attended these schools were principally the sons of professional men, or, as the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) had pointed out, the sons of well-to-do tradesmen. Take, for instance, the Model School in Dunmanway. It entered into competition with the ordinary schools, and its effect had been to injure and stunt the Roman Catholic primary schools in the district to a very great extent, owing to the small amount of the fees which were charged, and the other advantages which it possessed. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would take this matter into his consideration.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to a point on which, on a previous occasion, he had made detailed allusion. He wished to say a word or two as to the character of the books which were used in the National Schools in Ireland. He did not say that the time had yet arrived for writing the history of Ireland; but when it did he could wish that the right hon. Gentleman, who had already distinguished himself so remark-

    1047
    ably by his literary efforts, would set himself the task of writing that history with the experience of 10 years as Chief Secretary. There was one thing they had a right to demand in Ireland, and that was that their children in the Irish schools should not be asked to read books insulting to their nationality. That, he thought, was a very moderate claim to set forward. Let them take the books which were supplied to the children in the Irish National Schools for their instruction—let them take first The Fourth Book of Lessons. They would find in that book the following—
    "The people of Ireland are a clever, lively people; formerly, very much given to drink, and very ignorant; but now it is believed that they are one of the soberest nations in Europe: and it will he their own fault if they are not also one of the best educated."
    ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper), he thought it was, cheered that. That cheer represented the mind of the hon. Member for Kendal—that was but a narrow view to take of the state of Irish history. Then, as to the history of Dublin, this Fourth Book of Lessons said—
    "Dublin has some beautiful manufactures of poplin, velvet, and glass, and there were once many more manufactories; but the workmen, not satisfied with good wages, refused to work at a lower price than they should themselves appoint, which the masters being unable to afford, the establishments were broken up, and the proprietors took their money and machinery elsewhere."
    That was the history of Dublin compressed into a very narrow compass. Then, turn to the history of Franco in this Fourth Book of Lessons. It said—
    "The religion of France is Roman Catholic; but there are many Protestants also."
    That was in the National School Book. Then, with regard to Wales, the book said—
    "The dress and appearance of the Welsh are very different from those of the English. The women wear a man's black beaver hat tied down with a handkerchief over their clean, nicely crimped-caps, as white as snow, and, generally, blue cloth jackets. They are a remarkably clean, active, industrious people—their houses and persons are very neat, and they are so careful never to lose a moment of their time, that they carry their knitting with them wherever they go; they may often be seen with baskets or bundles on their heads and knitting needles in their hands, making woollen stockings, night caps, or other articles of warm clothing. The Welsh are fond of music; their favourite instrument is a large harp, and in almost every inn a harper may be found."
    1048
    With regard to the objects of these books, as he had stated before, it was, clearly enough, to make the Irish people ashamed of their own country. The Third Book of Lessons, speaking of Belgium, said—
    "I need not point out the striking contrast of the mode of living here described with the state of the same class of persons in Ireland; and it is important to investigate the causes of this difference. In the greater part of the flat country of Belgium the soil is light and sandy, and easily worked; but its productive powers are certainly inferior to the general soil of Ireland, and the climate does not appear to be superior. To the soil and the climate, therefore, the Belgian does not owe his superiority in comfort and position over the Irish cultivator. The difference is rather to be found in the system of cultivation pursued by the small farmers of Belgium, and in the habits of industry, economy, and forethought of the people. The cultivation of the small Belgian farms differs from the Irish—first, in the quantity of stall-fed stock which is kept, and by which a supply of manure is regularly secured; second, in the strict attention paid to the collecting of manure, which is most skilfully managed; third, by the adoption of a system of rotation of five, six, or seven changes of crop, even on the smallest farms, which is in striking contrast with the plan of cropping and fallowing the land prevalent in Ireland, and by which so large a portion of its produce and powers is every year wasted."
    There was not a word about the landlords"25 per cent of whose rents the Government had taken off. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" but he was not appealing to him—he was appealing to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary opposite. Well, to proceed. Ireland had supplied a great deal of poetry to the world—her poetry found a place in every heart and in every place except the Irish National School Book. He did not find here any of the poetry of James Clarence Mangan, of Thomas Davis, of Thomas Moore, or of Justice O'Hagan, or of Charles Gavan Duffy. He did not find here any of the poetry of Justice O'Brien; but what he did find was poetry of this description, in The Fourth Beading Book—
    "The beasts that roam over the plain
    My form with indifference see;
    They are so unacquainted with man,
    Their tameness is shocking to me."
    This was the kind of model poetry put before the youth of Ireland of both sexes who might be inclined to indulge their fancy in alcaics and trochaics. There was not a single poem in all this

    1049
    book of a National character—nothing from the Young Ireland poets—in spite of the amount of poetry which Ireland had given to the world, and which was read with admiration by English and Scotch, and all other people who had any respect for National aspiration. They would find in these National School Books given to the youth of Ireland poems of Campbell, and such verses as—
    "Ye mariners of England who guard our native seas,"
    and poems of that kind, which, as far as literary merit was concerned, were about on a par with—
    "We don't want to fight; but by jingo if we do," &c,
    but none of the productions of Mangan, who was, to his mind, one of the most remarkable men of the century that Ireland or any other country had produced. He had a very serious purpose in making all these quotations, and that was this—he wished to put it to the Committee whether they could expect the Irish people to regard the Government of England in Ireland as anything but hostile and anti-national when they compelled Irish children to read books which teemed with insults to their nationality and sometimes to their religion, which was even a more susceptible point. He hoped he had touched the sympathetic bosom of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary opposite on this point. The right hon. Gentleman himself had contributed many notable books, which he believed would live, to the literature of this country—he would ask him, therefore, were the books to which he had referred, from the point of view of literary merit, or good sense, or decency, such books as should be imposed on the rising generation in Ireland?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be sorry to express an opinion on the books from which the hon. Member had quoted until he had had an opportunity of studying them. He must say he was thankful for such a speech as had just been delivered on the 17th of August—at such a time the interest of the House of Commons in speeches of hon. Members had already flagged, and they were not treated to such amusing dissertations very often. Even from the specimens which the hon. Member had given them, he should not care to give a criticism of
    1050
    these books. When the hon. Member had referred to Moore and Mangan he could not suppress a cheer. With Moore he had long been acquainted; but it was only within the last year that he had got a strong feeling for Mangan's poetry. But the latter was poetry for mature years, and the poetry of Moore was hardly poetry which one would care to put in the hands of youth. He thought the hon. Member had quoted, with a certain amount of unnecessary depreciation, the poetry of Campbell and Cowper; for the sort of reading to which the hon. Member had treated the Committee did very well, and was very intelligible to children under the age of 12—certainly, quite as intelligible to them as would be the poetry of Mangan. And as to the books the hon. Member had. read from, geographical works, and works descriptive of the different nationalities, they appeared to him very much the sort of reading his own youth was nurtured up to about the ago of 10. The gentleman who described Wales as the hon. Member had pointed out would, no doubt, describe the typical Irishman as dressed in a swallow-tail coat and brass buttons, and with knee-breeches; and would describe the Englishman similarly costumed, but with top boots. Still, that was the kind of reading that did very well for children up to about 10 years of age. He had read with very great interest some of the books of the Christian Brothers; and if the hon. Member brought before him some of those books, and asked why they were not used in the higher classes, he should find it very hard, perhaps, to answer, because it seemed to him that they possessed very great literary merit, and he was unable to see that they could do any possible harm. The particular suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that the evils of Ireland were produced not by those causes which produced evils in all other countries—that was to say, by the moral defects of the inhabitants—which were the same in Ireland as elsewhere, but were produced by the presence of landlords, was a proposition which he did not think it would be proper to set forth in a school book. If the hon. Member for Monaghan wished to follow up the subject, he should be very glad to have a talk with him upon it; and if the hon. Member knew of any book which was excluded from

    1051
    the National Schools on account of two or three excerpts from the National literature, or from the passages being of a somewhat more interesting kind than people usually put in school books, he should be glad if the hon. Member would mention them, so that he might consider whether they could not be included in the National répertoire. As to the Model Schools mentioned by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dawson), he was not going to commit himself to a general opinion with regard to those upon the present Vote. If the hon. Member would move a reduction of the Vote, then he would meet him as necessity required; but when they had schools which commanded the confidence of a considerable portion of the population, and which occupied a certain position—a position rather dubious and amphibious perhaps—between the middle class schools and the elementary schools, he thought Parliament ought to be very slow before it refused to grant money for their support. It might be that as elementary schools they were expensive; but that would not be the case if they were regarded as middle class schools. As middle class schools they were extremely cheap, and as institutions which kept up a very high standard of education in different parts of Ireland, he must say that a change which more thoroughly sustained, and one that recommended itself more strongly in its details to the general sense of Parliament, would have to be brought before Parliament before the House would refuse to pass this Vote. He did not think on this occasion he could give any more definite statement than this.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant with regard to an establishment for the purpose of teaching agriculture at Glasnevin which had existed for some time under Professor Baldwin. There was great want of agricultural education over a large part of Ireland. The Government were teaching it at Glasnevin; but it appeared to him that it was their duty to teach it in other parts of the country on the Glasnevin model, for the purpose of showing the people how properly to farm. His hon. Friend the Member for the borough of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had read out a contrast between the Irish peasant
    1052
    and the Belgian peasant. Children were taught, as the hon. Member had shown, that the Belgian farmer was a much better farmer than the Irish peasant. If the Government taught that in the schools, the least thing they could do would be to give the Irish peasant some slight chance of competing satisfactorily with the Belgian peasant. If there were a few more agricultural schools over Ireland it would do a great deal of good, in the manner in which Glasnevin was doing good. He would, therefore, ask the Chief Secretary if he could hold out any hope that they would put some of those schools, say, for instance, in the part of Ireland where there used to be some, but which, he was sorry to say, the English Government had not persisted in, and had abolished some 10 or 12 years ago. Then there was another question to which he wished to draw attention. He had several times alluded to the fact that, unless the Government produced good agriculture in Ireland, they would have another famine in the course of seven or eight years—it might come in four or five years, and, perhaps, not for 10 or 12 years; but, unless something was done, come it assuredly would. Prizes were being given for the development of good potato seeds to National schoolmasters—they were acting in the most frivolous manner with this most grave subject. They were spending about £200 or £300 a-year in looking after a new variety of potato. He would suggest to the Government that they should prosecute their operations as to the cultivation of a new variety of potato, and try how far the Scotch varieties answered in Ireland on a more extended scale. They were at present doing it on a very small scale. The Committee, which had sat upon the subject, had pointed out that individuals could not do a great deal in this matter—they had shown that, in order to be successful, the thing must be done upon a large scale. The Highland Society had taken the matter up in Scotland; but the Government had refused to help them, for which he was very sorry, because the solution of the question in Scotland would be extremely useful in Ireland. But even if the Government did something in this matter in Scotland, he thought they should also do something in Ireland. He believed that the Government, at the present moment,

