Commons Sitting of 30 May 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to move the first of the series of Resolutions iden

  179
  tical in terms of which I have given notice, at the instance of the London County Council, relating to a batch of Electric Railway Bills for the Metropolis now before Parliament. I ask the House to declare that these are cases to which the principle is applicable that the right should be reserved to the London County Council to purchase these undertakings after a limited period. The railways proposed by these Bills will traverse the Metropolis in various directions, being laid at considerable depth below the surface of the streets; and in order to save the expense of paying compensation to private owners, which would have to be paid should these railways pass under buildings, the lines are designed to follow the line of the public streets by tunnelling through the sub-soil. As an illustration of the expense which will thus be saved to promoters of these railways, I need only mention that the undertakers of the existing electric railway on the south side of London had to pay £3,000 compensation for the right to pass under one building to reach their terminus—namely, Hibernia Buildings. Therefore, it would seem that the community under whose streets a railway passes have a reasonable claim for compensation in some shape, in view of the expenditure thus saved to the promoters. These electric railways are more akin to tramways than to railways in the ordinary sense; they are, to adopt the language of the Joint Committee, required to relieve the overcrowding of traffic along the chief thoroughfares of London, and so we find the undertakers of these railways resisting the obligation imposed on other railways, such as the conveyance of goods, cattle, and minerals. Now, I do not propose to rest my case upon the analogy, or the suggested analogy, between the case of tramways and the case of these railways, although I think the analogy is much closer than it is assumed to be. For instance, tramways involve an easement over the surface of the streets, and these railways involve an easement through the sub-soil. Although it is true the Local Authority has not a freehold in the streets, yet it has been decided again and again that the
  180
  Local Authority has very large, I may say undefined, easements in the sub-soil; and in the well-known case of "Coverdale v. Charlton" it was decided that the sub-soil is vested in the Local Authority for the purpose of doing what is usually done under the streets. It may be asserted that this case had relation to what was done within a few feet of the surface, although I think that can hardly be so with regard to the main drainage system of London. At all events, if it is found that means of conveyance can be successfully constructed at fifty or a hundred feet below the surface, on the same principle it may be maintained control over such tunnelling is vested in the Local Authority. If it is said that tram lines interfere with the beneficial enjoyment of the surface of the streets by that portion of the public which rides in ordinary vehicles, then I say that the construction of a railway under the streets practically precludes the Public Authority for all time from making use of the sub-soil for a similar purpose. Apart, however, from the suggested analogy between these lines and the ordinary tramway, I prefer to rest my case on the broad principle that the community should not part with the right to supply anything which is in effect necessary for that community, whether it be locomotion, light, or water, such for the time being a monopoly. The precedents of tram lines and electric lighting go to show that the right to purchase does not kill private enterprise. I may be told that, as regards the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, it did have that tendency, but since 1888 electric lighting has been greatly stimulated; and the Act of 1888, equally with the Act of 1882, maintained the principle of purchase by the public, so that the only lesson which can be drawn from the electric lighting case is this: that you must take care that your limited period is sufficiently long to give the undertakers a fair opportunity of recouping themselves for their initial outlay. I admit that the initial expenditure in the case of these railways is very much greater than in the case of tramways; but this does not involve any difference of principle in the treatment of the two cases; it only means that, in order to give to the

  181
  undertakers a fair opportunity to recoup themselves, you should extend the time during which the undertakers may enjoy the benefit of the undertaking—the time during which the public will be kept out of its inheritance. The period has been fixed in the case of tramways at twenty-one years, and electric lighting undertakings originally fixed at twenty-one years have been extended to forty-two years. The London County Council, recognising the larger initial outlay in these cases, have suggested, and merely suggested, that the time to elapse before there should be any exercise of the power of purchase should be, say, sixty years. The time is opportune for taking such action as this I propose. For many years we have not had so many Bills of this character before the House, which are of vital importance to the Metropolis. The existing City and South London Electric Railway may now be regarded as an assured success, and I think we may say that such undertakings have passed the experimental and speculative stage, and it is high time that steps should be taken to secure the rights of the community in relation thereto. These Bills have been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that Committee have reported, but there is only one paragraph which in any way comes within measurable distance of my proposal for compensation for the powers acquired to tunnel under the streets. In the fifteenth paragraph of their Report the Committee say that, in consideration of the promoters having this power, they should be under the obligation of running cheap and convenient trains. But that cannot be in anyway suggested as an alternative to purchase, because it has been the policy of Parliament to impose this obligation upon all railways. In fact, the Joint Committee have deliberately given the go-by to the specific issue I now raise. They have ignored it, not, perhaps, wishing to undertake the responsibility of declaring a principle, having, in fact, invited the House to express an opinion upon it. I ask the House to declare the principle embodied in my Resolution—namely, the principle that it is right that the public should have an opportunity of pur
  182
  chasing these railways after a certain period and under certain conditions, and I only ask the House to declare the principle, referring to the Committee the crucial question, after taking all the elements of the case into consideration, to determine at its discretion what the period shall be during which the undertakers shall enjoy all profits, and thus secure recoupment for their outlay.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern and City Railway Bill that they do insert a clause reserving to the London County Council a power to purchase the undertaking after the expiration of a limited period on terms similar to those provided in Section 43 of 'The Tramways Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  MR. WHITMORE: As a Member of the Joint Committee, I desire to briefly say why I hope the House will not adopt this Resolution. The London County Council did very fully set out the reasons in favour of such a principle as the hon. Member has embodied in his Motion; and we considered it very carefully, and came unanimously to the conclusion that to accept it would be almost certain to endanger the success of these schemes. I may point out that the first Bill on the list of those to which the hon. Member proposes to direct his Motion—the Great Northern and City Bill—is different in character to those that follow. The hon. Member, I think, justifies his contention on the ground that these are local lines; and the other lines, undoubtedly, are merely local and metropolitan in their character. But, as a matter of fact, the Great Northern and City Line is not in any sense a local line; it seeks to connect the Great Northern line with a new terminus at Finsbury Place, and without doubt it will be a great relief to the traffic over the Great Northern line, but I do not think the hon. Member will suggest that the London County Council should undertake at any time the management of a portion of a great main line. In any case, this particular line is outside the category of the other lines with which the hon. Member wishes the House to deal by his Resolution. With regard to the proposal as it came before the Com

