Commons Sitting of 22 April 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 21] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* [162]; Water Provisional Orders* [163].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [120]—R.P.; Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) [124], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church) * [174].

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN POWERS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that he would ask, Whether the Government, having proposed to the Powers a Conference on the affairs of Egypt generally, the German Government had declined that proposal; and,

  277
  whether, in consequence of that refusal, the Government had decided that the proposed Conference should be confined to the financial affairs of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It may be irregular in me, but I may save the hon. Gentleman trouble by saying that there is no truth whatever in the statements referred to in his Notice.

  HARBOURS (IRELAND)—KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
  MR. ION HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether favourable consideration will be given to the Memorial of the Township Commissioners of Kingstown, praying that a portion of the Harbour, now but little used, should be converted into a graving dock, to meet the growing requirements of the port of Dublin?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Memorial of the Kingstown Commissioners has been duly considered, and will be answered immediately. There appears to be nothing in the circumstances of the case to justify the suggested expenditure of public money on what would be a commercial speculation.

  FOREIGN LAND LAWS—SWISS FEDERAL CODE OF OBLIGATIONS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will call upon Mr. Carew, Her Majesty's Consul at Berne, to report upon the working of the 25 Articles of the Swiss Federal Code of Obligations which relate to the leases of farms, and which came into operation on the 1st of January 1883; and, if he will lay such Report upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Berne has already been called upon to furnish the Report which the hon. and gallant Member requires for presentation to Parliament.

  IRELAND—CITY OF DUBLIN—SANITARY INQUIRIES.
  MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that three inquiries connected with sanitary matters were held at the City Hall, Dublin, on the 20th March, at none of which the
  278
  executive sanitary officer of the city was present, but engaged in other professional work elsewhere; and, whether the Local Government Board will arrange that a corporate officer should give his whole time to the duties of his office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that two inquiries were held in Dublin on the day named by the Engineer and an Inspector of the Local Government Board; and that Dr. Cameron was not present at either of them—the question at issue not being such as required his attendance or evidence. There is no rule of the Local Government Board requiring an executive sanitary officer to give the whole of his time to the duties of his office; and the Board consider that the question whether he should do so is one for the sanitary authority.

  POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, When the account for the last financial year of the receipts and expenditure of the Post Office Telegraph Service, prepared on commercial principles, will be published; whether, in the meantime, he could give the House any estimate of the amount which it will probably show under the head of "Balance of Profit;" and, whether he can state the increase in the number of messages sent last year as compared with the year previous?
  MR. FAWCETT: The question of introducing some modifications into the form in which the telegraph account, made up on commercial principles, has hitherto been presented to Parliament, is now being considered by the Treasury; and this may cause some delay in the presentation of the account. By the end of next month it will be possible to give an estimate of the balance of profit for the past financial year. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question, I may state that the number of messages sent last year was 32,732,000, being an increase of 640,000 over the previous year. The increase in that year over the preceding year was 746,000.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, How much of the money voted by Parliament for expenditure during last financial year on postal telegraph works, necessitated by the contemplated introduction of sixpenny telegrams, was actually expended; how many "learners"

  279
  were added to the telegraph staff in anticipation of the increased work; and, whether they have been retained on the staff, or dismissed?
  MR. FAWCETT: About £180,000 was expended in the last financial year on works necessitated by the contemplated introduction of a reduced rate for telegrams, and the works will be available when the new tariff is brought into operation. The staff was not increased anywhere in anticipation of the reduced tariff; but a few learners were taken on in various offices to be trained, and there is no intention of dismissing them.

  PRISON'S (IRELAND)—DEATHS IN WATERFORD GAOL—CASE OF JAMES COMMINS.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who are the Visiting Justices of Waterford Gaol; how often did they visit the late James Commins while he was under restraint; were they present at the sworn inquiry by the Local Government Board into the circumstances of his death, or did they receive notice of same; were any of the relatives of the deceased informed of it, or allowed to be present at it; were all the doctors who had been examined at the coroner's inquest also examined at the inquiry; will the report of the inquiry be laid upon the Table; and, whether, within the last few years, a death occurred in Waterford Gaol under circumstances similar to those attending the death of Commins?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Visiting Justices for the Waterford Gaol are the Hon. D. F. Fortescue and Messrs. R. T. Carew, Armstrong, A. Congreve, Congreve Rogers, F. G. Bloomfield, David Kent, Henry Galway, and Lawrence A. Ryan. Two of these gentlemen saw James Commins on the 21st of March, while he was under restraint. He was not visited by them on any other occasion. They were not present at the sworn inquiry held by the Inspector of the Prisons Board; and I am informed that as such a course is not usual they did not receive notice of it. None of the relatives of the deceased were present at the inquiry, nor did they receive notice of it. The death was notified to them as required by statute. The medical officer of the prison was the only medical man examined at the inquiry, inasmuch as the
  280
  inquiry was for the purpose of ascertaining whether any neglect could be attributed to the officers of the prison, and not into matters which it was the duty of the Coroner to inquire into. Reports of this character are confidential, and for the information of the Government, and it is not usual to lay them on the Table of the House. I am informed that no previous death occurred in Waterford Prison under precisely similar circumstances; but the hon. Member probably refers to the case of a man who, about four years ago, was put under restraint, in consequence of his having made preparations to commit suicide, and was afterwards found dead in his cell.
  MR. LEAMY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that it is not a fact that within the last four years two men, who had been strapped down in their beds, were not found dead; whether, this having occurred now a second time, no proper inquiry has been made into it? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a fair and proper thing that the only doctor who was examined at the inquiry was the one who saw this man kept under this restraint? The man was killed; and it is a mean thing and a burning shame not to give us an inquiry into it. ["Oh!" and "Order!"]
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Government were not to blame, as any witnesses might have been called upon that had material evidence to give.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the doctor of the prison is not the gentleman whose conduct is impugned in this Question; if he is not indirectly charged with causing the death of this man by ordering him to be strapped down; and, also, if the person thus incriminated was the only one who gave evidence at the Government inquiry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The only medical man—not the only person.
  MR. HEALY: Yes; was the only medical man; then, why not summon another one as a witness?
  [No reply.]

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn

  281
  to the fact that, in a case of George M'Cord, tenant, Sir Richard Wallace, landlord, brought into the court of the Antrim Sub-Commission by an originating notice served by the tenant to have a fair rent fixed, the Sub-Commission confirmed the old rent, and, on appeal by the tenant to the Chief Commission, that tribunal confirmed the decision of the inferior Court, thus leaving the old rent unaltered; whether the evidence for the tenant before both Courts founded his claim to a reduction of rent upon improvements in the holding made in recent years, and purchased by him about five years ago; whether, in. the interval between the decision of the Sub-Commission and Court of Appeal, the tenant was served by the Irish Land Commission with a printed document called the Official Valuer's Report, setting forth that the official valuer had valued his holding at £23, and that this valuation, "made for the purpose of the re-hearing," was "exclusive of buildings," and "making no allowance for alleged tenant's improvements;" whether it was proved at the hearing by competent witnesses, and admitted by the landlord, that the improvements had been made by the tenant; and, whether, nevertheless, the rent, as fixed by the Sub-Commission, and confirmed by the Commission, is £23 14 s., being 14 s. a-year over the official valuation, which included all the improvements except the buildings?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I brought this Question under the notice of the Land Commissioners, and have received from them the following observations with regard to it:—
  "It is true that in the case referred to the Sub-Commission left the former rent unaltered, and that the Commissioners on re-hearing affirmed the decision of the Sub-Commission. It is also true that the valuer for the Commissioners valued the holding at 14 s. a-year below the judicial rent. The Commissioners, having decided the case before them, according to what they deemed just, declined to enter into the evidence or discuss the merits."
  I must say for myself that I have received a statement from another quarter to the effect that the hon. Member who put this Question on the Paper was misinformed on some particulars. His statement of the case is one-sided and incorrect, and there is a presumption that such is the case, considering that the Commissioners had all the facts be-
  282
  fore them when they decided; and there is a certain inconvenience, not to say an unfairness possibly, in stating a legal case in a Question on the Paper in a way giving an impression it did not give before the Court.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Is not the other impression of the case that from the landlord's point of view?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I said there was another impression of the case which commended itself to the Court.
  MR. HARRINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman says he received information from another quarter. Was that from the landlord?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think it right to say.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—ELECTORAL DIVISION OF TAUGHBOY, ATHLONE UNION.
  MR. HARRINGTON (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, with reference to the recent election of a Poor Law Guardian for the Electoral Division of Taughboy, in the Union of Athlone, the attention of the Irish Local Government Board has been drawn to the fact that Article 9 of the Board's Election Order, requiring that the returning officer should issue a "Notice of Election," in the prescribed form, and have copies of the same posted on or near all places of worship, courthouses, and police stations, not later than the 25th of February in each year, had not been observed in the case of this election, inasmuch as the "Notice of Election" prescribed by Article 9 was not posted anywhere in the Taughboy Division until the 10th of March, being six days later than the date fixed by law for the nomination of persons to be guardians; whether, before the first session of the new board, a qualified ratepayer of the division in question warned the returning officer of the invalidity of the election; whether, in consequence of the omission before stated, the whole proceedings relating to the election for the division were not, in fact, invalid; and, whether a new election has been ordered?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that it is the case that the usual notice was not posted in proper time in the Electoral Division mentioned, and also that a ratepayer named Matthew Naughton intimated to the Returning Officer

  283
  that on that ground he should not return any person as elected. It appears, however, that, notwithstanding the late posting of the notice, the time for making nominations was well known. Nominations were made in time, and the election was contested. The ratepayer mentioned as objecting to a return himself took an active part in the proceedings, and did not raise his objection until the result of the election was known. Under these circumstances, the Local Government Board are advised that the accidental delay in posting the notices did not invalidate the election.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—OUTPORT OFFICERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Is it true there are six acting examining officers at the outports of Her Majesty's Customs who have been doing the duties of examining officers efficiently for a period ranging from ten to fourteen years, and whose characters are unimpeachable; how is it that the assurances given by him, as appeared in The Freeman's Journal of 28th February, viz. that the case of these officers would be considered when the first vacancies arose, and would he explain the reason why those men have not yet been promoted to the rank of examining officer; if the aforesaid officers are not competent, on what grounds are they continued in the performance of those duties for so lengthened a period; has it not been a recognized rule of the Board that one-half of these promotions is filled by competition, the other half by selection; and, if such be the case, would not the grievances of these officers have been removed long since?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, there are six officers in the position described. No promise has been given to promote them to the first vacancies open for selection; but their cases have been and will, as I said before, be considered as vacancies arise. Since February 28 there have been four promotions, and the explanation of the fact that no one of the six has been selected is that while they are competent for their duties, there were better men in the Service.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  284
  Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet submitted any, and, if so, what proposals to the other Powers for the settlement of the financial difficulties of Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject made yesterday by the Prime Minister, to which I have nothing to add.
  MR. M'COAN: That statement of the Prime Minister did not give any information whatever.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no other information to give.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE— TRANSIT OF INFECTED CATTLE.
  MR. HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he has received information that 101 bullocks were sent on Monday, 14th April, from Liverpool to North Road Station, on London and North Western Railway, in the county of Cambridge, and then driven along the public roads to Wimpole; that fifty of these bullocks were then sent on by road to Cambridge, and that thirteen of the remaining fifty-one were on Friday 18th reported as having the foot and mouth disease, and, when inspected the same day, were found to be suffering from that disease in an advanced stage; and, whether it is a fact, as reported, that the above bullocks were part of a cargo recently arrived from Canada?
  MR. DODSON: The only information which we have on the subject referred to in this Question is obtained from the Inspector of the Local Authority. It is to the effect that 15 head of cattle out of 51 were found, after their arrival at Wimpole, to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. The Inspector remarks that these animals came by train from Liverpool on Tuesday morning on the London and North Western line, and that they came from America. They could not have come from the United States, because all animals arriving from there are slaughtered at the port of landing. The last cargo of animals which arrived at Liverpool from Canada were landed on April 12th, and were found quite sound on landing.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say where the diseased cattle did come from?
  MR. DODSON: I have given the House all the information I have.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: But will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to where the cattle did come from?
  MR. DODSON: The cattle, we are told, came from Liverpool, and the Inspector said they came from America. I have shown that that could not be so, and I have given the date of the arrival of the last cargo from Canada. If I receive any further information, I shall be very glad to give it to the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: What I asked was, whether the Government would undertake to make inquiries—not take hearsay evidence?
  MR. HENEAGE: It is very easy to find out where they came from.
  MR. HICKS: At any rate, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what became of the rest of this cargo of 101 bullocks?
  MR. DODSON: I will put the House in possession of all the information I can obtain.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask whether we are to understand that the Government have not already begun to make inquiries; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give information as to prevalence of the foot-and-mouth disease in the United States and in Canada?
  MR. DODSON: As far as our information goes, there is no foot-and-mouth disease whatever in Canada. I believe it is not known in Canada, which has been a free country for years. As regards the United States, we have no information that there is at present any foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. JAMES HOWARD: Will the Government make a thorough investigation into the subject, and inform the House of the result on Thursday next?
  MR. DODSON: I have already stated that I will procure all the information I can.
  MR. STORER: A great outbreak of the disease has also taken place in the Midland Counties, in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, owing, in a great measure, to animals coming from Ireland. Cannot some inquiry be made about that?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Is it not a fact that there is no disease in Ireland at all?
  MR. DODSON: The last Report we had from the Irish Government, a week or 10 days ago, was that Ireland was entirely free; but I am sorry to say there have been reports within the last two or three days of animals having come to Bristol from Ireland which were found some days afterwards infected with disease. The Inspector of Bristol has been asked to report on the subject.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Then the question arises, have these ships been properly cleaned? I would like to ask whether any real precautions have been taken in this matter?
  MR. DODSON: The Privy Council require that ships as well as trucks should be thoroughly disinfected every time they are used. Not long since the Irish Government, after communication with the Privy Council, issued instructions for an extraordinary process of disinfection in the case of ships employed between Great Britain and Ireland; and, according to the information received on the subject, shipowners have willingly complied with those recommendations.

  NAVY—ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (for Lord HENRY LENNOX)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Greenwich Hospital Committee, composed of Admiral Luard, Sir Francis Festing, E.M.A. and Colonel Needham, E.M.A. appointed to inquire into the best method of filling the then existing vacancies in the Royal Marine Artillery?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be unusual to publish the whole Report of the Committee referred to, as the subject has not yet been finally dealt with by the Department; but as that objection does not attach to the first part of the Report, which relates merely to the mode of filling existing vacancies in the Royal Marine Artillery, and as this is, I imagine, the point in which the noble Lord the Member for Chichester is interested, I shall be glad to lay this portion of the Papers on the Table.

  WESTERN PACIFIC—DEPORTATION OF FRENCH CONVICTS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  287
  Affairs, Whether the French Government have informed Her Majesty's Ministers, with regard to the transportation of French convicts to the Pacific, that the transport of criminals to New Caledonia, or any other French Colony, is a matter of internal policy with which no Foreign Power has any concern, and to which International Law cannot apply in any way; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers propose to take to carry out the wishes of the Australian Colonies with regard to New Guinea?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, no such communication has been received from the French Government. With regard to his second Question, I must refer him to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND)— CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If it is intended to place any member of the Catholic hierarchy or any Irish Member of Parliament on the Commission to inquire into the Queen's Colleges; and, can he give the names of the proposed Commissioners, and the date they are likely to begin to sit?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There has been delay in the appointment of the Commission to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Queen's Colleges, in consequence of the absence of a gentleman who it was hoped would serve. As soon as the Commission is appointed the names of the Members will be communicated to the House. We are taking pains to secure a Commission which can work strenuously and promptly. Our desire is likewise to secure a Commission which will reasonably command confidence on all sides. With that double view we have considered the Question of the hon. Member.
  MR. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman now state the terms of the Reference under which the Commission will be appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am sorry I have not the terms here. I did bring them down last evening, as I expected the question would be raised. I would not like to state them from memory; but they were four principal points. I may say they include every point which has
  288
  been raised in the House of Commons with respect to the Queen's Colleges, including especially the important point raised by the hon. Member.
  MR. HEALY: Another point on which I would like to put a Question, and one with regard to which it would give considerable satisfaction if it were now answered—it is with regard to the visitation to the Cork Queen's College. Would the right hon. Gentleman state when the visitation to Cork Queen's College will take place, and also the names of the Visitors who will attend?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to those Visitors who will actually go down I cannot now answer; but I have satisfied myself about the date of the visitation, and it will be a very reasonable date. It will be a week or 10 days hence.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the statements of a Catholic Missionary, who has just reached Cairo from the Upper Nile, that it is—
  "Impossible for General Gordon to maintain himself with the present garrison. For defending the Canal alone he requires 6,000 men. Both Niles are now beginning to sink, and with blocks of wood the Arabs will cross from bank to bank.…An attempt to escape by way of Berber would be absolutely vain,"
  and to statements made by the Correspondents of The Daily News and other papers that the Mahdi's propaganda is exciting the Arab tribes from Berber to Assouan, and that Egypt is in "a state of chaos;" and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table the Despatch from General Gordon on which the First Lord of the Treasury grounded his statement that "the position of General Gordon is a position of security?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have seen the statements to which the hon. Member refers. I stated yesterday that further Papers were about to be laid on the Table; but I cannot undertake to state from day to day what particular Papers will be included. I wish, in connection with this subject, to make a slight correction in a statement I made yesterday. I said, in regard to the garrison of Shendy, that from the

  289
  accounts received from the Governor of Berber, "it appeared that the garrison were surrounded and had been massacred." Sir Evelyn Baring telegraphed on the 20th instant, that the Governor of Berber said that they were surrounded; and Sir Evelyn Baring, telegraphing on the same day, said that M. Cuzzi, General Gordon's agent at Berber, telegraphed that "they were believed to have been massacred."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked when the Papers might be expected to be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, they would be laid very soon, but he could not tell the date.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The noble Lord has not answered the last part of my Question. Did the House correctly understand him and the Prime Minister to say yesterday that Berber was in a state of imminent danger, Khartoum the centre of the great rebel camp, and that retreat was practically cut off?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I ask the noble Lord whether the statements given yesterday by himself and the Prime Minister were accurate? I would also ask whether the special despatch to which the Prime Minister referred as indicating that the position of General Gordon was one of security cannot be immmediately laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said it was impossible for the Government to state in answer to Questions from day to day what Papers would be laid. I must abide by that statement.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Do I understand it is impossible to produce this one particular despatch of General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not say it would be laid or it would not be laid on the Table; all I did say was I could not give it now.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I would ask whether it would not be in accordance with the usual practice of the House that, the Prime Minister having quoted verbally from a despatch, that document should be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no objection to lay this document upon the Table. What my noble Friend says is, that he is preparing Papers with all possible expedition so as to present them
  290
  together; but he declines to separate this from the other Papers. In point of fact, the judgment upon General Gordon's position does not rest upon a single despatch, but it rests upon a series of despatches. [A laugh.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) should laugh, and I do not see that he does justice to us or justice to himself by receiving this with ridicule. I repeat, that it is upon a series of despatches that the judgment of the House must rest with regard to General Gordon; and the House will best form that judgment when it sees those despatches.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask whether the quotation made from the despatch yesterday was not of such a nature as to bring it within the Rule of the House that that particular despatch must be produced?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Am I to understand that the whole series of despatches to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be included in the Papers to be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say so. It is not my duty to prepare those Papers for the House of Commons. We shall produce to the House what we think will give them full and candid information, and undoubtedly the telegram from General Gordon will be included. When the right hon. Gentleman sees what are produced, if he deems them to be inadequate, which I do not think he will, he will be entitled to complain and to challenge the conduct of the Government in this respect.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman said it was not from a single despatch that a proper judgment could be formed, but that we must judge from the whole series. I want to ask him whether it was the intention of the Government to place the House in that position to form the judgment which the right hon. Gentleman referred to by presenting the whole series of despatches?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to explain that I did not laugh just now at the gravity of General Gordon's position, of which I am deeply sensible; but an involuntary laugh was forced from me by the extraordinary discrepancy between the Prime Minister's statements as to General Gordon's secu-

  291
  rity and the well known facts of the case.
  MR. RYLANDS (for Mr. GOURLEY)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in abandoning Khartoum, Dongola, and the districts between Abou Hamad and Berber, and between Berber and Suakin, he will be good enough to inform the House whether it is intended that Wady Halfa or Korosko shall be the new line of frontier in Upper Egypt; and, further, how it is intended to protect the Nile and neighbouring districts north of Wady Halfa against future contingencies?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) refers entirely to military matters. I am bound to say that, in these circumstances, I am absolutely precluded from entering into details. I can only say the Government will not fail to take all these matter into consideration.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on April 8th, General Gordon sent a telegram to Sir Evelyn Baring, in which he says—
  "I have received a meagre telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring stating that the British Government do not intend to send British troops to open the road to Berber, but that negotiations are proceeding with the Arabs for opening the road. You will he able to judge of the value of these negotiations, and also of the time such arrangements will last after the withdrawal of the British troops at Suakin.….Do you think if an appeal were made to the millionaires of England and the United States £200,000 would be available. Herewith you might obtain permission of the Sultan of Turkey to lend ns 2,000 or 3,000 Nizams, and send them to Berber;"
  whether it is a fact, as stated by the British Consular Agent at Khartoum, that "retreat on Berber is impossible;" and, whether Her Majesty's Government will furnish arms and transport to a Volunteer Expedition for the relief of Khartoum? If the Prime Minister would allow him, he would further ask whether it was true, as stated that day, that General Gordon had sent a despatch to Sir Evelyn Baring bitterly complaining of his abandonment by the British Government, and stating that he intended for the future to act on his own responsibility?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of the Question, I am not; in a position to say whether General
  292
  Gordon has sent to Sir Evelyn Baring a telegram of which the hon. Member quotes a part; but I should rather gather from Sir Evelyn Baring's words that he had not—that he had obtained his intelligence at Cairo. With regard to the next part of the Question, I must observe that the hon. Member rather unintentionally lends to a misapprehension when he speaks of a statement made by a British Consular Agent as if he were in any sense an official personage with regard to these matters. He is nothing of the kind. A Consular Agent is a person who undertakes, on the part of the Foreign Office, the discharge of certain specific services, and, as I understand, he is no more an agent of the British Government in other matters, and he has nothing whatever to do with these subjects any more than an hon. Gentleman sitting on the other side of the House, who might be requested by the Attorney General to act as counsel in a particular case, would thereby become the agent of the Crown for any other purpose whatever. With respect to the opinion that "retreat on Berber is impossible," he is entitled to form that opinion, and we shall lay before the House all the information in our power to enable them to form, a judgment on that point. With regard to a volunteer expedition for the relief of Khartoum, we have heard of no such thing, and we shall certainly take no part in any such expedition. It is evident that if we were to take part in a volunteer expedition to Khartoum it would be under circumstances which would make it our duty to send an expedition ourselves. As I have stated, the telegrams I have have referred to are in preparation to be presented as early as possible, and then the hon. Gentleman will form his own judgment upon them.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman one more Question, and it is, Whether, after the statements which have been made as to the imminent peril of General Gordon at Khartoum, the House is to understand that Her Majesty's Government are taking no steps whatever for the relief of Gordon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With all respect to the hon. Member, I must say he puts a Question in the preamble of which he asserts and implies that which I have repeatedly and positively denied—namely,

  293
  that we know that General Gordon is in imminent peril. It may be the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Gentlemen opposite that General Gordon is in imminent danger. In our view that is an entirely erroneous opinion, and it is entirely and absolutely contradicted by the language of General Gordon himself. Upon that subject the hon. Member will have the means of judging when the Papers are laid upon the Table.
  MR. BOURKE: I am very unwilling to delay the Business of the House; but I wish to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government—and I put it in the form of a Question that I may be in Order—namely, Whether in view of the fact that the inhabitants of Berber and Khartoum, under the impression that no relief was to be sent to them, may, in despair, submit themselves to the Mahdi, it is not advisable to announce that a relief expedition will be sent as soon as the military authorities think it feasible?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a Question of which Notice had better be given.
  MR. BOURKE: If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to answer that Question now, I will put it down for Thursday.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In connection with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of the Consul General at Khartoum, I wish to ask whether it is not the fact that General Gordon in one despatch referred the Government to a letter in The Times by the British Consular Agent as affording more detailed information than he had himself time to communicate?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I believe there was a reference of that kind, but I have not the means of judging how far it was intended to go, and whether it was intended to refer to some particular letter or to embrace all that might be written.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I would ask whether it would not be convenient for the Government to let the House know the exact position of the Consular Agent who is acting in Khartoum, by laying on the Table the despatch containing the instructions given him at the time of his appointment?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If I am not mistaken, I think the hon. Member will find what he asks for—two
  294
  telegrams or despatches—already presented; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper I will inquire into the matter.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman stated more than once that the Government had no reason to believe that General Gordon had ever made a demand for British troops to be sent to his assistance. Am I to understand that the Prime Minister means that he has positive knowledge that General Gordon has never made such a request?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I have stated is, and not as a matter of impression or surmise, but as a matter of fact, that no request of General Gordon for the sending of British troops to Khartoum has ever been made, or, if made, has ever reached Her Majesty's Government. I limit myself to Khartoum, because that is the vital question, and undoubtedly it was a suggestion of General Gordon that a small force of British Cavalry should be sent to Berber. If I remember right it was 200; but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take that number as a precise and positive statement. Particulars will be given in the Papers.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I would ask whether it is true that there are no more than three Englishmen in Khartoum; whether it is not probable that they would be in communication with each other; and whether the Consular Agent, being in communication with General Gordon, would not be a most unlikely person to send any message without the knowledge and approval of General Gordon?
  MR. HENEAGE: I would ask whether it is not in the knowledge of the Government that on the very day that the Consular Agent sent the letter of the 11th of March to The Times, there were letters sent by General Gordon stating exactly the contrary in every particular?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe—I cannot state myself with absolute knowledge, but my full belief is—that the telegraphic communications of Mr. Power to the journal with which he is connected in this country, or by anyone else, are under no restraint or control whatever from General Gordon.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the promised Papers include the Proclamation by General Gordon in the course of which he

  295
  said—"I have sent for British troops, which are now on the way?"
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is important that these Papers should be presented as soon as possible, and I should like to ask when they are likely to be laid upon the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot fix any exact date.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then I appeal to the Prime Minister. [Cheers.] Time is of so much importance in this matter that there ought to be no delay.
  MR GLADSTONE: I meant to answer that appeal by cheering. I entirely agree that no time should be lost in this matter; but, of course, we are anxious to bring down the Papers to as late a date as possible.