    1053
    in neglecting to loot after the potato crop, and prepare a fresh variety against the failure of the present variety, were flying in the face of warnings which had been often repeated. This might be a dull subject; but it was necessary to speak about it two or three times a-year, in order that the Government might be impressed with its importance, and might be impressed by the arguments adduced. He wished to know from the Chief Secretary what was being done in Ireland—he wished to hear from him whether any new varieties of potatoes were being acclimatized in the Island; and, if so, when these new varieties would be ready? He might inform the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to make three or four speeches upon this subject until he received an answer.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that experiments were being carried out in all the schools; and the Report of what had taken place last year was before the House of Commons. He knew that two or three months must elapse before the next Report could be issued. The experiments were being carried out as far as the capabilities of the farms would allow; and he had every reason to believe that the same activity which was at present being expended had been expended upon them for the last four years. The Government would take care that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was as well satisfied on this point this year as he had been in previous years. The Government, as the hon. and gallant Member justly observed, had done nothing; but in Ireland experiments were being conducted on two farms.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered one question, as to whether he would do anything to establish new schools of agriculture in the more remote parts of Ireland?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the tendency of the action of the Government went rather in an opposite direction to that contemplated by the hon. and gallant Member. The idea of the Government was to keep up those establishments they had in the best condition, and to spend what money they could upon them. Their efforts had been at concentration—at diminishing the number of schools, instead of keeping them up in large numbers.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £1,040, to complete the sum for the Teachers' Pensions Office, Ireland.
    (12.) £410, to complete the sum for the Endowed School Commissioners, Ireland.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could state whether these Commissioners continued to hold over the heads of their tenants the rents due since the Famine year? They had admitted in their Report, the year before last, that they still continued the system which had been abandoned by every respectable landlord throughout Ireland. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had put a stop to that course of proceeding; and next, he should like to ask him if the Government had come to any decision as to what was to be done with the Endowed Schools throughout Ireland?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member had better put this Question to him at Question time, particularly as to the arrangement of these estates by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The account they gave in their Report was that they had in two successive years struck off a considerable amount of the old arrears, but that a very large quantity of arrears of rent had recently accrued. He did not know what their relation was with regard to the Arrears Act; but if the hon. Member would remind him of it by a Question, he would make all necessary inquiries. The hon. Member would be more likely to get an answer if he would do this. As to the more special duty, which it was their province to superintend, it was one of those questions which the Government had been unable to bring before the House, in the shape of a Bill, this Session, through want of time. No one would say that the state of the Endowed Schools in Ireland was satisfactory; but legislation, to put them to rights, must be of a very drastic description—much more so than any existing legislation. His earnest hope was that, after the Session after next, when arrears of legislation were a little cleared off, they might be able to look back to this question, and do something for Ireland in the same nature as that which had been done for Scotland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that as the subject of Endowed Schools was a subject which could rise very little friction, would not

    1055
    the right hon. Gentleman give them a distinct pledge that next year he would deal with it?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan must be very sanguine if he thought that the question was one which would not raise controversy. There were some parts of it which they could deal with, with the almost universal concurrence of the House; but there were a great number of schools which stood between the national and undenominational schools, and of schools which would be claimed by a denomination—and in Ireland a large number came under that latter category. He thought a great deal of good might be done by legislation without more friction than was necessary to pass an ordinarily important Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman knew that these Commissioners were not paid at all? They themselves had stated last year that being unpaid, and having important duties to fulfil, they could not possibly look after the schools, and could not be responsible for the estates—they said they knew nothing at all about the one or the other, and desired to be relieved of their functions. They admitted that the accounts had never been kept by anyone—in fact, the Secretary had been able to invest thousands of pounds without its being known for years. In one Report, a short time ago, they had stated that they had not sufficient funds to enable the estates to be visited; and the consequence was that they sent a clerk round to several, and got him to furnish the account and Report. They were unable to diminish the expenses, and it was perfectly scandalous that this kind of thing should be allowed to go on.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was obvious that more drastic and effective administration in regard to these matters was necessary. Undoubtedly, the Endowed Schools of Ireland were not under the supervision of a Commission which had power to do what was required. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had gone into the question this year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,029, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary
    1056
    to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland, and for the purchase of Pictures."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, there were some omissions in this Vote which made it highly desirable that the attention of the Committee should be called to the matter. It struck him as a very remarkable circumstance—and he had already called attention to it—that there was no Report from the Trustees, or whoever was responsible for the carrying on of the National Gallery in Ireland. No doubt, in the case of Ireland, that information, for reasons already assigned, might be dispensed with. As far as he could understand the National Gallery of Ireland, it was precisely on the same footing, and stood in the same position, and was worked on the same principle as the National Gallery of England. Therefore, he could not conceive how the money had been expended—and there had been no Report from those responsible for the conduct of it. He would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) to give them some reason why there had been no such Report for some years past, and also to give them some undertaking—which he was sure he would do—that in future years these omissions would be supplied. That was not the only matter which seemed to him to require comment. There was, in the first place, a sum in the Estimate for the purchase of pictures. They were entirely without information, that was to say, whether these pictures were such as were approved by the Committee or not. Then they came to the question of travelling expenses—that being a question on which the Chairman himself (Sir Arthur Otway) had taken a great deal of interest, with such good results to the country. It had been said that £150 in the English Vote was by no means an unreasonable sum for the travelling expenses of a Director of the National Gallery. [Mr. COURTNEY: The maximum sum.] The hon. Member would have an opportunity of expressing his view upon the matter, and perhaps he would allow him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to finish his observations first. There was no return from the Exchequer. What did the hon. Gentleman tell them last year, when £150 was granted to a Director of the English National Gallery

    1057
    for travelling expenses abroad?—a system which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had ventured to comment on, as well as the lateness of the hour and Her Majesty's Government would allow him to do. But what he wanted to know was, how did the Director of the Irish National Gallery spend £150 a-year in travelling expenses? Surely he did not go on those roving expeditions which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had pointed out as having been so fraught with evil in times past, and which probably, as history repeated itself, would occur again in future. He should like to have some reason how in the world the Director of the Irish National Gallery spent £150 in buying pictures which were only worth £750? £150 was a large percentage on £750. There was another matter to which he had been unable to draw attention yesterday, but which he should have mentioned had time and Her Majesty's Government permitted. It was in reference to the English Vote; but the point arose again on the Irish Vote, and he should now be bold enough to mention it. He condemned entirely the system of sensational sales, and spending money lavishly in one direction, when it might be more advantageously expended in another. The Committee would observe that £2,000 was spent in this Vote, and of it £1,000 on the sensational sale known as the Duke of Hamilton's sale. To the astonishment of all attending the sale, the Directors of the Irish National Gallery bought a picture by Nicholas Poussin for £400 or £500. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Agnew) was not now in his place. The hon. Gentleman, who seemed to disappear when he was most wanted, was a well-known authority on pictures, an expert in these matters, and who was a witness before the Committee of which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was a Member, and who had said his "turnover" in pictures was something like £1,000,000 a-year. Well, this gentleman, if he would rise in this place, would say, that a more unfortunate purchase was never made—first of all, because, although the master was one for whom they might all have an admiration, he was, at the same time, one whose works did not fetch a high price, because, not long before, a picture by the
    1058
    same master was knocked down for 25 guineas. He should like to know, therefore, why, if the Irish National Gallery had been anxious to purchase a picture by this master, they had not gone to a smaller exhibition to buy a picture at a reasonable rate, instead of rushing in to buy one like this? The explanation of this somewhat singular conduct would be found, he believed, in what was now stated—that was, that when the Government were unwise enough to allow the Trustees to have a sum of money, then the latter, like boys with money to spend, or sailors just paid off, wore never satisfied until they had got rid of the whole of it. He had been told by an authority whom he respected that the Trustees of the Irish National Gallery could find nothing else to suit their purpose, so they rushed into this expenditure and let off their £500. He sincerely trusted there would be no repetition of this on the part of a body entrusted with public money. Another point he would refer to was of a more technical nature. He wished to ask, in the absence of any Report from the Trustees or Director, who were the Trustees of the Irish National Gallery and what power they had? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury and himself last night, on the subject of the English Gallery, came to a difference as to a question of fact; and since then, probably, the hon. Gentleman had inquired more minutely, and discovered that the Director of the National Gallery was really the person responsible for purchases. Then, he hoped he would once more consult his means of information, and find out who were the Trustees of the Irish National Gallery, and what were their powers. Did they exercise greater or less power of control over the purchase of pictures, or did the whole power rest with the Director, and was he alone responsible? This disposed of all the points he wished to put before the Committee; and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury, in giving the information, would also undertake that in future years there should be a greater amount of information given to the Committee on the subject of the Irish National Gallery, embracing all the details to be found in connection with the English Gallery.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had repeated what he said the day before in reference to the National

    1059
    Gallery; and though he did not think it was desirable to give a pledge, he thought such a Report as the right hon. Gentleman asked for was desirable at short intervals—he would not say-annually.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it ought to be retrospective.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it would give an account of what had been done in the year past. The right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the purchases made, questioned whether they had been worth the money expended; but, as to this, he could appeal to the experience of those who had seen the Gallery, and say it was extraordinary what an admirable collection of pictures had been got together with such a small amount of money. The amount devoted to the purpose this year was less than the usual annual sum in consequence of the extra increase last year, and this increase would be repaid by deductions in the annual grant. And here he would correct a misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke of the Trustees of this, as of the National Gallery, as boys with money in their pocket, or sailors with their pay which they must spend. No doubt it was so at one time. A certain sum was voted each year for the English and Irish Galleries; and if that was not spent in the year it was paid back into the Treasury, and not taken into account in future Votes. Under that system, no doubt, there was a great temptation to spend up to the sum voted; but all that was now altered. The Treasury now laid down the principle not to allow the money to accumulate in the hands of the Trustees; but they recognized the principle that if, over a series of years, the sum expended was lower than the amount voted, the unspent portion of the Vote was looked upon as a reserve to be drawn upon in the event of the expenditure in other years being above the amount of the annual grant. If not spent, the balance of a Vote was treated as a sum to be drawn upon in future. The right hon. Gentleman asked who were the Trustees, and he was sorry to say he did not happen to have a list. He knew Lord Hardinge was a Trustee, and that he took the greatest interest in matters connected with the Gallery. In the purchase of pictures, the Trustees and the
    1060
    Directors in Ireland, as in England, worked together, and a purchase was a matter of joint consultation between them; and he believed he was right in saying that no purchase was made without the approbation of the Trustees, and not on the mere motion of the Director. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the allowance for travelling expenses. The allowance was made as it was to the Director in London, and it must be borne in mind that the Director had other duties to fulfil besides the purchase of pictures; he must keep up to the level of what was being done in other Galleries; he must keep up his mind to that activity required in the Director of a Gallery; he must make himself acquainted with the means by which a Gallery was made available for the purposes of the student and of the public; and his position required he should have the advantage of a knowledge of other pictures in other Galleries, and the arrangement and management there.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not find fault with ordinary expenditure; his objection was to extraordinary Votes for purchases at sensational sales, when numbers of questionable pictures were bought for the nation at high prices. It was to the extraordinary, not the ordinary, expenditure he referred. He was bound to say the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the travelling expenses was so very unsatisfactory that he should move the reduction of the Vote by that amount. He never heard of such a thing as that a Director of a Gallery should spend £150 a-year to visit Foreign Galleries. There was very little advantage he could get from that. What number of Galleries could he visit year after year? Was a gentleman to be selected as the Director of a National Gallery, and to travel like a commercial man? He should have thought that the first thing anyone who chanced to have the patronage of such a post would do would be to appoint a gentleman suited to the duties—not one who would have to learn the ordinary duties of his office by travelling year by year at a large expense to the country. The present Chairman of Committees succeeded in past years in knocking off the expenses of a travelling agent for the