  183
  mittee, I may shortly say that it was conclusively shown that if such a clause were incorporated in these Bills there would be but little hope of the necessary capital being raised for the construction of any of the lines. If hon. Members will look over the history of proposals for railways in London during the past twenty years they will see that London is, as it were, strewn with abortive projects, line after line having successfully passed the ordeal of Parliament, but having had to be abandoned because of the stringency of the terms imposed upon the promoters. The Committee, looking at these projected lines as a whole, and at the great public convenience they would supply, came to the conclusion that the electric system was an adequate system, that the routes proposed were adequate, that the carrying out of the projects would be of material advantage to London and Londoners, but they also saw that if such a clause as this were imposed the necessary capital would never be subscribed. The Joint Committee, therefore, rejected the suggestion of the London County Council, as I hope the House will now.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I think this very large proposition must have taken most Members of the House a good deal by surprise. Most of us, I think, did not see the Motion until we turned over our papers this morning. At any rate, the principle is so very wide, so very large, that all new railways constructed within the district of the London County Council shall, under certain conditions, ultimately become the property of the London County Council, that I think we must hesitate before accepting it. Now, while I am quite prepared in many ways to add to the responsibilities and usefulness of municipal institutions, I do think this is a case in which "vaulting ambition o'erleaps" itself. The County Council has a full load to carry, almost equal to its capacity. It has to deal with many subjects—the water supply, the question of "betterment" as applied to improvements, the acquisition of tramways, and other matters. Now, tramways offer no analogy to these railways; they occupy the surface of the streets, they interfere with the
  184
  ordinary traffic, and have to be regulated with other traffic; but to give the County Council power at one swoop to take the management of underground railways in London is a proposal far too large to be adopted on a Motion on a Private Bill at a time when the minds of Members are occupied with other matters. I certainly think the Motion should be postponed until we have far more information on the subject and can give more consideration to the subject than is now possible.
  MR. WEBSTER: I think, after the decision of the Joint Committee on the ground stated by my hon. Friend, we cannot accept such a Motion as this. No doubt all of us who live in London are more or less jealous of the user of rights of public thoroughfares, and it would be well if the London County Council showed some of the jealousy they are now displaying when tramway questions are sometimes before Parliament. No doubt at present these railways will be of a local character; but have we not often found that railways have been extended from the centre and have become main arterial lines? How is it possible for the Council to undertake the management of the London sections of our great main lines? How can they claim anything of the kind simply because the lines happen to run over or under the public thoroughfares? Really, the Council display such a busy, grasping policy that we are continually, in a state of wonder as to what form their next demand will take. Possibly some day they may ask for the power of appointment of officers to the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps. By their endeavour to introduce the betterment principle they have checked all private enterprise in London in the direction of public improvements; and now, to carry out fads of their own, they would interpose and prevent the subscription of capital for the carrying out of these railway projects for the convenience of Londoners and the employment of a large number of the working classes. The London County Council is a sort of municipal cuckoo. Instituting no great works of its own it interferes with the enterprises of others with its Americanised ideas and Socialistic

  185
  schemes. This is a most unworkable proposal to introduce at the fag end of a Session, and I hope the House will reject it.
  MR. HOWELL: Such a speech should not pass unanswered. It is not the fault of the London County Council that they have to come to Parliament so often for powers; that is the fault of Her Majesty's Government, who did not confer on London by their Act powers enjoyed by other Municipalities. Now, I would like to see the whole of our railway system under the control of the State, but the present limited proposal is that the local London railways shall at some future time be under local public control, and I support such a proposal, believing that it will result in great advantage to the inhabitants of London. As to what the hon. Member has said about the betterment principle having stopped improvements in London, I have only to say if that is so it will be no disadvantage to the people of London, who will, I hope, ultimately have the benefit of the application of the principle that those who benefit most from an improvement shall contribute justly towards the cost of that improvement. I support the proposal of my hon. Friend, and believe it is a step that must ultimately be taken.
  MR. KIMBER: These railways are designed to be connecting links between the great London termini. Parliament has never considered the question of State control of railways, and surely we are not prepared at this short notice to delegate such powers of control to the London County Council. I recognise in this proposal another of the attempts made by the Council to get control of the employment of labour in London, by which they hope to command the suffrages which will give them power in Spring Gardens, and afterwards in this House. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to the restricted powers of the London County Council; but I am not aware that any Provincial Council has any such power as this,
  186
  though I do not see how such power could be refused to any Council in the Kingdom if granted to London.
  MR. COURTNEY: I think we may approach this subject without the introduction of jealousy with regard to the London County Council. My vote will be given on the ground that this proposal has already been discussed by the Joint Committee to which these electric railway proposals have been referred. The decision of the Committee was that it was undesirable to introduce the clause, and that its introduction would probably lead to the failure of the schemes. Satisfied with that decision, arrived at after full consideration, I shall vote against the present proposal.
  MR. JOHN S. GATHORNE-HARDY: As a Member of the Committee, I may say that in rejecting the proposal which was put before us by the County Council we felt that the Council were not consistent with the view they themselves expressed that these local lines should communicate with the open country. Control over the London section of the lines implied control over the outside section, and such control, in our view, should not be in the hands of a local, but of a Central, Authority.
  *MR. PICKERSGILL: I may be allowed to explain that, recognising the distinction my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitmore) has pointed out between the first Bill on the list and the subsequent Bills, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw the present Motion, and move it in regard to the second of the Bills mentioned.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Central London Railway Bill, that they do insert a Clause reserving to the London County Council a power to purchase the undertaking after the expiration of a limited period on terms similar to those provided in Section 43 of 'The Tramways Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  (3.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 127.—(Div. List, No. 152.)

QUESTIONS.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND SAVINGS BANKS INVESTMENTS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury is in possession of any information which would give some idea as to the investments in ground rents or other land values of Friendly and Benefit Societies, Savings Banks, and other organisations, whereof the financial resources represent in the main the accumulated capital of the industrial classes?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): No information is available which would enable me to give anything approaching a complete reply to the question. It is estimated that the registered Friendly Societies, excluding Collecting Societies, have invested more than a million in land, offices, and buildings, and about £5,380,000 in mortgages and other real securities. The investments, other than in trade, of the ordinary Co-operative Societies, are about £5,800,000, and of this a considerable proportion is invested in land and buildings. No doubt other Societies and Companies whose incomes are derived from the contributions of the industrial classes have considerable investments in real property, but I have no information as to the amount.

  A MISSING LETTER IN TYRONE.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what steps have been taken by the Postal Authorities to trace a letter addressed to the manager of the Ulster Bank, Omagh, by Mr. John Leeman, of Aughnagar, County Tyrone, and handed to the rural postman on 17th March last, which, although it had only to be sent eight miles, has not been delivered?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): Although the distance was a short one the letter would pass through
  188
  several offices on its way to Omagh. The sender did not take the precaution of registering it, although it contained bank notes, and hence no record would be kept of its passage through any of them. Every effort has been made, and is still being made by personal inquiry, to discover what has become of the letter.