  PARLIAMENT—POOLE ELECTION.
  Notice being taken by Mr. William James Harris, returned as Member for Poole, in the room of Mr. Charles Schreiber, deceased, that he was, by a clerical error, described in the Return as Walter James Harris instead of William James Harris:—
  Ordered, That the Deputy Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith, with the last Return for Poole, and amend the same by erasing the name "Walter" and inserting the name "William,"—(Mr. Bourke,)—instead thereof:—
  And the Deputy Clerk of the Crown attended, and amended the Return accordingly.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]
    (Mr. Dodson.)
    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]

      COMMITTEE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill [Lords].
      Question again proposed.
      Debate resumed.
      MR. BIGGAR, said, he would like to make a few remarks on that Bill before going into Committee. There were two or three points to which he would
      296
      wish to call attention. One very important matter, and the cause of great complaint to Irish cattle dealers and owners, was the contradictory arrangements for the restriction of the disease made by the local authorities in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the 7th of April had stated that no restriction would be placed on the exportation of cattle from Ireland; but he found that up to the 12th of April such restrictions still continued in Gloucestershire. Restrictions might be placed on certain districts, but that, for the reason that disease existed in some remote place, the whole country should be placed under a ban was preposterous. A Scotch gentleman, representing the Scotch local authorities, went over to Belfast, and he appeared to have power to manage the exportation of Irish cattle in any way he liked, and not certainly for the benefit of the Irish cattle trade. Now, he thought there should be one general law administered by the Privy Council dealing with the three countries, and that they should not be in the hands of local authorities, who made contradictory arrangements. He contended that if the Lords' Amendment were not allowed to continue in the Bill the whole thing might as well be thrown up altogether, and he hoped that the Bill would not be passed in such a form as would render it so much waste paper, but would be made a useful and thorough measure.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1 (Privy Council to prohibit landing of foreign animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease).
      MR. JAMES HOWARD MR. JAMES HOWARD moved to leave out from page 1, line 10, the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall." He said this was one of several Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper, all of which were intended to effect one object. The object of the first Amendment of which he had given Notice would not in itself be very obvious to the Committee; but if the Committee would favour him with its attention for a few minutes he would endeavour to show that that Amendment, taken in connection with those which followed, would have the effect of

      297
      greatly simplifying the Bill. The first part of the clause as it stood in the Bill was, he maintained, mere surplusage; it was, in fact, simply a repetition of Clause 35 in the Act of 1878. If hon. Members would refer to the Act of 1878, and compare Clause 35 with the phraseology of the greater portion of Clause 1 in the present Bill, they would perceive that the two were almost identical. For his part he failed to see the use of re-enacting the permissive power of the Act to which he had referred. If he were framing a code of rules for the management of a manufactory he should consider it injudicious to introduce rules of a merely permissive character. But it might be argued that this portion of the Act of 1878 was necessary to enable the Privy Council to prevent the introduction of this particular malady, foot-and-mouth disease. That this was not so was shown by the fact that the Privy Council had exercised that power under the provisions of the Act of 1878. If his Amendments were adopted by the Committee, as he hoped they would be, the clause would then read as follows:—
      "1. For the purpose of preventing the introduction into the United Kingdom of the infection of foot-and-mouth disease, the Privy Council shall from time to time by general or special order prohibit the landing of animals from any foreign country or countries, or any specified part thereof, and they shall prohibit such landing whenever they are not satisfied with respect to any foreign country that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease."
      These Amendments did not affect the question whether the negative "not" should stand where it did as the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, or be transposed to the end of the clause where it had stood in the Bill as originally sent up to that House. For his own part he was of opinion that, whatever lawyers might say upon this question of the transposition of the negative, it would in reality make very little difference in the minds of practical men. At all events, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would either accept his Amendment, or explain to the satisfaction of the Committee the necessity of re-enacting the merely permissive power of the Act of 1878. With-
      298
      out further taking up the time of the Committee, he now begged to move the first Amendment which stood in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. J. Howard.)
      Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment, that it and the other Amendments of which he had given Notice necessarily hung together, and that they had no bearing upon the question as to the transposition of the word "not." But his hon. Friend was not quite accurate in asserting' that the first part of Clause 1 in this Bill was a mere repetition of Clause 35 of the Act of 1878. The clause in the Bill provided that—
      "The Privy Council may from time to time, by general or special order, prohibit, whenever they deem it expedient so to do, the landing of animals from any foreign country or countries, or any specified part thereof."
      The effect of the Act was that they could not make an Order prohibiting the importation of animals from abroad without naming the country or the countries from which the importation was prohibited. This clause, as it now stood in the Bill, would give the Privy Council a general power of prohibition; and he thought it would be a matter of convenience that they should have such power, more especially if prohibition were to be more widely exercised. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) would not press his Amendment to a Division.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had assumed a position which Her Majesty's Government and the Liberal Party generally had assumed throughout when dealing with this question—namely, that they were the Representatives of the foreign producers of meat, and against the home producers. This, he asserted, was the general position assumed by the Liberal Party; they appeared as the Representatives of the interests of foreign agriculturists, as distinguished from the interests of agriculturists at home. The Liberal Party had now occupied

      299
      that position for some years, and this rendered it incumbent on those who were not ashamed of English agriculture or of English stock, and who believed that, with regard to our meat supply, the quantity produced at home was very nearly adequate to the demand, to controvert the view of these advocates of foreign agriculture. What, he asked, was really the question at issue in regard to this matter? It was the question of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to Parliament. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire had proposed an Amendment the object of which was to provide that, when Her Majesty's Government prohibited the importation of live animals, they should designate the country from which those animals were to be prohibited, otherwise the Government could not be effectively held responsible for the introduction of disease into this country. He (Mr. Newdegate) was a very old-fashioned Member of that House, and did not admire the system of free imports; but he was prepared to say that the people of this country were entitled to the benefit of securing their supply of meat from all countries in which no disease prevailed, so long as the course of legislation which had been adhered to for many years was preserved. He did not know whether hon. Members on the other side of the House were prepared to divide upon this question; but, for the sake of rendering Her Majesty's Government responsible for the exercise of the discretion intrusted to them as to the exclusion of animals from infected countries, he was prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, if the hon. Gentleman should determine on pressing that Amendment to a Division.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had given no reason for the Amendment he had proposed, except that he thought it desirable to introduce variety into the wording of this proposal. He had, however, said that the provision, as it stood in the Bill, was already the law; but this had always been the contention of hon. Members who thought with him (Mr. Arthur Arnold), and who held that there was no real reason for further legislation on this subject. However, the only ground on which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had proposed his Amendment was that he thought it
      300
      undesirable that the same words should stand in this Bill as were enacted in another measure. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had only that very day presented a Petition, signed by 1,200 of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. J. Howard's) constituency in Bedfordshire, praying that House not to enact any further restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle. Now, what was the real object of the hon. Member's Amendment? The hon. Gentleman proposed to convert the word "may" into "shall." He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) in thinking that the Amendment was unimportant; while, on the other hand, he thought it certainly would, to some extent, restrict the powers of the Privy Council by diminishing the discretion they now exercised, and which he thought it highly desirable to preserve. He therefore hoped that, if the hon. Member for Bedfordshire pressed his Amendment to a Division, it would be rejected by the Committee.
      MR. KENNYsaid, he hoped that the Committee would adopt the Amendment. He thought the Amendment in reality a very important one. As the 1st clause of the Bill at present stood, there was not the slightest difference between it and the Act of 1878; and he thought the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was wrong in saying that the Bill would make no difference in the law as it now existed. In the Act of 1878 it was set forth in the 5th Schedule that—
      "In relation to foreign animals other than those brought from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if and so long as from time to time the Privy Council are satisfied with respect to any foreign country that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals; then, from time to time, the Privy Council, by general or special order, shall allow animals or any specified kind of animals brought from that country to be landed, without being subject under the provisions of this schedule to slaughter or to quarantine, and may for that purpose alter or add to those provisions as the case may require."
      This power, as given to the Privy Council by this Sub-section of the Act of 1878, it was proposed to reconfer; but the Privy Council having such discre-

      301
      tionary power, the contention of those who supported the Amendment was that they ought to be compelled to exercise that power. It was urged against the action of the Privy Council that they had not used the power the Act of 1878 had conferred upon them, and what was now wanted was simply that they should be forced to exercise it. All that was required was, that when it was found that the Privy Council was indifferent to the interests of the United Kingdom, they should be compelled to act in accordance with what the people of the United Kingdom deemed to be their interests. He thought the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had done a public service in endeavouring so to amend the Bill as to make it a reality, and he trusted the Committee would adopt the Amendment.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he felt it necessary to trouble the Committee with a few further observations after what had just been stated. He was afraid he had not made himself understood by the Committee in the point he had urged against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. The clause they were now discussing was divided into two parts. The first portion of it gave the Privy Council a power—a discretionary power—to prohibit, either by a General or a Special Order applicable only to a specified country, the importation of cattle in such cases as they might deem expedient for the purpose of preventing the introduction foot-and-mouth disease. The question of the obligation on the Privy Council to prohibit importation in certain cases arose on the second part of the clause, to which the attention of the Committee would be directed hereafter. The effect of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire—for there were three Amendments, which practically formed one, and could not be separated—was strictly this. They would add nothing to the obligations imposed by the Bill upon the Privy Council, and take nothing from its discretion to prohibit, but they would prevent the Privy Council from having the choice of using a general or a special form of prohibition. Such would really be the effect of the several Amendments if they should be adopted by the Committee. He hoped the Committee would allow this portion of the clause to remain as it was. It did not
      302
      affect in any way the question of the obligation under which the Privy Council was to be placed; that arose entirely on the second part of the clause.
      MR. PUGHsaid, the simple effect of the first part of the clause was to give the Privy Council a discretionary power to prohibit the landing of animals from any foreign country, and the other part of the clause made it compulsory upon them so to do under certain circumstances. He looked upon the clause as having been drawn with the intention of restating the powers of the Privy Council as they now stood, and then of making it imperative on them to give effect to those powers in the cases pointed to by the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He trusted that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire would not press his Amendment to a Division.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he merely wished to state that the reason why he supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire's proposal to amend the clause was that it would render it incumbent on the Privy Council to exercise all possible assiduity in ascertaining where foot-and-mouth disease might exist abroad, as it was only where the disease was discovered that they would be able to use their power of prohibition, by ordering the exclusion of cattle from the infected country. He did not wish to give the Government or the Privy Council a general discretionary power of exclusion, because general discretionary powers might be exercised in a very latitudinarian sense, and such discretion he had no desire to see intrusted to any Government.
      MR. DODSONsaid, in answer to what had just been stated, he must repeat that upon the first part of the clause they were discussing the question of the obligation of the Privy Council did not arise. That portion of the clause added nothing to the obligation and nothing to the discretion of the Privy Council. All it did was to give the Privy Council power to prohibit, by a General Order, the importation of animals from any foreign country or countries; whereas under the existing law they could only prohibit importation from specified countries. It was only a question of the form to be adopted, and as far as the clause did anything, it gave greater facilities to the Privy Council.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, lie hoped the hon. Member for Bedfordshire would not press his Amendment, the effect of which would really be to convert a double clause into a single one. He was of opinion that his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Howard) did not realize the true effect of his proposal, which certainly would not attain the object at which he was aiming. If carried, it would convert the double power proposed to be given to the Privy Council into a single one.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, his object was precisely what had just been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay)—namely, to convert the clause from a double into a single one—to render it a clause of one paragraph instead of two. He had made this proposal on the ground that the powers sought for in the first portion of the clause were already conferred by the Act of 1878, and had been acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had given one reason only for his opposition to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had maintained that if the first part of the clause were allowed to stand it would enable the Privy Council to prohibit importation from the whole of the Continent; but there was nothing in his (Mr. J. Howard's) reading of the clause which warranted that assumption. What it stated was that the Privy Council might prohibit "the landing of animals from any foreign country or countries, or any specified part thereof."
      MR. DODSON: It says they may prohibit the landing of animals from any foreign country "by general or special order."
      MR. JAMES HOWARD: In the 35th clause of the Act of 1878 are the words "foreign animals," which will extend to animals from all countries.
      MR. DODSON: "Specified" countries.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he saw no reason for re-enacting powers which the Privy Council already possessed; otherwise the Committee would seem to be asked to give the Privy Council a double permission to neglect their duty. His object was to make the power obligatory on the Privy Council from beginning to end. He hoped the Committee would accept his Amendment.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the only ground for the argument of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire appeared to be that he believed the power asked for was already provided in a former Act—namely, the Act of 1878. The Committee had formerly heard from Her Majesty's Government that the Lord Chancellor took a different view of that; but in order to make the matter clear the Government had brought in the present Bill. Surely there could not be any real objection to the proposal the Government had made. He hoped that in the interests of the farmers whom, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire professed to represent he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the 35th clause of the Act of 1878 appeared in exactly the same words in the Act of 1868, and, this being so, it would appear to afford evidence that the Tory Government of 1878 conceived that they had not the power they were now alleged to have possessed.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, as he understood the question, the words proposed in the Bill that had been sent to that House from the House of Lords were merely intended to extend the area of prohibition; but the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire would seem to be intended to narrow it. As he was anxious to keep the area of prohibition as wide as it could be made, and as he wished to send the Bill back to the House of Lords as nearly as possible in the same shape as that in which it had come down from that Assembly, he was unable to give his support to the Amendment; and if it were pressed to a Division he should vote against it.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he would not, under the circumstances, press his Amendment further. With the permission of the Committee he would, therefore, withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. JAMES HOWARD: As the other Amendments I have placed on the Paper form part of the one now withdrawn, I will ask permission to withdraw them also.
      Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he had now to move, as an Amendment, in page 1,

      305
      line 13, the omission of the word "not," with a view of reinserting that word in line 17. He desired, in the first place, to state that this was an Amendment to which Her Majesty's Government attached the very greatest importance. He was perfectly well aware that many hon. Gentlemen considered the difference between the expression in the Bill as it was introduced by the Government and the Bill in the shape in which it had came down from the House of Lords to be one of no material consequence. In fact, one hon. Gentleman had stated to him that the difference raised upon this question was merely the difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. He knew that this opinion was held by many hon. Gentlemen of great experience in agricultural matters, and he believed, moreover, that the same view was entertained by some hon. Members who were learned in the law. He respected the opinion of those hon. Gentlemen, but at the same time it was not one in which Her Majesty's Government could concur. Her Majesty's Government, on the contrary, considered that the alteration made in the Bill during its progress through the House of Lords was, in reality, a very material one, and, as he had just stated, they attached the greatest importance to the Amendment he had now the honour of submitting to the Committee. They thought that the change made by the House of Lords went far beyond the necessities of the case, and that, under the circumstances, it was not justifiable. The view entertained by Her Majesty's Government was that for a very slight—if, indeed, for any—perceptible addition to the security of the home producer it would render the restrictions on the importation of cattle so stringent as seriously to hamper trade, and in all probability appreciably to affect the price of meat to the consumer. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Why?] By diminishing the supply. The restrictions, in fact, were so great that they would risk defeating the very object which those who supported the Amendment of the Lords aimed at, because, in the view of the Government, it would impose upon the Privy Council so stringent an obligation to prohibit, even under circumstances which scarcely, if at all, warranted prohibition, that there would be a constant temptation upon them to strain the in-
      306
      terpretation of the 4th part of the 5th Schedule of the Act of 1878, and lean to the side of free admission. The Lords' Amendments went so far beyond the necessity of the case, as it appeared to the Government, that they laid those who supported them open to the suspicion and the charge that they were intended not merely for defence against disease, but for protection against competition. The former was a most legitimate object for agriculturists to keep in view. Defence they had a perfect right to demand that the Government should give them to a reasonable extent; but the changes that had been made in the Bill went so far that they amounted, whether so intended or not, to protection against competition. The clause, as amended by the House of Lords, appeared to the Government to require them to prohibit, not only when they were affirmatively satisfied that certain securities against the introduction of disease were wanting, but also to prohibit whenever they were unable to ascertain or were in doubt whether they existed or not—perhaps without trying to ascertain or to remove the doubt. This would be the case, if they conceived the case which some hon. Members had suggested as possible—of an ignorant or negligent Agricultural Department. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire cheered that. The hon. Member, apparently, was prepared to approve of the action of an indolent or negligent Agricultural Department who would not take the trouble to ascertain whether security existed in the case of any foreign country, but would, without putting itself to any trouble, at once prohibit. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No. no!] Now, the Government were to prohibit under the clause as it stood, not because certain safeguards were found to be wanting, but because they did not know whether they were wanting or not, and possibly, as he had put it, without having taken the trouble to inquire. If they reversed the clause in the manner in which the Government proposed the Privy Council could not proceed in such a negligent manner as that suggested. They might be in ignorance of securities because they were too indolent to take the trouble to inquire whether they existed; but they could not be cognizant of the existence of securities without having taken the trouble to in-

      307
      quire and having ascertained that they did exist. The effect of the clause, as the Government proposed to amend it, would be this. It would put the Privy Council under the statutory obligation of prohibiting in all cases in which they were satisfied, with respect to any foreign country, that having regard to the sanitary condition of animals therein or imported therefrom, to the laws made by such country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals, and for the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and to the administration of such laws, the circumstances were such as not to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. That appeared to the Government to be a reasonable form in which to require the prohibition to be made. It required the Privy Council—it made it the duty of the Privy Council—to ascertain whether or not securities existed, and if they were satisfied that there were not as comprehensive securities against the importation of disease as were required, then that they must prohibit. He would just like to take this opportunity, while moving this Amendment, of saying one word as to the charge brought against the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council, of too freely permitting the landing of animals from diseased countries. He would like to remind the Committee that the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council began its action early in May last, and that since the 9th of May, 1883, with the exception of the solitary case of the Ontario—which was quite a recent and a very peculiar case—there had not been landed upon the shores of this country for slaughter one single head of cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease. [Mr. DUCKHAM: Nor sheep, nor pigs?] He should come to that later on. He had mentioned the special case of the Ontario, and as to sheep and swine he would ask the attention of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to this, that since the 1st June, 1883, there had been landed for slaughter upon our shores only 12 sheep and 21 swine affected with foot-and-mouth disease. He thought that under the circumstances it was hardly open to hon. Members to accuse the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council of having seriously
      308
      neglected their duty, and allowed at random the landing of diseased animals on our shores. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Since May?] That was what he was claiming. He was speaking now of the Agricultural Department, and was stating what had happened since that Body had come into operation. With regard to Ireland, what he had stated the other day, and what he would now repeat, was this. Every local authority in Great Britain had power to prohibit the introduction of animals, other than animals in transit, into its district from the district of any other local authority in the United Kingdom. It might prohibit from a great number of districts—it might prohibit from one district, or it might prohibit from all the rest of the United Kingdom; but no exceptional powers were given against Irish cattle. He should like to say one word further in regard to this matter, and it was this—the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council had actually at the present moment under consideration the issue of an Order which would limit the powers of local authorities to prohibiting the introduction of animals from those parts of the United Kingdom which were actually ascertained to be free from foot-and-mouth disease; this he hoped and trusted was the case with Ireland amongst other parts of the United Kingdom. He was sorry to say, as he had stated in answer to a Question to-day, that there had been an alarm about the introduction of foot-and-mouth diseased animals from Ireland into Bristol. That subject they were now engaged in investigating; and, at all events, until the result of their inquiries were known, it would be premature for the Department to take any action in the matter. He was sorry to have been obliged to have detained the Committee so long upon this question; but he would now move the Amendment which stood in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out "not."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure with every wish possible to see him justify the Amendment which he had brought

      309
      before them. He was, however, bound to say that the Amendment was as objectionable to him now as it was when he first saw it upon the Paper. He regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought in the word "protection," and should have talked about the incapacity of Ministers. Whether rightly or wrongly, the House supposed that Ministers were chosen because they were capable, and therefore he thought the question was altogether beyond the mark. If the right hon. Gentleman wished them to draw comparisons, the observation was unfortunate, because, if he remembered aright, after the right hon. Gentleman had been down to Brighton and had made a very strong speech asking the country not to look upon this question as an agricultural question, but one in which the whole country was concerned, his Colleague in the administration of the Privy Council had gone down to Manchester and had abused everyone who was asking for legislation, and had repudiated everything that the right hon. Gentleman had said. The noble Lord who had gone down to Manchester was at the head of the Department, and the real question for them was this—and they ought not to lose sight of it—whether the House of Commons was to lay down the way in which the Act was to be worked, and whether its working was to be left to the Lord President of the Council, who had said in his Manchester speech that the Bill was not required, and who in moving it in the House of Lords might have been supposed by his manner to be opposing instead of supporting it—at least it might have been sent to eternity if "damning it by faint praise" could be said to be opposing it. Since then the Lord President had received two deputations upon the subject, one of which he received with open arms, and the other of which, if he (Mr. Heneage) might be allowed the expression, the right hon. Gentleman had snubbed.
      MR. DODSON: What deputation does the hon. Gentleman refer to?
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not mean that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had done this; he was referring to the Lord President of the Council.
      MR. DODSON: He is not "the right hon. Gentleman."
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was refer ring to the noble Lord, and not to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to this question there were three distinct classes interested. First, the agricultural class, consisting of producers, consumers, and ratepayers, who had suffered immensely; secondly, there were the people who had profited by what had been going on—namely, the foreign cattle dealers, who did not wish to see any restrictions imposed in order that their trade might continue; and, thirdly, there were the general community, who were consumers and ratepayers, and in whom all hon. Members were more or less interested. As to the interest of the agriculturists in this question it was admitted by everyone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said that they deserved some attention for the manner in which they had carried out the restrictions imposed upon them. With regard to the second class he did not think there would be much sympathy with them. For his own part he only wished to speak with reference to the consumers and the ratepayers. He represented a constituency of about 40,000, 30,000 of whom belonged to the wage-earning classes, and it was as to the manner in which the Bill would affect them that he wished to speak. He would briefly say that if the present Amendment were carried, so far as these people were concerned, he would prefer not to have the Bill at all—rather than have only a sham prohibition, he would prefer to have no restrictions at all. He entirely agreed with the remark that had fallen earlier in the evening from the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that they should either do one thing or the other—either keep the disease out of the country, or allow it to have its full swing and take its chance. He (Mr. Heneage) preferred for his part to be in the hands of Providence rather than in the hands of the Lord President of the Council. Now, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said that he and the Government took a very strong view upon this question. Well, he (Mr. Heneage) might be entirely wrong; but he took a very strong view of this question too. He did not wish to affront the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below him; but, at the same time, he must say