    1061
    National Gallery. That was only £300; but now there was £150 for the traveling expenses of the Irish Director, and the same for the English Director, and the Secretary to the Treasury, who he believed was a great mathematician, would agree that was £300; so there was absolutely the very abusive system the Chairman condemned in former years. Why, if it was necessary, should not one Director go on his travels, and on his return impart his information to his colleague, who in turn could make the visit to the Continent the next year, and so on alternately. At all events, that would save the country £150 a-year. As a matter of principle, and in the interests of economy, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £150.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £879, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland, and for the purchase of Pictures,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)
    —put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,728, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, in aid of the Expense of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Act under which the Royal University of Ireland was founded had been in operation since 1879. He thought it was reasonable to suppose that the Government, in the interval, had made up their minds with regard to the continuance or the determination of the anomaly which had been pointed out and recognized in the discussions which had taken place in the House with reference to the provisions of the Royal University Act. It was pointed out that while it was proposed, under the provisions of that Act, for the foundation of the Royal University of Ireland, that Scholarships, Exhibitions, and other academical prizes should be founded for the purpose of public competition by the matriculated students of the Royal University, that
    1062
    to the Queen's Colleges were left the Exhibitions, Scholarships, and other prizes which they received and were endowed with before the foundation of the Royal University, and that consequently, while the prizes of the Royal University were open to the students of the Queen's Colleges, as well as to the students of other unendowed Colleges in Ireland, or having no endowments to compare with the Queen's Colleges, the students from the latter class of Colleges must necessarily compete to great, disadvantage, for the prizes, so-called, of the Royal University, with students coming from the endowed Queen's Colleges. It was felt by many people at the time that the Royal University would have an unanswerable claim to the benefits of the Queen's Colleges, and the transfer of the endowments and prizes to help it, as well as the fund out of which the comparatively poor Scholarships and other prizes were given for competition to the matriculated students of the Royal University. The value of these Scholarships, Exhibitions, and Prizes, thus strictly reserved for competition by students of Queen's Colleges, were found in the present Vote under Subheads A, B, and C, and amounted to £4,800; and he proposed, at the conclusion of his remarks, to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount under these three sub-heads. An eminent authority, writing on this subject, said—he quoted from the remarks of Mr. J. Peabody at the examinations at the close of the session at Queen's College, Galway—
    "The students of the Queen's Colleges can compete in the examinations with students of unendowed Colleges for Exhibitions and Prizes; and if the student of the Queen's College wins it, he gets it; but if not, he has only to return to his College, and there he will find preserved for him at the public expense a consolation prize as valuable, or more valuable, than that for which he unsuccessfully competed."
    What ought to be done, continued Professor Peabody, was this—
    "The entire sum now granted to Queen's Colleges for Scholarships and Prizes should be added to the Royal University Prize Fund.
    That was the argument he should use to the Committee in moving to reduce the amount to be voted to the Queen's Colleges by the sum of £4,800, which went to make up the prizes so much objected to. It was a monstrous anomaly

    1063
    that could not be defended that, while a Royal University for Ireland was founded ostensibly for the object of opening University Education to all classes and all sects in that country, yet the State refused to endow the Catholic Colleges, from which the greater proportion of the matriculated students were taken, and to meet whose wants the Royal University was mainly founded; while to the Queen's Colleges were left the old endowments, which they had received as a portion of the University system of Queen's University, which existed previous to the Act under which the Royal University was founded. It was impossible for any Government to contend that the students coming from unendowed Colleges in Ireland were treated fairly, and education as regarded the Royal University failed, while it admitted such competition as at present existed on the part of the students of the Queen's Colleges of Cork, Dublin, and Belfast. Two courses were open—either to prevent students in Queen's Colleges from competing at the Royal University, or to throw into a common fund of the Royal University the prizes and endowments given to support the Queen's Colleges. It was an absurdity to maintain the College system apart from the University under the system that existed by this Vote. The Royal University had been endowed and offered as a system for the satisfaction of the Catholics of Ireland; but he maintained that it could not be held to be that satisfaction—that proper and suitable offer it was intended to be—so long as these endowments of Queen's Colleges, which formed no part of the University system, were maintained by an anomaly not equalled in the educational system of any other country. He would not detain the Committee at length; and he would conclude by saying he thought the Government ought to have formed some opinion in its own mind as to whether they intended or did not intend that the anomalous system of Queen's Colleges in Ireland should continue. In any case the Royal University had a claim for a large augmentation of the prizes it was now able to give; and there was no better source from which to satisfy that claim than that he had mentioned—namely, the transfer of the Scholarships, Exhibitions, and Prizes of the Queen's Colleges
    1064
    to the fund of the Royal University.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,928, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1884, in aid of the Expense of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I ventured three years ago to predict that the establishment of the Royal University of Ireland would be no settlement of the Collegiate Institutions of that country, and that constant claims would be made upon our attention in regard to the Queen's Colleges. The House did not then believe this warning, and thought it had protected itself by putting into the Act these words—"Nothing in this Act shall in anywise affect the Queen's Colleges." But already we have assaults made upon their outer buttresses, and when these are knocked away the walls will be more easy to attack. If hon. Members from Ireland refer to my speeches on Irish education, they will find that I have been as warm an advocate as any of them for the systematic higher education of Roman Catholics in well-ordered Colleges; and I have never shrunk from advocating endowments to a well-ordered Roman Catholic College. Nor am I sorry to see that the effect of the rules laid down as to Fellowships by the Royal University has already been to endow the Roman Catholic College of St. Stephen's Green in Dublin with £3,600 a-year; and that, when three more Fellows are appointed, it will be practically endowed with £4,800 paid to 12 Professors, who will aid in making the instruction more thorough and systematic than it is at present. I have made these preliminary remarks, because I wish Irish Members to feel that, in opposing them on the present occasion, I do not do so from any narrow view of what is required for the higher education of a people three-fourths of whom are Roman Catholics; but this present opposition to the Scholarships of Queen's Colleges would, if successful, be most disastrous to the higher education of Ireland. They speak of the Scholarships as being extravagant in number and unnecessary for the Queen's Colleges, though they

    1065
    think they might be properly transferred to the Examining Board called the Royal University. An Examining Board has only an indirect influence on education; it is not in any sense a teaching College. But the three Queen's Colleges are well-ordered and thoroughly efficient teaching Colleges. [Cries of "No, no!"] Their results give the proof. Their graduates have been numerous and singularly successful in all open competitions of the Public Service. They fill very high positions both at home and abroad. The Queen's University is now merged in the Royal University; but what was the work of the Colleges before it was extinguished? Oxford and Cambridge have one graduate to every five students in attendance, the Scottish Universities one to seven, the London Universities one to eleven, and the Queen's Universities of Ireland had one to three. The Queen's Colleges, therefore, did their work admirably. Of 2,850 matriculated students, 1,247 graduated, 735 being graduates in Arts, and the rest in Medicine and Engineering. The fact that so many of the students graduate in Professions is the greatest proof that the Colleges are doing their proper work in a poor country. It is the same in Scotland as it is in Ireland. The Universities of both countries must chiefly rely on preparing the youth of their country for productive life, or they miss their chief function. It is from these Colleges, which have done their work so well for students of all religions, that hon. Members desire to remove their Scholarships. Of course, the object of such Scholarships is to enable the deserving poor to obtain Collegiate education. Our Colleges in Scotland would be in a very poor way indeed if they were not supported by such Scholarships, which we call bursaries. Let me compare the Queen's College in Belfast with the College of Aberdeen, and you will then be able to judge whether the Scholarships in the former are abnormally largo or extravagant. In Belfast, as well as in the other two Colleges, a sum of £1,180 is set apart as prizes to undergraduates. Deducting class prizes of books, amounting to about £ 100, this sum is divided into Scholarships of £24 each, tenable for one year. In this respect they are on a different tenure from other Colleges, and cannot be
    1066
    compared. If you arrange them to be held as in Oxford and Cambridge, or as in Scotland, during the entire course of Arts, there would be 10 Scholarships of £24 each to 200 students, while in Aberdeen there are 80 to 200 students, or eight times as many as in Belfast. The only difference between them is that the bursaries in Aberdeen have been founded by private liberality, and the Scholarships in Belfast are supplied by Parliament; but, however provided, they are absolutely essential to the success of high education in a poor country for the purpose of enabling persons of humble means to become educated when their talents fit them for Professions based upon learning. Even Oxford and Cambridge could not live without such Scholarships. Belfast has one curriculum scholar to every 20 students; Oxford has one of three times the value for every three students. Irish Members say they only desire to transfer the Scholarships from the Queen's Colleges to the Royal University, and open them to the competition of the whole nation. In other words, they wish to divest them of their essential condition—that they must be held in well-ordered Colleges with a distinct curriculum, and give them as prizes for mere examinations which may be the result of unmitigated cram. To my mind, nothing would be more disastrous to the higher education or to the material prosperity of Ireland than such a course. I wonder how Roman Catholics would relish the proposal, if I were to make it, to transfer the Scholarships of Maynooth, which has been founded with £370,000 of public money, and transfer them all to the new University? The Queen's Scholarships are open now to every undergraduate of the Royal University; provided that he will go through a well-ordered curriculum of education at a Queen's College. Thus, last year, more than 100 undergraduates of the Royal University entered Belfast College, and eight of them won Scholarships. I have not seen the Returns relating to Cork and Galway. The complaint is made that while students of a Queen's College can compete for Scholarships at the Royal University, the undergraduates of the latter cannot compete at the Queen's College unless they take the curriculum. That is quite true as to the last assertion, and is absolutely necessary to the

    1067
    very idea of a teaching College; but it is not true that the students of Queen's Colleges can add Royal Scholarships or Exhibitions to those which they already possess. If an undergraduate at a Queen's College wins an Exhibition at the Royal University, he must elect which he will hold, for he cannot hold both. They, therefore, have no advantage whatever over any other undergraduate. Hon. Members who may continue this debate will, no doubt, reproduce an attack on the students of the Queen's Colleges at the late examinations contained in a lengthy pamphlet, of which Dr. Welsh, the Sector of Maynooth College, is the reputed author. This is a big pamphlet on a very small foundation. The Royal University has only been in partial operation for one year, and in full operation for another year, and has given 12 Scholarships during these two years; and of these, eight have been won by the diocesan and other Roman Catholic Colleges. I am very glad that so many have been won, and it is quite natural. They are regular schools, which systematically prepare for matriculation, and they ought to be successful. The Queen's Colleges only commence at matriculation, and do not prepare for it at all. Their purpose is to teach students who have matriculated. Students entering the Queen's Colleges for the purpose of study begin their connection with them by, and are not prepared by them for matriculation. Even were the Queen's Colleges preparatory schools, which they are not, the conclusions upon which this demand is now made are on a very narrow foundation. The Scholarships given by the Royal University have as yet been only 12 in number, and of this the diocesan and other schools won eight; but it is only as regards the last six that students from Queen's Colleges came into the field, and the candidates from all Ireland won only 20 in all, nine of these being for modern languages. It is absurd, from such a small number, to form any conclusion whatever, and still more absurd to base upon it the demand for the subversion of the Queen's Colleges. The test of the future success of the Colleges under the new University will not be honours in matriculation, for which they have no means of preparation, but the honours which they take in graduation. If they do not sustain their position on
    1068
    the roll of graduates, then will be the time for Irish Members to attack them. I observe, on looking at the Reports just issued of Belfast and Galway Colleges, that the results are full of promise. The Report for Cork I have not seen. Dr. Porter, speaking of Belfast in relation to the new University, says—
    "From the tables it will be seen that our students are taking in the Royal University the same high place which they so long maintained in the Queen's University. Two obtained first-class honours for the degree of L.L.B.; four obtained first-class honours for B.A.; six at the second examination in Arts; three at the first examination in Arts; two at the second examination in Engineering; and three in Medicine. In addition to those first-class honours, 16 obtained honours of the second class."
    It would be difficult indeed to surpass such a record. At Galway, the President tells us that out of seven degrees of M.A., three passed with honours; out of 12 B.A.'s, six passed with honours. These are promising results, and the future will show whether they are sustained. Irishmen ought to be proud of the success of this Queen's College. They may not educate their students on the purely denominational system which the Roman Catholic Hierarchy prefer; but as mixed Colleges they are eminently successful. In Cork College, the Roman Catholic students already outnumber those of other denominations. For last year, to 181 Protestants, there were 221 Roman Catholics. In Galway, the Roman Catholics were 42 per cent; and even in Protestant Ulster, Belfast had 4 per cent of Roman Catholics. Do not let those who at heart desire higher education in, and the material prosperity of, Ireland damage these excellent Colleges. A mere Examining Board like the Royal University can never do the work of a teaching College. This University has started its career fairly and honourably; its Statutes are impartially framed; and its action has been wise and full of promise. But it cannot go beyond its function of being a mere Examining Board, and it must depend upon well-ordered Colleges for its ultimate success. There are, no doubt, many Roman Catholics who will not go to mixed Colleges. In myself and many others of this House, they have friends who wish to see them have colleges of their own persuasion; but, in their efforts to obtain these, do not alienate their supporters by trying to