  DELIVERY OF BOOKS BY POST IN ROME.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the complaints recently received by him from a British subject residing in Rome, stating that the Rome Postal Authorities had declined to deliver at his house certain books despatched to him from Paisley on the ground that they were too numerous, to which the Secretary to the British Post Office replied that—
  "The British Post Office has, of course, no control in such a matter as this, relating to the internal postal arrangements of a foreign country; but, as your complaint is not an isolated one, it has been thought well to make known to the Director General of the Italian Post Office the circumstance to which you have directed attention,"
  whether he has any objection to give to the House the reply of the Rome Postal Authorities to his letter; and whether the Italian Post Office is bound under agreement with the British Post Office to deliver letters, books, and other articles sent through the post at the domicile of the persons addressed?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The Italian Post Office does not refuse to deliver book packets, but, when they are too heavy to be delivered by the first out-going letter carrier, they are sent to their addresses by special supplementary deliveries. The internal postal regulations limit to half a kilo-gramme for each person addressed, the weight of correspondence which the Post Office is bound to deliver. There is no special agreement between the British and Italian Post Offices on this subject; and the Universal Postal Union does not restrict the right of the contracting parties to organise their own system of delivery at their discretion.

  SUNDAY SCENES IN THE STREETS OF WATERFORD.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter from the Waterford County Inspector, R.I.C., to the Mayor of Waterford, calling his attention to the scenes enacted in the streets of that city on Sunday evenings at the time of closing the public-houses; and whether he will have inquiries made as to the state of the other four cities which are exempted from the operations of the Irish Sunday Closing Act, and, if necessary, have special instructions issued to the Chiefs of Police and to the Chief Magistrates of those cities?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper copy of the letter referred to in the question. The Constabulary Authorities report that the County inspector thought it advisable to bring the matter referred to before the magistrates, in order that they might by inflicting heavy penalties co-operate with the police in putting an end to the scenes complained of. No similar complaints in regard to the other exempted cities have come under the notice of the Constabulary Authorities.

  THE CATHOLIC CHAPEL AT BERE ISLAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to recommend a grant for the enlargement of the Catholic Chapel at Bere Island, in which the accommodation is insufficient for sailors of Her Majesty's ships and coastguards, in addition to the ordinary congregation who attend there?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I regret that I am unable to recommend a grant for the enlargement of the Catholic Chapel at Bere Island. Her Majesty's ships visit Berehaven only intermittently, and therefore it has been thought preferable that arrangements should be made for holding special services, for which a
  190
  fixed rate of remuneration would be paid in addition to the authorized capitation grant.

  INCREASE OF POSTAL FACILITIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Aughaville, County Cork, praying for increased postal facilities; and whether he is prepared to grant the facilities requested?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Memorial referred to prays for a despatch in the afternoon instead of in the morning from the Post Office at Colomane, and it has been carefully considered. The mail to Colomane is sent from Bantry to Durras Road Station, where it is received by the sub-postmaster, who at the same time despatches a mail to Bantry. His work is thus finished before ten a.m. To give a despatch to Bantry in the afternoon would involve a second trip to and from the station, and would cost not less than £10 a year. A reply is therefore being prepared expressing regret that the circumstances do not admit of the Memorialists' request being complied with.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the ratepayers and inhabitants of East and West Schull relative to increased postal facilities; and whether he is prepared to accede to the prayer of the Memorial?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Memorial was received on the 27th instant, and its receipt was acknowledged to the hon. Member on the same day. It is now under inquiry.

  THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a Memorial from certain parents of children attending the National School at Ringstead, Northampton, stating that they have withdrawn their

  191
  children from the religious instruction at that school under the Conscience Clause, and that their children have been in consequence treated as absentees, and placed at the bottom of their class, and asking redress of their grievance; whether this putting down of the children to the bottom of their class is a violation of the 7th clause of "The Education Act, 1870," providing that children may be withdrawn from the religious instruction without forfeiting any other benefits of the school; and whether he will have directions sent to the school managers to discontinue the practice of imposing this penalty on the children of Nonconformists?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Department have received such a Memorial, and are now in communication with the managers on the subject; but I am bound to say that there is nothing in the terms of the Memorial to exclude the possibility that the children were so dealt with because they declined to attend before the registers were closed, and were, therefore, in fact, absentees.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will draw the attention of the school managers to the Circular Letter of 1878, requiring that children should not be exposed to any disparity of treatment under these circumstances, and whether he has received any Report of the circumstances under the requirements of the Act of 1870?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: What usually takes place is—the registers are closed at the commencement of the school work, and if a child arrives after they are closed its attendance cannot be recorded.
  MR. CHANNING: I cannot consider the reply satisfactory, and shall put a further question on the subject.

  THE TURKISH DEBT.
  SIR JOSEPH MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the contemplated new issue of Turkish Government Bonds, Her Majesty's Government is aware that there remain unpaid and unprovided for in any way a consider
  192
  able number and amount of the bonds constituting the Turkish Loan of 1862, £8,000,000 sterling, in the hands of private persons, subjects of Her Majesty, to whom the amounts, together with coupons for interest unpaid since the 1st January, 1876, admittedly remain due; and whether Her Majesty's Government will draw the attention of the Government of the Ottoman Porte to the subject, and afford an opportunity, before fresh Turkish Bonds are issued to the public, of substantiating the facts herein alleged, with a view to obtaining a satisfactory settlement of the admitted claims of subjects of Her Majesty?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Her Majesty's Government are not acquainted with the particulars of the proposal for the new issue of Turkish Bonds. They are not, therefore, in a position to judge how far the interests of the 1862 bondholders—as secured by the arrangement of 1881 between the Delegates of the foreign bondholders and the Turkish Government—are affected, if at all. They are not, therefore, at present in a position to make any representation to the Porte on the matter.

  POLICEMEN IN MILITARY GARB.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Sunday, the 22nd instant, when a battery of Royal Artillery were quartered in Newcastle West on the publicans, two police constables named M'Garry and Dougal attired themselves in soldiers' uniforms, and thus disguised visited some of the publicans; is he aware that these men visited several houses, and on knocking at one were asked by the publican's wife, "Who is there?" and on their answering, "Soldiers," she said, "You must go away; I will give you no drink"; if he can say whether District Inspector Wright or Head Constable Butler authorised the constables to assume this disguise; if not, then by whose authority was it done; and were any officers of the battery aware that uniforms of Her Majesty's