      311
      that the Amendment before the Committee appeared to him to be nothing less than a delusion and a snare. He would not be a party to deluding those unfortunate persons, whether they were producers, or ratepayers, or consumers, who had suffered much during the last three years, in asking them to spend their money in stocking their land in any way under a Bill which he thought would not do them the slightest good. What was required was that power should be given to prevent cattle being imported from countries which were affected with foot-and-mouth disease immediately it was known that they were so affected, and not that diseased animals should be allowed to come in before measures of restriction were adopted. What was required was something to restore confidence to the home meat trade, because if that were not done consumers would not have made up to them by production the amount of meat which the country required. That was required in order that the country farmers might be stimulated in the trade to produce more meat, and to produce milk which, as the Prime Minister had said, was so much required. They required to get rid of these harassing and costly restrictions which had taken money alike out of the pockets of producer and consumers, and had only benefited the cattle dealers. He was happy to say that the butchers of his own constituency had signed a Petition in favour of the Bill as it had come from the House of Lords; and they wanted the measure as it had so come to them, in order that it might decrease the price of meat eventually by increasing the production at home, and by improving the animals imported from abroad; and lastly, though by no means least, they wanted the Bill in order that they might get rid of those rates which had been such a heavy tax upon the poorest members of the population. But that was not all that they required. They wanted, further, that the powers should be by Statute, in order that a moral effect might be produced in foreign countries—in order that foreign countries that wished to trade with England might know that we had this law, and might be constrained to use more vigilance to control or stamp out disease, and improve their sanitary regulations and laws. It was no use having such powers that foreign countries could snap
      312
      their fingers and say—"Oh, they are no use, they will never be put in force; only let us wait for the Recess, when Parliament is not sitting and Her Majesty's Ministers have gone on their holidays, when some minor officials will be at the head of affairs, and when we can do what we like with the people in charge of the Privy Council Office." Foreign countries who wished to trade with us should be given to understand that they could not do so unless they made proper sanitary regulations. Unless they produced a moral effect the Bill would be of no use at all. The Bill as it came from the House of Lords would have that moral effect; but with the proposed Amendment it would have no such result, especially after the speeches of the Lord President of the Council. He should have thought, when the right hon. Gentlemen representing Her Majesty's Government was speaking just now, that he would have considered it worth while—seeing there were a great number of hon. Members who had really not studied this question—to have told them exactly what was the result of the law as it now stood, and what it would be under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so; but he (Mr. Heneage) would tell the Committee what it was. He had written down the law as it was and as it would be, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought he was misrepresenting the state of the case he should be glad to hand what he had noted down to him later on so that he could comment upon it. The law as it now stood was that animals from any or every country from which importation was not prohibited under Section 35 of the Act of 1878 could be admitted for slaughter at the port of landing; and animals must be admitted when the Privy Council were satisfied, under Section 5 of the Act, that there was reasonable security against importation of disease. By the Bill, the Privy Council were directed to prohibit the landing of animals from any country, or part of a country, as to which they were not satisfied that there was reasonable security against the importation of disease. This would throw the onus of proof on foreign countries that they were eradicating or controlling disease. But if they took the law as it would stand under the proposed Amendment of the Government, what were the Department to do? Why,

      313
      they were to prohibit only when they were satisfied that such reasonable security did not exist. That was to say. whilst they were in communication with the authorities of America, Germany, and elsewhere—whilst they were making inquiries which might go on for weeks—cargoes of cattle might be freely landed on our shores, and disease might be disseminated from one end of the country to the other—for they knew how easily it spread after it once came to our shores. Then they were told that the adoption of the Bill as it came from the House of Lords would entail great loss upon the community by decreasing the supply of meat. Well, what amount of loss could it incur? Why, it could only incur the loss of the animals which could have been landed, diseased or not diseased, between the time at which the Consular Agent, or other person who gave them notice of the disease prevailing in the foreign country, gave them the notice and the time at which they found out whether they ought to prohibit or not. If they found out ultimately that there were grounds for prohibiting, then they would have been right in prohibiting from the first, and there would be no loss at all; but if they found out that the alarm was groundless, then all they had got to do was to say at once that cattle could be again imported from that foreign country. All the amount of cattle that would be prohibited from coming into the country would be just that amount which, supposing there were a false alarm, might have been imported between the time the notice was given and the time they set the foreign country free to import again. He regretted that he had detained the House so long; but he felt very strongly on this question, and he had not hitherto said a word to the House on the subject. As he did not represent an agricultural constituency, he wished to state the grounds on which he based his support to the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords. He had never changed his opinion on the subject. When he first saw the measure he told the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) what his opinion was. He believed that if the Bill became law as it was, farmers of the country would have confidence, and that the dead meat trade would materially develope; and he should like to call the
      314
      attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) to this fact. The right hon. Gentleman had given some figures the other day with regard to the importation of dead meat, and had put the quantity into pounds weight, as in that way the amount looked larger than in money. He (Mr. Heneage) would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that 60,000,000 lbs. of foreign dead meat was now sold at Smithfield Market alone in each year, according to the Markets Committee's statistics; that the frozen carcases of sheep imported now averaged 20,000 per month. Prom Australia the supply for the first three months of 1884 was eight times as much as in 1882, showing how much the dead meat trade was developing, and showing that should the importations continue at the same rate they would be equivalent alone to all the meat which had been sent from Germany, Belgium, and America. This bogey of dear meat under the present Bill would be entirely illusory, and was merely a cry raised by interested foreign meat jobbers or salesmen to try and delude the British public, whilst they continued to make money out of diseases and restrictions in England. If the Bill passed as it now stood, he was certain that it would be a benefit, not only to the agricultural classes, but to the whole community. He should like to remind the Committee of a fact of which, perhaps, they were not aware—namely, of the amount of rates paid under the existing state of things. He would take, for example, the division of the county in which he lived. In Lindsey—four-sevenths of Lincolnshire—they amounted in 1883 to 30 per cent of the whole county rate, while the last six months alone gave them a half-penny in the pound, or equal to a penny on the Income Tax, in consequence of restrictions for putting down foot-and-mouth disease. That sum was levied on the poorest class of artizan labourers and small shopkeepers. He regretted that this charge was not made on the taxpayers instead of the ratepayers of the country, because, if it were, they would soon have the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was not now in his place—on their side. They would have him and a great many right hon. Gentlemen on their side. He always noticed that right hon. Gentlemen, as a rule, left it to private Members to take

      315
      care of the rates, unless, indeed, they were right hon. Gentlemen in Opposition. As this was not a taxpayers' question, therefore, he did not expect much help from right hon. Gentlemen. They were told this was not an artizans' or labourers' question; but he ventured to say that no classes had suffered so much as the artizans and labourers from the restrictions necessitated by foot-and-mouth disease. The artizans were more liable than anyone else in the large towns to the evil results of the use of diseased milk and diseased meat. The doctors could tell hon. Members of many instances in which the children of artizans and labourers had been affected by the use of impure milk and diseased meat. No class suffered more severely than the cow cottagers, who were really the most deserving class of agricultural labourers. No one had lost more than they had through foot-and-mouth disease, for they very often found that their solitary cow became diseased, and that the milk it yielded infected their children and their pigs. The cow then dried up, and they were often compelled to sell it at half the price they had given for it. In addition to that these poor people had to pay the heavy rate to which he had alluded. When, therefore, hon. Members talked about this not being a people's question, he maintained that it was eminently a people's question—it was not merely a farmers' or landlords' question, but a people's question; and, therefore, they had a right to demand from the Government a real measure, and not a sham one.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was able to completely endorse, and endorse with great pleasure, much that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and he asked leave of the Committee to rise at once in order to put before them some information bearing, as it seemed to him, directly on this Amendment, and of which he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) must have been in entire ignorance, to judge from the answer he had given to a Question which he (Mr. Chaplin) had put to him that afternoon as to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. Before, however, he did that, he should like to make one or two comments upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. With reference to his observation as to the trifling difference
      316
      between the Amendment now on the Paper and the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, and which had been described by one of his Friends as nothing more than the difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, he (Mr. Chaplin) desired to express his opinion that if the Privy Council could be relied upon to do its duty whatever Government might be in power, and upon all occasions, he had not the slightest doubt in the world that the same objects might be and would be accomplished, either under the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, or as it would stand if amended as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; but, unfortunately, they knew from past experience that the Privy Council could not be depended upon; and that was the reason why, in the words of the hon. Member opposite, they desired to have a measure that should not be a sham, and why opposition was offered to legislation of a permissive character, against which they used to hear so much in scorn from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they used to sit on the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had proceeded to make a whole series of assumptions in support of his Amendment, for which he had not offered a shadow of a reason. He had declared that the Amendments inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords were unjustifiable, and went a great deal beyond the grounds of necessity, and that the Bill as it at present stood would hamper trade, and seriously raise the price of meat. He (Mr. Chaplin) had ventured, he was afraid in a somewhat irregular manner, to interject across the House "Why?" But that was a question which the right hon. Gentleman had carefully abstained from answering during the whole course of his speech. What single reason did the right hon. Gentleman give for these statements? Did he explain to the Committee why the Bill went beyond the ground of necessity? Did he tell them why the Bill was not justifiable? Did he tell them why it would raise the price of meat? He (Mr. Chaplin) had had the honour, not very long ago, of speaking on behalf of a large deputation that attended upon the right hon. Gentleman at the Privy Council, and submitting the reasons that appeared to them to be conclusive against the fears and assumptions which had been ex-

      317
      pressed to-day. He had taken the opportunity of explaining to the right hon. Gentleman at that time the past history of this question, and had stated instances of the price of meat in the Metropolis, showing that, notwithstanding the extraordinary increase of population during the past 20 years, the number of live animals imported into London was less now than it was then, and that, concurrently with that state of things, the people had been generally supplied with meat at reasonable rates; and he must say he thought that after this the right hon. Gentleman was bound to give them some reason in support of his series of assumptions, which no one yet on the Government side of the House had ever attempted fairly to prove. The right hon. Gentleman had taken exception to a cheer which he (Mr. Chaplin) had given during the course of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, when he referred to a possible "indolent Agricultural Administration." What he had cheered at was the inference he had drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, strengthened by the knowledge he had of certain circumstances in the past as well as in the present, which showed that it was not only quite possible, but extremely probable, that they might have such things as indolent Agricultural Administrations in the future. The right hon Gentleman took great credit to the Government because, as he said, they had been so energetic, so little asleep, that since May, 1883, not one single cargo of diseased animals had been admitted into this country, save the cargo of the Ontario, which was peculiarly circumstanced. But what had the right hon. Gentleman to say about the period precedent to that? Unless his (Mr. Chaplin's) memory deceived him, this energetic Agricultural Administration had admitted cargoes of diseased animals into this country by hundreds. And in saying "by hundreds" he believed he was literally within the mark, and that the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the accuracy of his statement. The Government had given no reasons whatever against the adoption of this Bill as it had come down from the House of Lords; but he and his Friends, on the other hand, had offered reasons and arguments in support of it, which, at all events, ought to be met or contradicted by Her Majesty's Government.
      318
      The Government admitted—and the great bulk of their supporters agreed with them—that whatever was necessary to prevent the introduction of disease in the future ought to be done in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, however, declared that the measure went a great way beyond the grounds of necessity. Why? What was the difference between the position of himself and his Friends and that taken up by the Government? He and his Friends said that animals ought not to be admitted alive into the country unless the Privy Council were satisfied that it could be done with perfect safety from disease; and the Government, on the other hand, said—"No; we will admit the animals unless we know that there is danger." The Amendment of the House of Lords presumed that there was danger from a foreign country unless the Government actually knew that that country was safe; whilst the Government presumed that foreign countries were safe unless they had absolutely ascertained that they had the disease. That was a position to which the Committee ought not to submit, and which would not give that security that it was admitted by nearly everybody ought to be given provided it did not go beyond the grounds of necessity. He would give the right hon. Gentleman an instance or two of what he meant in regard to negligence on the part of the Agricultural Administration. They had to-day heard a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), to the effect that in spite of all the carefulness of the Administration there appeared to be no doubt that just at the period when the county of Cambridge, having imposed severe restrictions on itself, had escaped from the disease, it was readmitted into the county by reason of the importation from Liverpool of cattle suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, admitted into that port from abroad.
      MR. DODSON: I expressly stated that the animals were landed at Liverpool on the 12th, that they were examined and found to be sound, and that seven days afterwards, in Cambridgeshire, they were found to be diseased.
      MR. CHAPLINbegged pardon. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the animals were suffering

      319
      from disease in Liverpool. [Mr. DODSON: No, no.] Then, he was very sorry he had made the observation. He would however, give the right hon. Gentleman another instance, which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would also be able to contradict. He had himself asked the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon whether he had any information as to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada and the United States at the present time. He had asked as to Canada because, though he knew the right hon. Gentleman had stated that country had been free for some years, he had gathered from what was said in reply to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that the disease might have reappeared in the Dominion. As to the United States, he had some information which he did not know whether the Government were cognizant of, but which was contained in a paper published in Kansas, and dated March 19th, 1884. He found in that paper that the Legislature of Kansas had been especially summoned, the President, in the course of his Message, saying—
      "It was with great reluctance and hesitation that I issued the proclamation convening you in special session. I was apprehensive that your body and the people might not fully appreciate the gravity of the situation and the importance of such action. The proclamation convening you fully explains my reasons for my action. Additional outbreaks of the cattle disease confirm me in the opinion that such call was absolutely imperative."
      The Message went on to say that the President had been notified by Mr. Finney that the peculiar and highly contagious disease known as "foot-and-mouth disease" had attacked the cattle at Neosho Falls. The Legislature of Kansas met, and, according to the paper he (Mr. Chaplin) had in his hand, adopted measures for the suppression of the foot-and-mouth disease. In the face of this information he must confess he had been somewhat surprised and somewhat disconcerted when the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the Agricultural Department in the House, had informed him, in answer to a Question he had put, that so far as the Government were concerned they knew nothing about the prevalence or existence of the foot-and-mouth disease in the United States.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he apprehended the case the hon. Member was referring
      320
      to was that reported from Neosho Falls, Kansas?
      MR. CHAPLIN: Yes.
      MR. DODSON: A Question was put about it some three weeks ago, and we have since heard that it is officially reported that the disease is not foot-and-mouth disease at all.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, there had been considerable difference of opinion on the subject at Neosho Falls some time ago; but he now understood it was admitted that the disease was foot-and-mouth disease. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a paragraph in a little publication entitled Proceedings of the National Convention of Cattle Breeders, holden in Chicago on November 15th and 16th, 1883. In order that the Committee should not place too implicit reliance upon all the statements from that part of the world in regard to the absence of cattle disease, he should like to read a few words which appeared on page 41 of that publication. It was the report of a speech delivered during the Congress by a gentleman named Daniels. Referring to the Motion carried in the House of Commons last Session, the speaker said that it had brought about a very decided change of feeling over there. He had been over to England in the course of the summer, and he had been struck by a very strong remark made by the American Minister when he called upon him officially to assure him that there was no foot-and-mouth disease in that country. It was a day or two after the Motion which he (Mr. Chaplin) had introduced, and which was passed by the House. Mr. Daniels told the American Minister that he was prepared to state that there had been practically no change in that country, whereupon Mr. Lowell answered—
      "We have told the British public so many lies about the condition of cattle in our country they they will not believe us if we tell them the truth."
      Under those circumstances, and taking into consideration the whole facts of the matter, he (Mr. Chaplin) thought it was not too much for the House of Commons to ask the Government that they should consent to allow this Bill to pass as it had come down amended in this particular form from the House of Lords. The distinction came to this, if the Government did their duty as they ought

      321
      to do, precisely the same results would follow from the unamended as from the amended Bill. But, on the other hand, instead of leaving it in the discretion of the Privy Council in future to do their duty, or to decline to do their duty, it would place it beyond their power to neglect their duty by making it a matter of Statute Law. He had now nothing further to say on this question. He believed that the Government at this moment had a great opportunity of doing something which would not only afford an immense boon upon the agricultural interests of the country, but which would benefit all classes of the whole community. They might feel sure of this—that much of the bad trade of which they had heard so much of late, and much of the sufferings of the vast number of the people who had been put out of work, had been caused unquestionably by this above all other things—namely, the prolonged and severe depression which had fallen upon the agricultural interest in this country. It might be difficult to propose means for alleviating that depression, or for restoring agriculture to a happier state of things in the future, which would command the general assent and support of Parliament and the country; but he must say that it did seem to him that this was one of the most legitimate means they could employ in doing something to help that interest, in order to place it in a more fortunate and in a more happy position in the future. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded to the working classes of the country. He had said it was a question of their interest which was entitled to as much consideration from Parliament as that of any other class. He (Mr. Chaplin) agreed with every word the hon. Member said, and he would only say, in conclusion, that he had of late received numerous communications from conferences of working men, presided over by leaders of the working men themselves, and held in various parts of the country, who were beginning now to appreciate and understand the merits of the question. The communications which he had received from all sides satisfied him that it was for their interests, as well as for all other interests, that this Bill should be passed into law as it had come down amended from the House of Lords.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that if the Bill now before the Committee was entitled in any way to be called a sham Bill, then the Act of 1878, which was passed by the Party opposite, was certainly a sham Act. In endeavouring to interpret for himself the difference between the words proposed by the House of Lords and those proposed by Her Majesty's Government, he took the declaration of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who had taken so prominent and worthy a part in this matter, that the question which the Committee had to decide was, whether the Privy Council had any discretion in the matter whatever? What the Committee had to decide was, whether there should be any discretion at all left to the Privy Council in the matter, or whether there should be none whatever? Would the Committee be prepared to say that the Privy Council should have no discretion whatever? It was because exceptional cases might arise that it was desirable that the Privy Council—whatever might be the character of the Council, because at all times it would be governed by the opinion of Parliament—should exercise some form of discretion in regard to the question. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had again alluded to the fact—or had, rather, brought forward again the argument with which he entertained the House on a former occasion—that when the supply of live animals fell in London the price also fell. Now, that was a very curious doctrine, which he thought it would be altogether impossible to prove. He would, however, ask hon. Members to deal with the facts of the case; and here was one fact in the last reported year. There were 866,000 live animals imported for the food of the people of the Metropolis from countries in regard to which the policy of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln would operate as an absolute prohibition. As a matter of fact, during last year 220,000 animals were introduced into the county of Lancaster from countries in regard to which the hon. Member would enact an absolute prohibition. Now, was the hon. Member, or any other Member of the House, prepared to get up and say that the sudden prohibition of more than 1,000,000 of live animals into this country would make no difference in the price of food

      323
      to the people? Yet that appeared to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters. When the Amendment which had been inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords was carried, there was a statement in The Standard newspaper—an organ representing the views of hon. Members opposite—that great apprehensions were entertained that the policy pursued by the House of Lords would bring about a considerable increase in the price of meat; and hon. Members were cautioned that it would be necessary to take steps to prevent consequences which might be strongly prejudicial to the public interest. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln had mentioned a case of reported outbreak of disease in Canada. He was sorry that the hon. Member had not made himself more thoroughly acquainted with the facts of the case. The course the hon. Member had taken reminded him (Mr. Arthur Arnold) of what Lord Beaconsfield had said of the country gentlemen. Lord Beaconsfield said that they lived in the open air, they knew but one language, and they never read. If the hon. Member had been acquainted with the real facts of the case, he would be aware that it had since been reported, and fully proved, that there had not been a case of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. He should like hon. Members to bear in mind that in the United States the mode of breeding and fattening animals was different from that adopted in this country. In the United States there were 10,000,000 acres of land on which cattle-raising was carried on as on one farm. There were millions of acres with no substantial fence between them, and an outbreak of disease occurring under those circumstances was a matter of the greatest importance, and led to the greatest publicity, far more than would be the case in the event of some cattle becoming diseased on a sequestered farm in this country. It might be depended upon that if there should ever be in that large cattle-raising district a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, there was nothing more certain than that this country would receive information of it long before any injury could arise to our own stock. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford
      324
      (Mr. W. E. Forster) of talking about meat in pounds' weight. Now, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) thought the meat was always sold in pounds' weight, and not by the ton. He was glad to see that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had deliberately dropped his original argument in reference to dead meat. The hon. Member appeared to have learned a great deal in a short time, since he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had had the honour of sitting opposite to him.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had not expressed any opinion upon the subject.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member denied having expressed any opinion upon the subject; but on a previous occasion the hon. Member had made important reference to the dead meat which came from the two great countries of the United States of America and Canada. If the dead meat trade was profitable, why should not both of those countries send it? Why did we not receive a single hundredweight of dead meat from the whole of the Dominion of Canada, when we received continuously a large importation of live stock? The fact was that where a country could export live stock it did not care to send dead meat, and that was the reason why we received so small an importation of dead meat from the Dominion of Canada. Now, this question turned very largely upon the position of the United States. From the United States, notwithstanding all the restrictions which had been imposed, the importation of live animals was constantly growing. He had just received the figures for the first three months of the present year; and, comparing the average with that of the first three months of the year 1882, the importation of live cattle from the United States was nearly four times as great, and nearly twice as great as in the first three months of 1883. The total number of cattle imported for the first three months of the year amounted to over 35,000. He had received a letter only the other day from a Norfolk farmer, who, he had no doubt, was very well known to the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), strongly disapproving of restrictive legislation, which hon. Members opposite supported. He was glad to say that he had received many letters from farmers in different parts of the

      325
      country, and all of them were of a very friendly character. Allusion had been made to the great gravity of the issue now before the Committee; but his right hon. Friend had not stated what he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) hoped he would be prepared to state—that if this important Amendment—the first of a series of Amendments—were not carried, Her Majesty's Government would not proceed further with the Bill. He apprehended that the Division, to which he hoped the Committee would go very quickly, would be taken upon this Amendment as the keystone of the whole; and in the interest of the great body of the people of the country, as well as of those who were connected with agriculture, he sincerely hoped it would be adopted.
      BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he represented a very large constituency who were deeply interested in the question; and he feared he should not be doing his duty if he were to give a silent vote upon this occasion. He regretted very much that he could not agree in the views that were taken by hon. Gentlemen who sat around him. He had listened with considerable interest to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage); and he felt that if the hon. Gentleman had a right to speak in behalf of the 40,000 constituents whom he represented, a very much greater responsibility rested upon him (Baron Henry de Worms), because he represented a constituency of more than five times that number. He would support the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because he was of opinion that it would afford all the safeguards that were necessary for the prevention of the spread of disease. He did not think that it would be sufficient, were it not accompanied by the security which was afforded at the different cattle markets where the animals were landed. But knowing, as he did, from personal experience, how admirably the Cattle Market at Deptford was conducted, he thought that, taking into consideration the Amendment of the Government, which went upon the assumption that unless there was actual evidence forthcoming of disease no restriction should be placed on the importation of live animals, with the precautionary measures which were adopted at Deptford
      326
      when animals were imported from foreign countries, no danger was likely to arise from the passing of this Amendment. There was, however, a danger which presented itself to his mind, and which he did not think was sufficiently appreciated on that side of the House. It had often been stated that if the importation of foreign cattle were stopped this would not have a very material effect on the price of food. He could not understand upon what evidence that assumption was based. As a matter of fact, the foreign meat supply was equivalent to two-fifths of the whole amount of meat consumed in the Metropolis; and he must say that it appeared to him unreasonable to assume that if that supply was suddenly cut off the price would not be proportionately increased. He thought that, in approaching the question, those who took the view he did must approach it with an impartial and unbiassed mind, and with a desire only to afford such protection as would effectually put a stop to the spread of disease. If they could satisfy themselves that this Bill afforded those securities which were necessary to prevent the spread of disease, and if they were assured, as he was, that the different markets where these animals were imported would carry out strictly the very stringent rules laid down by the Privy Council, then he did not think they need fear any penal results from the introduction of this measure. It was no part of their duty to consider the interests of the butchers or the farmers at all, but the interests of the country at large; and he thought they would materially injure the interests of the working classes, who had to depend in a great measure for the supply of meat, as well as the price of meat, upon an importation of foreign animals, if they were to put a stop to the importation of those animals, unless they had evidence that in permitting it they were encouraging the spread of disease. In the absence of positive evidence to show that the measures which could now be taken to prevent the spread of disease were ineffective, it would be unjust to the working classes to pass a measure sanctioning the absolute prohibition of the importation of all foreign cattle.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms), from his point of view, was quite right in voting for this Amend-