    1069
    destroy the Queen's Colleges, which have done, and are doing, such excellent work. All of them, and more still, are required to promote the material prosperity of Ireland. Let us aim at construction, and not at destruction, in our efforts to promote the higher education of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would remind the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were in no way responsible for the present state of affairs. The O'Conor Don proposed, on behalf of the Catholics, that there should be a separate University; but that solution, which left the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges absolutely intact, Parliament, in its wisdom, refused to adopt; instead of building up a separate University they threw open the Queen's University. Surely, it was not now for Parliament to turn on the Catholics of Ireland and say—"You want to destroy, and not to construct." Parliament refused to construct when the Catholics suggested they should. In 1879 the present Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who had now to defend those endowments, said the Government ought not to put the University on a basis it would be impossible to maintain; they could not maintain the endowments of the Queen's Colleges. Hon. Members in various parts of the House had then pointed out that the Queen's Colleges could not be maintained in their present position. But the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) made no attack upon the endowments of the Queen's Colleges; he simply attacked the prizes, the prizes which they now had to the exclusion of all others. Whether it was true or not that students had gone up to the Royal University, there failed, and then gone back to their own Colleges and taken prizes, there was still au inequality, and there would be an inequality so long as there were three Colleges in Ireland, which, besides being richly endowed, had at their disposal £4,800 a-year for prizes, while the whole prizes at the disposal of the Royal University only amounted to £1,800 a-year. To establish equality it was not necessary to take away the prizes; but they must be made available to all students of the University. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Maynooth; but it stood on an entirely different footing. Maynooth
    1070
    had no prizes, but it had an endowment from the Church Funds. Why was it endowed at all in 1791? Simply as a kind of set-off against the ecclesiastical inequalities in Ireland. The whole of the Church endowments in Ireland were then in the hands of the minority, and a small endowment was made for the education of the priesthood of the majority. When the Church was disestablished and disendowed, out of the funds of the disendowed Church Maynooth was re-endowed, in the same way that the Protestant and Presbyterian Churches were re-endowed; not otherwise. The case of Maynooth, therefore, was not apposite to the present discussion. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) would press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. SYNANsaid, this question had occupied the attention of Parliament for three years, though it was only the fringe of the University Question. In the interest of Collegiate education the greater the competition the better, and that system must be a vicious one which was buttressed by a kind of monopoly in Exhibitions, Scholarships, and Prizes. In the one case there was a sort of walk over, while in the other case there was a substantial competition. What would be thought if the stewards of a race meeting had two sets of prizes, one set for general competition, and another for their own horses to run for? Would that not shock the sense of justice of the people of any country? As unfair a state of things in regard to higher education prevailed in Ireland. The students of the Queen's Colleges were not satisfied with the prizes of their Colleges, but must go to the Royal University to compete for the prizes there. He did not object to the Queen's College students winning prizes if they were able to do so; but he thought the prizes should be won in fair competition among all the students of the University, and that they ought to be more evenly divided between the different educational establishments. £4,800 a-year was given in prizes at the Queen's Colleges, and only £1,800 to the unendowed schools. What was the amount given in support of the Queen's Colleges? They got £21,000 a-year from the Consolidated Fund, they received another £16,000, and they got £3,000 a-year from the Board of Works for repairs and ornamentation—in all

    1071
    £40,000 a-year. And that for how many students? For about the same number of students who attended the unendowed schools, and the unendowed schools of the Royal University had only £20,000 a-year for all purposes. And out of the £20,000 the sum appropriated to Scholarships and Exhibitions was shared by the students in the Queen's Colleges. Such a state of affairs ought not to be tolerated longer. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play-fair) boasted that 40 per cent of the students of Galway College were Roman Catholics; but what was the Roman Catholic population of Connaught? It was 95 per cent. Where did the 58 per cent of Protestants come from? From other parts of Ireland to win cheap prizes. Was that a fair system? Was it not fair that the students educated at their own expense should compete on the same terms with the students who were educated at the public expense? He contended that this inequality should be removed, because to say that competition in the matter of education should be different to any other competition was a thing which shocked reason and common sense.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had always something to say upon educational subjects which the House listened to with pleasure, and with the respect due to his authority. But they had not to go beyond the figures of the right hon. Gentleman to see that a great injustice was being committed in Ireland in the matter of the Queen's Colleges. There was the sum of £40,000 given for the purposes of mixed education in Ireland, which the Roman Catholics heartily disliked, as well as a large sum to Trinity College, which was only open in a certain sense to Roman Catholics. He would ask the Head of Her Majesty's Government if he believed that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would be satisfied as long as £40,000 a-year was given for mixed education, and only £4,000 a-year for Roman Catholic education? His right hon. Friend, who well knew the difficulties with which young men in Ireland had to contend with on the road of education, said—"You had better take the money as long as you can get it. Young men must go to these Colleges, even if they are Roman Catholics,
    1072
    if they want a start in life." However that might be, it was perfectly impossible that satisfaction could be expected from the present anomalous system; and he urged upon the Prime Minister the desirability of finding out some way by which equivalent endowments would be given to Roman Catholic Institutions. Their only plan to get redress in this matter was to attack these Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and continue attacking them until it was obtained. He was not disposed to push this question very far on the present occasion; but next year Her Majesty's Government must expect that the Vote would meet with a most determined opposition unless some efficient and satisfactory steps had been taken in the direction he had indicated. There was no wish to attack the College at Belfast; but they did intend, if possible, to have the Colleges at Cork and Belfast re-modelled. He concluded his remarks by assuring the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh that his able speech, although they had listened to it with great interest, was not sufficient to satisfy Irish Members that the Queen's Colleges, as at present constituted, were indispensable to the course of education in Ireland.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he was not an apologist for what was known as the Royal University; and, so far as that appellation was concerned, he regarded it as a misnomer. It was unnecessary to say that, in the opinion of the educated body of Irishmen, it did not fulfil the requirements of the people. The Institution in question had left the Irish people in this position—the Episcopalians, who were small in number, had Trinity College; the Presbyterians had Belfast; the Secularists had Cork and Galway; and the only body who were deprived of everything necessary for academic education and culture was the vast majority of the Irish people. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) say that the Queen's Colleges should not be judged by the number of matriculations at the Royal University, but by the number of the graduations which took place there. When the students who came to matriculate were first passed through the Queen's Colleges, surely the teaching of

    1073
    these Colleges was tested by the Royal University Matriculation Examination. They had been told that the Queen's Colleges had produced great results; but it was a curious fact that the first time they came into open competition, with the exception of Belfast, they did nothing at all. At the M.A. examination of the Royal University, of the eight successful candidates from the Queen's Colleges, none succeeded in taking first honours, and to only two were second honours awarded. In the first honour list, only one student from the Queen's Colleges won a place, and that was the last one; while the first, second, and third places were gained by Catholic students of the unendowed schools. Coming to the matriculation examination, he found that while the students from the Queen's Colleges obtained 23 honours and Exhibitions, the students from the unendowed schools won 56. On examination of the lists it would be found that the unendowed schools showed better results than the Queen's Colleges; and, therefore, he said that the reduction of this Vote was necessary, on the ground that the entrance to the Royal University ought to be made as attractive to students as that to the Queen's Colleges. There was, in his opinion, an unanswerable claim on the part of his hon. Friend to reduce the Vote, his object being to do away with the anomaly and injustice which had been shown to exist. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh was that the real need of the Catholics of Ireland was sufficiently-endowed Colleges to which they could go; and he would ask how often had the late Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) brought in Bills beseeching Parliament to do justice to the people of Ireland in that respect? The Queen's College Scholarships, which were not open to the students of the Royal University, were nothing else than consolation prizes for those who did not succeed at the University examinations. There was compensation in Cork, and Galway, and Belfast; so that the students of these Colleges, when they failed at the Royal University, could go to their own Colleges, and, without any competition at all, gain prizes. He trusted the Vote would be reduced by the amount moved by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. DALYsaid, these Scholarships were originally instituted as a bribe to enable persons who had conscientious scruples to pass without danger to their conscientious principles. The Irish people said that, although the Scholarships might have been useful at the inception of the Queen's Colleges, they were now 37 years old, and the same state of things no longer existed. One feature in connection with the Motion of his hon. Friend was that, when it was said that the amount in question should be taken away from the Queen's Colleges, it was not meant that it should be taken away absolutey. If the College system of teaching was a good one, the grant would, so far as they were concerned, only be deferred; because the students would have the same chance of obtaining the prizes as the students from the unendowed Colleges, and if the teaching were superior they would still be secured to them, because the best men must win them. He considered the word "bulwark," as applied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); singularly infelicitous, because if they could not stand without State aid, after 37 years of existence, they had better go down. There could be no doubt that the students who were obliged to go to the Royal University were unfairly treated in this matter; and he contended that the present system of endowments of the Queen's Colleges, as a means of promoting the cause of higher education amongst the great body of the Irish people, would not bear five minutes' examination. The truth of this was so manifest that, although they might not be so fortunate as to alter the amount of the Vote in Committee, he was confident this question would have to be settled at no distant period. He considered that the demand of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was based on the inimitable principle of justice that, where there was any public money to be competed for, all persons had an equal right to eon-tend for it; but it was nothing else than a system of nursing to continue this grant to the three Colleges in the manner in which it was applied at present, and he was satisfied that a few more experiences would put an end to it altogether.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, this was necessarily only a fragmentary discussion. He regarded the condition of University Education in Ireland as so anomalous and unsatisfactory that the whole question would very soon have to be raised. It was recognized by the Act of 1879 that the Catholics of Ireland would not, under any circumstances, accept this system of education. There was not a single endowed College for Catholics—Trinity College was a Protestant Institution, and had a revenue of £75,000 from Irish money; and the only thing left for the Catholics was that they should take part in the tooth-and-nail scramble for prizes which took place every year at the Royal University, and which really absorbed the energies of both teachers and pupils. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh, he should be glad to level up instead of levelling down in this matter of education; and he would like to see in Ireland some great central institutions where competitive examinations could be carried on, and something like higher culture created amongst the people of the country. As long as the present system continued dissatisfaction would exist; because it was most unfair that, when the students of the Queen's Colleges broke down at the Royal University, they should be able to fall back upon another set of prizes. He protested against the continuance of the Votes, and he was sorry it was not earlier in the Session, so that Irish Members might have carried their objection to them to a greater length.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it better not to enter into the discussion of the general question, because he did not think he represented the views of anyone but himself. But there was a point in connection with the salaries of the Professors at the Queen's Colleges which he wished to raise. He was himself an ex-Queen's College student; and for those institutions, as well as the learned Professors who assisted at them, and who had suffered greatly in a pecuniary sense by the institution of the Royal University, he wished to speak. Those learned men were certainly entitled to better treatment than they had met with, for it was perfectly well known that their duties had been discharged in a most satisfactory manner; but he had received letters from several of them
    1076
    which showed that in the case of three Professors their incomes had been reduced by one-half, or even more, owing to the effect of the University system on their class fees. The fact was that the Royal University system was the most stupid arrangement ever passed through Parliament by a set of sensible men trying to make their way through idiotic prejudices. When the Prime Minister was in Opposition he attempted, in a bold and statesmanlike way, to deal with the question of Irish Education; but the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General and several others grumbled and obstructed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; the consequence was the establishment of the Royal University, by which the unfortunate Professors he had alluded to were deprived of a great part of their incomes, and a state of things was originated which was prejudicial to the interest of education in Ireland. The whole question of education would have to be opened up and settled upon a rational basis; and as to future legislation on the subject, he thought that would be made easier by the enormous advance of English opinion, which would clear away bigotry.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Galway, who was certainly at this moment both physically and mentally better able than he was to make a brilliant speech, had told the Committee, rather to their relief, that he had spared them; but, to his disappointment, the hon. Member sat down rather prematurely. But after the hon. Member's forbearance he should certainly not detain the Committee at this hour more than to announce the intentions of the Government. The case for the Queen's Colleges was completely stated, and some hon. Members thought it had been overstated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair), and he was willing to adopt the right hon. Gentleman as an advocate of the cause. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) made one or two remarks to which he must take exception. He had several times described the Vote for the Queen's Colleges as £40,000 a-year; but he counted in that the £26,000, which was composed of £21,000 from the Consolidated Fund, and £5,000 taken in the Estimates, and he included also a sum which, no doubt, was correctly stated,