  193
  Royal Artillery were being used for such a purpose?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that the constables referred to explain that they visited one public-house disguised as stated, but did not enter it. The constables did not go with the authority or knowledge of their officers or of the military officers, but upon their own responsibility.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I should like to ask if steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this conduct, and whether the constables were reprimanded?
  MR. JACKSON: I think it rather proceeded from over-zeal, and that the authorities do consider that they should take some steps to prevent the repetition of such conduct.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Do the officers think they were right in assuming this disguise without the knowledge of their superior officer?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not in a position to answer that question, as I am not aware of the regulations dealing with the matter.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. CONWAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to that part of the Report of the District Inspector of Schools of Omagh, County Tyrone, published in the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in reference to school-houses, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "One is situated in the middle of a field, half a mile from a road, with no path leading to it; two are placed in farmyards surrounded by manure heaps and stagnant pools, poisoning the atmosphere, and injurious to the health of teachers and pupils; and one is in a backyard off a street, where the atmosphere is stifling and pestilential";
  whether his attention has been called to cases of overcrowding of schools as fruitful sources of epidemics; and whether the Local Sanitary Authority takes cognisance of these things, or whether there is any authority to grapple with admitted evils, and see that the necessary accommodation and
  194
  convenience are provided for each child in attendance at school?
  MR. JACKSON: The Commissioners of National Education report that they have made representations from time to time to the manager of the first school referred to. They understand that it is his intention to have a school provided in a more suitable place as soon as possible. As regards the two houses placed in farmyards, the manager has, at the instance of the Commissioners, been making efforts to secure another site, while, in regard to both houses, the objectionable features are reported by the Inspector to be much diminished. With respect to the last school referred to, steps have been taken to provide a new school, as explained in the context following the passage quoted by the hon. Member. As regards the overcrowding, every effort has been made by the managers to provide ample accommodation, and while the accommodation provided by the National Schools throughout Ireland is at present in round numbers 778,000, the average daily attendance of pupils is only 490,000. It is believed that on the Sanitary Authorities becoming aware of any arrangements of a school prejudicial to the health of the pupils, they would bring the matter under the notice of the managers.
  MR. CONWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware when quoting those figures that, according to the last Report, the number of children who attended school during 1890 was over a million?
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Gentleman is giving the figures of the number on the school rolls. My impression is that the average number on the rolls is about 800,000 odd. I do not think it possible that the figures of the hon. Gentleman are correct.
  MR. CONWAY: I will quote the exact figures from the Report in the coming Debate on the Irish Education Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: As regards the attendance, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that children are left on the rolls long after they have ceased to attend school?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that there is any case where they were allowed to remain on the roll for a long time.
  MR. SEALE - HAYNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education why no school accommodation has been provided at Milton, in the Parish of Buckland Monachorum, in the County of Devon; whether he is aware that there are ninety-four children at Milton residing from one to three and a quarter miles distant from the Buckland Monachorum school; whether he is aware that a landowner has offered to find a site for a school at Milton; and whether the school at Buckland Monachorum is in a satisfactory state?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: On a careful review of all the circumstances of the case, it has been decided to acquire a school at the hamlet of Milton for fifty children up to nine years of age, and the elder children will, as heretofore, attend the school at Buckland, by which arrangement the district will derive greater educational benefit than by the establishment of a second school for children of all ages within its limits. The school at Buckland received a very satisfactory report at the inspection last month.

  THE BREHON LAW TRACTS.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the remaining parts of the Brehon Law Tracts, which it is understood that Professor Atkinson has been engaged in translating, will be published?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that two volumes yet remain to complete the publication—namely, the fifth, containing text and translation, and the sixth, containing glossarial matter and indices. The fifth volume is nearly completed, and the sixth is so well advanced that the editor is in expectation of having both volumes published concurrently at the end of 1893.

  REMOVAL TERMS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (, &c.): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the Terms Removal (Scotland) Act, and to an answer given on the 25th May last year, by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) on behalf of his predecessor in office, whether the Government is aware that the grievance then complained of was accentuated and more widely felt at the Martinmas term last year, and was again revived at Whitsunday last; and whether the Government has now before it sufficient evidence of the inconvenience and uncertainty then referred to to warrant its taking steps to remove them?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I am informed that since the answer referred to by my hon. Friend was given, the County of Orkney and the Burgh of Kirkwall are the only Public Bodies who have made representations to the Secretary for Scotland on this matter. I am afraid that the experience of the result of the recent legislation on the subject does not encourage a renewal of the attempt to amend the law until a much wider expression of local opinion in the various districts of Scotland has been obtained.

  DISTURBANCES IN LONDONDERRY BARRACKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to state the cause of the fight which took place in Londonderry Barracks on the 23rd instant, between the Lancashire Regiment and the Derry Artillery Militia, and the number of men injured on each side; and whether any and, if so, what punishment has been inflicted on the combatants on either side?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The cause of the disturbance, which only lasted a few minutes, was a desire on the part of some men of the 2nd North Lancashire Regiment to pay off an old score against the barman of a neighbouring public-house, who was found to be a member

  197
  of the Militia regiment. The men fell in at once when ordered to do so, and the six militiamen who were injured were able to march out with their regiment. Steps will be taken to punish the ringleaders.

  ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO THE PACIFIC STATION.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (, &c.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information as to the experiment recently made of sending out to the Pacific Station officers and men of the Royal Navy by means of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and particularly whether the transport was effected at any special rates, or under any special contract, with the Canadian Pacific Railway; how the cost of transport by this means compared with that of the method hitherto adopted; whether considerations other than pecuniary were in favour of this route as compared with others; what was the effect upon the discipline and organisation of the men; whether the experiment was undertaken at the request of the Canadian Government or of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make general use of this mode of transport in the future?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The experiment of sending officers and men to the Pacific Station by the Canadian Pacific Railway has been tried in two instances: the first, on the occasion of the relief of the crews of the "Champion" and "Pheasant," when seven officers and two hundred and forty-five men were brought from Vancouver to Halifax, and twenty-four officers and three hundred and twelve men were taken from Halifax to Vancouver; and in the second, when four officers and two hundred and two men were sent from Halifax to Vancouver. In each case special arrangements were made, both in regard to the trains and also as to the rates to be paid. It is difficult to draw an accurate comparison as to the cost of relieving men or manning ships on the Pacific Station by the adoption of the Canadian route as opposed to the Isthmus of Panama route. The expense of the latter route depends on the necessity or otherwise of sending
  198
  a man-of-war to Panama to receive the men, when the coal expended by the vessel would become a part of the cost. There are only one or two ships in the Pacific command which can accommodate extra men; while arrangements can always be made for the reception of the men at Esquimalt, which, as a naval and refitting port, is the place most suitable for recommissioning ships on the Station. The Canadian route is much the quicker, and thus the men sent out are sooner available for duty. According to the Reports which have been received, the journey by rail across Canada had no appreciable effect in one way or the other upon the discipline or organisation of the men of the Royal Navy. The experiment was made at the instance of the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Station, and was a success, the Railway Authorities taking great pains in looking after the comfort of officers and men. The use of the route will in future be considered by the Admiralty as one which has in certain conditions decided advantages over the other.