      327
      ment, seeing that he represented a large Metropolitan constituency; but he (Colonel Nolan) found that the Irish Members were placed in a position altogether different. They had no big slaughterhouses to resort to, and no great market for the immediate sale of dead meat. They had, however, a very large number of stock; and it was of much more importance to them to take care of their cattle than it probably was to the English people. England had coal mines, manufactories, and every other description of industry. Ireland, however, depended mainly upon its agriculture, and the Irish people were very anxious to keep out disease from that country. They had already suffered enormously, not from actual disease, but from the restrictions imposed in order to keep down the disease. It was in every way to their advantage to support the Bill as it stood, and to resist the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, provided that they found that they were treated fairly in the Bill. For example, when they came to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), which provided that—
      "On and after the passing of this Act, no local authority in Great Britain shall prohibit the landing, or stop in transit, healthy cattle brought from Ireland to Great Britain, unless such local authority shall have obtained from the Privy Council an order authorizing them so to do."
      He wished to know if Her Majesty's Government were inclined to support such an Amendment in order to show that they did not wish to strike a blow at Irish cattle? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on the present occasion, had certainly dropped a suggestion which he thought was an extremely useful one. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was thinking of limiting the power of local authorities to excluding cattle from diseased districts. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he was going to do that? Would he do it by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ennis, which was the last Amendment on the Paper, or would he do it by some special action on the part of the Privy Council? He should like to get an answer to that question, which was a very important one, and one which had been introduced by the Government themselves, who had raised it in connection with this Amend-
      328
      ment. He should certainly expect to get an answer to the question from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before the Committee went to a Division. The Irish Members were anxious to be perfectly clear upon the point, which was one of very considerable consequence to their constituents. At the present moment some of the local authorities excluded cattle coming from any part of Ireland. For instance, when it appeared that cattle disease existed in Ulster, they excluded cattle from Munster, notwithstanding the fact that it was 100 miles off. No doubt they would be justified in excluding cattle which came from districts in which disease absolutely existed; but they were not justified when particular districts only were affected in excluding animals which came from any part of Ireland. Unfortunately, the interests of the people of Ireland were different and more complicated than those of England; and he thought the Irish Members had a right to know where they really were before they went to a Division. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to explain the meaning of the remark he had made, and to state how he proposed to restrict the power of the local authorities to exclude cattle from every district.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished to correct an error into which he believed he had been led. Speaking of the importation from the United States in the first three months of the present year, the number ought to be 35,000.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he rose to express a very strong opinion against the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson). He thought the experience of the past few years was quite sufficient to show the evil of permissive legislation upon this great question. The Act of 1878, when put in force, freed not only this country, but Ireland and Scotland. Ireland continued free for three years; Scotland, with two very small exceptions just over the English Border, continued free for four years, and England was free for nine months, only to have restrictions imposed again in consequence of the importation of diseased animals from France in September, 1880. The effect of that freedom from disease was to reduce

      329
      the price of meat very considerably. The price of meat in 1879 was, for beef, 5½d. and for mutton 4¼d per 8 lbs. less than it had been during the four preceding years. In 1880, when the Act was enforced with considerable vigilance, there were only 15 cargoes of diseased animals landed in the United Kingdom; but in 1881 there were 143 cargoes. In 1882 there were 66, and in the first six months of 1883 93 were landed containing animals infected with disease. He regarded with great satisfaction the manner in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had carried out the Act since he came into the position of being, he (Mr. Duckham) regretted he could not say the Minister of Agriculture, but the Agricultural Minister of the Privy Council. If the Act of 1878 had been carried out as it was now being carried out, there would have been no necessity to come there and ask for fresh legislation. But that was not so, and it was manifest from the enormous number of diseased cargoes landed indiscriminately upon our shores during the years 1881 and 1882, and the early part of 1883, that the interest of the English agriculturists were altogether neglected by those whose duty it was to guard the Kingdom, as far as possible, against the introduction and spread of disease. It had been said by some that this was only an attempt to return to the old principles of Protection. Now, if that were the case, he would certainly not be found standing in his place there to say a word in favour of it. But he did feel this—that so long as the farmers of England had to compete with all the world with regard to their produce, they had a right to ask the Legislature of this great country to guard, as far as possible by wise legislation, their flocks and herds from so insidious and contagious a disease. It had been said that the disease had become acclimatized, and that it was indigenous to the soil of the country; but the experience of Ireland from 1879 up to January last year afforded a strong argument against that assertion, as also did the experience of Scotland and various parts of England. It was said also that this was purely a producer's question, and that the farmers were asking for legislation not because they desired to be protected from the effects of disease, but because they wished to enjoy a monopoly. Now, he maintained
      330
      that it was a consumer's question quite as much as a producer's question; and he would ask the House to allow him very briefly to revert to the position of the country after the cattle plague was stamped out and all disease got rid of. In 1867 the price of meat went down ½d. per lb.; it went down more in 1868, although there were £2,000,000 sterling less animal food imported in 1867 and £3,250,000 less in 1868 than in the average of the three previous years. In 1871, when the disease was rife throughout the Kingdom, the price of beef went up 10½d. per 8 lbs., and of mutton 1s. per 8 lbs. in the Metropolitan Market beyond that of 1868, and £5,000,000 sterling of live and dead meat were imported that year more than in 1868. In 1879, when the country was comparatively free from disease, the price went down 5½d. per 8 lbs. of beef, and 4¼.d. per 8 lbs. of mutton below the average of the four preceding years; and last year, when the disease was rife again, and about 600,000 animals in Great Britain and Ireland suffered from it, £5,000,000 more of animal food was imported than the average of the four preceding years. Nevertheless, as everyone knew, the price of meat, instead of being lowered owing to the enormous increase of importation, was absolutely higher than it had been previously. It had been said that the poorer classes would lose the offal which they were now able to obtain at a low price; but surely the offal of diseased animals could scarcely be regarded as wholesome food. As regarded the interest of the consumers in the offal, it could not be at all compared with that of general reduction in prices when the health of the flocks and herds was maintained as shown in the prices he had quoted. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in noticing the speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), said that last year we imported 700,000,000 lbs. of dead meat, or nearly three times the quantity the right hon. Gentleman gave as the estimated quantity the Bill would deprive the inhabitants of London of. They were talking of meat to supply the food of the people, and whether fresh meat or salt it must be taken into consideration. When writing of our meat supply only last week he had been taken to task in The Daily Telegraph by a gentleman who attempted to show that

      331
      the calculations he had made in the public Press were inaccurate. He had stated that the Bill, if passed, would only interfere with 6 per cent of the consumption of the food of the people, whereas it was alleged that it amounted to 20 per cent; but when the writer in The Daily Telegraph attempted to prove his case he simply took the cattle and sheep in Great Britain, and gave them as representing the meat supply for the consumption of the country. Nothing was said about Ireland or about the imported dead meat, and nothing was said about the pigs. Those items were not taken into consideration at all by the writer, and such gross misrepresentations he felt could not be too strongly or too loudly condemned. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but he would give a cordial support to the Bill as amended by the House of Lords, and he did so with the firm conviction that it would benefit not only the producers but the consumers of meat throughout the United Kingdom.
      MR. A. ELLIOTsaid, he was of opinion that the view of the farmers upon this very important question had not yet been fully laid before the Committee; and, as the Representative of an agricultural community, he desired to say a few words. The Committee had been told that the farmers were actuated by feelings in favour of Protection in the course they were now taking in supporting the Amendment introduced into this Bill by the House of Lords. If that were really so, he would be one of the last Members of the House to endorse that view; but he knew that among the farmers there were many who strongly entertained the opinion that it was desirable by every means in their power to improve the character of the store cattle. He wished to point out what the feelings of the farmers really were. It might be said that Free Trade was desirable internally as well as externally, or that they might close the country entirely against the importation of foreign cattle; or, in the third place, if they were to have local restrictions, it would be the bounden duty of the Legislature to see that full security was given by the enforcement of those local restrictions against the spread of disease. What the farmers said—and he thought it was the general view—was that they would much rather have no internal
      332
      restrictions at all, but that they should be allowed to take their own risk of foot-and-mouth disease than be hampered in the way they were. He wished to point out that the agricultural interest, as compared with the consuming interest, was not given to vigorous or active agitation; but, nevertheless, although they were not given to agitation as much as urban communities, they did feel very strongly upon this point. When he came to listen to the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he must say, for his own part, he could not help feeling that those arguments depended upon the assumption that the Agricultural Department would not be able to do its work. He was of opinion that that assumption was altogether fallacious. The Agricultural Department would continue to do its work as it had done it during the last two years. What did the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster amount to? If he had taken down the words and figures of the right hon. Gentleman accurately, they came to this—that since the month of May, 1883, no single head of diseased cattle had been landed in this country from foreign parts, except on the 1st of June, when 11 diseased sheep and one swine were introduced. Now, what was the effect of that statement? Surely, the effect of that statement was this—that if proper precautions were taken, a state of things did exist under which cattle could be landed in this country from foreign parts with reasonable safety; and therefore he wished to press upon the Committee the statement which had been made over and over again that it was only necessary to give the Agricultural Department full power to deal with all these cases, and to exclude cattle that were found to be infected with disease. There was no reason to suppose that the exclusion would be very large, or, at any rate, that it would be so large that the price of meat would be enormously raised to the consumer. That argument altogether fell to the country, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had himself proved that diseased animals during the last two years had not been landed at our ports from foreign countries; and it was, therefore, an

      333
      entire mistake to suppose that the prohibition of the landing of diseased animals would raise the price of meat. It was the general opinion of the farmers of the country that, local restrictions having been obtained, it was their duty to endeavour to get protection at the ports of landing; and, unless some such power as that proposed in the amended Bill were intrusted to the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council, the interests of the consumer would suffer very much indeed. He had thought it right to make these few remarks on a point upon which the farmers certainly did feel very strongly; but if he thought for a moment that their case depended in any considerable degree upon the Protectionist argument, he should be one of the first Members in that House to oppose it. He did not, however, believe that their case depended upon that argument; and, therefore, he should be obliged to vote against the Government upon this Amendment.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the debate had been useful in having removed from the minds of hon. Members the impression that there was very little difference in the Bill as it had been brought in by the Government and as it was brought down to the House of Lords, with the Amendments which had been inserted in it by the House of Lords. It certainly showed that hon. Members fully appreciated the nature of the difference. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Heneage), in the effective speech he had made, asserted that the difference was so great that the Bill, as originally introduced, was only a sham Bill, and it had been converted into a real Bill by the Amendments introduced into it. He could not agree with one passage of the speech of his hon. Friend, although he only desired to refer to it in a kindly spirit. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that there was not an intention on the part of the agricultural Members to restore Protection in this matter. He was quite sure that that was not their intention. But while he gave credit for honourable motives to one set of persons, he did not think, at the same time, that dishonourable motives ought to be imputed to others. He had, therefore, been surprised and sorry to hear the remarks his hon. Friend had made in connection with a large class of people—the foreign
      334
      traders. He understood his hon. Friend to say that it was their object to keep up the disease. Now, that was a very strong statement to make.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had not stated that it was the object of foreign traders to keep up disease, but that it was to their interest to do so.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had given the idea that foreign traders were actuated by that motive; and he was glad to hear his hon. Friend state now that he did not think so. As far as he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was able to see, a charge of that nature was absolutely without foundation. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) showed clearly that there was a considerable difference between the proposal of the Government and that contained in the Bill as amended by the House of Lords. The hon. Member pointed out that in one case a discretion was given to the Government, whereas in the other it was not. He thought the Committee were able to see from the debate which had taken place what the difference had been. He imagined that hon. Members who were in favour of the Bill as it had been amended would be prepared to exclude the importation of any live animals from any foreign country in which foot-and-mouth disease might be said to exist. He understood that that was what hon. Members who supported the Lords' Amendments were aiming at. [Mr. CHAPLIN: A part only.] He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought that such a safeguard should not be given if satisfactory arrangements were made against the spread of disease. He understood that the expectation was that no animals would be allowed to come from any country in which there was foot-and-mouth disease; but the words of the clause as amended would allow the matter to go a good deal further. They really said that from no country throughout the length and breadth of which a case of foot-and-mouth disease might be discovered after the most minute search should any animal be allowed to be imported into this country. In fact, a sort of search and report would have to be made by the Government in, every country as to the existence of the disease before any live animals were allowed to be imported from any of them into this country. Upon a mere rumour that disease prevailed the importation of

      335
      animals would be excluded, although it might be almost immediately discovered that the rumour was altogether without foundation. The effect of that would be, as the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) had frankly admitted in his speech last year and also now, that it would exclude the importation of all live animals from what were called the scheduled countries. It would, therefore, exclude a large and important part of the food at present provided for the consumption of the people. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), who had just sat down, had made use of an argument which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought was in favour of the course taken by the Government. The hon. Member admitted that the precautions taken by the Government had been successful in grappling with the disease; and he had congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what he had done. Nevertheless, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not adopted the principle of stopping the importation of animals from every country where it could be shown that a case of disease existed. His right hon. Friend had gone upon the principle of excluding the importation from all countries in which there was reasonable ground for the belief that the disease might be imported. That was the principle on which the Committee desired to work. They admitted that there was a change of opinion in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and that they would be quite justified in stopping the importation of live animals where there was any real danger of spreading the disease; but, at the same time, they thought the Government ought to have a discretionary power to judge whether the regulations at the port of embarkation were not such as to afford a reasonable prospect of preventing the spread of disease. He was quite sure that if the Bill were passed as the Lords had sent it down, the Government would not be able to do that; and he was also quite sure that what the Lords intended was that the Government should be able to use a fair discretion. The matter was a very serious one. There had been a good deal of talk about figures, and some hon. Members had attempted to prove that the price of meat went down according
      336
      to the number of animals imported into the country. They were all of them sufficiently men of business to know that if they diminished the supply of an article the price, as a general rule, would rise. There was no doubt whatever that, taking 4,000,000 of people in London, the stoppage of the importation of live animals from the scheduled countries would stop the importation of about 23 per cent of all the meat now consumed in London. The dead meat trade was; not equal to 50 per cent of the live importation; and if they were to depend upon the dead meat alone it would take a very long time, indeed, before they filled up the gap. The increase in the dead meat trade from the Australian markets was, no doubt, most satisfactory; but it was still the merest bagatelle possible in comparison with the consumption of the country. He failed to see upon what ground they ought to abandon all the importation of live meat. It could not be on account of the disease, because, although it was a serious disease, it had not yet been so considered by the agriculturists themselves, and it was regarded as of so little importance at the time he passed his Bill on the subject that he had some difficulty in getting the mention of the disease inserted in the Bill, and yet the ravages of that disease had been greater before that time than they had been since. In 1878 no one thought of slaughtering animals at the port of debarkation. It was admitted that the experiment should be tried for two or three years. His full belief, however, was that no regulations they could make in regard to importation would banish disease from the country, and the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend fully bore him out in that assertion. He was quite willing that there should be restrictions when necessary; but he was convinced that to lay down a rule that no animals: should be imported from any country in which by chance disease might be found to exist was altogether unnecessary, and would be a most wanton interference with the food supply of the country.
      MR. KENNYsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), in addressing the Committee a short time ago, had made reference to a previous statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of

      337
      the Duchy of Lancaster, that the Government would he prepared to limit the power of the local authorities in regard to the exclusion of animals. His hon. and gallant Friend had asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps were proposed to be taken by the Privy Council; whether they proposed to act on their own authority, or to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Kenny) had placed lower down upon the Paper? He should be very glad, before the Division took place, to receive an answer to that question from the right hon. Gentleman. It was only fair to his hon. and gallant Friend that that reply should be given.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could answer that question at once. The Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) had given Notice; but he might also state that they had it in contemplation to issue an Order in Council limiting the power of the local authorities to prohibit the introduction of animals into their districts from parts of the United Kingdom which were ascertained to be free from disease.
      MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had no doubt as to the direction in which the interests of the people he represented ought to induce him to vote. He thought that a most extensive and significant demonstration had already been made against the modification which the House of Lords had introduced into the Government Bill. In the course of the debate some allusion had been made to Protection. They had to thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for charging the Liberal Party and Her Majesty's Government with caring for nobody but the foreign producer. Seeing that the charge had been made, it was only natural that some answer should be given to it.
      MR. NEWDEGATEhoped the hon. Member (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would excuse him. He had not used the expression attributed to him. What he had said was that the Liberal Party had been the representatives of foreign interests in thwarting the agricultural interests of the country.
      MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he could not help thinking that there was very little difference between the two positions. He found that the supply of dead meat brought into this country
      338
      averaged over £3,000,000 sterling a-year; and he was bound to say that it appeared to him to be almost an insult to the intelligence of the people to imagine that a very long time, indeed, must not elapse before the £3,000,000 now representing the importation of dead meat were made to counter-balance the £12,000,000 sterling expended in the importation of live meat, and if a scarcity arose there must necessarily be a rise of prices in geometrical proportion to the restriction of the supply. There would not only be a decline in the importation, but a corresponding increase in price; and they were bound to take into consideration the effect which those two operations would produce upon the condition of the people when the decline of the supply took place. The working classes of London fully appreciated the result of any limitation of the supply, and knew very well that it would have a material effect in increasing the price, and thereby diminishing the comfort and injuring the health of the general mass of the population. He could assure the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) that the repentance among the working classes on the subject of Free Trade was very small indeed. Allusion had been made to the Petitions which had been presented to the House. He was well aware of the way in which those Petitions were got up. They were got up in the back rooms of the public-houses of London, with only 10 or a dozen people present, who had no title, or claim, or pretension to represent the feeling of the general public. In no way did they represent the feelings of the working classes, which, if it were necessary, he could show were entirely in favour of the course taken by the Government in regard to the Bill. The result of adopting the Amendment introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords would, he believed, be that a very considerable reduction in the amount of live stock imported into England would be effected. Everyone knew that at the present moment the greatest possible precautions were taken to prevent the spread of disease in the country, at Deptford, and at the other cattle markets. He should like to know what precautions were taken to prevent the spread of the disease in the country itself? Only last year he happened to be at Croydon, and he passed by an inclosed field containing

      339
      50 steers and calves, which were suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, in the immediate neighbourhood of the high road. Surely, if the working classes were to be deprived of a foreign supply, some restrictions should be placed on the dissemination of disease at home. If such things as these were allowed he could well understand how a cargo of cattle perfectly free from disease might be landed at Liverpool, and seven days afterwards be found suffering from disease in Cambridgeshire. The disease would have been acquired simply by passing through an infected district. He did not believe that the administration of the regulations for the prevention of disease had been neglected by the Government, who had always had at heart the good of the community. Her Majesty's Government were fully aware that until the agricultural interests were prosperous and properly developed, the general prosperity of the country would be retarded; but he did not think they would be assisting in developing the prosperity of agriculture by imposing restrictions on the importation of food, which would be invidious in the eyes of the people generally.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension which he was afraid might arise from the answer he had just given to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). He had not observed that the hon. Member had two Amendments on the Paper; and when he said that he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member he referred to the first Amendment only. The subject of the second Amendment was one which should be dealt with by Orders in Council.
      MR. KENNYsaid, that his question had been principally directed to the second Amendment, which was the Amendment referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He wished to know from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what course he proposed to take in regard to that Amendment?
      MR. DODSONsaid, that in regard to that Amendment he had just stated that it was in contemplation to deal with the subject by an Order in Council. He had every reason to believe that the alarm of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) in regard to Ireland would prove to be altogether unfounded.
      340
      The Order in Council would, he hoped, be issued shortly, and he believed hon. Members would find that it met the case they desired to raise.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he must protest against the proposed limitation intimated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of the power of the local authorities in relation to the importation of cattle from Ireland. There was reason to believe that a good deal of the disease had been introduced into this country by the importation of cattle from Ireland. He would not say that they brought the disease from Ireland; but, as a matter of fact, cattle had been, brought into the county of Forfar, which he represented, from Ireland which had introduced the disease into that county, and the farmers of Forfarshire had suffered considerably in consequence. It was to their interest to have Irish cattle; but, considering the necessity of preventing the spread of disease, they had had to deny themselves the advantages which might be derived from the introduction of Irish cattle. On that ground he took objection to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that it was the intention of the Government to limit the powers of the local authorities in relation to the importation of cattle from Ireland. A considerable majority of his constituents, and of the farmers of Scotland, were in favour of the importation of store cattle from abroad. They had had considerable experience of store cattle from Canada, which had, to a considerable extent, supplied the deficiency in this country. They hoped still, by some modification of the present Bill, to be able to obtain store cattle from the United States of America, reasonable security being given against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. There was one point which had not been raised in the course of the debate, with regard to which he wished to obtain some opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was anxious that the Government should indicate what course they intended to pursue in regard to the disposal of animals at the port of debarkation. At the present moment there were three methods adopted in reference to foreign cattle. In the first place, the importation might be prohibited altogether; in the second place, they might be slaughtered at

      341
      the port of debarkation; and, in the third, there was free admission into the country. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what position the Government would take, when the present Bill passed into law, with respect to the slaughter of cattle at the port of debarkation? That was a very important point. If the Bill remained as it stood now, and such circumstances arose as the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) had referred to, he understood that it would be the duty of the Government, on first hearing of a rumour of disease, to prohibit the importation of all animals from America, for instance, or from any other foreign country, because they could not be altogether satisfied that there was no truth in the rumour. Then, after a little time, it might be found out that though a disease of some peculiar kind might affect certain classes of cattle, it was not at all contagious. If, however, they were to carry out the proposals of hon. Members opposite, they would entirely prohibit the importation of live foreign cattle into this country. By the active administration of the present system of administration the Government authorities in Scotland had prevented a spread of the disease to any extent in that country, although it had been frequently introduced into various counties in Scotland. The county which he had the honour to represent had had the disease introduced into it eight times by distinct outbreaks; but by the exercise of vigour on the part of the local authorities in putting the provisions of the Act into force, they had succeeded in preventing the disease from spreading. The question, therefore, at once rose, why was it that in certain counties in England the disease was allowed to spread to such a great extent when it had been effectually dealt with in other districts? He invited the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) to explain what natural causes existed in the county of Lincolnshire that caused the spread of disease to such an extent as had actually been the case in that county, whereas in other districts equally exposed to infection the disease had been satisfactorily dealt with. It appeared to him that if the local authorities dealt energetically with disease when it was first introduced into a district they would be able to prevent
      342
      it from spreading. He placed more confidence in such action than in attempting, by any measure of legislation of this kind, to prevent the introduction of disease, even if the importation of cattle were altogether prohibited.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he desired to trespass upon the attention of the Committee for only two or three minutes, mainly for the purpose of explaining the vote he was about to record. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a few moments ago, stated that very few animals had been landed in this country which were suffering from foot-and-mouth disease during the last twelve months. That was a matter for great satisfaction; but it was rather an argument against the importation of diseased animals altogether, because it must be admitted that a single spark might set on fire a whole city. The present outbreak, which had occasioned so serious a loss to the country, was entirely due to the importation of a very few diseased animals from France. He had at first been under the impression that the simple transposition of the negative, from the end of the clause to the beginning, would not practically make a very wide difference; but after the very strong views expressed on that subject by the Chancellor of the Duchy, as he was in favour of the most vigorous measure that could be adopted for stamping out the disease, he felt compelled to vote for the Bill as it had been sent down from the House of Lords. He did so because, as he had stated, he was in favour of the most effectual measure for stamping out the disease in the country. He would not go over the arguments which had been used inside and outside the House as to the effect and spread of the disease. He contended that it was quite as great an evil to the consumer as to the producer. None of them could experience satisfaction from anything that tended to raise the price of meat and check the supply of the dairy produce of the country, which, by the introduction and spread of foot-and-mouth disease, was the case. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had alluded to the fact that he had presented a Petition from his (Mr. J. Howard's) constituents against the Lords' Amendments in the Bill. He had discussed the matter with