    1077
    from the Office of Works, he presumed, and also a sum of about £10,000 a-year, which was equivalent to the students' fees. In the last item the Government could not agree. In speaking of the endowment of the Colleges, he was willing to place that at £30,000, and the question was whether that was too much. If it was not too much for the purpose for which it was allotted, then they would be adopting a course to which great exception could be taken if they cut away from that already not superfluous sum an amount to be devoted to any other purpose. It was not enough to say that the Royal University was not sufficiently endowed, unless, at the same time, it was said that the Colleges were over-endowed. The hon. Member for the City of Cork proposed to deduct a certain sum from the Vote—namely, £4,800; but the hon. Member was, no doubt, aware that that was not the Prize Fund of the Colleges. The Prize Fund was derived from the £21,000 per annum which was charged on the Consolidated Fund; but, considering that some small portion of the savings on the ordinary expenses of the Colleges went annually to the Prize Fund, it was, perhaps, not an excessive calculation to put that at about £4,800, although, as a matter of fact, it was not so much as that. He believed it rarely exceeded £1,180. Was that excessive? There were 350 undergraduates, and the £1,180, divided among them, gave £3 each in Prizes, Exhibitions, &c. At Belfast there were 500 undergraduates, and they really got only a little over £2 a-head. If young men, on leaving school and going to Oxford or Cambridge, were told that the prizes amounted to £2 or £3 per head, they would say the conditions of higher education in England were certainly different from those they had been brought to look forward to. Even at Galway the Prizes and Exhibitions did not amount to more than £6 a-head. He believed that at Oxford not less than £80,000 a-year was given in Prizes, Exhibitions, and Scholarships; and it must be remembered that over and above that there were at Oxford and Cambridge Fellowships which were much more easily obtainable than at the Queen's Colleges, so that, in reality, a successful student had much more to look forward to. Supposing there were 2,000 students at Oxford, the £80,000
    1078
    would give £40 a-head, as against £2 or £3 a-head at the Queen's Colleges.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was referring to College prizes?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, there were very few Scholarships at Oxford, and these would be almost entirely College prizes. The students at the Queen's Colleges might be set down at 800 in number; but the endowments only amounted to £30,000 a-year. The most successful College—at any rate, patriotism would lead him to call it so, taking the whole history of the Colleges at Cambridge—was Trinity College, where there were 500 students, and where the endowment, he believed, was not much less than £40,000 a-year; and bethought it would be allowed that Trinity College did not suffer from the evils of over-endowment, or any of the corruptions which might be supposed to result there from. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said these were not the Colleges of the people of Ireland. To that observation, in one sense, he must take exception. It was very much to the credit of the people of Ireland that they had such a very large amount of high instruction; but at the two English Universities there were about 5,000 students in a population of 25,000,000, while, setting aside the Royal University, there were in Ireland in this single set of Colleges 800 students in a population of 5,000,000. He could not see that Colleges containing that number of students could, in any sense, be called not the Colleges of the people of Ireland. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) used a simile which he found it difficult to accept in regard to educational questions. He talked of the "walk over" of All Saints, and of one College being handicapped as against another. If he might be allowed to say so, he would say it was this fallacy that underlay the whole of the defects. Hon. Members were naturally pained at finding that large Colleges attached to the Royal University, in which they took great interest, were not so well endowed as Colleges that fulfilled the real functions of Colleges ought to be; and, therefore, they endeavoured to find a comparison between them and other Colleges, and they desired to take away some of the emoluments and endowments. In that he

    1079
    thought they made a great mistake. When anything worked fairly well it was better not to pull it about, but to let it go on working. By adopting the recommendation of the hon. Member for the City of Cork they would injure, and cruelly injure, the Queen's Colleges, because the prizes and Scholarships were as much a part of the life of a College as the rooms in which the young men met. They were part of the life which bound them together in intellectual intercourse, which was by far the most valuable element in College life—far more valuable than the lectures, books, and examinations. It was the effect which young men who, with all the ardour of opposing intelligence, produced upon each other, which could only be secured by living together in some one institution, that formed one of the most valuable parts of University life. No doubt hon. Members recognized that, and they said they would like to extend these advantages to other Colleges than the Queen's Colleges. He should be very glad to see these advantages extended; but he could not admit that that should be done at the expense of Colleges which had done very good work in Ireland. Such a step could be in no sense to the public interest of Ireland or the interest of the country at large.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had expected to hear the right hon. Gentleman wind up by saying that, while he could not take away a single penny from the Queen's Colleges, yet, so greatly did he recognize the benefit of their Halls and Colleges and University of Ireland, that the Government intended to propose a handsome Vote for the Royal University. But the right hon. Gentleman had sat down without saying anything of the kind; and while he maintained that this sum was necessary for prizes for the Queen's Colleges, he seemed to be in the dark as to there being the same interest in the other institutions. He had managed to get through his speech without saying a single word in reference to the fact that there were barriers which shut out the bulk of the people from these Colleges. They might, in his view, have been artificially imposed or not; but hon. Members must recollect the prejudices of the people of the country, and the country and its conditions. The people of Ireland were shut out from the Queen's Colleges to a
    1080
    large extent, because their religious superiors had ordained that it was not desirable that they should receive instruction at these Colleges. The Government wanted to drive the people in the teeth of what they considered absolutely impossible for them, when their religious superiors desired that they should not enter these Colleges. He did not grudge the Colleges all the money proposed for them, provided the Government gave the other institutions a fit sum; and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had given no sign in that direction. It was proposed the other day to sink £8,000,000 in the sands of Egypt, and here Ireland could not get £100,000 for Colleges to which the bulk of the people could resort. They had money scattered broadcast on institutions which they did not require, and which they protested against; but the Government insisted upon cramming them down their throats, and would not give them a few thousand pounds for the University. This was not statesmanship. Had the right hon. Gentleman such a dreadful terror of the Secretary to the Treasury that he could not say that in a few months he would propose an enlargement of the Vote, so that the Royal University should get some of it? This Treasury bugbear was always being flung at them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to an enlargement of the University Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 72: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 297.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (15.) £1,200, to complete the sum necessary for the Royal Irish Academy.
    MR. HEALYsaid, an important question had lately been decided with respect to certain manuscripts; but he should like to hear some defence of what had been done. He could not see what was the use of sending Irish manuscripts to London, where people did not understand them. There were plenty of people who could read Mr. Shapira's manuscripts; but he did not hear of any of these scholars wanting to have these manuscripts, while there were a larger number of gentlemen in Ireland who were interested in them, and they complained very strongly of what had been done.

    1081
    Sir Samuel Ferguson was President of the Royal Academy, and was Keeper of the Records in Dublin, and in that position he did not think he was strictly impartial. He did not see why they should not have these manuscripts in Dublin, where they would be more studied than in the British Museum.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, they were going to Dublin.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Prime Minister had stated that half of them were going to Dublin.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Stowe Collection consisted of a great variety of manuscripts, of which a certain number were Irish, and would go to Dublin.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (16.) £6,894, to complete the sum for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.
    (17.) £2,671, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department.
    (18.) £18,801, to complete the sum for the Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he saw no Estimate for the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, Sir Arthur Gordon. This was a very important post, and he wished to know who was performing the duties?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYreplied, that the Governor of Fiji was at present performing the duties; but the whole matter was under consideration.
    Vote agreed to.
    (19.) £17,300, to complete the sum for Telegraph Companies (Subsidies).
    (20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, as a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, when he last addressed the Committee on this subject, the Prime Minister said the time had not then come when they could appreciate the real value of Cyprus with regard to Egypt. The time had now come, for the crisis in Egypt was over, and it had shown that with reference to
    1082
    Egypt Cyprus was of no value whatever. It was of no value to the Empire in any respect. The fact that we had now practically a Naval command in Egyptian waters rendered Cyprus utterly useless. Whatever might be the policy of the Government with regard to the withdrawal of our Army, he apprehended that the time was far distant, and could not be foreseen, when the Naval power of this country would cease to be used for the protection of the Egyptian shores. The present Minister for War, when addressing his constituents in Lancashire last year, spoke of Cyprus as a useless Island. If, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, this Island, which was to be a "place of arms," was useless, he need not make any long appeal to the Committee in asking them to join with him in rejecting this Vote. Since he last addressed the Committee on this subject there had been another change in the Colonial Office; and he would offer his respectful congratulations to Lord Derby on the reduction he had effected in Cyprus. He had the utmost confidence in Lord Derby, and if he could believe that Lord Derby would remain at the Colonial Office for a great number of years he should feel quite sure that at no distant time the resources of that Island would be equal to its requirements, and that Lord Derby would not engage in any useless and experimental expenditure, which would only lead to unsatisfactory results. Lord Derby had, to the great service of the country, put forward a statement of what had been the real cost of Cyprus to this country during the five years of our occupation. He showed that Parliament had voted altogether £550,000 for Cyprus, or £110,000 a-year. Lord Derby also stated that he had before him Estimates for the so-called development of the Island, amounting to more than £1,000,000. Railways and harbours were recommended to Lord Derby as means of improving the Island, and what was his comment upon the proposal? He said, as so sensible a Minister would be expected to say, that it should be announced once for all that there was no thought and no prospect of Cyprus being developed by the bounty of Parliament; and he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was perfectly convinced that so long as Lord Derby was at the Colonial Office there would be no thought of such