  THE CASE OF DANIEL J. MAHONEY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a tenant, named Daniel J. Mahoney, Knock-nagree, County Cork, who at the last Marlow Quarter Sessions claimed compensation for disturbance to the amount of £542; and is he aware the Recorder of Cork postponed judgment on the case until next Sessions, and that steps are being taken by the landlord to evict this tenant; and, if so, will the forces of the Crown be given to assist in evicting this tenant whilst the land claim has not been decided on by the legal tribunal?
  *MR. JACKSON: The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the question. The landlord in pressing on the eviction for non-payment of rent is influenced, I am informed, by Mahoney's refusal to give other tenants on the property the use of turf, and that it is to enable the landlord to supply the wants of these tenants in this respect that the eviction is being carried out. It was open to the tenant to apply to the Court for a

  199
  postponement of the issue of the writ. The Government cannot undertake to withhold protection from the Sheriff.
  MR. MILVAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Government to the delay of the Recorder in giving judgment?
  *MR. JACKSON: The delay of the Recorder in giving his judgment for a large amount is a matter over which the Government has no control whatever.

  PROCLAIMED MEETING AT MONEY-GLASS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a meeting announced to be held at Money-glass, near Toome, on the 26th instant, to discuss the land question, has been proclaimed; and, if so, for what reason this course has been pursued?
  *MR. JACKSON: The meeting referred to was proclaimed, as the authorities had reason to believe it was convened with the unlawful object of intimidating a person who had taken an evicted farm, and of intimidating others from taking it.
  MR. KNOX: Are we to understand that boycotting is not, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, all over in Ireland, but that it still exists?
  *MR. JACKSON: I think it should be taken the other way—not only that it does not exist, but that we are determined that it shall not exist.

  SUB-LETTING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Resolution, carried on the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), in favour of fair wages and the prohibition of sub-letting in Government contracts, has not been applied by the Irish Office?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have made some inquiries, but have been unable to ascertain that there are any contracts of this kind made by the Irish Government. Probably, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, all works of this kind are carried out by the Board of Works
  200
  under the authority of the Treasury, but I have asked them to look carefully into the matter, and find out if there are any such contracts to which the Resolution is not applied.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the Vote for the Board of Public Works in Ireland last Session, the then Secretary to the Treasury undertook to apply the Resolution passed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), relating to fair wages, to all Government contracts in Ireland, and why this undertaking has been, up to the present time, disregarded by the Board of Works?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I find that the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stated last Session that—
  "It would not be unreasonable that we should take the same course in Ireland, as far as the circumstances are similar, as we take in England."
  I have made inquiries, and am told that it is not the case that the Board of Public Works have disregarded the Resolution of the House, inasmuch as their contracts do contain provision against sub-letting.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish: to ask whether the House having passed a Resolution, and the English Departments having issued a form in which that specification is contained, why the Irish Department has not also issued such a Circular, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will direct that such a form shall be issued by the Irish Department?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Department does not disregard the Resolution of the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman will give a particular instance I will inquire into it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: When this matter was debated last year the discussion was directed to the question of fail wages rather than to sub-contracting, and I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman intends to insert in, the Irish Government contracts the same terms as are inserted in the English Government contracts?
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I wish to ask whether what is known as the factory clause is put in the Irish contracts?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I am told that the Board of Works do not disregard the Resolution of the House of Commons. I made a general inquiry and received a general answer. If the hon. Gentleman will give a specific case I will look into it.
  MR. SEXTON: I have given a specific case. While the English Departments issue a form copying the Resolution, the Irish Department has no such form.

  COMPENSATION APPEALS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return, Local Government Act, 1888 (Compensation Appeals), will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I hope that the Return will be laid in the course of a few days.

  RATING OF VOLUNTEER DRILL HALLS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a Bill to relieve drill halls of all local rates and taxes, for the benefit of the Volunteer Forces?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It is for my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to deal with the question of relieving from local rates the drill halls of Volunteers. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think it is likely or possible that a measure of the kind suggested will be introduced this Session.

  BOILERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is correct that it has been found necessary, in order to prevent leakage, to fit ferrules to some of the tubes of the "Royal Sovereign"; if so, is it in consequence of the boilers being of a similar type to those of the "Thunderer"; and whether he anticipates that the ferrules proposed to be used in the tubes of the "Thunderer,"
  202
  "Vulcan," and other vessels will prevent the unequal distribution of heat consequent upon the boilers being constructed with single combustion chambers?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The ferrules in question will improve the working efficiency of any type of boiler to which they can be fitted; and in order to test this in extended practice, the "Royal Sovereign," which is about to proceed on service in the Channel, has, with other vessels, been selected for a trial of the ferrules. Her boilers are not of the same type as those of the "Thunderer." Those ferrules do not prevent the unequal distribution of heat, but they tend to counteract in the weakest part of the boiler the injurious effect of the contraction and expansion of the tube plate and tubes consequent upon variations in the heat of the combustion chamber.

  THE "CAPERCAILZIE" YACHT.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to be good enough to state the gross and net register tonnage, also the nominal and effective power, age, and condition of the boilers and engines of the "Capercailzie" yacht recently purchased for the use of the Admiral at Devonport, also the price paid to the owners; whether any, and what, alterations have been made, and the cost of the same; and whether he will consider the advisability of dispensing altogether with such expensive appendages, seeing that all the work necessary, whether at home or abroad, can be done with steam launches, which now form part of the outfit of all large vessels?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The gross tonnage of the "Capercailzie" is 365 tons, and the net registered tonnage 214. The engines have a nominal horse power of 76, and estimated indicated horse-power of 500. The engines and boilers are nine years old, and are in good condition. The price paid for the yacht was £14,000, and a further expenditure of £1,200 has since been incurred for alterations, repairs, &c., in the dockyard. The purpose for which yachts are required by the Commanders-in-Chief cannot be served equally by steam launches, thoroughly sea-going vessels being absolutely

  203
  essential. The "Capercailzie" has been purchased to replace the obsolete vessel at Plymouth which was used by the Commander-in-Chief for his sea work. Vessels of a type similar to the "Capercailzie" have in previous years been supplied to the Commanders-in-Chief at Sheerness and Portsmouth as part of a general scheme for replacing obsolete tenders by vessels of a serviceable character. The purchase of second-hand yachts, and their subsequent adaptation to the duty for which they are required, has been found the best and most economical arrangement for the supply of efficient vessels for this particular service.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask how the position of the Admiral differs from that of this Admiral on the Irish Station, who has only a small steam launch?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: One has a far larger number of ships under his command than the other.

  THE EDINBURGH POST OFFICE.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attenton has been called to the fact that lobby officers in the General Post Office in Edinburgh are not yet paid at the new rate for Sunday duty, and have not obtained the benefits of the new scheme of re-organisation; and whether he will take steps to have these servants placed in the same position as all other members of the permanent staff in Edinburgh?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is a fact that the lobby officers in the General Post Office, Edinburgh, are not paid at the new rate for Sunday work, as they were not included in the scheme. The question of extending the scheme to all parts of the country is under consideration.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will urge forward an early decision by the Departmental Committee on the subject of the Mutual Guarantee Fund of the Edinburgh Post Office?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The inquiry was extensive, and I do not think that any undue delay has taken place.