      343
      many of his constituents who were not concerned in agricultural operations, and he had found that their objections to this legislation were founded entirely upon ignorance. He also believed that the general opposition which was given to the Bill among the artizan class of the country was also founded upon ignorance; and he was of opinion that no class had more interest in keeping the cattle of the country free from the ravages of disease than the working men, for if the people were to be more cheaply fed our own flocks and herds must be maintained in health.
      MR. HASTINGSsaid, he only desired to say a very few words in order to explain why, as representing a large constituency, which was not only a large agricultural constituency, but one also containing a large urban and semi-urban population, he considered it his duty to support the Bill against the Amendments proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It seemed to him that they must do one of two things—either carry out strictly provisions for restricting the importation of cattle from infected countries or not. If it were intended to carry out those restrictions, there surely could be no reason why the Bill as it had come down from the House of Lords should not be passed. If they refused to adopt the Lords' Amendments, it could only be because they had no desire to carry out the restrictions with vigour and in good faith, and that was just what he feared, and exactly what those who represented constituencies that were largely interested in the production of the food supply dreaded. They feared that the restrictions which all persons considered to be necessary were not about to be adequately worked, and that a loophole was to be left by the amendment of the Bill which would practically allow them to be disregarded. Under those circumstances, they felt it incumbent upon them, in the interest of their constituencies, and in discharge of their duty to the large class of consumers throughout the country, to vote against the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government, and in favour of the Bill as it had come down from the House of Lords.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he would not trouble the Committee with many further observations; but it was desirable
      344
      that he should say a word or two upon the debate which had taken place. In the first place, his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had made a very severe attack upon the Privy Council for its action before that period in May, 1883, to which he had referred in his speech. Now, in what he (Mr. Dodson) had said he had not the slightest wish to lead the Committee to suppose that his noble Friend the President of the Council had in any way neglected his duty before that period. Lord Spencer, in the first instance, carried out faithfully and loyally the Act of 1878, in the spirit in which it was intended by those who framed and passed that Act; and his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) had carried on the administration of the Act in the same spirit of fidelity. It had been alleged that if the Bill were amended in the manner he proposed, it would be so weak as to be almost a sham. Well, however weak it might be in the eyes of some hon. Gentlemen, at all events it would be stronger than the Act of 1878, which was the Act introduced by the late Government, and the Act under which they had hitherto proceeded. Moreover, the Act had never been so stringently administered by the late as by the present Government, more especially since the period in last year to which he had referred. And yet the demand for stringency had been louder than ever. They had found, as he had stated in moving the second reading of the Bill, that there was a very strong feeling in the country on the subject. The apprehension of foot-and-mouth disease had had a discouraging effect in the agricultural districts, and they were anxious to give a reasonable security in order to allay that apprehension. They, therefore, thought it right to exercise the powers of the Act of 1878 more stringently than they had ever been exercised before, and he ventured to say more stringently than the authors of that Act contemplated their being exercised. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) had asserted that he (Mr. Dodson) had given no reason for apprehension which he said existed in the mind of the Government as to the effect of the Bill as it had been sent down by the House of Lords in hampering and restricting trade. The Government considered that if the clause were

      345
      retained in the form in which it came down from the other House, they would be running a serious risk, not only of hampering trade, but of raising the price of meat to the consumer, without any adequate addition to the security of the producer. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) that there would be a corresponding increase in the trade in dead meat. No doubt the trade in fresh dead meat was a large and increasing trade; but the trade in live meat was a much larger and more important trade; it was also a rapidly increasing trade. He wished also to point out that while, on the one hand, the trade in live animals was steadily increasing, that in dead meat was a fluctuating one. There were some hon. Gentlemen who seemed to think that it was only necessary to prohibit the importation of live animals in order to insure a corresponding increase in the supply of fresh dead meat. But this was not the case, and the experience of past years showed that it was not so. He should like, upon this point, to call the attention of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) to a few hard facts. The Privy Council last year prohibited the importation of live animals from France. And what had been the result? Had France sent a larger quantity of fresh dead meat in lieu of the live animals it had previously exported? Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we had scarcely received any fresh dead meat from that country. Again, for a considerable number of years live cattle had been admitted to this country from Germany and Belgium; but some years ago the landing of live cattle from those countries was prohibited. What had happened? Did Germany and Belgium send fresh beef instead of live cattle? Not at all. The fact was that Germany and Belgium had sent us more fresh beef during the three years preceding the prohibition of live animals as was recorded in the Returns than in the following years. No doubt the trade in fresh dead meat had increased largely of late, principally from New Zealand; but, for some reason he was unable to state, the trade in dead meat from Holland and other countries in Europe had considerably diminished in 1883. He remembered that when the Act of 1878 was passed some hon. Gentlemen wanted to prohibit the landing of live animals
      346
      from the United States, and asserted that the fresh dead meat trade would, in consequence, be largely increased. But the fact was that the live meat trade from the United States maintained a great superiority over that in fresh dead meat from the same country. In conclusion, he had only to repeat that Her Majesty's Government did not share the views of those who regarded this Amendment as an unimportant or immaterial one. They considered, on the contrary, that if the clause were retained in the Bill in the shape in which it had come down from the House of Lords it would be at the risk of very seriously hampering trade and raising the price of meat to the consumer, without in any degree making an adequate addition to the security of the home produce against the importation of disease from abroad. Her Majesty's Government looked upon this question as one of the utmost gravity, and as involving consequences of importance.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 161: Majority 24.

      AYES

      Alexander, Major-Gen.

      Colthurst, Colonel

      Allsopp, C.

      Compton, F.

      Amherst, W. A. T.

      Coope, O. E.

      Archdale, W. H.

      Corbet, W. J.

      Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

      Cowen, J.

      Baring, T. C.

      Cowper, hon. H. F.

      Barry, J.

      Crichton, Viscount

      Barttelot, Sir W. B.

      Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

      Bateson, Sir T.

      Curzon, Major hon. M.

      Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

      Dalrymple, C.

      Davenport, W. B.

      Beach, W. W. B.

      Dawnay, hon. G. C.

      Beaumont, W. B.

      Digby, Colonel hon. E.

      Bective, Earl of

      Douglas, A. Akers-

      Bellingham, A. H.

      Duckham, T.

      Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

      Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

      Beresford, G. De la P.

      Edwards, P.

      Biggar, J. G.

      Egerton, hon. A. de T.

      Blackburne, Col. J. I.

      Egerton, hon. A. F.

      Borlase, W. C.

      Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

      Broadley, W. H. H.

      Elliot, G. W.

      Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

      Elton, C. I.

      Ennis, Sir J.

      Bulwer, J. R.

      Estcourt, G. S.

      Burghley, Lord

      Feilden, Lieut.-General

      Buxton, Sir R. J.

      Fellowes, W. H.

      Cartwright, W. C.

      Finch, G. H.

      Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

      Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

      Chaplin, H.

      Christie, W. L.

      Fletcher, Sir H.

      Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

      Floyer, J.

      Close, M. C.

      Foljambe, F. J. S.

      Coddington, W.

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Collins, E.

      Foster, W. H.

      347

      Fremantle, hon. T. F.

      Moreton, Lord

      Freshfield, C. K.

      Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

      Garnier, J. C.

      Gooch, Sir D.

      Newdegate, C. N.

      Gore-Langton, W. S.

      Nicholson, W.

      Grantham, W.

      Nicholson, W. N.

      Gregory, G. B.

      Nolan, Colonel J. P.

      Gurdon, R. T.

      North, Colonel J. S.

      Halsey, T. F.

      Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

      Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

      Northcote, H. S.

      Hamilton, I. T.

      O'Beirne, Colonel F.

      Harrington, T.

      O'Brien, W.

      Harris, W. J.

      O'Connor, T. P.

      Harvey, Sir R. B.

      Onslow, D. R.

      Hastings, G. W.

      O'Sullivan, W. H.

      Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

      Palmer, C. M.

      Peek, Sir H. W.

      Healy, T. M.

      Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

      Hicks, E.

      Pell, A.

      Hildyard, T. B. T.

      Pemberton, E. L.

      Hill, A. S.

      Percy, Lord A.

      Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

      Phipps, P.

      Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

      Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

      Pugh, L. P.

      Howard, J.

      Repton, G. W.

      Jackson, W. L.

      Ridley, Sir M. W.

      Kennard, Col. E. H.

      Ross, A. H.

      Kennard, C. J.

      Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

      Kennaway, Sir J. H.

      Round, J.

      Kenny, M. J.

      St. Aubyn, W. M.

      King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

      Salt, T.

      Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

      Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

      Scott, M. D.

      Knight, F. W.

      Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

      Knightley, Sir R.

      Lambton, hon. F. W.

      Sexton, T.

      Lawrence, Sir T.

      Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

      Leahy, J.

      Smith, A.

      Leighton, Sir B.

      Stanhope, hon. E.

      Leighton, S.

      Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

      Lennox, right hn. Lord H. G. C. G.

      Stanley, E. J.

      Storer, G.

      Levett, T. J.

      Strutt, hon. C. H.

      Lloyd, M.

      Sykes, C.

      Loder, R.

      Talbot, J. G.

      Long, W. H.

      Thomson, H.

      Lopes, Sir M.

      Thornhill, A. J.

      Lowther, rt. hon. J.

      Thornhill, T.

      Lowther, hon. W.

      Thynne, Lord H. F.

      Lowther, J. W.

      Tollemache, hn. W. F.

      Lynch, N.

      Tollemache, H. J.

      Macfarlane, D. H.

      Tomlinson, W. E. M.

      M'Carthy, J.

      Tottenham, A. L.

      M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

      Vivian, Sir H. H.

      M'Lagan, P.

      Vivian, A. P.

      Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

      Walrond, Col. W. H.

      Warburton, P. E.

      Marjoribanks, hon. E.

      Warton, C. N.

      Martin, P.

      Wilmot, Sir J. E.

      Master, T. W. C.

      Winn, R.

      Maxwell, Sir H. E.

      Yorke, J. R.

      Mayne, T.

      Milbank, Sir F. A.

      TELLERS.

      Miles, C. W.

      Heneage, E.

      Molloy, B. C.

      Read, C. S.

      Monckton, F.

      NOES.

      Acland, Sir T. D.

      Anderson, G.

      Acland, C. T. D.

      Armitage, B.

      Agnew, W,

      Armitstead, G.

      348

      Arnold, A.

      Hibbert, J. T.

      Asher, A.

      Hill, T. R.

      Balfour, Sir G.

      Holden, I.

      Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

      Hopwood, C. H.

      Balfour, J. S.

      Houldsworth, W. H.

      Barclay, J. W.

      Howard, E. S.

      Barran, J.

      Illingworth, A.

      Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

      James, Sir H.

      Bolton, J. C.

      James, C.

      Boord, T. W.

      James, W. H.

      Brand, hon. H. R.

      Jenkins, D. J.

      Briggs, W. E.

      Jerningham, H. E. H,

      Bright, J.

      Lawrence, W.

      Broadhurst, H.

      Lawson, Sir W.

      Brogden, A.

      Leake, R.

      Brown, A, H.

      Leatham, E. A.

      Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

      Lee, H.

      Buchanan, T. R.

      Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

      Buszard, M. C.

      Lusk, Sir A.

      Buxton, F. W.

      Mackintosh, C. F.

      Buxton, S. C.

      Macliver, P. S.

      Cameron, C.

      M'Arthur, Sir W.

      Campbell, Sir G.

      M'Arthur, A.

      Campbell-Bannerman, H.

      M'Intyre, Æneas J.

      M'Laren, C. B. B.

      Causton, R. K.

      Maitland, W. F.

      Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

      Marriott, W. T.

      Cheetham, J. F.

      Martin, R. B.

      Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

      Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

      Churchill, Lord R.

      Clarke, J. C.

      Mellor, J. W.

      Clifford, C. C.

      Monk, C. J.

      Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

      Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

      Cotes, C. C.

      Morley, A.

      Courtauld, G.

      Morley, J.

      Courtney, L. H.

      Morley, S.

      Cropper, J.

      Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

      Cross, J. K.

      Muntz, P. H.

      Currie, Sir D.

      Noel, E.

      Davies, W.

      Norwood, C. M.

      De Worms, Baron H.

      Paget, T. T.

      Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

      Palmer, G.

      Dillwyn, L. L.

      Pease, A.

      Dodds, J.

      Peddie, J. D.

      Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

      Pender, J.

      Duff, R. W.

      Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L.

      Earp, T.

      Potter, T. B.

      Eckersley, N.

      Pulley, J.

      Egerton, Admiral hon. F.

      Ralli, P.

      Ramsay, J.

      Fairbairn, Sir A.

      Reed, Sir E. J.

      Farquharson, Dr. R.

      Reid, R. T.

      Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

      Ritchie, C. T.

      Ferguson, R.

      Roberts, J.

      Findlater, W.

      Rogers, J. E. T.

      Firth, J. F. B.

      Roundell, C. S.

      Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

      Russell, G. W. E.

      Forster, Sir C.

      Rylands, P.

      Forster, rt. hn. W. E

      Seely, C. (Lincoln)

      Fort, R.

      Seely, C. (Nottingham)

      Fry, L.

      Sellar, A. C.

      Giles, A.

      Shaw, T.

      Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

      Simon, Serjeant J.

      Gladstone, H. J.

      Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

      Gordon, Sir A.

      Smith, E.

      Gorst, J. E.

      Smith, S.

      Grant, Sir G. M.

      Stanley, hon. E. L.

      Grey, A. H. G.

      Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

      Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

      Stanton, W. J.

      Summers, W.

      Hartington, Marq. Of

      Thompson, T. C.

      Hayter, Sir A. D.

      Tillett, J. H.

      Herschell, Sir F.

      Torrens, W. T. M.

      349

      Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

      Wilson, I.

      Wolff, Sir H. D.

      Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

      Woodall, W.

      Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

      Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

      Waddy, S. D.

      Whitbread, S.

      TELLERS.

      Whitley, E.

      Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

      Williamson, S.

      Wills, W. H.

      Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

      Wilson, Sir M.

      Amendment negatived.
      MR. DODSON: After the very serious vote the Committee has just come to the Committee will, I trust, not be surprised at my stating that Her Majesty's Government request time to consider the course they should adopt. I, therefore, move that the Chairman do report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat extraordinary. This is not the first time that an Amendment to the propositions of Her Majesty's Government has been made in this Bill. In "another place" the Bill was amended to the shape in which it now stands. Her Majesty's Government took ample time to consider their position with regard to that Amendment, and after that consideration they decided to go on with the Bill. Have they really been playing with the time of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, and also with the opinion of the country, on this important subject; and do they come down now, when all that this House has done is to retain the Bill in the shape in which it has stood for the last two months, and ask the Committee to report Progress in order that they may reconsider their position, as if we had made some serious alteration in the measure? Sir, I venture to say that, if this Motion be a preliminary, as it would seem to be, to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the measure, it will be accepted by the country as a proof that they have not been sincere in proposing it; but that they have merely brought it forward as a means of catching the votes of their supporters behind them, and of the agricultural interest, and not
      350
      with any real intention of dealing with this great subject.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I certainly think that the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard. He has charged Her Majesty's Government with playing with this question, because, after the opinion of the House of Lords was obtained, the Government thought it desirable that the opinion of the House of Commons should also be obtained. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that with the majority his Party has in the House of Lords the Government are not to give the House of Commons an opportunity of forming a judgment on this question? Then the right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, the Government ought to go on with the Bill, notwithstanding the vote that has been come to. But the Committee will doubtless see that Her Majesty's Government have not merely to consider whether they have obtained the success of a vote or not, but whether that vote is in accordance with what they think to be right. When we know that the Department which will be responsible for the working of the measure has stated, both in this House and out of it, that the Bill, as sent down from the House of Lords, and which, I regret to say, is now supported by this House, would be mischievous, and do harm, and is unnecessary, then I say that to suppose the Government is at once to proceed with the measure after such a statement as that seems to me to imply the most extraordinary forget-fulness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman as to the duty of the Government to consider whether they think the decision come to by this Committee is right or not.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I think we ought to remember that this is not the only case within the present Session, or within a recent period, as to which Her Majesty's Government would appear to have set at naught the feeling of the majority of the House of Commons on questions deeply affecting the agricultural community. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), only the other day, carried a Motion of the greatest importance, but with regard to which absolutely no attention

      351
      has been paid, and, indeed, to which: Her Majesty's Government say it would be practically absurd that they should be expected to pay any attention; and now, upon a matter also of the gravest importance, upon a Bill which has not been discussed on Party lines, but on principles upon which Members on both sides of the House have come together, and which everybody in the House agrees to be of the greatest possible importance—when the House has decided by an exceptional and decisive majority a very important point, Her Majesty's Government say they are going to reconsider their position, which would seem to imply that they may drop the Bill. I want to know whether this is the spirit in which questions of this kind, affecting a large and important class of the population, are to be treated?
      MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) says that this Bill has not been considered on Party lines. I think, Sir, that when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he could not have heard what was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who sits near him. The right hon. Baronet, although we have now been told that this Bill has not been discussed on Party lines, contrived to introduce into a very short speech on a matter simply relating to common usage and procedure, charges as odious and offensive as I have ever heard made from one side of the House to the other. I rather presume that hon. Gentlemen are aware that people may think they have characters even when there are others who think they have not; and consequently the epithets which I have applied to those charges turn upon this—that the right hon. Baronet chose to accuse us, in the event of our taking a particular course in regard to which he does not know whether we shall take it or not, but as to which he anticipated a conclusion which he wishes it to be supposed will be taken—the right hon. Baronet accuses us of taking a course which will be regarded by the country as a proof of our insincerity, and insinuates that we have been making false professions to the country. Well, Sir, that is pretty well for a proceeding on a Bill which has not been discussed on Party lines. I should like to know what would be the language that might be
      352
      used upon a Bill which is discussed on Party lines, if this be a specimen of the most impartial and most judicial temper in which the right hon. Baronet discusses this question. With regard to the question itself, I think his contention has been effectually disposed of by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). But let us consider what the case really is. It is simple enough in regard to its facts. The right hon. Baronet appears to admit that it is a common and useful practice, when the Government have failed on an important Motion in respect to a Bill in Committee, to take time to consider their course. But he says that that will not hold in the present case, because after the Motion had been carried in the House of Lords the Government acquiesced in it, and did not abandon their Bill. Certainly not; but was there any fraud practised on the House of Lords? Let anyone read the language used by my noble Friend, Lord Carlingford—perhaps, Sir, I have made a slip of the tongue in my reference to him—but language was certainly used on the part of the Government which made it perfectly clear that their intention was to try the judgment of the House of Commons, and, in the event of their obtaining a favourable judgment in this House, they hoped the House of Lords might be disposed to defer to that decision. That being the case, were they right or were they wrong? Was it their duty to abandon the Bill in the House of Lords if they thought the Amendment would be fatal? It might have been convenient to abandon the Bill in the House of Lords, and to say—"We have fulfilled our pledge; and now you may shift for yourselves, and take your own course." But we did not do that; on the contrary, at great inconvenience, we carried forward the Bill, and brought it into this House. We have done all we could, and we rather stretched a point for the purpose of giving time to the House for the consideration of the Bill, in order that we might obtain the judgment of the House upon it. I contend that we are entitled to exercise our own deliberate and conscientious judgment on the effect of the vote of the House of Commons, just as if the Bill had been introduced by us in this House, and just as if the Amendment carried in the other House had

      353
      been carried in the House of Commons. I hope the House will see that this is not unreasonable. I have stated how far this differs from other cases—they are not perhaps many; but certainly I have cases in my mind in which the Leader of the Party to which the right hon. Baronet belongs, having been defeated in a course which he thought serious, has asked for time, and it has been granted without a word. That is what I should have expected in this case, and that is all we ask to be done on the present occasion. Gentlemen will lose nothing by assenting to that course, and will only be conforming to the usage of the House. Our desire is that we shall take a reasonable, and not a long time to consider whether we can come to terms with the Amendment, which, on the whole, according to the declarations we have made "elsewhere," bears an aspect most formidable, and possibly fatal to the Bill. Our object is to see whether it is possible for us to so come to terms as to, in fact, fulfil the covenants we have given to the House in the most rigid and ample manner. It is for that purpose that we ask the House to report Progress, and we have some confidence, that our proposal will be agreed to.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he felt bound to say that whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think of the observations of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), those observations were fully warranted by the circumstances; and he wished to remind the Prime Minister of a fact of which he and his Colleagues seemed to be totally oblivious. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had stated that this Division had been of so grave and serious a character that it was necessary for the Government to take time to consider their position with regard to it. Why, what had been the effect of the Division? Simply to reinsert in this Bill words which carried out literally, and word for word, the Resolution which was carried in this House last Session. He desired also to remind the Prime Minister of what occurred at the commencement of the Session. At that time, in the debate on the Address in answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, he gave Notice of an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged would, if carried, have been a Vote of Censure on
      354
      the Government, and would have insured their retirement from Office. Why was it not proceeded with? Because the Government came down to the House in a hurry and announced—although no mention was made of the matter in the Queen's Speech—that they intended to deal with this question, and in a manner which everyone understood they intended loyally to carry out the Resolution of last year. The House of Commons had now, for the second time, declared its judgment on the matter; and now the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary, under the circumstances, to have time to consider the position of the Government. Their duty was clear—it was either to carry out the Resolution twice passed by the House of Commons, or to make room for others who would do so.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he strongly objected to the language used by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They seemed to think that this had been a Party Division; but it was no Party Division whatever, Those on this side who voted against the Government did so because they believed they were doing the best for the country; but they did not so vote in order that they might bring charges, which they believed entirely false, against the Government. He looked on the declaration of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster exactly in the opposite way to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it would be a very serious matter indeed if this Amendment was carried; but now he offered to take time to consider the matter, and that, he thought, showed that the Government were sincere in trying to go on with the Bill. If any attempt was made to prevent their Motion being acceded to he should vote with the Government.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if the Motion to report Progress was to be understood as meaning the resignation of the Government he imagined it would be acceded to unanimously. If, on the other hand, no such fortunate result was to be anticipated from the Motion being agreed to, he would like to explain the vote he should give upon the Motion. He had supported the Government in the last Division, because he had grave doubts as to the manner in which the Amendment of the House of Lords might affect the