    1083
    a scheme. But Lord Derby would not always be at the Colonial Office. Some day or other there might be a change in the Government; and he should look with dismay on the future of Cyprus when it was committed to the hands of a Conservative Administration. He was fearful that if this country retained its present possession of Cyprus many years would not pass before proposals would be made for the expenditure, perhaps, of £1,000,000 in the Island; and, therefore, it was advisable on all grounds not only that the valuable economy which Lord Derby had practised should be continued, but that a policy should be adopted which would ultimately relieve us from this charge. It was highly dangerous, in face of these schemes for improving Cyprus, to keep the Island. Certainly, while it remained in our hands the Colonial Office might take means to so reduce the expenditure that it might cease to come to that House for grants. He believed such means would be taken; and he hoped the Committee would, by supporting him to-night, stimulate Lord Derby to take further steps in that direction. In order to strengthen the hands of the Colonial Office in that good work, he should oppose the Vote.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member had, at the conclusion of his speech, not informed the Committee of the policy which he wished Parliament to follow with regard to Cyprus.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had done so last year and the year before.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it was quite impossible to propose to hand over the population of Cyprus to Turkish rule. On the other hand, the hon. Member spoke of compounding with the Turkish Government for the surplus revenue; but if that were done it would amount to a proposal for the expenditure of a very large sum of money, and he doubted whether Parliament would be prepared to pay that large sum to the Turkish Government. Therefore, they seemed to be no more forward this year in regard to Cyprus than they were in previous years. The proposal that this money should be raised at once and paid to Turkey, even if the Turkish Government were prepared to assent to the proposition, was not one which Parliament could entertain; and, therefore, they were face to face with
    1084
    the question whether it was necessary to go on paying these charges for Cyprus. The Government were expecting from that Island a considerable sum of money with which to pay the working expenses; and the real question to consider was, whether the sum now asked for was excessive, and whether it was possible to carry on the government of the Island without asking Parliament for a grant? He believed that Lord Derby had made every reduction that was possible.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he heartily agreed in the view that Cyprus was useless, and worse than useless; but he also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that we could not get rid of it at once. The Island was now as self-supporting as we could expect it to be. They were asked to vote £45,000, and there was also a charge of £51,000 for troops—together £96,000, which we had to pay as tribute to Turkey. Therefore, the Island was practically self-supporting. The utmost economy, under these circumstances, had been practised; and as we could not get rid of this White Elephant, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his opposition to the Vote.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he wished the hon. Member would take the trouble to read the Papers before he discussed these affairs, as he would then see that the Vote asked for was £30,000, and that, as a fact, the Island was a great deal more than self-supporting. He would take care that the complimentary observations of the hon. Member should be conveyed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but, at the same time, he thought it was due to those who worked under the Secretary of State that he should mention the name of Mr. Fairfield, to whom they were much indebted. He had gone to Cyprus, and had taken a great deal of trouble in this matter. He had shown great ability, and by his exertions the expenditure had been largely reduced.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the previous Divisions had been so beneficial to the finances of the Island that he felt bound to repeat the process.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 20: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 298.)
    (21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £11,246, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the repayment of the balance of the amount advanced out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for payment to the United States Government in settlement of the Fortune Bay Fishery Claims."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, this Vote involved most serious and difficult questions, and he did not think it ought to be taken at that hour. It would be much better to defer it, and he should move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in this Motion.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Committee would go on.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, this Vote involved a most serious principle. Newfoundland was enjoying responsible Government. It had complete Homo Rule, except that it was linked to this country by allegiance to a common Crown. Newfoundland and the United States had a difference about the fisheries, and the Crown was called upon to go into the question. The question was gone into, and it was settled that £15,000 was to be paid. The result was that the British taxpayers, who had nothing to do with the quarrel, would have to provide by far the greater part of the sum. That was a monstrous proposition. What was to be our relation to this Colony? We were called upon to pay £11,000, and the principle would be established that the unfortunate taxpayers of this country had to pay for quarrels with which they had nothing to do. As the people of Newfoundland had a Parliament of their own, and were really the aggressors in this case, but would not pay the money, it was not right that this country should have to pay it.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he regretted that the Papers with reference to this matter had not been distributed; but they would be in a day or two. No
    1086
    doubt, there were large principles involved in all these cases; but it was not the fact that £15,000 had to be paid. That was one of the strong grounds of the refusal to pay by Newfoundland. They said that, whether rightly or wrongly, they would have liked to have the matter settled by arbitration; but the British Government had, for reasons of their own, negotiated directly with the United States. They considered the sum awarded too much, and they fortified their view by opinions given in great detail by Judge Barry, a man of great experience and skill, who was consulted by the Colonial authorities as to what should be paid. He said the sum should be about £3,000; but, after consultation between the Colonial Office and Newfoundland, the Colonial Office undertook to pay part of the amount awarded; and he thought, on the whole, they were wise in doing so.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether the points of law had been settled between Newfoundland and the United States with respect to the infringement of the local laws by the fishermen of the latter country?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was most unfortunate that the Committee should have to pass this Vote without having seen the papers. It was all very well to say that the cost had been divided; the Colonies only paid a small part at their own good pleasure. But, whatever the state of the case was, what had the taxpayers of this country done that they should have to pay this money? They were simply asked to pay because other people who were concerned in the matter would not pay.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
    (22.) £210,737, to complete the sum necessary for Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    (23.) £10,800, to complete the sum necessary for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
    (24.) £442,500, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, England.
    (25.) £51,500, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
    (26.) £7,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
    (27.) £8,725, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
    (28.) £48,588, Friendly Societies Deficiency.
    (29.) £1,888, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
    (30.) £2,722, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
    (31.) £8,422, Commutation of Annuities.
    (32.) £1,000, for Cochrane's Deposits.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (33.) £19,523, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
    (34.) £2,912, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (35.) £810,785, to complete the sum for Customs.
    (36.) £1,438,366, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
    (37.) £3,683,218 (including a Supplementary sum of £339,466), to complete the sum for Post Office.
    (38.) £486,285, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service.
    (39.) £1,226,073 (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000), to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
    (40.) £500,000, Afghan War (Grant in Aid) 1883–4.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (41.) £4,000, Supplementary, Royal Palaces.
    (42.) £4,895, Supplementary, Houses of Parliament.
    (43.) £5,323, Supplementary, Harbours under the Board of Trade.
    (44.) £500, Supplementary, House of Commons Offices.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation of this Vote. He protested
    1088
    against the charge of £500 if it related to the Kitchen Department.
    LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee on that occasion; but would himself endeavour to give an account of the circumstances which had led to the present Supplementary Vote being presented. It had been alleged that during the course of last Session the receipts of the contractors had greatly fallen off, and that they were, in consequence, out of pocket by the arrangement into which they had entered. A Sub-Committee was appointed, who went into the contractors' accounts; and, after a full and careful investigation of the whole matter, they reported that there was a serious loss. That loss was considered to be due to two causes. In the first place, the great number of Morning Sittings which were held last Session had largely decreased the number of dinners sent down; and, secondly, the extra accommodation provided in the Dining Room and new Smoking Room had necessitated the employment of a larger staff of attendants. The Committee, under the circumstances, recommended that the extra sum of £500 should be granted to the contractor. The Committee had issued two Reports on the subject, one in August last year, in which they said that a large increase of expense had been entailed on the contractor, although they made no recommendation; the other at the commencement of the present Session, in which there was a recommendation for this increased grant. He begged to assure hon. Members that the Kitchen Committee had gone carefully into the whole subject, and in this they were greatly assisted by the Sub-Committee to which he had alluded. He might just mention, in connection with the first cause of the deficiency—namely, the falling-off in the number of dinners consequent upon the Morning Sittings—that whereas the number of dinners supplied in 1881 was 10,500, it fell in 1882 to 6,100, and again in the present year to 5,600, the luncheons served having been on the same diminishing scale. He believed that several hon. Members would bear him out in the expression of his personal opinion that the amount of the proposed grant would barely cover the loss incurred by the contractors.
    MR. CAINEasked if the whole refreshment department of the House came within the statement of the noble Lord?
    LORD KENSINGTONreplied, that it related to the refreshments served in all the saloons, and at the bars up-
    MR. CAINEsaid, he thought the sooner the House took the matter into its own hands the better. If they did so, there would be a saving of money, and a lower tariff than there was at present. It was most objectionable that Members should have to pay 9d. for a cup of tea that they could get in any club-house for 4d. He should feel it his duty, on another occasion, to move the reduction of the Vote.
    Vote agreed, to.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not moved.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he had understood the hon. Member to move the rejection of the Vote. He entirely agreed with the view taken of this question by the hon. Member, who had expressed a great deal of what he himself had intended to say. He brought no charge against the Kitchen Committee, nor did he wish to make any against the contractor, who, he was willing to admit, had done his duty towards the House; but he contended that, in view of the large allowance received and the high prices charged, the profits must be considerable. He understood the noble Lord to say that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee was not present; and, that being so, hon. Members were left practically in the dark as to how the Sub-Committee had been guided to the conclusion they had arrived at.
    LORD KENSINGTON: I think I stated that the Sub-Committee made a most careful investigation of the whole matter, the contractor's books having been examined.
    MR. SHEILsaid, it was unfortunate that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee was not present, because the noble Lord was not as well acquainted with the facts as the Committee would have liked. He pointed out that in the case of all the Select Committees of the House a shorthand writer was employed, who took down everything that
    1090
    was said, and from his notes a Report was made to the House, which was then able to form its own opinion. He thought the same plan should have been adopted in the present instance. They were told by the noble Lord that the contractor's accounts were examined; but there was nothing to show that the accounts had been properly kept. He begged to move the rejection of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Motion could not be put, as the Vote had been passed. The hon. Member could move on Report.
    MR. SHEILsaid he would avail himself of the opportunity suggested by the Chairman.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (45.) Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 16: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 299.)
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Courtney.)
  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 12 (Advances by Land Commission).
    MR. PARNELLproposed in page 7, line 30, after "holdings," insert—
    "And for the purpose of assisting the removal thereof of persons or families as provided by Section 11 of this Act."
    He intended subsequently to move to insert, after "advances," in line 31—
    "Where the estate or estates are purchased solely for the purpose of re-sale to the tenants."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 30, after "holdings," insert "and for the purpose of assisting the removal thereof of persons or families as provided by Section 11 of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member had an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which, no doubt, was more fully carried out by the words now proposed. The Amendment on the Paper was to insert, after "holdings," "and for such other purpose or purposes as the Lord Lieutenant may approve." Now, those words seemed extremely vague, and gave large powers to the Lord Lieutenant, which might have subjected him to all kinds of applications. The words which had now been suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not only sufficiently carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman, but they would, he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought, meet the views of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). The Amendment was one of which the Government had already approved, and they would be glad to accept it.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for the City of Cork had altered his proposal, because really, as the Amendment stood on the Paper, the Lord Lieutenant could advance money to Companies for every conceivable purpose. His (Mr. O'Connor Power's) Amendment lower down, however, was not affected by the present proposal. His Amendment had reference to advances generally; but the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) had reference only to the £50,000 which the Lord Lieutenant had at his disposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, Amendment made, in page 7, line 31, after "advances," by inserting—
    "Where the estate or estates are purchased solely for the purpose of re-sale to the tenants."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was not quite clear that the Lord Lieutenant and the Land Commission were fully empowered, by what the Committee had already done, to make advances for the purpose of carrying out migration; and he wished to say, in explanation of the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, that he contemplated the lending of money to a public Company for the purpose of carrying
    1092
    out migration only, because that was the only form in which he could introduce the question of migration upon this Bill. In his judgment, migration could not be successfully carried out by public Companies; and the creation of a peasant proprietary contemplated by the Chief Secretary in this Act, through the agency of public Companies, would never be carried out. Entertaining these views, he was only anxious to test the opinion of the Government with regard to the agency of these public Companies. The Government believed, according to the general scope of the Bill, that public Companies could be utilized for the creation of a peasant proprietary in Ireland. If that was true, it was equally true, in his judgment, that public Companies could be used for the purposes of migration; but he should never have thought of making the proposal himself. He had so much interest in the question of migration, that he did not want it to be said by-and-bye that he silently assented to a scheme of this kind, and that he was willing to have a scheme of migration tested upon any such grounds as these. If, however, the Government and his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) thought differently, he would be quite willing to see the proposal tested, and he should rejoice if they succeeded.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not understand the last remark of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor Power), because his own proposal—the proposal they now had before them—was a proposal to lend money to public Companies for the purposes of migration; and it was evident the hon. Member himself contemplated the lending of money to public Companies as an alternative scheme. They were dealing with a proposal to lend money for the purpose of purchasing estates and re-selling them to tenants, and they had just accepted an Amendment which carried out in principle the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor Power), and which, if any cases arose, would enable the Government to lend money for the purchase of estates, not only for the purpose of reselling them to the tenants already in possession, but also for the purpose of settling upon them persons who might be removed from congested districts. The only difference between the Amendment the Committee had accepted and