  FALSE MARKING OF GOODS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what foreign nations have adopted legislation against the false marking of goods in the spirit of the Merchandise Marks Amendment Act of 1887, and of the Resolutions of the Industrial Conventions at Rome and Madrid; and in particular, whether any progress has been made in this direction by Germany and the United States?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Protocol of Madrid for the prevention of false indications of origin has been signed by Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Brazil, Tunis, and Guatemala. The date for the exchange of ratifications is fixed for the 15th June next, when it will be seen whether all of the above Powers will ratify and put its provisions into effect. Germany and the United States have not signed, and have not, so far as the Foreign Office is aware, adopted any legislation in this direction.

  DELAY OF MAILS AT DUNDALK.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the mails for the North-West of Ireland are so long delayed at Dundalk; and why, after their arrival at Enniskillen, letters are so long in being delivered that it is impossible to reply by midday mail to the English correspondence?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The day mails from Dublin for Enniskillen reach Dundalk at 8.2 a.m., but there is no train by which they can be sent forward until 9 a.m. The letters are received at the Enniskillen Post Office at 11.35 a.m., and the delivery which begins at 12.5 p.m. lasts about one hour thirty minutes. The letter box being closed for the despatch of the return mail at 12.45 p.m., there is little, if any, interval for reply; and the only means by which a satisfactory interval could be secured would be the establishment of a train specially for the mail service in each direction between Dundalk and Enniskillen. The outlay involved in such an arrangement would be far beyond what the revenue would warrant. I will consider whether, by

  205
  any moderate expenditure, the delivery can be expedited.

  THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or intends to take, any steps to bring about an arrangement with the Porte for the commutation of the annual payment of £92,800 now due as a tribute from Cyprus, and an arrangement with France to pay off the Guaranteed Four per Cent. Loan of 1855, and to raise the money on cheaper terms?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The two questions—namely, the commutation of the tribute of £92,800 now due to the Porte as a tribute from Cyprus, and an arrangement with France to pay off the Guaranteed Four per Cent. Loan, are not interdependent. The latter is the easier subject of the two, and I have not neglected it, but I cannot say that I have made progress.

  EXAMINERS AND CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at the recent test examination for forty vacancies on the grade of First Class Examining Officers of Customs the usual Civil Service method of calculating the marks on the aggregate was adopted, thus giving each candidate the full benefit of the total marks gained, or whether a very high maximum was made obligatory in each branch of practical knowledge, thereby contributing to the anomalous result of successful candidates obtaining less marks than unsuccessful candidates; whether the system of awarding marks has operated to the detriment of the senior experienced officers and the promotion of a large number of junior officers, whom the Board of Customs have since found it necessary to place on three months' probation, to acquire a knowledge of those practical duties which should have formed the subject of the examination; and whether there is any objection to the publication of the marks awarded at the examination?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: At the recent test examination for promotion from the second to the first class of Examining Officers in the Customs, the five subjects in which the candidates were examined were all of a practical nature, and the Commissioners of Customs required that candidates to be successful should qualify in each of the five subjects, a knowledge of all of which is necessary to enable them to fill efficiently the position of Examining Officer, first class. The qualifying number of marks fixed by the Commissioners of Customs was three-fifths of the maximum number in each of the five subjects, together with an aggregate of two-thirds of the total maximum obtainable. Successful candidates have in some cases obtained a number of marks less in the aggregate than unsuccessful candidates who failed in one or more of the subjects. The system of awarding marks has not operated to the detriment of the senior experienced officers, inasmuch as only one officer who qualified in all the subjects failed to obtain the aggregate number of marks. The whole of the successful candidates, without reference to their position in the examination or their service and previous experience, were placed on probation for three months. It is not the practice, either in the Customs or Inland Revenue Departments, to publish the marks awarded to candidates, successful or unsuccessful, at Departmental examinations, and the Board of Customs do not recommend any departure from this practice.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the proposal to remove the Royal Foundation of Christ's Hospital to such a distance from London as would inflict hardships on the relations of the children to be benefited, and might considerably diminish the value of the reformed institution; whether he will inform the House by whom and to whom such a proposition has been submitted; and whether the Metropolitan Members will be afforded an opportunity of expressing their views

  207
  before any final decision as to site is arrived at.
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will look at Section 65 of the scheme he will see that the initiative in the matter is reserved to the Court of Almoners, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners.

  IRISH BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would grant a Return of the number of Boards of Guardians dissolved by the Government since and inclusive of the year 1880, with a statement of the reason in each case?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no objection to granting the Return if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, but I think it would be a little more complete if it included those Unions which have been warned and not merely those which have been dissolved.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am quite ready to take it in that form.

  REMUNERATION OF PRISON WARDERS.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant to the "principal" warders and "chief" warders of Her Majesty's convict prisons the same relative advantages in regard to an increase of salary and pension on retirement which have been recently accorded to the subordinate prison officers, including clerks and schoolmasters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The chief warders and principal warders of Her Majesty's convict prisons have just received an addition to their maximum pay. The advantages given to assistant warders, clerks, and schoolmasters on account of delay in promotion are, from the circumstances of the case, not applicable to those who have already reached the rank of chief or principal warder.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now prepared to give any figures showing the relative volume of the mails sent from Dublin to Cork, including the American Mails, as compared with the mails from Dublin to Belfast?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: A Return has now been furnished. It shows the volume and weight of the Inland Mails conveyed to and from Dublin on the Great Northern and Great Southern and Western Railways during one week to be respectively as follows:—Great Northern—Number of bags, 2,439; weight, 28 tons. Great Southern and Western—Number of bags, 2,591; weight, 28½ tons. This is, of course, exclusive of the mails carried viâ Stranraer. During the same week the volume and weight of the American Mails conveyed both ways between Dublin and Queenstown were respectively—Number of bags, 1,117; weight, 35 tons; while the weight and volume of the Canadian Mails carried both ways between Dublin and Londonderry were—Number of bags, 194; weight, 2 tons. The figures as regards the Foreign Mails of course vary much from week to week.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been come to by the Treasury as regards the sum required by the Post Office Department to improve the mail service between Dublin and Cork; and, if not, when it is likely that a definite reply can be given?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Negotiations are in progress on this subject, and I hope that a definite decision will be given before long.
  MR. HEALY: When can I repeat the question?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: In a week's time. Negotiations are now going on, and a decision will probably be given before that time.

  ESCORTING AND ATTENDING IRISH JUDGES.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if, having regard to the fact that the Irish Mayors have been removed from the Commissions of Assizes in Ireland and the Irish Judges have refused to lunch with the High Sheriffs, he will direct the discontinuance in future of cavalry escorts with trumpeters, sentries at their lodgings, and escorting and attending Judges in Ireland at ensuing and future Assizes?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have no information, as a matter of fact, on the subject of the hon. Member's question; but I may say that the matters referred to in it are entirely outside my province, and I have no power to give such directions as are suggested in the question.