      355
      urban populations. The House of Commons in its collective capacity, being of opinion that those doubts were not well founded, and having expressed the opinion that no danger need necessarily arise from the Amendment being agreed to, he should certainly not imitate the example of the Government by endeavouring to repudiate the decision of the House of Commons. He should be prepared to accept the decision of the House, and in order that a most valuable piece of legislation might not be lost to the country he should vote against the Motion to report Progress; because, undoubtedly, if what had fallen from the Government indicated that they would consider whether they would part with the Bill or not, it was important that the House should give them to understand that they must proceed with the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought many borough Members who had supported the Government in the last Division must now oppose them.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was glad that this Motion had been made, for otherwise he should have deemed it his duty to make the Motion himself, because certainly not fewer than 1,000 resolutions had been passed not merely by urban populations, but by populations in counties, praying the Government, if they could not pass this Bill as it was introduced, to abandon it; and that was the expectation of the country generally. He, himself, had to-day presented a Petition from the county of Bedford, urging that that step should be taken; and he was certain that that was not the desire only of the urban populations, but of the counties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not forget that with regard to the Bill, as it had come from the House of Lords, it had been stated by the most important organs of their Party that if the Amendment of the House of Lords was adopted so serious would be the condition of things with regard to the probable rise in the price of meat, that it would be the duty of the Government to consider what measures should be adopted to avoid so grave and serious a result. This had been stated by the The Standard, and he was therefore glad that this Motion had been made.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the statement in The Standard, which had
      356
      twice been quoted to-day, was made, he did not know how many months ago. The hon. Member having twice quoted the statement, he assumed that the hon. Member seriously believed that the Conservative Party would have to consider what course they would pursue if the Amendment of the House of Lords was adopted. The hon. Member was, however, labouring under a complete delusion. With regard to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had said, he had stated that this question had been described on this side of the House as a Party question.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, that had been stated lately by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he had not heard anybody deny it.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was speaking of the debate on the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he ventured to assert that never was a debate which partook less of the character of a Party debate than this had, and he understood that the hon. Gentleman himself assented to that view. All, then, that the hon. Gentleman meant was that his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had shown some warmth in dissenting from the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It was perfectly open to the right hon. Baronet to take that view, which he had expressed in terms not unbecoming his great reputation in that House. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby differed from that view he was perfectly at liberty to express that difference, and he had done so. With respect to what had fallen from the Prime Minister, he would put the question from this point of view. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether the Government, when they were defeated in the House of Lords, were to turn round on the House of Lords and the whole agricultural interest, and say—"We will not go further with the Bill, but will leave you to shift for yourselves." Would that have been a proper position for the Government to take on so important a question? Would that have been fair to the agricultural interest? He answered—It would have been infinitely fairer to the agricultural interest than the course which the Government had actually taken, if they intended now to abandon the Bill, and for this reason. He must

      357
      remind the Prime Minster how it was that the Government had proposed legislation in the House of Lords at all on this question. It was not until the Duke of Richmond introduced a Bill on the subject, and that Bill was passing, that the Government undertook to introduce a measure at all; and if the right hon. Gentleman had acted in the way in which he said he had not acted, and in which he should have acted—namely, said he repudiated all further legislation on the subject, then the Duke of Richmond would have proceeded with his Bill. It would have come down to this House, and this House would have had to decide upon its principles. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman had not stated fully or candidly the real position of the question as it presented itself when the House of Lords passed this Amendment. That being the position, the House of Commons had now expressed the same opinion as the House of Lords, and the Government at this moment stood in this predicament—that they had against them the opinion of the House of Lords; that they had against them the opinion of the House of Commons, as expressed last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); and that they had against them the opinion of the House of Commons as expressed in a full House, and after a full debate this afternoon; that was the position of the matter, and if the Government required further time to consider what they ought to do in the matter, he for one should not be disposed to interpose any impediment in the way of their doing so.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was glad that the noble Lord, as representing the Front Bench opposite, had shown a disposition to treat the Government with some little courtesy, which previous speakers on that Bench had not shown. Of course, hon. Members on this side of the House admitted that owing to a combination of votes in the House they had been defeated; but they none the less knew that they represented millions of the population of this country whose interests and industrial advantages were struck at. Knowing that a most serious change had been made in this Bill, they were perfectly ready to support the Government in asking for time to consider the course they might think it necessary to take; and he thought he might say,
      358
      with perfect confidence, that the Representatives of the manufacturing populations of the country would rightly express their opinion by saying that the Government should not allow this Bill, in its present shape, to pass.
      MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the Committee was disinclined to proceed unnecessarily to a Division on this question; but he also thought the Prime Minister would effectually avoid any risk of such action being taken, if he were to give some indication of the course the Government intended to take in the future in respect to fixing a day for the further consideration of this Bill, and for making their announcement with regard thereto. He fully agreed with his noble Friend that this had never been treated as a Party question from first to last by anyone sitting in that part of the House; but, at the same time, he fully and heartily concurred—as he believed nearly every Member on that side of the House did—with his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when he stigmatized the conduct of the Government in terms which he (Mr. Lowther) heartily endorsed. He did not wish to divide against the Motion to report Progress; but what they had a right to ask was this—three-fourths of the time which the Prime Minister was never weary of telling them was invaluable had been, taken from them this afternoon. When the Government proposed to report Progress at a quarter-past 6, they had a right to ask what further facilities the Government intended to give for the discussion of this subject? Did the Government, having deprived them of a portion of the afternoon which was set apart for the consideration of this subject, intend indefinitely to hang this Bill up, and practically withdraw it from the cognizance of Parliament? He had not hesitated to say elsewhere, and he would repeat here, that he had a firm conviction that the Government were trifling with this subject. As he had said not long ago, using the words in a Parliamentary sense, he believed that the Bill had been introduced upon false pretences. That opinion he now repeated in the presence of the Government; and he thought the Committee had a right to insist that an early opportunity should be given of resuming this debate.
      MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he hoped the Committee would assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and allow Progress to be reported. He had supported the Billon its merits, and how did the matter now stand? Further procedure with the Bill at this hour was impossible; but apart from that the Government had not said they would abandon the Bill, but that they would consider their position. It was reasonable to allow them the time they asked for, and possibly that might result in their accepting the course which the Committee had decided upon. At all events, it was not fair to assume that they would not do so, because they were defeated in "another place," and they had then considered their position. If they did not do so, then the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) would have a strong case against them for refusing to act on a decision which had been twice recorded. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be a mere act of fairness to the Executive to agree to the Motion, and allow them time for reconsidering their position.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he proposed to put the Bill down for Friday, and he would then state what course the Government intended to adopt.
      MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there would not be any chance of taking the Bill on Friday, as there was other Business on the Paper for that day. What he wished to know was, whether the Government would afford any indication as to when they would put the Bill down for practical consideration?
      MR. DODSONreplied, that he had answered that question by anticipation. He would put the Bill down for Friday, not with any intention of proceeding with it then, but with a view to stating what further course the Government would pursue.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

      SUPPLY.—REPORT.
      Resolutions [21st April] reported.
      First Two Resolutions agreed to.
      Third Resolution postponed.
      Postponed Resolution to be considered upon Monday next.

  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

    [BILL 124.] COMMITTEE.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill.
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERrose to address the House, when—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken upon this subject.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had spoken on the subject, but it was four or five years ago; and he had yet to learn that he could not state his views on the matter now because he spoke on it in 1878 or 1879. He shared the prevailing ignorance in regard to the merits or demerits of this Bill. His recollection was that it was a very small and a very narrow Bill. He objected to it on the ground that it had not been introduced for the purpose of remedying any existing grievance, or placing the law on any reliable and comprehensive basis, but in order to secure a Party advantage in a particular constituency, and it was open to all the objections brought against measures introduced by Irish Members.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a Government Bill.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Bill to which he referred as having been opposed by himself several years ago was introduced by private Members, though it now appeared to have passed into official hands, and under these new auspices had never been even explained to the House. The Bill, he observed, proposed to create a new Office, and this Office was to be given to the inevitable barrister of 10 years' standing.
    MR. HEALY: Go on; you have only three minutes to do it.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped they would have an explanation of the Bill from the Chief Secretary.
    MR. ION HAMILTONsaid, he was surprised that the Chief Secretary did not give the House an explanation of this Bill. If it was intended to be a censure on the Recorder of Dublin the right hon. Gentleman ought to say so.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MOTIONS.
    IRELAND—CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS (REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS).

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. BIGGAR, in rising to call the attention of the Government to the scale of remuneration allowed by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the teachers of Convent National Schools in that country; and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that the teachers of Convent National Schools in Ireland lie dealt with, as to remuneration, on equal terms with those applied to other teachers of primary schools in connection with the system of Irish national education."
      said, this case was only another illustration of the unfortunate position in which they were placed in Ireland by being governed by those Gentlemen who did not understand, and who in some instances, indeed, did not wish to understand, the peculiar characteristics and requirements of the country. The Gentlemen sent over from England, Lord Lieutenants and Chief Secretaries for Ireland, seemed to think that the system of education which suited England should also suit remarkably well for Ireland, and because they were not satisfied with their condition they were told they were very unreasonable people. The position and ideas of the two peoples were exceedingly different, and some gentlemen seemed to forget that matters which might be of very small weight in England were to Ireland often of very grave importance. The nuns had not up to the present, so far as he was aware,
      362
      had anyone of influence to endeavour to obtain a removal of the grievances under which they laboured, and it was merely by accident he had learned the state of affairs. Their case was different to that of the National School teachers, who had also grievances to complain of, but which certainly were not greater than those of the nuns. They had ably stated their grievances, and had got the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) to use his influence with the Government on their behalf. The nuns had, however, no one to advocate their claims until the matter came to the knowledge of some of the Irish Members, when the Irish Party thought it desirable that their case should be brought before the attention of the House, in order to see if the Government would not afford them some redress. They did not ask any special favour, but only that the nuns should get fair play. It seemed to him from, the short investigation he had made that a plainer case could not be imagined. The nuns got a very much smaller amount of remuneration for the same amount of work than the National teachers. He could not understand why these ladies should not get the same remuneration as that of National teachers. The excuse made by the Government was that these ladies did not get classed as teachers, because they did not pass the examinations. He had no great opinion of competitive examinations, his own experience being that, as regards practical work, those who passed them successfully were often of very little use; but there were excellent reasons why these ladies should not undergo that test. In the first place, the Bishops had passed a Resolution forbidding them to do so; the Rules of their Order in other cases precluded them; and when they did not, the teaching of children formed a small portion only of their duties; so that if a certain number of ladies passed from any convent, they could not devote themselves wholly to teaching, but would have to share it with the remainder of the nuns. The result of their teaching was very successful—
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. BIGGAR, resuming, said, the case of these ladies was a hard one. Whilst

      363
      the nuns were only allowed 4s. for each pupil whom they taught, teachers in other schools were allowed 16 s. 8d., or four times as much. This was a glaring, gross, and monstrous injustice. He must also complain of the inadequate capitation grant allowed to the nuns. In the other schools where there were 40 pupils the teacher received £24 10 s. per annum in the second class schools, between which and the £8 received by the nuns there was a large difference. The outside teachers were allowed £25 for the annual rent of each school, and £125 for the building of a teacher's residence; but the nuns were granted no part of these advantages. Further, they got no pension whatever, whereas in the other schools the teachers received a substantial pension when disabled by age or illness from their duties. The Reports of the different Inspectors in different parts of the country were exceedingly favourable to the convent schools. Looking at the number of passes, the Reports showed a considerable percentage to the advantage of the convent schools as compared with the others. As regarded monitors, the convent schools were placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with the National Schools, because while the monitors from the latter were educated at the training school in Dublin for their examination, owing to Catholic rules those from the nuns' schools had to go to it directly from those schools. But in spite of this the Reports showed a superiority on the part of the convent schools even as regarded the monitors. He thought that he had made out so clear a case on behalf of these convent schools that he could not see how the Government could refuse to adopt his Motion. At present the nun's schools were the best schools in Ireland; but, at the same time, they were the worst paid. Whether such a state of matters was to continue for any length of time he could not say; but he knew that if not remedied now it would be discussed again, and he was convinced the result must be, at no distant date, that the nuns would get all they asked. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
      MR. HEALY, in seconding the Motion, congratulated the hon. Member for Cavan on his great moderation, and the
      364
      admirable array of statistics which he had presented to the House. He expressed the hope that the Chief Secretary, who had been obliged to rub against so many corners in the case of Ireland, would now find some means to apply balm to the feelings of the people of Ireland on a matter which deserved so much consideration at the hands of the Government. The great interest felt in this subject was shown by the large attendance of Irish Members; and he could imagine no argument which the Government could oppose to the Motion except the mere argument of non-presentation for examination. After all, that was not so great an obstacle as it might at first sight appear. The main object of examination of the teachers was to insure that the pupils should be properly taught; but if by another piece of machinery it was proved that the pupils were so taught as they had it proved by the exceedingly favourable results which statistics showed the nuns obtained, what, then, was the necessity of insisting upon examination in the case of the convent schools? It had been properly pointed out that the object of the institution of the religious orders was not in the first instance that of teaching; but, owing to the secular system of education which the Government imposed years ago upon the Irish people, it was seen fit in the wisdom of the directors of these religious Bodies to take up the subject of education, and having taken it up and succeeded in the remarkable way that they had done, the Irish people had a fit and proper case to ask this House to grant some better remuneration than hitherto. It was simply absurd that while the schools taught by nuns produced 8 or 10 per cent better results than the ordinary National schools, the nuns were paid only £8 as against £34 10 s. to the National teachers. The nuns produced 10 per cent better results, and they got 300 per cent less salary. That was a glaring anomaly, which should at once commend itself for correction to the minds of Her Majesty's Government. He did not desire to decry the National school teaching of Ireland, for everybody must feel gratification at the way in which the National teachers had done their duty, when they considered the small salaries which even these teachers received, and the bad way in which they were housed, and the poor

      365
      system of education which they received in their training schools; but, at the same time, the House must consider the great fact that the nuns gave something else to the country besides mere secular education. While agrarian crime in Ireland in the last few years had achieved an unfortunate pre-eminence, yet, if they turned to the statistics of morality, and went into America, and even in England, and examined the percentages amongst the Catholics of illegitimacy, or any unfortunate statistics of that nature, they would find there was a bright page in the records of the female Celtic population of Ireland. It had been shown over and over again that as regarded the percentages in which morality was concerned the Irish had a remarkably bright pre-eminence; and he had no doubt it was owing to the teaching received in the convent schools. Fortunately the day had long passed when Motions were made in that House with regard to the inspection of conventual institutions in Ireland; and he was glad to have heard last year from the hon. and much-respected Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that he had laid aside the prejudices, at least so far as their outward expression was concerned, which in former times he had been imbued with in regard to these institutions. He (Mr. Healy) noted that to show the advance of liberality which the House had made; and therefore the Chief Secretary would seek in vain—
      MR. NEWDEGATE: You misrepresent MR. I never repented of what I had done.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he should be sorry to impute any repentance to the hon. Gentleman. He merely stated that, in deference to feelings expressed on the Irish Benches, the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the Motions which had previously been annuals in his hands. The Chief Secretary could not now appeal to any prejudice with regard to conventual institutions. They noticed there tonight hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale), Protestants, and others, coming to assist in making a house for the nuns of Ireland, also some Scotch Members assisting in that course that showed a desire for fair play and justice. Even in foreign countries—he had known it to be the case in Belgium—the Freethink-
      366
      ing fathers of girls sent their daughters to convent schools to receive their education. In some instances in Ireland he had known Protestants so imbued with a consciousness of their superior moral and religious instruction, and knowing that no dogmatic teaching was to be intruded, that they sent their daughters to the Catholic schools. He trusted the Chief Secretary would not attempt to pay the nuns off with antique compliment, but that they should have something solid in his statement. In every way, except that of non-presentation for examinations, the nuns had a complete case, and there were sufficient reasons why the nuns should not present themselves for examination. They should bear in mind the large sums which the nuns had saved with regard to school endowments. All the convent schools of the nuns had been built at the expense of the Catholic parishioners; whereas in 80 cases, or even 90 out of 100, the local National Schools were built at the expense of the State. The State was not charged a penny for the erection of the nuns' schools, or for the training of their monitors or teachers. When they remembered that fact, and also that the nuns turned out 5 to 10 per cent better results than any other schools in Ireland, saving alone the model schools, it would be the merest technicality if the Chief Secretary should rest himself upon the non-presentation for examination. He hoped those religious ladies would be enabled to carry on with still further vigour and efficiency that teaching which had done so much for the moral life of the country.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That, in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that the teachers of Convent National Schools in Ireland be dealt with, as to remuneration, on equal terms with those applied to other teachers of Primary Schools in connection with the system of Irish National Education."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      MR. MELDONsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was entitled to the thanks of his countrymen for having brought forward one of the greatest unredressed grievances in Ireland. What was the reason given for its not having been redressed long ago? The only answer given was that the teachers in the schools of the religious orders did not present themselves for examination, and

      367
      were, therefore, deprived of every chance of remuneration in the way of salary. But was there any reason in this argument? The sole object of examining teachers was to secure that they should be thoroughly efficient. Therefore the only question to be discussed was whether the teachers of these schools had proved themselves to be efficient teachers. The last Report of the Commissioners on National Education showed that the convents continued to maintain their high character for usefulness and efficiency. Considering the higher education possessed by the nuns, he thought it was no wonder that Roman Catholics parents preferred those schools to others. There was a great deal of work done in those schools beside the mere communication of the elements of education. There was the moral training which the pupils received. He would like to refer to one or two figures in order to demonstrate that the efficiency of the teachers in the convent schools was beyond all doubt. The last Reports of the Commissioners respecting these schools were most favourable. There were 217 of these schools upon the roll of the National Board at the present time, and the number of scholars amounted to 105,453, while the average attendance was 52,424. The convent schools thus commanded an average attendance per school of 241. The House knew the great difficulty which existed in getting children to attend school, hence the clamour for compulsion; but the convent schools showed an average of 241, while the average attendance in the other schools was about 50. He found, further, that 20 per cent of all the girls in the entire country were educated in these schools, and that 95 per cent of the pupils qualified to be examined presented themselves, of whom 75·8 per cent passed. In the 208 convent schools, of the 46,366 scholars qualified to be presented for examination 100 per cent were actually presented, and 37,929, or nearly 82 per cent of those presented, passed. It was plain, therefore, that these schools were thoroughly efficient, and that the teachers brought about all that the most rigid examination of teachers could accomplish. The State paid, not because a teacher was examined, but for results, and it had been over and over again urged in that House that the State was willing to pay pro-
      368
      vided they got good value. It might be asked what value, and his reply was—"In the education of the children." If, as had been demonstrated, the highest results were obtained by teachers in these convent schools, why was nothing virtually being paid for the work so satisfactorily done? A similar school, where the attendance averaged 100, was entitled to a sum of £103 10 s. for the expenses of the principal teacher, the assistant teacher, and the monitors; but a nuns' school, with better attendance and better results, was only entitled to capitation grants amounting to £47. In fact, while the position of National School teachers had been improving progressively since 1855, the position of convent school teachers had gradually become worse than it was at that date, for privileges which they then possessed had been taken from them.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: It appears from the observations made by some hon. Members who have preceded me that they anticipate that I shall pursue a course dictated by prejudice with respect to the Motion now before the House, because it relates to schools connected with convents, and because the House of Commons thought fit to appoint a Committee to inquire into Monastic and Conventual Institutions existing in Great Britain on my Motion during the Session of 1870. That Committee reported in 1871. One of the principal objects I had in view in moving for that Committee was the establishment of a system for the inspection of convents similar to that which exists in most Continental countries. I have always been at a loss to understand why the Irish Roman Catholic Members of this House have always been so much narrower, and so much more exclusive in their views than are the Roman Catholics of the other nations of Europe. Why should hon. Members imagine that I was a party to doing them or their conventual establishments—nay, doing even the monastic establishments, which are illegal in this country—any injustice by having promoted inquiry by a Select Committee of this House in 1870? No legislative enactment ensued upon the Report of that Committee; but I am inclined to believe that it had a very useful operation as a warning. 1870 was a remark able year at Rome; it was the year of the Papal Council, and the States of

      369
      Europe from that date appear to have found it necessary to take action for the expulsion of the Jesuits, and for the control of some other monastic and conventual orders. Germany took action in 1872, Italy took action in 1873, Switzerland took action in 1874, Austria took action in 1876, and France took action in 1880. These conventual institutions, like the monastic institutions, are exaggeratedly Papal in their constitution, and it is to be presumed in their teaching. I do not wish to see Ireland more Papal than she is. I remember Mr. O'Connell as a Member of this House. Long since his death I became possessed of a laudatory History of the Jesuits, first published in America, and afterwards republished in Paris by M. Crétineau Joly. In this work it is declared that the late Mr. O'Connell was a pupil of the Jesuits, and that throughout his life he co-operated with the Jesuits in all matters relating to Ireland. I do not consider that Mr. O'Connell was a benefactor to Ireland, either as a promoter of her internal peace, or as an advocate for the unqualified repeal of the Corn Laws. Far be it from me to say anything disrespectful of the ladies who inhabit the Irish convents, and who find a natural and innocent gratification in the education of Irish children. The Committee of which I was a Member was limited in its inquiries to conventual and monastic institutions within Great Britain. I know nothing, therefore, directly with respect to Irish convents; but this I know—that a considerable number of the convents in Great Britain are wealthy. An Act was passed in 1860, with clauses enabling these convents to arrange their property. I therefore presume that some, at all events, of the Irish convents must have property. I remember that in 1874 the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) moved that the position of the Irish National School teachers ought to be improved. Again, in 1878, the hon. Member moved that means ought to be adopted for relieving the poverty of the Irish National School teachers; and I was quite prepared to vote in support of that hon. Member had he found it necessary to take a Division. I have, however, reason to believe that the convent teachers in Ireland suffer under no such poverty as the National School teachers endure. I hope, therefore, that since
      370
      the convents all refuse even such qualified inspection as the examination of their school teachers might involve, the Irish Government will consider the necessities of the National School teachers, who are exclusively dependent on the Government before they increase the grants to the convent school teachers, who are comparatively well to do.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that, however others might differ from the views the hon. Member who had just spoken had advanced, no one could doubt the perfect honesty and sincerity of purpose he always displayed. As to the question before the House, he thought the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had done good service in bringing it before the House, and that his criticisms had been characterized by very great moderation. He considered the question one of very great importance; and he (Mr. Russell) thought that the Government might, with good grace, and with every prospect of desirable results, yield to the proposal. The consensus of opinion in Ireland was to the effect that the convent schools did admirable work, and work of a higher degree of excellence than any other class of schools in Ireland. If there was an exception it was the model schools, which had cost the country a great deal of money. The results of the convent schools had, however, far exceeded those of the model schools. He did not know that the question need be argued as a matter of principle, as for a great many years past the State had on principle recognized it as its duty to advance the primary education of the people of Ireland, and had also recognized the claims made upon it to pay for work done in that direction. The simple claim which was made on the part of the religious teachers in these convent schools was that they should be paid for work which they did for the State upon the same terms of remuneration as the like work was paid for in other schools. As to the question of the superiority of the convent schools, Sir Patrick Keenan, the head of the Irish Education Department, had said in his evidence before the Powis Commission that, taking the different results averaging over a number of years, and taking the convent schools in one category and all other schools in the other, the convent schools showed greatly superior results, On the