    1093
    the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor Power) was that the hon. Member's Amendment did not limit the amount. The Government had all along said this was an experiment, and that the amount to be advanced should be limited to £50,000.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was then to understand that the Lord Lieutenant could only advance a limited amount. He wanted to know exactly how matters stood. Had the Land Commission and the Lord Lieutenant power jointly or separately, with the consent of the Treasury, to make advances? It was a mistake to say that the advances were not limited, because all the advances made under this Act, like all the advances made under the Land Act, were limited by the 31st section of that Act, which said that—
    "The sums annually advanced for these purposes shall not exceed the sums annually voted by Parliament."
    Parliament had to vote the money from year to year for these purposes; and, therefore, the advances were limited. He had understood that if his hon. Friend's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment were adopted in its altered form the Land Commission would be free to make advances.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that what was proposed was, in the first place, where the Lord Lieutenant recommended and where the Treasury approved, a Company might purchase land for the purpose of settling families on it, the purchase money being lent in the same manner as it would be lent to a Company purchasing land for the purpose of re-sale. Special words had been used in order to show that whatever was done would be carefully examined. Secondly, a Company having purchased land would be able to borrow money under the 31st section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, the provisions of which were well known; and, thirdly, the sum of £50,000 would be granted altogether to public Companies for the purpose of aiding in carrying out migration. That would not be a loan, but a grant.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) move his Amendment?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that, until the matter was cleared up, the best course for him to pursue would be to move his Amendment pro formâ. The
    1094
    Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), did not seem to agree in the matter. He was told that the amount of money to be advanced was limited to £50,000. Was that so or not? He would like a straightforward answer.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could only repeat what he had said—namely, that grants in the shape of grants, and not of loans or advances, could only be made to the extent of £50,000; but, besides that, advances might be made for the purpose of purchasing estates with the object of re-selling them to the tenants, and under stricter supervision for the purpose of preparing the land for migration.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would move, because he would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) meant when he said there was a difference between his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) proposal and the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); because, if there was a difference between what had been accepted and what he proposed, it was not correct to say that his object had been attained by what had been accepted. The right hon. Gentleman subsequently said the difference was that there was no limit to the advance in his proposal. Did the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the statement that he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had come down to the House of Commons to make a proposal giving unlimited power to make advances?—because, if he did, he had misunderstood the proposal.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 34, after "company," insert—"Provided, That, whenever the company propose to purchase estates for the purpose of settling upon them tenants removed from more thickly-populated lands, the Land Commission may advance to the company, for that purpose, such sums as the Treasury think fit; but such sums shall not exceed the amount annually granted by Parliament for the purpose, and no advances shall be made to such company without proper security that those advances shall be expended for the purpose aforesaid."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he ought to have said there was a limit in the proposal, because it contained the words—
    "The Land Commission may advance to the company, for that purpose, such sums as the Treasury think fit; but such sums shall not exceed the amount annually granted by Parliament for that purpose."
    Therefore, of course, the amount advanced would be limited to whatever sum might be fixed by the Treasury and approved by Parliament.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there was some misunderstanding between his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power) and the Treasury Bench. In the one case a grant of £50,000 was to be made; and in the other case a sum of money was to be granted, limited only by the will of the Treasury. There was, therefore, no substantial difference between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power).
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) meant when he said that the advances under his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) proposal were not limited? Why was he told that his Amendment could not be accepted, because it was unlimited in character?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's proposal; and after the hon. Gentleman's explanation he would withdraw the remarks he made at the outset. He pointed out what seemed to be a slight difference between the wording of the two Amendments. In the Amendment the Committee had just accepted they had practically accepted, and intended to accept, the spirit of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had moved. He thought he was bound to correct that, by saying there seemed to be a slight difference, which he mentioned, between the hon. Gentleman's proposal and that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); and after the hon. Member's explanation he thought that slight difference had disappeared.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that, if the object he had in view were attained, he was quite satisfied. He was very glad that the Government, who so very recently described his migration
    1096
    scheme as impracticable and visionary, had now faith in the scheme.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, Amendment made, in page 7, line 36, after "shall," by inserting "so far as concerns the re-sale of their holdings to the tenants thereon."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERproposed, in page 8, line 2, after "holdings," to insert—
    "Excepting always estates purchased for the purpose of settling upon them tenants removed from more thickly-populated lands."
    It seemed to him that this Amendment was consequential upon what had been agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 2, after "holdings," insert "excepting always estates purchased for the purpose of settling upon them tenants removed from more thickly-populated lands."—(Mr. O Connor Power.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLsaid he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would, on further consideration, see that his Amendment was not necessary in view of the Amendment which had just been accepted. The Amendment provided, in another way, and in other words, what had just been agreed to by the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, Amendment made, in page 8, line 21, by leaving out all after "Treasury" to end of sub-section, and inserting "and on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 13 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Amendment of s. 31 of Land Act).
    DR. LYONSproposed to add, in page 11, at end of clause—
    "The Board of "Works in Ireland may, with the consent of the Treasury, constitute an 'Office of Forestry,' to consist of one or more persons,
    "The Office of Forestry shall be supplied with a series of the Ordnance Survey Maps of Ireland, with a copy of the Official Valuation of

    1097
    Ireland, and with such geological, climatological, and like publications as are issued by authority of Government.
    "It shall be the duty of the Office of Forestry to examine any schemes submitted for loans for the purposes of planting by individuals or Companies, and report on the same to the Treasury.
    "It shall also furnish all available information to persons about to plant as to the best variety of timber trees, seeds, and seedling trees suitable for each locality. It shall have power to employ one or more practical foresters for the purposes of inspection, report, and advice on the subject of intended plantations.
    "There may be employed in the Office of Forestry a person skilled in the science and practice of forestry for any or all of the above purposes, and to give instruction in forestry. There may be associated with the Office of Forestry an unpaid Commissioner to advise with the Department on the subject of forestry in Ireland. There may be paid to the officials of the Board of Works such reasonable remuneration for any additional duties hereby imposed on them as the Treasury may determine.
    "It may be lawful for boards of guardians in Ireland, with the consent of the Local Government Board in Ireland, to apply for loans in the same manner as a Company, for the purpose of planting, such loans to be secured on the rates in manner to be determined by the Local Government Board and the Treasury."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think this Amendment can be moved; it is beyond the scope of the Bill. Forestry is not included in the Bill.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he admitted that it was not included in the 19th clause.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is beyond the Resolution upon which the Bill is founded, and, therefore, cannot be put.
    Clause agreed to

  PART III.

    SUPPLEMENTAL.
    Clause 20 (Actions by secretary of grand jury) agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Amendment of Acts).
    On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 12, line 13, at end of sub-section, by adding:—
    "Except in eases where such Railway shall have been actually constructed, or shall be in actual course of construction; or where the Railway Company, having such powers, shall satisfy the Lord Lieutenant in Council that it is their intention forthwith to proceed in good faith to construct such Railway;"
    in page 12, line 21, by adding, as a new sub-section:—
    "(3.) The times appointed by the Tramways (Ireland) Acts for the publishing of advertisements, the depositing of maps, plans, books of reference, memorials, and other documents, and
    1098
    the giving of notices may, so far as relates to proceedings under this Act, be varied from time to time by the Lord Lieutenant by Order in Council;"
    and in page 12, at end of line 38, by adding—
    "So long as a locomotive is being driven on a Tramway at a greater distance than thirty feet from the centre of any public road, the limits of speed prescribed by the Tramways (Ireland) Acts or this Act shall not apply."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he begged to move the new clause which stood in his name next on the Paper. In the opinion of the best authorities this new clause would be a great improvement in the Bill. He sincerely hoped the proposal would be considered a good one.
    New Clause:—
    (Power to Railway Companies to subscribe towards Tramways under this Act.)
    "The Lord Lieutenant in Council may by Provisional Order empower any Railway Company to contribute towards the cost of the construction of any Tramway to be made under the powers of this Act, such sum of money by way of loan, subscription for shares, or otherwise, as may be agreed upon between the Railway Company and the Promoters of the Tramway.
    "Such Order in Council shall only be made where the Railway Company establishes, to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, that a copy of the Provisional Order as applied for by the Railway Company has been submitted to the proprietors of the Company at a meeting held specially for that purpose, as if such Order were a Bill promoted in Parliament by the Company, and that all matters and things have been done and have happened, which if such Order were a Bill so promoted as aforesaid should have been done and have happened in order to constitute compliance with the Standing Orders of Parliament applicable to Bills promoted by Railway Companies for the like purposes to those referred to in this section.
    "Such Order in Council shall not take effect unless confirmed by Parliament, if a petition against it is presented to the Lord Lieutenant in Council,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the new clause which the Attorney General for Ireland, as a good pleader, would at once see the necessity of. It was to cover, in addition