  THE MALTESE MARRIAGE LAW.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether marriages, between parties of whom one at least is a British subject, can now be solemnised in the Island of Malta in accordance with the provisions of "The Marriage Act, 1890," and "The Foreign Marriage Act, 1891"?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State is advised that such marriages cannot be so solemnised, as no officer in Malta has been authorised to solemnise marriages under those Acts.
  MR. WOODALL: Have they no power under the last Act?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: That question involves a very important legal question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question to the Attorney General.
  MR. WOODALL: I will do so. I also intend to call attention to the subject when we come to the Marriages Abroad Bill, which is down for Second Reading to-day.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  210
  Foreign Affairs whether the engagements or undertakings given to the Holy See as to the Maltese Marriage Law and the other matters broached by Sir Lintorn Simmons at the Vatican have been fulfilled, or has any remonstrance been received by Her Majesty's Government as to their non-fulfilment?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The undertaking given to the Pope by Sir Lintorn Simmons that a Bill to regulate the civil effects of marriages in Malta would be introduced in the Colonial Council of Government has not yet been fulfilled. Before determining the form of the proposed legislation Her Majesty's Government found it necessary to obtain fuller information as to the existing Marriage Law of Malta; and in view of the conflicting opinions of high authorities they have thought it right to submit certain questions for the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case for submission to the Judicial Committee is being finally revised by the Crown Advocate of Malta. The only other undertaking related to the surrender by the Government of the collation of certain ecclesiastical benefices in Malta, and this has been fulfilled as far as vacancies have occurred. No such remonstrance has been received as to the non-fulfilment of the undertakings.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Sir Lintorn Simmons represented to the Holy See that there would be such a difficulty in fulfilling the promise that for two years it would remain unfulfilled?
  MR. LOWTHER: I am afraid I cannot inform the hon. Member. If the hon. Member will put a further question down I will look into the Papers on the subject.

  INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONFERENCE AT VENICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Protocols submitted by the British Government to the International Sanitary Conference at Venice, and the Protocols and Report of the Conference?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Negotiations in connection with the matters discussed at the International Sanitary Conference are still proceeding, and until they are concluded it would be very undesirable to lay the Papers asked for.
  DR. TANNER: In view of the distinct proposals made by the British Government in these Protocols, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to lay them on the Table?
  *MR. LOWTHER: I cannot undertake to lay them, because the negotiations are still going on with regard to the questions which were discussed at the Conference, and it would not be proper that part of the discussions and of the results arrived at should appear without the whole appearing.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the recent Resolution of this House, declaring that public meetings should be permitted in schools in receipt of State aid has been communicated to the Board of National Education in Ireland; and, if not, will the Government inform the Board that managers who may permit meetings or conventions during the coming election to be held in their schools should now incur no censure nor run any risk of the withdrawal of the grants?
  MR. GARDNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I should like to ask him whether the Bill which has been issued this morning dealing with elementary schools in connection with this subject is to apply to Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: I have made inquiry, and I understand it does not apply to Ireland.
  MR. HEALY: Why not?
  MR. JACKSON: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is the Elementary Schools Bill, which, I believe, has just been circulated. I have no objection to communicate to the National Board of Education a copy of the Resolution passed by the House, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable; but I am not aware that they
  212
  have any power to give effect to it, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there is a regulation which prohibits the use of schools, either vested or non-vested, in Ireland for political purposes; and I do not know what would be the effect of communicating the Resolution to them. I have no objection to that, but I do not think they have any power to enforce it.
  MR. HEALY: This is not a matter of my desire, but of the intention of the House of Commons. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has listened to the statement which has just been made, and why it is that this Resolution is not to be given effect to as regards Ireland, because the Bill, as I understand, which has just been circulated—I have not seen it myself—does not apply to Ireland?
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think it was intended that the Bill to be introduced on this subject should apply to Ireland, because the whole course of education in Ireland has been actually and historically very different from that which obtains in this country. I do not know that there would be compulsory power to compel managers of schools in Ireland, whether they liked it or not, to open their schools for public meetings. My own impression is that when they came to consider the matter they would not only not desire it, but strongly object to it.
  MR. HEALY: That is not the question. The question is, this House passed a Resolution with regard to schools in the three Kingdoms, which the Government consented to give effect to in a Bill; but that Bill is now before the House and it excludes Ireland, and my question to the Government is this—whether the Resolution will be communicated to the Board of National Education in Ireland; and whether their attention will be drawn to it, or whether the Bill shall be made to apply to Ireland?
  MR. BALFOUR: At the time that this Resolution was passed by the House, neither by the Mover nor the Seconder, nor by any single gentleman whatever, was there any reference made to Ireland. There was not a word said about Ireland.
  MR. HEALY: I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he, or will he not, communicate to the Irish National Education Board a copy of the Resolution which was passed for the three Kingdoms by this House?
  MR. BALFOUR: If it were communicated it would have no effect, and I see no reason to make a communication which would have no effect.
  MR. HEALY: Then I will block the Bill.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers' cottages with allotments have been provided under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts in the counties of Tyrone and Antrim?
  MR. JACKSON: No labourers' cottages have been provided or authorised in County Tyrone. In County Antrim twenty-six have been authorised, of which twelve were built at the date of the latest Return—31st March last.
  DR. TANNER: I have not been able to catch one word the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the grounds on which the Irish Board of Works have refused to grant the Mullingar Town Commissioners a further loan for the erection of artizans dwellings, although Section 99 of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," empowers the Commissioners, although they are not an Urban Sanitary Authority, to borrow the necessary funds for the erection of artizans dwellings; and whether as the Labouring Classes and Lodging Houses Acts have been already adopted by the Commissioners and that those Acts have been repealed by the Housing of the Working Classes Act, they can proceed under Section 102, Part VII. of the latter Act to complete their scheme for the erection of those dwellings?
  SIR JOHN GORST(who replied): The Board of Public Works refused to make the loan, because they are advised that the lending power given them by the Public Health (Ireland) Act is
  214
  limited to lending to Sanitary Authorities. It is open to the Town Commissioners to apply to be constituted an Urban Sanitary Authority under Section 7 of "The Public Health Act,"
  MR. TUITE: If the Commissioners are prevented from proceeding under the powers of the old Act, the Artizans Dwellings Act, are they not entitled to complete their scheme under "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890?"
  SIR JOHN GORST: I understand that the legal advice given to the Irish Board of Works is different, and that they cannot.