      371
      same occasion, that gentleman had pointed out that the convent schools also gave valuable education in industrial training. He (Mr. C. Russell) had received a letter from a Lady Superior of one of the convent schools, in which she stated that she received 14s. for teaching a pupil for four hours each day during 52 weeks in the year. She wondered what other teachers would do if the3' were only assisted to this extent. Of late years the result fees increased somewhat; but it had been no personal benefit to them. They devoted their school funds to the support of orphans and the relief of the poor visited in their homes. It would be the poor who would reap the benefit; they wished they could receive more orphans. Comparing the state of things as regarded the maximum results under the present Code of the National Board, they found that the nuns were paid less than one-fourth of the rate paid to secular teachers, and that, too, for equal, if not superior, tuition. These were examples, he thought, sufficiently glaring. But what were the reasons given for this state of things? They were that, according to the 57th Rule of the Board of National Education, the teachers who were non-certificated were treated differently in point of payment from those who were certificated; and as certification followed upon examination, and the nuns did not submit to examination, they were not certificated. How was this? Practically speaking, it was enough to say that the Bishops in the Synod held at Maynooth some years ago—for reasons which, no doubt, were sufficient in their judgment—came to the conclusion that the ladies in these convents ought not to submit to allow themselves for examination. In the case of many of those teaching and religious communities the members belonged to orders known as "inclosed orders," by whose rules they were not supposed to go outside the establishments to which they belonged except for special reasons. Therefore, the Bishops had thought it right that none of these should submit themselves to classification. But when, in 1871, the State recognized a more important and valuable test—namely, the test of results, and payment by results—the fact of non-certification ceased to have any force as a reason for reduced payment to the non-certificated
      372
      teachers. But, in fact, examination could not determine the existence of some of the most essential qualifications in a teacher. It seemed to him that the most important qualification of the teacher was his or her ability to impart to others the information which he or she possessed. More than that, the exercise of powers of self-control, the power of governing others, and the power of influencing others were properties which could never be accurately tested by an examination. But these might be carefully gauged by results, and in the case of the convent schools the Reports frankly avowed over and over again the marked superiority of the religious teachers. The influence of the convent teachers upon their pupils did not end with their convent pupil life. It followed the pupils through their after life. He thought he had shown some reasons why the injustice in the existing state of things should be remedied, and also that no adequate reason had been adduced to justify its continuance. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would see its way, either by increasing the capitation grant or by increasing the payment by results, to equalize the payment of the convent and secular teachers.
      MR. J. E. REDMONDsaid, the Government was to be congratulated on the fact that the attempt made at an earlier hour of the debate to count the House had failed, because if a count had taken place on this subject, it could not but reflect grave discredit upon the Government, whose duty it was to keep a House for the purpose of discussing a grievance of this character. That debate was a very remarkable one; for every Member who had spoken agreed that the convent schools of Ireland were labouring under a grave disability. There was one exception, an exception that was to be expected by everyone acquainted with the proceedings and the history of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate); but even he admitted that his conscience was satisfied. His Committee, of which he was so proud, had quieted his soul; but he said the Committee of Inspection proved that the English convents were wealthy, and from that he drew the extraordinary inference that the convents of Ireland were wealthy also. Well, even admitting that they were wealthy, which they were not,

      373
      was that any reason why they should not be paid for doing the work for the doing of which others were paid? The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) asked how he would support a Committee of Inspection? Was the hon. Member so ignorant or so inattentive to that debate as not to know that these schools were at present inspected by a Government Inspector? In 1831, when the National system was established, teachers were paid £10 per cent on the number of pupils on the roll. In 1855 that was changed, and it was £20 per cent. But what was given by one hand was taken away by another; for it was made £20 per cent on the average attendance instead of on the number on the roll, which was found to be about one-half. He did not see why the convent teachers should be classified, when in 1871 the Government admitted the principle of payment by results. The Government could meet this difficulty in many ways. They could give the full amount of the salaries to the convent teachers whose schools were above a certain standard, and cease to pay it when the schools fell below that standard. He hoped the Chief Secretary, for the first time during his holding of Office, and not, he hoped, for the only time, would remove this crying grievance, which was felt by a large portion of the Irish people. England still owed something to Irish Catholic education, and the time had been when they were taunted with their ignorance, which had been owing to the fact that the means of education had been denied the people. He believed that if the grievance which they were now calling attention to were not removed, the people would regard the treatment of the nuns as a sort of remaining shred of the penal spirit which forbade education to Catholic Ireland. If the Government did not concede the just claims of the convent teachers, it would be impossible to remove from the minds of the great bulk of the Irish people the suspicion that the penal times were not dead yet in that House. If this concession was not granted, the Government would be undoubtedly curtailing the means at the disposal of the great mass of the Irish people of obtaining a sound education for their children. It was the duty of the Government to afford them every possibility of advancing Irish education amongst the lower classes of the
      374
      Irish people. They often heard the aspirations and hopes expressed by Members of that House that the Irish people would become less violent and more peaceable, and look with greater hope and confidence to that House. Well, if ever the Irish people looked with confidence to an English Administration—he confessed he never would—that day would never come while they met refusals to requests of this kind. He thought it was an insult to these ladies who did the noblest work that could be done by mortal hands or brains in educating the children of the poor of Ireland to ask them to come out of their cloisters to submit to an examination side by side with, perhaps, pupils from their own convent schools, in a public room conducted by examiners chosen haphazard. There were 200 convent schools in Ireland, towards the erection of which the Government had not contributed a farthing, so that from this cause alone they had saved from £300,000 to £400,000 to the State. He thought, therefore, under all these circumstances, they would be met with no plausible refusals, but that the Government would take a just and generous view of the question.
      MR. M'COANsaid, he thought the advocacy of this cause should not be left entirely to the Catholic Members. As a Protestant, he endorsed all that had fallen from hon. Members as to the services these ladies rendered to education in Ireland. These ladies were of the highest moral character, and had received a much higher scholastic training than the teachers in the National Schools. He held a memorandum in his hand, drawn up, he understood, by Professor Kavanagh, from official sources; and the result left on his mind after perusing it was that the justness of their demand was indisputable. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had placed before the House the cardinal point—results; and it was too late in the day for the Government to insist on any rigid rule of examinations. It was his (Mr. M'Coan's) conviction that higher moral tone and discipline was given to the pupils attending the convent schools than to those of any other.
      SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to bear testimony to the intense interest taken throughout the county he

      375
      represented in the claims of the nuns to fair remuneration for their valuable services. The rules with reference to examination stood in the way of an admitted grievance, and there could be no good reason for insisting upon rigidly enforcing them. The nuns were bound to obey the Church to which they belonged, and that Church forbade them to submit themselves to these examinations. At the same time, the feeling in Ireland was unanimous in favour of the concession of their claims. It was admitted that the results shown by their teaching were most satisfactory; and there could be no reason why the opinion of a few Commissioners in Dublin should be permitted to outweigh the unanimous wish of the country. The present proposal was made without opposition from any section of the Irish Members. It was a matter of right, and he could not conceive the Government longer refusing to do the justice demanded.
      MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he did not wish to protract the debate; but he desired to point out that there were some minor considerations in favour of the proposal which had not yet been brought to the notice of the House. One of these was the rule of these establishments which precluded them from taking any fees from the parents of the children. This was a source of emolument to the National teachers, and he thought that it was another reason why State aid should not be denied them. It should also be borne in mind that the nuns were precluded from making any appointment of monitors or work mistresses from their own community, and thus a source of income was lost to them. It was clear that the miserable stipends offered to the convents were no remuneration whatever for the services they gave to the State. The grievance brought forward by the Motion was one not of a particular section, but of the whole people of Ireland. The nuns devoted their lives to the poorer classes of Ireland, and their desire was not that their convents should be enriched, but simply that the scope of their labours should be extended, and that the duties to which they gave their lives might be productive in good results. The only difficulty in the way of recognizing the claims of the convent schools seemed to be the question of the examination; but
      376
      he thought that that was an artificial difficulty which could be easily removed. Even in the case of the ordinary National teacher his examination was not the chief element in fixing the salary. No matter how satisfactory might be his examination from a literary point of view, unless his school was in a certain state of efficiency he did not get the class for which he might have passed. This itself was a proof that even the Board of Education did not look to his examination as the proper test of the value of the services which a teacher might give to the State. After all, the state of efficiency in a school was to every reasonable man the proper test of the value of the teaching; and it did not follow that those teachers who passed the best examination necessarily kept their schools in the highest state of efficiency. Both as regarded the regularity of attendance and the proficiency of the pupils, the convent schools stood far above the National. It was only fair to the National School teachers to say that this was owing to the fact of the communities of the convents having a larger staff in the working of their schools. That, however, did not at all diminish the claim of the nuns to proper remuneration from the State. The difficulty of examination was one which might be easily disposed of; and in disposing of it in a satisfactory manner, so as to remove the soreness felt on this question in Ireland, the Chief Secretary would find himself in collision with no class in Ireland. The unanimity exhibited in the House to-night went to prove that on this question the whole Irish people were practically agreed.
      MR. FINDLATERsaid, he rose, as an Irish Protestant Member, to give his hearty support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). When the National School system was founded in 1831, the Commissioners, at one of their earliest meetings, consulted the Irish Government as to the propriety of giving aid to Monastic and Convent Schools, and the proposal was warmly supported, approved, and acted upon. Up to 1837, the original scheme proposed, which was the grant of gratuities of £8 or £10 to each school for every 100 pupils on the roll, was carried out as regarded all schools, whether convent, monastic, or secular; but in that year a change was made, and permanent

      377
      salaries founded on classification were first introduced. These salaries, small at first, had been increased from time to time until they now stood thus:—Masters, first class, £70, £60, and £53, according to grades; second class, £46 and £44; and third class, £35. Mistresses, first class, £58, £50, and £43; second class, £37 and £34 10 s.; and third class, £27 10 s. These schools conducted by the religious communities being opposed to the principle of individual examination of their mistresses, and to class certificates, the original capitation allowance made to them of £10 for every 100 pupils on the roll was changed in 1855 to £20 for every £100 pupils in average daily attendance. This was substantially the same, as the former was nearly double the latter, so that the religious schools were now exactly in the same position they were in 30 years ago. In 1871 the scheme of payment by results was introduced, under which the teachers of secular schools derived two-thirds of their State aid from personal salaries, and one-third from results; while the religious schools, which were subject to the same test, obtained a very much smaller proportion of aid through the miserable capitation grant of £20 for every 100 pupils in average daily attendance. There could be no doubt that results were the best of all tests of the efficiency of the teachers; and, judging the religious schools by this standard, they stood in an excellent position. He quoted figures to show how well the convent schools did their work both from a literary and industrial point of view. In fact, these schools were in the van in the matter of industrial education. Furthermore, their teachers were trained at their own expense, and while the secular teachers received pensions from the State, the nuns sought no pensions, and never had. Why, then, when the cost to the State was so much less in many respects, had not the State been more liberal to those who had done and were doing such excellent work? He would, no doubt, be told that if the nuns chose to undergo the examination necessary for classification they would be entitled to the benefits of the recent increase granted to classified teachers; but he presumed that they were precluded by the Ordinances of their Church from submitting to such an examination. He would ask why
      378
      should not a feeling such as this be respected, and justice done to these schools by an increase of the capitation grant, which in the case of the religious schools had the same relation as the salary of the lay teachers? The nuns had shown unmistakably that they both possessed the knowledge and the power of imparting it by the results which their pupils had attained. Why, then, should there be such a disparity in rewarding services in all respects similar? He was afraid that the answer must be that the nuns had either no Parliamentary influence, or they did not make effectual use of it. He had great pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this question had proved to demonstration the justice of the claim now made. That claim might be summarized in a few words. It had been admitted that the teachers of these schools were competent and proper teachers. Their schools were under Government supervision and inspection; and the ladies, as was shown by the Reports of gentlemen appointed by the Government, produced the very highest and most excellent results. The Inspectors admitted the superiority of the nuns' teaching over that of the ordinary National Schools as well as of the model schools. It was, therefore, reasonable, looking to the educational results produced, to ask that these convent schools should have the amount of grant increased. Every class teacher under the State, both in England and Ireland, had within the last few years demanded and received fitting recognition for their labours in augmented salaries and a right to pensions. But though each year the Inspectors under the National Board testified to the excellence of the educational work performed by the teachers in the convent schools, yet these teachers had been treated with shameful neglect by the Government. Indeed, instead of augmented aid, they had suffered diminution, because the building grants which they were formerly allowed in aid of schools had been of late withdrawn. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would give a favourable answer to this Motion. As far back as 1878 the National Board in Ireland felt so convinced of the justice of the claim

      379
      of the nuns in respect of this matter that they recommended they should get a large increase. The Chief Secretary would find from documents in his possession that the recommendation was made alike by Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Catholic Members of the Board; and he must say, in justice to the late Conservative Chief Secretary for Ireland, that after his attention had been directed to the matter by means of Questions, he showed a desire to meet the demand then made in a fair and equitable way. This was shortly before the right hon. Gentleman left Office; and he believed that if the Conservative Government had remained in power the convent teachers would not now be waiting in vain to have their just claims redressed at the hands of the House.
      MR. TREVELYAN: I may say, at the outset of the remarks I have to make, that the Resolution in the shape in which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has moved it, is one which it would be impossible for the Government, and perhaps impossible for the House, or any part of the House, to adopt. It is a very difficult Resolution. There are, no doubt, some words in the Resolution which the hon. Member has moved which justified the remarks which have been made by hon. Members who have followed him, all of whom have spoken in strict accordance with the spirit of the Resolution: but I can hardly think that the hon. Member for Cavan would wish the House to set the seal of its approbation on the opinion that—
      "It is just and expedient that the teachers of Convent National Schools in Ireland be dealt with, as to remuneration, on equal terms with those applied to other teachers of Primary Schools in connection with the system of Irish National Education."
      The rules of the Commissioners of the National Education in Ireland on this point are absolute; and, so far from being the worst treated, as far as the rules can define that treatment, teachers of the National Schools are better treated than any other teachers in Ireland. Rule 57, which is the cardinal rule in this case, was quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and quoted quite correctly. The amount of salaries in the Convent National Schools is exactly the same as that allotted to teachers of other schools, if
      380
      they were only willing to adopt the principle of classification, and submit themselves to classification. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not trying to bewilder hon. Gentlemen, but I am simply speaking to the terms of the Resolution; and if those schools object to that principle, and are unwilling to submit themselves to examination, then they are not left as other teachers would be, to what they can get by result fees, but they are allowed to take a capitation grant of 4s. for the number of children educated. Therefore, if the Resolution of the hon. Member for Cavan were carried exactly as it stands on the Paper, I conclude that the only result would be that the teachers would be deprived of that privilege of being able to get the capitation fee, where, in a great number of cases, they refuse to subject themselves to examination. I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan, and those of other hon. Members, that they do not suggest to the Government any cut-and-dried or any unelastic principle, and that their object in the debate to-night is to impress upon the minds of the country and the Government that teachers in convent schools are under disadvantages which ought not to exist. Now, it is important to consider what those disadvantages are. I must say that, in some respects, hon. Members have only stated one-half of the case to-day. The hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. J. E. Redmond), putting the case in somewhat more animated language than it was put by other hon. Members, but still speaking in exact accordance with their views, said it was a remnant of the old penal statute, forbidding the teaching of Irish children by Catholics, or words to that effect. Now, the grievance under which the Catholic convent children are labouring is one that is peculiar to Ireland; and, so far from the assertion of the hon. Member being correct, Ireland is the only country in Europe where nuns are permitted to teach in a public school, and to obtain any State aid for their teaching without submitting to the examinations demanded from other teachers. I will not enlarge upon that statement. It is sufficiently strong in itself to refute, and refute absolutely, the idea that, in this case, there is any special disadvantage placed upon Ireland. It is difficult to argue this as a question of principle, when we

      381
      are arguing it with reference to such a Church as the Roman Catholic Church—a Church which I conclude does not know any difference in right or wrong in different countries. In England, all the teachers of the Roman Catholic denomination are included, so far as the statistics of the Education Department are concerned, in the general body of certificated and assistant teachers. There were, and no doubt are, some convent schools in England which refuse to submit to the examinations demanded by the Department; but the teachers in those schools have, at the same time, to submit to the disadvantage which that refusal brings with it, and they do not share in any respect in any of the advantages which the certificated teachers receive. Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom, and the only country in Europe, in which members of religious Bodies, whether male or female, are allowed to share in any of the advantages of public subsidies, unless they submit themselves, in the first instance, to a public examination. And now in regard to this question of undergoing a State examination. I think some words have been used which convey an inaccurate meaning to the House. We have heard of these ladies being obliged to come out from their cloisters, or of their being obliged to expose themselves to the indiscriminate contact of a public examination; but it must be remembered that these examinations are written examinations only. There is no oral examination whatever, so these ladies are perfectly free from the embarrassment which might attend a vivâ voce examination at a distance from their own establishment. Nor is it the case that the objection to undergo these examinations is universal among these ladies, and among the members of religious houses of the other sex in Ireland. There are, if I recollect right, 224 schools attached to convents and monasteries. Of these, 20 schools have submitted to a system of examination and classification; and of these 20 schools the nuns receive as much payment as if they were lay-trained teachers. In fact, they receive more; because there is one point in which I can most heartily agree with every hon. Member who has spoken on the subject; and that is that, in regard to these payments, which depend upon the efficiency of the teaching, the amount
      382
      of money earned by the convent schools is very much in excess of that earned by any other schools, although it falls short, at the same time, of that which is earned by the smaller number of model schools.
      MR. SEXTON: Have any teachers been qualified in these schools since 1875?
      MR. TREVELYAN: I conclude that that is so; but I am unwilling to speak positively. From information I have received. I believe it is the case; but I cannot say positively whether the members of these religious Bodies have been qualified or not. They certainly were between 1873 and 1875.
      MR. HARRINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any case?
      MR. TREVELYAN: I can only say that it is not a question of any particular diocese, but that these certificated teachers connected with the convent schools are scattered throughout 10 of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland. The hon. Member for Cavan, when he introduced this question, referred to what he considered to be an unfair distinction which the Government drew between the teachers of convent schools and the teachers of the lay schools with regard to the amount of the capitation grant. The hon. Member said the teachers of convent schools were rigidly confined to 4s. per head for the children; whereas in lay schools, where the capitation grant was given, that capitation grant was as high as 16 s. 8d. per head. The hon. Member spoke quite correctly; but he did not apprehend the circumstances under which this grant is made to the lay schools. There is a rule that, in schools in which the children in average attendance are under 30, the teacher shall not be allowed to obtain a grant certificate; and, under those circumstances, in order to provide that these small schools are not stinted in regard to public money, a capitation grant is given to the amount of 16 s. 8d.; but that capitation grant is given only in the special case of a small school, which, otherwise, could not be maintained at all. It is given as a pis aller; because there are no other means of seeing that such schools are properly endowed with proper money. But in the case of the convent schools taught by the nuns, the number of children are large, and there is no cause that they should come under the same head as these small schools,

      383
      where it is necessary to name a certain sum of capitation grant in order that they may get a share of the public funds at all. The hon. Member likewise spoke of the disadvantage under which the nuns stand in regard to monitors. I did not take down his words at the time; but they amount to this—that they did not get sufficient pay for their monitors. Now, I cannot say that is a fair or a just statement according to the views of the Education Commissioners. In addition to the capitation payments, and the result payments in the convent schools, they receive a sum of about £10,630 a-year in payment of their monitorial staff, and also premiums for instructing those monitors, which places them on equal terms with the lay teachers. In that respect, again, they are better treated than similar schools in England, because the same class of teachers in England who receive capitation grants are teachers who were permitted, during a very short period after the passing of the Education Act, to be paid by capitation grants, because the demand for teachers was so great in England at that time that they were unable to get a sufficient number of certificated teachers. But capitation grants under these circumstances were made during a very limited period, and there was an express stipulation that no teacher paid by capitation grant and who was not a certificated teacher should be qualified to have a pupil teacher under him or her. In the case of these ladies the Education Department showed that amount of confidence in them that it allowed them to teach and have the care of monitors, while it paid those monitors by exactly the same rate at which monitors under certificated teachers were paid. Under those circumstances, I think it must be evident to the House that there are two sides to this question, and that hon. Members have dwelt far too much on the one side, while they have neglected the other; but I do not, at the same time, say that there is not another side. I think that the principle from which the Government cannot possibly depart is the principle that as an element in the efficiency of the schools it is very important to have a Government test in regard to the efficiency of the teachers. One hon. Member says that the teaching of the children is really subsidiary to
      384
      the other work that the nuns have to do, and that they have other things of greater importance to occupy themselves in, and that it would be very hard to call upon them to present themselves for public examination. Not in their capacity of sisters of a religious Body, but in their capacity of teachers, in which they are distinctly public servants, we have a right to call on them to subject themselves to the conditions to which other public servants are subjected. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that they cannot depart from this principle. In every possible way we must encourage the teachers of the public schools to present themselves at these examinations in order to test their efficiency as teachers. The Government certainly cannot act as far as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening would be prepared to go, in placing these ladies who have not passed an examination on exactly the same level as the lay teachers who have passed an examination. On the other hand, there is a great deal of truth in what has been stated by several hon. Members that what the House has to look to is the results, and that if it can be satisfied that it gets a very good article, it should pay the money which that article is worth. The Irish Government have for some time past had this question under their consideration. I regret that these convent schools, or, indeed, that any schools, should have been dealt with under the principle of bold and downright capitation. It seems to me that is dealing with human heads in the school in almost the same manner in which you deal with cattle in the market. It is a principle which, in my opinion, is an exceedingly false one. I have been sorry to hear it started, and I certainly shall not, as far as I am concerned, carry it any further; but I must say I think it is worth while to see whether there is not some middle course. I think, as I have said already, that the Government would not be justified in placing these members of religious Bodies in exactly the same position pecuniarily as the lay teachers who possess certificates, and I see an argument against it in the extremely eloquent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). As far as I can fol-

      385
      low the passage of his speech to which I refer, he appealed to us on the ground of the very great extent to which these ladies involved themselves by the charitable works in which they engaged. Now, it is no part of the business of the Government to help these ladies in their charitable works. The Government fully admire their zeal in that respect, and warmly appreciate the sacrifice they make in the work of education; but it is no part of the duty of the Government to provide them with money for that purpose. It is one of the conditions of their life that they are able to give some of their spare time to the teaching of the children; and I think for that reason, among others, that they can hardly complain, if they do not find themselves, they having as it were abandoned the world, in exactly as good a position as teachers who have taken up professional teaching in order to live by it. They cannot expect to be paid exactly as if they were in. the open market competing with teachers, who are compelled to live by their teaching, and to make a profession of it for their wives and families. For these reasons, the Government still wish to give great encouragement to these ladies as to other teachers to submit themselves to Government examinations, in the belief that, as time goes on, the feeling against submitting to these public examinations will die out. The Government, therefore, intend to keep up, whatever else they may do, the distinct difference between lay teachers and the teachers in the Convent schools; but, at the same time, the Government are considering, with an earnest desire to come to some satisfactory solution of the question, whether some means may not be found, dependent upon the efficiency of these Convent schools, to enable the grants from the Exchequer to approach somewhat nearer than they do at present to the desires of these Convent schools.
      MR. DAWSONsaid, he had to complain that while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted, as a universal proposition, the efficiency of the teaching in the Convent schools, he refused to the nuns the remuneration given to the lay teachers who failed to produce the same excellent results. Now, what was the whole business of education? He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minis-
      386
      ter of Education and some other Ministers, although it was past midnight, entering the House for the first time to take their places on the Treasury Bench and listen to the discussion. Only a few minutes ago the Treasury Bench had been entirely denuded of all the responsible Ministers of the Crown. The Committee of Education, of which he (Mr. Dawson) was a Member, was now sitting; and although, from private reasons, he had not been able to attend the sittings, he entertained deep sympathy with the object, and had carefully studied the reports of the proceedings. He repeated that the Chief Secretary had entirely admitted the whole of the case attempted to be made out by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and those who supported him. Now, what was the aim and object of education? It was not to produce teachers, so much as to produce an educated people; and it was admitted that the nuns had preeminently distinguished themselves by the efficiency of their teaching. It mattered not how the results were attained, if the people were educated in a successful manner; and he regretted to see the Government turning round upon some quibble, and refusing to these ladies, who had produced such satisfactory results, the remuneration to which they were fairly entitled. The right hon Gentleman said, in one breath, that the Government would make no distinction, and, in the very next, he proposed to make a very serious distinction. The right hon. Gentleman said the complaint of the hon. Member for Cavan was against the 57th rule. Now, the Irish Members found fault with no rules; but they found fault with the terms on which the Convent schools were paid, not only for the same, but for better results than those produced by the lay teachers. He (Mr. Dawson) thought that too much stress could not be laid upon that point. He was himself altogether in favour of a system that would secure that, when the State paid for education, the country should really get it; and he thought that the State ought to pay for it all the same, whether it was supplied by Convent schools, or in, any other form, if the results were satisfactory. In this case, however, if there was any choice between the two, the results in the case of the Convent schools were better than the results in the case