    1099
    to other matters, the times at which matters and things should have been done and should have happened. He proposed to insert, after the word "happened" in the new clause, the words "and all times have elapsed."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 12, after the word "happened," to insert the words "and all times have elapsed."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    New Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson) he begged to move the Amendment standing in that hon. Member's name.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to move this Amendment he must do so after the other Business on the Paper has been disposed of.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had given Notice to move the following new clause:—
    (Rate of speed on level crossings.)
    "Where any Tramway for the space of four hundred yards or more runs wholly off the public road or only crosses the public road by means of a bridge tunnel, or a level crossing provided with gates, then the rate of speed need not be limited by this Act or by anything contained in any former Act.
    "The Board of Trade may from time to time make orders limiting the rate of speed on such portions of the line."
    This Amendment, however, had been anticipated; and he, therefore, did not propose to move it.
    MR. CAINEsaid, he also had a new clause on the Paper which he did not propose to move.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had the following clause on the Paper:—
    "Any Tramway Company may avail themselves of the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to purchase land within three hundred yards of the road, on which the Tramways may partly run, provided a certificate has been given by the County Surveyor that such deviation is necessary for the economical construction of the line."
    He was told that this provision was already contained in the Bill. He was told that the Tramway Companies could obtain land in the centre of the road without much trouble. He thought they ought to be able to obtain land off the
    1100
    road cheaper, if it was desirable that they should have it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member move the new clause?
    COLONEL NOLAN: Yes, Sir.
    New Clause:—
    "Any Tramway Company may avail themselves of the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to purchase land within three hundred yards of the road, on which the Tramway may partly run, provided that a certificate has been given by the County Surveyor that such deviation is necessary for the economical construction of the line."—[Colonel Nolan,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the hon. and gallant Member would see that in Clause 21, Sub-section 4, the Bill carried out the object the hon. and gallant Member had in view. The subsection said—
    "Every Order in Council which sanctions a baronial guarantee under this Act may also provide that the forty-second section of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, shall not apply to the tramway in favour of which such guarantee is sanctioned."
    The 42nd section of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, was the only section which prevented land being taken in these cases. There would be no limit in the matter of the compulsory powers which would apply in every case.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that under the circumstances he would withdraw the new clause.
    New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAYNEsaid, he wished to move the following clause:—
    (Town councils may apply for powers to construct branch lines.)
    "In the case of any town within twelve miles of any existing Railway or Tramway, the inhabitants of which desire the construction of a Tramway from their town to such Railway or Tramway, the town council or town commissioners of such town may apply to the Lord Lieutenant in Council direct for powers to construct, or to enter into a contract for the construction of such Tramway, and the Lord Lieutenant, after due inquiry, may grant such powers, and may order that such town shall be chargeable with the entire guarantee and liability imposed by clause two of this Act,
    "And the town councils or town commissioners of such towns are hereby authorised to levy such rate as may be necessary from time to time under clause four of this Act."
    This clause would apply to towns not far from existing railways or tramways desiring to make connections with those existing lines, and who would be unwilling to undertake the responsibilities and guarantees connected therewith, thereby avoiding the necessity of going to the Grand Juries, which might in some cases be hostile.
    New Clause (Town councils may apply for powers to construct branch lines,)—(Mr. Mayne,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had considerable sympathy with the object of the clause; but it would be impossible to accept it in its present form—if, indeed, it could be worked out in any form to be acceptable. The hon. Member proposed something quite different from the order and system proposed under the Bill. He suggested that Corporations and Commissioners should construct railways themselves, and should then be entitled to levy the rate which might be necessary under Clause 4 of the Act. But that clause provided for the levying of a rate for the payment of a dividend, and there would be none when a Town Council constructed a tramway out of the rates. That seemed to be a serious objection to the proposal. They would have to create a new series of clauses to provide for this new method of procedure if they adopted this Amendment, and the clause, as it stood, was not applicable. There was another objection—namely, that the Town Councils or Commissioners would have to construct tramways in roads which did not belong to them. That would be a very doubtful principle to accept, and if they accepted it they would have to propose clauses to carry it into effect. At that late period of the Session they could not introduce a new system into the Bill, as they would not have time to consider all the provisions necessary to give due effect to it.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had proposed to move the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson), to the effect that tramways were not to increase judicial rents; but if hon. Members opposite did not agree with his proposal he would not go on with it.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he begged to move the clause standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), unless it had already been proposed earlier in the evening, whilst he (Mr. Tottenham) was not present. The clause was as follows:—
    "No County Surveyor or Assistant County Surveyor shall be allowed to take any part in the promotion of any Tramways or Railways constructed or to be constructed under this Act, or shall receive any compensation or payment with regard to such Tramways or Railways other than payment for his services as arbitrator, or shall be employed as engineer by any Company seeking powers under this Act, and no person shall be appointed as arbitrator under this Act who may have any share or beneficial interest in any Tramway or Railway constructed under this Act."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, an Amendment had been moved by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to the same effect.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: Did it include Assistant County Surveyors?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): No.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that if it did not, then it would be necessary to accept this. These officers should be included, as they would be the first to be consulted by local promoters.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): We will make a note of it, and deal with the question later on.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 155.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had to propose a new clause which stood in his name on the Paper.
    New Clause:—
    (Occupier to be rated.—Constructive payment of rate.)
    "In making out any Poor Rate after the commencement of this Act in respect of any premises situate in any city, town, or borough, returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, the guardians of the poor, or other person or persons making out such rate shall enter in the occupiers' column of the rate book the name of the occupier of every hereditament rated at a net annual value of more than four pounds, whether the rate is collected from the owner or occupier, or the owner is liable to the payment of the rate instead of the occupier, and such occupier shall be deemed to be duly rated for the purpose of any qualification or franchise depending upon rating; and, if any clerk of the union, or other person charged with the making out of the rate, negligently or wilfully, and without reasonable cause, omits the name of the occupier of any such rateable hereditament from the rate, or negligently or wilfully misstates any name therein, such clerk or other person shall, for every such omission or misstatement, be liable, if convicted in a summary manner, to a penalty not exceeding two pounds: Provided, That any occupier whose name has been omitted shall, notwithstanding such omission, and that no claim to be rated has been made by him, be entitled to every qualification and franchise depending upon rating, in the same manner as if his name had not been so omitted.
    "In every such city, town, or borough, every payment of a rate by the owner of any hereditaments rated at a net annual value of over four pounds, whether the owner is himself rated, or is liable to pay the rate, or has agreed with the occupier to pay it, shall be deemed a payment of the rate by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification which, as regards rating, depends upon the payment of the poor rate,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. MAYNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted one very important portion of this clause—namely, the county franchise. He included the borough franchise of £4; but it was just as necessary that the occupiers should be rated in counties where the value was £12 as it was, that they should be rated in boroughs where the value was £4.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name to this clause. The object of it was to insure that in counties the same procedure should have effect as in boroughs. If the return of occupiers in boroughs for
    1104
    £4 was compulsory, he thought a return for £12 should be necessary in counties.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause—
    In line 6, after "pounds," insert "and in counties every payment of a rate by the owner of any hereditaments rated at a net annual value of twelve pounds."—(Mr. Dawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLasked whether it would not be necessary to insert, after the word "pounds" in the proposed Amendment, the words "and upwards?"
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to add, after the word "pounds" in the proposed Amendment to the proposed Clause, the words "and upwards."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he did not agree with this Amendment. It was unnecessary. In towns, particularly in Dublin, where a special Act of Parliament applied, such a thing as an owner being rated for £12 and upwards was absolutely unknown. This proposal had not been made because it was perfectly unnecessary, such an instance never having occurred.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he would at once bow to the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but it must be remembered that in counties containing places like Kingstown, where whole terraces were owned by one person, the circumstances were not those of ordinary country districts, and were just as they were in towns.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw?
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he should like to hear some explanation on the point from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, be believed such a thing was unknown as rating the owner of a house of £12 value, but that if it did exist it was contrary to law—just as contrary to the existing law as it would be to the new law.
    MR. MAYNEsaid, that, nevertheless, he thought it would be desirable that the Amendment, as proposed by the hon. Member, should be adopted, because this clause proposed for the first time to impose a penalty upon rate collectors and others responsible for entering the occupier's name in the rate book for any remissness in the performance of that duty; and he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that although it might be uncommon to find owners rated instead of occupiers of £12 value, it was very common, particularly in County Dublin, to find the rate book all wrong, and wilfully so. They had to deal in County Dublin with a class of rate collectors hostile to certain shades of political views amongst occupiers, and they frequently made a political choice as to whom they should put in the rate book. These collectors made inquiries as to the political leanings of the occupier of a house before they rated him at all. He was aware of instances in the Donnybrook Division of County Dublin in which occupiers rated at above £12—indeed, above £50—who had been in occupation of their houses for eight, nine, and even ten years, and had not even yet their names upon the rate book, and were only kept on the list of voters by claiming every year to be rated—a claim which was every year disregarded by both the collector and the Board of Guardians; in fact, a hostile collector, if he felt he had the Board of Guardians to sustain him in the particular course he adopted, could do just as he liked with his rate book. It was for the sake of the penalty which this clause now provided, and which was a novelty in Ireland, though it existed in almost all the English Franchise and Registration Acts, that he was so anxious that the hon. Member should not withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he almost thought the hon. Member did not understand the clause he (Mr. Trevelyan) had had the honour of moving; and, further, the hon. Member had evidently not recently studied the Bill before the House. A rate collector, who, either through ill-faith or gross negligence, omitted to put upon the rate book persons who ought to be there, was liable to suffer penalties under the provisions of the 9th and 10th clauses of the Bill. The present new clause was introduced for
    1106
    quite another purpose—namely, for the purpose of securing the franchise to occupiers who were under the system of compound householders. It was not for the primary purpose of punishing the Clerk of the Union. The penalties inserted were only in case of non-performance of the duty of specially rating the compound householders. He should be obliged to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member on the grounds he had stated.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could be much surprised at any misunderstanding into which any hon. Member had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced an important change in the Registration Law of Ireland in this new clause without a single word of explanation; and he (Mr. Plunket) wished to call attention to the fact, for it was another illustration of the manner in which the Bill had been forced through the House. No wonder the House was entirely at a loss to know what was really intended by this clause. This question of the reform of the Law of Registration in Ireland had now been for 10 years before the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that hon. Members would not interrupt him; he had not interrupted them while they were speaking; and he, therefore, trusted they would be courteous enough to allow him to say a few words. [An hon. MEMBER: We were only cheering you.] He was saying, when interrupted, that this question had been long debated, and had created a great amount of variety of opinion during the last 10 years amongst persons of different parties. He (Mr. Plunket) had been one who had taken a forward part in opposing the policy which was attempted to be carried out by the alteration of the law proposed to be made in the Bill. He did not object to a proper reform of the Registration Law of Ireland, but merely wished to say that if he had taken no part in the discussion that evening on the Report of the Bill, it had been for the same reason that hon. Friends of his who were not then in the House took no part in a previous stage in the discussion of Amendments, because of the attempt to force the Bill through the House. He objected to a Bill like this being forced through the House, seeing

    1107
    that it would effect an enormous change in the constituencies of Ireland—seeing, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said the other evening, that it would have the effect of doubling the constituency of Dublin and other places, and seeing that the measure was one really amounting to a Reform Bill, and a Reform Bill of a very important character. The Bill, when first brought in, was comparatively moderate; but suddenly, in the midst of the Committee stage, large Amendments were hurriedly accepted by the Government, part of which were being carried out by the clause in question. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the very Question, and he appealed to Mr. Speaker for protection. He was making a very short speech, and the interruptions which were constantly coming from the Benches below the Gangway simply made the conduct of Business in the House impossible. He had been listening to other hon. Members patiently enough, and now that he attempted to express his views he was met with most discourteous interruptions. If he had not taken part in the discussions hitherto, it was because the attempt to discuss the Bill in the present circumstances of the House and of the Session was the merest form. To take a Division would also be the merest form, and would not, in any degree, express the intelligent sense of Parliament on the question. In abstaining from taking any part in these discussions, he and his Friends threw on the Government the whole responsibility of dealing with this matter in a way which he, for one, did not hesitate to describe as unusual, inconvenient, and unfair.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would not follow the right hon. and learned Member into his statement as to what had been going on on the subject of the reform of the registration of Ireland for the past 10 years. He would only say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place lately he would have seen that the matter had been fully discussed.
    MR. PLUNKET: I beg to say that I have read the Reports, and that I found by them that the matter was not discussed at all.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, that before withdrawing his Amendment, which he was about to do, he wished to say——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech. If he desires to make an explanation, of course that is another matter.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, he only wished to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had read the clauses passed for England quadrupling the constituencies—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, in reference to the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, although his right hon. and learned Friend was not present, he was present in the previous discussion, and the matter was not discussed; on the contrary, they declined to discuss it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    New Clause:—
    (Evening sittings of revision courts.)
    "Every barrister appointed to revise the lists for a Parliamentary borough containing, according to the last census for the time being, more than ten thousand inhabitants, shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough. An evening sitting shall commence not earlier than six nor later than seven o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as, in the opinion of the revising barrister, shall be reasonable. Special notice or notices of an evening sitting or of evening sittings to be held in a borough shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made in the proposed new Clause, in line 1, by leaving out "every barrister appointed," and inserting "every county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister, whose duty it is;" in line 6, by leaving out "revising barrister," and inserting "chairman, county court judge, or revising barrister;" and in line 9, by leaving out "revising barrister," and inserting "chairman, county court judge, or revising barrister."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. TREVELYANasked that the third reading should be now taken,
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, The Lord Advocate.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it very unfortunate that this stage of the Bill should be taken now. He could hardly expect to be able to carry his Amendment; but he would move it by way of appeal. He thought there was a general opinion in the House that the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords," which he proposed to omit, were totally superfluous, and not required in strict or legal sense. It might be said that these words, although they had not any distinct meaning, pointed to the conclusion that this Officer might be a Peer. He understood that without these words it was possible that this Officer might be a Peer; but, that being so, if special words of this kind were put in, they would point to the likelihood of a Peer being so appointed. That he thought would be very objectionable. The new Officer was to take over the duties of the Home Secretary, and, to some extent, to perform the duties of the President of the Local Government Board in England. It was almost a part of our Constitution that the Home Secretary should be a Member of this House; and not of the House of Lords. He quite admitted that a Member of the other House might possess certain superior qualities; but he objected strongly to retaining in the Bill words which seemed to point to the nomination of a Member of the House of Lords.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out the words "if not a Member of the House of Lords."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, this question had already been fully discussed in Committee; and
    1110
    he thought he should save the time of the House by not again discussing it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolution [17th August] reported.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that last night he had raised a question as to the riots at Wexford; and the Chief Secretary then said the case was sub judice. That was not so now, for five of the men had been sent to the plank bed; and what he wished to know was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would grant an inquiry into the whole matter, in which men were bludgeoned by the police while waiting for the result of the poll?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if a number of men who were simply waiting as the hon. Member had said, he should, of course, grant an inquiry; but there had already been an inquiry before the magistrates. He should get a copy of the proceedings, and consult the proper authorities; and if he then thought an inquiry necessary he should grant one.
  Postponed Resolution agreed to.

  EPIDEMIC AND OTHER DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.— [BILL 277.]
  (Mr. Gray Mr. Dawson, Mr. Brooks.)
  EPIDEMIC AND OTHER DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.— [BILL 277.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN), in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he believed the Home Secretary approved of the Bill, which contained only two clauses, and provided that in the case of an epidemic the sanitary authorities should be able to borrow money for the purpose of dealing with it, without the usual delay caused by getting Provisional Orders.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dawson.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that so far as the Bill applied to England it would rather come before him than before the Home Secretary; and so far as it applied to Ireland it would come

    1111
    before the Chief Secretary. He therefore did not see that the hon. Member had been quite right in referring to the Home Secretary; but he had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, although he did not know that it was very necessary in regard to England. At the same time, he understood that the Home Secretary did approve of the Bill; but he could not say what the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was as to the Irish portion of the Bill.
    MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)said, the Chief Secretary had expressed to him his entire concurrence with the Bill. The provisions of the measure were very necessary in Ireland, because sometimes they had a case of small-pox in a harbour, and there was no power to oblige a ship to go into quarantine.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.