      387
      of the other schools. Where, then, was the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman or of the National Board of Education? It was not a question of principle, but a question of degree. The Government abandoned the principle when they gave a capitation grant. Why did they give a capitation grant at all? Why did they give £20, or £10, or any sum whatever? It was a salary, and why did they give it? In giving it, they at once abandoned the principle. They only gave it, however, to a small and restricted extent, and refused to extend it any further. There was no principle in such an argument. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Minister of Education, to stand up in that place and say why it was that they gave a capitation grant at all. On what ground did they give £10, and refuse to give £40? They ought to act upon some principle of logic, in order to show that they properly appreciated the question. There was another thing he wished to mention. Why did the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Boss (Mr. J. E. Redmond) assume that, if they cut down the nuns' well-earned fee, those ladies would gladly continue to give their services in the cause of education? There was no compulsory system of education in Ireland; that was, it was alleged that because compulsory education did not exist there, that the nuns were to be defrauded of their remuneration. He protested against the starving of the Convent schools. It was said that in England the school rate was supplemented largely by voluntary contributions, and that that was not the case in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman having granted the general proposition, as if he were trying to make the case still stronger, went on to quote the advantages afforded by the schools. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Convent schools had a much larger number of children in proportion than the National Board schools. Did the right hon. Gentleman not know that that fact produced a saving to the Board of Education, and that more largely a school was attended the less expense was incurred in inspection and other respects? These Convent schools, therefore, gave advantages to the National Board, for which they ought to be recouped. It had often been urged
      388
      that it was the nuns alone in religious orders who carried out the work of education in Ireland, and he had not only seen it stated in the Press, but had read it in evidence, that the people of Ireland would not contribute anything to the work of education. He asserted, on the contrary, that a much larger proportionate amount was contributed voluntarily for educational purposes in Ireland than in rich England. It was a fact that the Convent schools of Ireland had been built at a cost of £400,000, and that altogether more than £1,000,000 had been contributed for educational purposes in that country during the last few months. Nevertheless, hon. Members opposite turned round flippantly, and said the Irish people did nothing. The nuns of Ireland sprung from the laity, and they expended their fortunes without remuneration in works of education and charity. All that was asked was that the Government should treat the Convent schools on the same principle as the National schools. They did not ask the Government to maintain them. The nuns maintained them themselves through the resources they obtained from the Irish people. Therefore, they had an unanswerable claim upon. Her Majesty's Government to take their case into consideration, and to see that the country really got what they paid for. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to what was done in foreign countries; but he (Mr. Dawson) contended that no parallel could be drawn between the systems pursued abroad and in Ireland. In every other country education had been raised, whether lay or clerical, to a dignity and position which it did not occupy in Ireland. At present there were two systems pursued in Ireland, and he called upon the Government to abandon one of them, and retain the other. If they were to pay the nuns by results, let them be paid by results; and if they were to be paid by salary, then let them be paid by salary. Unless some such principle were adopted by the Government, it would be almost preferable to go back to the system by which education was made to depend upon the love of learning, without being undertaken for any kind of remuneration whatever. On the Treasury Bench education was rapidly becoming to be regarded as a mere mecha-

      389
      nical and trade matter. The Government admitted the overwelming efficiency of the Catholic schools, and because they were efficient, and had produced wonderful results, they ought not to be deprived of the fruit of their labour, while others were rewarded who had altogether failed to produce the same results.
      COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he wished to say a word or two as to the two ways by which the Government sought, to a certain extent, to meet the question, without giving salaries, where a public examination had not been passed. One mode was suggested by the Commissioners of National Education in 1878. When £60,000 a-year was given towards the increase of national teachers, the Commissioners recommended that it should be given for results; and, if their advice had been followed, the Convents would have had a fair share of the Vote. But the Government of the day, no doubt, for sufficient reasons, elected to give the money in another way, the consequence of which was that the payment by result fees did not apply to the Convent schools. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on referring to the Reports of the Commissioners on National Education, would be able to put his hand upon that scheme; and if he would adopt it now, or an alternative scheme submitted about the same time for a special scale of result fees to schools paid by capitation grants, a great deal of what the Irish Members had been asking for would be effected. There was another way in which considerable assistance might be given—namely, in regard to the question of building. There had been, as several hon. Members had observed, an enormous expenditure on the part of the Convents in the shape of building schools out of their own resources. If a system of building grants, or building loans, were introduced in reference to non-vested schools, the Convents would be able to take a share of it. At present, no assistance was given to building, except to schools which were vested in Trustees. As it was impossible for Convents to invests their schools in Trustees, they were, therefore, excluded from the building grants. He believed that, if building grants were given to non-invested schools, they would be largely resorted to by Convents, and, in addi-
      390
      tion, those Convents which had already private schools should be allowed to recoup the expenditure they had incurred by obtaining loans to pay off the debt upon such schools. He submitted these points to the consideration of the Government, because his right hon. Friend had frankly and completely admitted that there was a grievance. He certainly did not take the unfavourable view of his right hon. Friend's speech which the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) did; and he thought that a more liberal system of result fees and building grants would get over the difficulty.
      MR. ARCHDALEsaid, that if grants of public money were given to Convent schools, they ought also to be given to the Church schools.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 71: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 67.)

    COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

      MOTION FOR A PAPER.
      MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR moved for a Return of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland showing the name and religious denomination of each Commissioner, the number of attendances at the ordinary and special meetings of the Board during the 12 months ended in March last, the dates of the ordinary and special meetings, the number of Commissioners present on each occasion, the number necessary to constitute a quorum, the names and addresses of Commissioners who had been paid personal expenses, the sum paid to each, and a copy of any minutes or regulations of the Board defining the conditions, duties, and powers of Sub-Committees.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, showing:—

      (1.) The name and religious denomination of each Commissioner;

      (2.) The number of attendances made by each at (a.) the ordinary and (b.) special meetings of the Board during the twelve months ended the 31st day of March 1884;

      (3.) The dates on which (a.) ordinary and (b.) special meetings were held, and the names of Commissioners present on each occasion;

      391

      (4.) The number necessary to constitute a quorum (if any), and the number of occasions (if any) on which the attendance of Commissioners fell short of this number;

      (5.) The names and addresses of Commissioners (if any) who have been paid personal expenses, and the sum so paid to to each;"

      "And, Copy of any Minutes or Regulations of the Board defining the constitution, duties, and powers of Sub - Committees."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in reply to the Motion of the lion. Member for Cavan, he was always unwilling to stand in the way of any desire for information upon any public question; but, with regard to this Return, he must own that lie should be glad if the hon. Member would give some explanation of the use Jo which lie proposed to put it, or the object for which he moved it. It was a Return of such a nature that he should be unwilling, under any circumstances, to grant, unless a decided public advantage could be shown for giving it.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the reason he asked for the Return was that he desired to ascertain to what extent these public servants performed their duties. The first part of the Motion was of a merely formal nature. He believed that gentlemen who professed the Catholic religion were, in some cases, quite as unfavourable to the work of education as non-Catholics. He wanted also to know the attendance given by each of the Commissioners, so that there might be an opportunity of seeing who was responsible for the different matters of which complaint was made. As was very well known, many of the Commissioners lived in different parts of Ireland, and he wanted to ascertain whether the entire work devolved upon a very small number, or whether the whole generally attended the meetings. He thought the document he asked for was a very reasonable one, and that it was much wanted. If they found that certain gentlemen gave no attention at all to the work of the Commission, their names ought to be removed from the list of members, and their places supplied by others who would do the work. The question of National Education was a very important one, and one in regard to which questions were constantly arising that were of interest to the constituents whom the Irish Members represented. It was most desirable, therefore, that they should
      392
      have the means of knowing who were responsible for the various matters which arose in connection with the work of education.
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he saw a long list of questions included in the Motion, and he thought the answer of the hon. Member for Cavan had increased his difficulty in granting the Return. The hon. Member said he wished to see who were in constant attendance at Dublin, and who were not. It was quite obvious that upon a very large Board, chosen for the purpose of representing the whole of Ireland, all the members could not live in Dublin. It was very undesirable that they should do so; and the object of the hon. Member appeared to be to ascertain which of the members were not the ordinary attendants of the meetings of the Board. It was only to be presumed that among the members who were not ordinarily in attendance would be the great majority of members who lived away from Dublin at a very considerable distance, and who could only come up at very great inconvenience, but who reserved to themselves the right of coming up on any occasion, when a great and important work of administration, carried out by the Board, had to be discussed. He could quite see that Irish Education might be very well managed by two or three paid Commissioners, all of them quartered in Dublin; but that was not the system on which it was managed, and he thought the present system was a better one. It was managed by a special representative Body selected from the whole of Ireland, and to pick out those who lived at a distance, and who could only attend on great occasions, and to hold them up in some sense to public reprobation would, he thought, be unfair. He would tell the hon. Member what would be the effect of granting this Return. The Return asked for the names and addresses of Commissioners, if any, who have been paid personal expenses, and the sum so paid to each. Now, who were those members who had their personal expenses paid to them? They were those members who lived at a distance from Dublin, who, when they came up, were paid their fares and their residential expenses during the period they were in Dublin; and those gentlemen would find themselves in the disagreeable predicament of being held up,

      393
      on the one hand, as having attended much more seldom than those gentlemen who habitually resided in Dublin; and of having, on the other hand, received the public money, while those who were resident in Dublin had received none. Under those circumstances, he certainly could not agree to Sub-head 5 of the Return, because that was merely another form, and he thought an unpleasant form, of specifying the names of those gentlemen who lived at a distance from Dublin, and who obtained payment of their expenses, without any explanation of the circumstances which induced them to ask for an allowance. Nor could he agree to the religious denomination of each member being attached to the name of each Commissioner. Upon that point, he must enter an absolute protest on the part of the Government. To the best of his knowledge, during the time he had been connected with the Government, they had never given a Return of that nature. The utmost they had ever done was to give the aggregate number of members of each religious denomination in any special Body connected with the Public Service. He would not say that it had never been done by others; but, certainly, it had not been done in any Department with which he had been connected. He should be glad to give the names of the Commissioners, and the aggregate number of members of each religious denomination, but nothing further. Then, again, with regard to the number of attendances, he should be willing to give that, if the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion at the present moment, and allow him slightly to alter it, or if there was an understanding that a note might be subjoined, which should specify what members of the Board were habitually resident in Dublin, and what members lived at a distance from Dublin. If that were done, the objections he entertained to the Return would be substantially removed; and although the Commissioners of National Education would not, he thought, approve of the Return being given in any shape, because it was most unusual to ask for any Return of that sort, still if hon. Members opposite pressed it in the shape he had outlined, he would agree to give it.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he quite understood that the Commissioners of Na-
      394
      tional Education would make a strong objection to this Return in its present shape, or, indeed, in any shape which human ingenuity could devise. The Commissioners of National Education, of all public Bodies in Ireland, were the most nervous in regard to the publicity of their transactions. He could, therefore, quite understand why the Government should be unwilling to give a Return which would supply any data to the House; but would they give the dates of the ordinary meetings, and the Commissioners present on each occasion? Would they give Sub-head 3?
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was quite willing to give the first four sub-heads of the Return and a copy of the Minutes, with the exception that, in the 1st subhead, he could not attach the religious denominations of the Commissioners.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, that, in that case, he should advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) to accept the Return in an amended shape; but he must express a hope that, whenever it was necessary for the House to have a Return, the unwillingness of the Department to give it and have criticism applied, would not be given as a reason for not granting the Return.
      MR. HEALYsuggested that the Return should be granted now as it stood, and that then the Speaker should amend it by leaving out "religious denomination" inline 1, and the whole of Subhead 5. He thought that would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He would move to leave out "religious denomination" in Sub-head 1.
      Amendment proposed, in sub-head (1.) to leave out the words "and religious denomination."—(Mr. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'and religious denomination' stand part of the Question."
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not understand this difficulty about the religious denomination. Why should the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland object to give the religious denomination of the Commissioners? He (Colonel King-Harman) did not suppose those Commissioners were ashamed of their religion, and he did not see why their religion should not be given in a public Return. As to the allegation that they kept their pro-

      395
      ceedings secret, he knew nothing about that; but he had invariably found them to be a body of men who were always perfectly willing to face the light of day, and he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should object to giving this Return in every respect. It was ridiculous to object to give their religion, as if any gentleman in Ireland was ashamed of his religion, or as if there was anything wrong in their religion, or anything to be concealed. There was nothing of the kind, and he hoped, that if the Return was granted, it would be given in its entirety, or not at all.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he could not agree altogether with what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman). Not in the least did he suppose that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were ashamed of their religion; but he objected altogether to granting a Return of this kind with regard to such a Body as had been assailed on the present occasion. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had had a long history, and in that long history they had not received very fair measure at the hands of, at one time, one Party in the State, and of another Party at another time. So far as his judgment went, they had done a great deal of most excellent work in Ireland, and that under great difficulties. They had been assailed at one time by persons who took an extremely strong view—the high Protestant view; and at another time they had been assailed by those who took a very strong and extreme Roman Catholic view; but through all this they had pursued their course with firmness and fairness and impartiality, and they had come out of all the scandalous accusations made against them very creditably. Everyone remembered the famous O'Keefe case, which came before this House on a good many occasions; and he thought that this Return was obviously intended for the purpose of founding attacks hereafter, and if the House granted it they would open the door to unpleasant controversies. The Education Question in Ireland was long the burning question of the day, and there had been debates in this House upon University Education, Intermediate Education, and Primary Education. The unfortunate circumstances connected with
      396
      the case of Father O'Keefe were over and over again brought before the House, and no result whatever came of it, except a great deal of heart-burning on both sides of the House. Who brought that matter forward, and for what purpose? It was brought forward because accusations were made against the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland respecting their action in that case; but that was only part of the question, because Intermediate Education in Ireland at that time had hardly shown its head. University Education was taken up and fought out on the question of religious or denominational or united education. The Ministry were actually defeated, and their fall was ultimately brought about by their defeat over that question. The question of University Education in Ireland was fortunately set at rest by the late Ministry, at all events for some time, and the Royal University of Ireland was proceeding with a considerable amount of success. He was aware that there were some outside questions with regard to the Queen's Colleges; but he must say that the Motion for this Return, as far as he could see, could have no other purpose than to afford material for founding some kind of attack upon the Commissioners of National Education, and for re-opening the old controversies. As the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, the Commissioners would not at all approve of this Return, but not because they had anything to conceal; and he greatly regretted that the Motion had been made.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) was interesting, as his speeches always were; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could not see the relevancy of his observations to the question before the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said there had been a great deal of progress in regard to education in Ireland, and in that he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There were only two points between himself and his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan). He thought Sub-head 5 was certainly too inquisitorial, and he was glad that his hon. Friend had seen his way to omitting that portion of the Return. The second point of difference was with regard to the 1st sub-head. The hon.

      397
      and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), who certainly could not be supposed to be predisposed in favour of any Motion made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), was actually more in agreement with his hon. Friend than; the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the religion of every one of these Commissioners was notorious in Ireland. Whatever else might be known about a man in Ireland, his religious persuasion was known, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman would not be making any statement of anything that was not notorious in Ireland. He was sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman had brought into this matter many ideas which were just in regard to England, but inappropriate in regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was a friend of religious toleration, and thought, as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) himself thought, that the absence of questions as to a man's religious persuasion in a public office was a necessary corollary to religious and political toleration. But the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were selected not only for their fitness for the position, but also because of their religious persuasion. They were a Body consisting of the representatives of the different religious persuasions, as well as of every other interest in Ireland, and it was as members of certain religious persuasions that a number of them were entitled to hold the position of Education Commissioners. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, in giving this portion of the Return, would not be stating anything which was not already notorious to the people of Ireland; but the object of the Return, he assumed, was to bring before the House in an official form the religious constitution of the Board. The Return obtained by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), giving, in an official form and with the sanction of the Government, the religious persuasion of the Irish magistrates, had done a great deal to enlighten public opinion on that question. If the right hon. Gentleman would give the religious persuasion only in the aggregate, he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) would meet him with any obstinate opposition; but, as religion in the aggregate meant the re-
      398
      ligion of the individuals, the right hon. Gentleman would simply be fighting a shadow, and he thought that if the hon. Member withdrew the whole of Subhead 5, the right hon. Gentleman might agree to give the rest of the Return in its present form.
      MR. DAWSONsaid, he could not help feeling, considering the position of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) with regard to educational matters in Ireland, to what a lamentable position he had fallen. This opposition was very much of the type of resistance which would be offered to light being thrown on University Education in Ireland, and on the vast resources and emoluments of the Board of Trinity College, Dublin, and the slight benefit that accrued to the nation which provided those emoluments, and placed at its disposal thousands of acres of Irish land.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the objection of the Government to giving this Return was a most extraordinary objection. Why should the Return be refused on the ground the Government had advanced? If the Return, when granted, gave grounds for accusations, why should they not be made? If it afforded no such grounds, the accusations could not be made; but it was most extraordinary to refuse a Return, because, if the Return was granted, certain accusations might be founded upon it. Such an objection came with especially bad grace from hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. What were hon. Gentlemen doing here, night after night, but seeking for information—trying to draw information from the Government, not on historical facts, or matters that could be embodied in a Return of this kind, but on telegrams only a few minutes old? They wanted information, and they were a most inquisitorial Party themselves; and if they refused information on so simple a matter as this relating to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, why did they seek for all that information they looked for day after day and night after night? Was it not for the purpose of founding accusations? Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could coolly stand by and seriously urge the Government and the House not to give this information, because accusations might be founded upon it. Who were the accusing angels of the Government? They

      399
      were the people who were in continual resistance to the Government; and the more grounds of accusation they could find in the newspapers, and from any other source, the better they were pleased; and yet other lion. Members were to be refused useful information because they might found accusations upon it. That objection was of no avail or weight whatever. If there was anything in the complaint it was only right that the Return should be granted, in order that that complaint might be substantiated. As to the religious objection, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). Who was it that was ashamed to have his religion published in public Returns or in any other way? The Catholic members of the Commission were not—were the Protestant? If they were not, what, then, became of the objection raised against the Return? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would reconsider his decision, and would give fuller information than that which he had promised this evening.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he thoroughly fell in with the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), to leave out the words "and religious denomination" from Sub-head (1). He did not place any substantial value on the words, and should be quite content to leave them out. He also fully agreed with the suggestion that Sub-head (5)—
      "The names and addresses of Commissioners (if any) who have been paid personal expenses, and the sum so paid to each,"
      should be left out. Probably it would be a mean thing to make inquiries as to the travelling expenses of the Commissioners. They were fully entitled to those expenses, seeing that they got nothing for their services. If he had thought that any imputation would have been cast upon these gentlemen in consequence, he should not have put Subhead (5) in the Return.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Words left out accordingly.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of Sub-head (1.) to add "and the aggregate number of each religious denomination in the Commission."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-head (5.)—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question "That Sub-head (5.) stand part of the Question," put and negatived.
      Sub-head omitted accordingly.
      Ordered, That there be laid before this house "a Return of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, showing—

      (1.) The name of each Commissioner, and the aggregate number of each religious denomination in the Commission;

      (2.) The number of attendances made by each at (a.) the ordinary and (b.) special meetings of the Board during the twelve months ended the 31st day of March 1884;

      (3.) The dates on which (a.) ordinary and (b.) special meetings wore held, and the names of Commissioners present on each occasion;

      (4.) The number necessary to constitute a quorum (if any), and the number of occasions (if any) on which the attendance of Commissioners fell short of this number;"

      "And, Copy of any Minutes or Regulations of the Board defining the constitution, duties, and powers of Sub-Committees."—(Mr. Biggar.)

    PRIMARY EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. MELDONsaid, that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour (12.45), he intended to proceed, in accordance with the Notice he had on the Paper:—To call attention to the subject of the National system of Education in Ireland, especially as to the position of the Irish National Teachers; and to move—
      "That, having regard to the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on the 7th May 1878, and to the pledges since given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, this house deprecates the delay which has occurred in removing the admitted grievances of the Irish National School teachers, and is of opinion that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have acted in conformity with such Resolution, and to have submitted proposals to this House for a satisfactory adjustment of the claims of the Irish National School teachers."
      He thought he should be able to satisfy the House that the facts he would have to bring before it would entitle him to claim its verdict for his Resolution. The grievances of the Irish National Teachers were brought before the house so far back as the year 1874—on June 7th, he believed. A complaint was then made

      401
      that the salaries of the Primary School Teachers were insufficient, that they were entitled to pensions, and that the number of residences supplied for them was insufficient. The manner in which the Motion was met by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was by making an entire admission of the case brought before the House. That admission was of the most unqualified kind, and the right hon. Gentleman had asked the House to allow the matter to remain in the hands of the Government until it was settled, the right hon. Gentleman giving an undertaking that satisfactory proposals would be made for the removal of the three grievances. Nothing was done until the following year, when, in the month of June, the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his proposals. He (Mr. Meldon) proposed to deal with only two of the grievances which had been submitted for the consideration of the House. The first was the question of salaries, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with that in two ways. He added a sum to the existing salaries of the National School Teachers amounting in the aggregate to £60,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was the intention and the wish of the Government that the House should add a further sum to the remuneration of teachers with respect to payment by results, and that the results earned by the teachers should be divided into three parts—one-third, by examinations, from Parliament unconditionally; one-third from Parliament conditionally; and the remaining third was to depend upon the discretion of the Board of Guardians, and carried with it the second, on conditional Government payment. The Parliamentary Vote arrangement was agreed to, and he had nothing to say to that; but the other portion of the scheme had wholly and entirely failed. He would state, very shortly, what the nature of the arrangement was. The pupils in the different schools were to be examined for results; and, in the case of those who passed, the fees to which the teachers were to be entitled were to be divided, as he had said, into three parts—the first to be paid unconditionally, and the second to depend on the Guardians taxing themselves for the third.
      402
      It was foretold that the condition as to Boards of Guardians would necessarily be a failure; but a pledge was given to Parliament, to the teachers, and to the public of the most explicit character. When it was pointed out to the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that the scheme would necessarily fail, he made use of these words, which constituted a pledge, which, to the present moment, remained unfulfilled both to Parliament and the Irish teachers. He said—"We do not intend this to be a permanent measure. I consider it highly important to get Boards of Guardians to contribute, and I should like to train them up to it. If it succeeds, well and good, the teachers will be reasonably remunerated; if not, the Government will take steps to secure that the remuneration now intended shall be paid to them." These were, in effect, the words spoken by a Minister of the Crown nine years ago, and the gravamen of his (Mr. Meldon's) charge now was, that that promise remained at the present moment entirely unfulfilled, the remuneration it was intended they should have remaining unpaid. It was foretold that this "Permissive Act," as it was called, would remain a failure. In 1875, 65 Unions out of the entire number contributed; in 1876, 70 Unions contributed; and so on until the year 1881–2, when there were but 16 Unions which contributed; and last year the number decreased to four. They might assume that the substantial failure of the Act was proved to demonstration in 1877, when the number of Unions contributary had fallen to 39. They were entitled to have the pledge given in 1875 fulfilled, and to have the Act, which had proved a failure, remedied in some way. Up to the present time, however, nothing had been done to remedy the failure of the Act. The Unions in Ireland, or the great mass of them, had declined to become contributory, and the thing was going from bad to worse. The teachers, in every Union not contributory, had been debarred of a third of the hard-earned result fees the Government had given them in 1875. Under ordinary circumstances, it would have been two-thirds; but the case really was so flagrant, that the Government were obliged to step in and say—"We will not insist on the condition that the Guardians are to contribute

      403
      before Parliament gives the two-thirds; but, if you will get made up from other sources, local or otherwise, a certain sum of money, we will contribute out of the Parliamentary grant as much as you get." But so far as the result fees were concerned, they had been absolutely lost in those cases where the Unions had not been contributory. That was the position in which the salary question remained at the present time. As to the pension question, nothing was done from 1875 to 1878; and, as to residences, a Bill had been brought in which, for other reasons, had not worked satisfactorily. However, he confined his complaint to the two points he had mentioned. Nothing had been done up to 1878 in regard to pensions, and nothing had been done to redeem the pledge made to the House by the Government. Every kind of pressure had been brought to bear on them to make them redeem their pledge. The teachers had been obliged to bring their case before the House.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at One o'clock.