  KILCROHANE RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that a man named Eugene Sullivan, who worked on the relief works at Kilcrohane, County Cork, was dismissed from his employment by Mark Tobin, a bailiff to Mr. W. S. Bird, J.P., but was subsequently employed on promise to pay Mr. Bird, his landlord, one year's rent; whether Mr. Bird gave a letter in the following terms:—"Corporal Dixon, you may employ Eugene Sullivan"; and if he will explain how Mr. Bird was empowered to control the relief works at Kilcrohane?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers occurred fifteen months ago. They were brought under the notice of the Irish Government at the time, and were promptly dealt with. They are not, however, accurately described in the hon. Member's question. It is a fact that Sullivan was employed on the relief works under Tobin, who acted as ganger, and that on Mr. Bird's suggestion he was removed from the works. It is also a fact that Mr. Bird subsequently wrote a note authorising his re-employment, which had also been recommended by the Relieving Officer. He emphatically denies that anything was said about the payment of rent. Mr. Bird had no right or authority to interfere in the manner in which he did, and he expressed his regret to the Lord Chancellor, who accepted his apology. The ganger Tobin was also probably to blame, and he was superseded in that capacity

  215
  by a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FLYNN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has not come to the knowledge of the authorities in Kilcrohane that this man, after having been dismissed because he owed rent to the magistrate, was afterwards re-employed on the magistrate's recommendation, on the understanding that he would pay a large portion of that rent out of his wages?
  MR. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I do not think there were any recommendations of that kind.

  ACCESS TO SCOTCH MOUNTAINS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Access to Mountains (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill will be printed and circulated?
  MR. BRYCEhad notice of the following question:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Access to Mountains (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, brought in and read a first time upon Thursday last, will be printed and distributed to Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate that the Bill will be presented before Thursday.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Indian Budget will be considered in Committee during the present Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is rather premature to say when the Indian Budget will be considered.

  IMMIGRATION OF PAUPER ALIENS.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government propose to fulfil the undertaking which they gave with regard to the introduction of a Bill for regulating the immigration of pauper aliens?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am not able to name the precise day at
  216
  this moment. The question is under the active consideration of the Government. It was thought necessary to institute inquiries not only at home, but abroad, before giving definite shape to the measure.
  MR. LOWTHER: Arising out of that answer I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill will be introduced before Whitsuntide, and I should also like to ask whether, under the circumstances, the Government will afford an opportunity for the discussion of the subject, either by obtaining the withdrawal of the notice which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, or by some other way in which the subject might be brought forward?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has told the House that it would be impossible to say exactly on what day the Bill may be introduced. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that ample opportunity will be given for the discussion of the subject.

  THE FLOORING OF THE CENTRAL HALL.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the rising of the tiles in the Central Hall?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has asked me to reply to the question of the hon. Baronet. I am informed that the rising and breakage of the tiles at the south-east side of the Central Hall was produced by the expansion of the tiles and their setting, causing the surface of the floor to rise about six inches in the shape of a small arch. This was the result of the pouring of the rays of a very hot sun through an open casement, and of their falling directly upon a portion of the floor affected. The expansion may probably also, to some extent, be accounted for by the fact that the ornamental centre of the Hall has been recently re-laid in cement, which would probably swell in setting, and so produce pressure on

  217
  the portion of the tiling which was lifted. Such occurrences are not unknown to persons experienced in tiling, but in this case upheaval took place to an unusual extent. The necessary repair has been temporarily effected, and hon. Members may rest assured that the bed of cement from which the tiles lifted was almost intact and that the defect is only superficial, and can be permanently made good at small cost.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Then there is no suggestion that ii was caused by dynamite?

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. JOHN GATHORNE-HARDY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he cannot modify the restrictions imposed in consequence of the foot-and-mouth disease, and whether he considers them any longer necessary in the neighbourhood of Sittingbourne?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I regret to inform him that, although the county is free, I believe, from it every where else, foot-and-mouth disease continues to linger most obstinately in the district of Kent immediately to the north of Sittingbourne; and for some reason or other which I am unable to fathom at present, notwithstanding every effort and the most stringent precautions, we have failed in arresting its progress. Under these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking to-day to carry out any modification of the restrictions imposed; but I am well aware of the annoyance which they cause, and to-morrow the head of the Veterinary Department, Professor Browne, accompanied by the Chief Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, will visit the district by my direction for the double purpose of investigating and reporting—first, what measures, if any, can be taken for the eradication of the disease; and, secondly, whether any modification of the restrictions can be made with due regard to the safety of
  218
  the rest of the county? As soon as I get the Report of these gentlemen I hope to make a further communication on the subject.

  TAKING PHEASANTS' AND PARTRIDGES' EGGS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Waller and Charles Street, both of Hitchin, who were recently convicted by the local magistrates of unlawfully taking pheasants' and partridges' eggs, in which case the fines imposed amounted in all to £145; whether there is any precedent for such a penalty; and whether he will use such power as he possesses to obtain a mitigation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to add this—whether he has received a Memorial in favour of the prisoners signed by upwards of one thousand persons, some amongst them being magistrates?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not yet received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, but I have received a Report from the Clerk to the Magistrates concerning this case. The prisoners, one of whom was the landlord of a public-house, were convicted of being in unlawful possession of 235 partridges' eggs and forty-five pheasants' eggs unlawfully obtained, and, in default of payment of the fine of £70 allowed by the Statute, were each sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The prisoners at the trial were tried separately, and were each defended. The magistrates informed them of their right to appeal to Quarter Sessions, and allowed them seven days to pay the fine and to obtain advice as to the steps they should take. I am not aware whether there is any precedent for the amount of penalties, but I should think that the number of eggs stolen is unprecedented. I am informed that in the neighbourhood in question a regular system exists by which well-known receivers of this stolen property employ and give good prices to small receivers in the villages, who in their turn employ men and boys to obtain the eggs. The fines, in case of conviction, are in most cases paid by the

  219
  principal receiver. I am told that in this case, had the penalty not exceeded £20, it would have been paid by a receiver. The two magistrates, who are gentlemen of considerable experience in magisterial work, held the case to be fully proved, and, upon the information now before me, I see no sufficient reason for any interference with the sentence which in the exercise of their discretion they have imposed.
  MR. PICTON: In view of the amount of excitement which has been created in the neighbourhood, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything was proved but that these eggs were in the possession of these men, whether these men did not give a straightforward account of their coming into possession of them in the ordinary way of business, as parcels the contents of which they did not know; whether he is aware that when the case was tried three of their employers were in Court ready to give evidence as to character, but that they were not allowed to by the Magistrates on the ground that character had nothing to do with the case; and also whether Street is not an elderly man with an unbroken character, and whether he has not received a police notice that he will lose his licence and livelihood?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to answer a number of questions of a minute character such as those, of which he has given me no notice whatever. I have looked through the evidence in this case, and the evidence appears to me, so far as I know, to be absolutely clear upon the point as to how the prisoners came to be in possession of the eggs, and that, so far from their having given a straightforward and true account of how they came by them, one of the prisoners, the publican, stated that he received them from a woman whose name he mentioned, and that woman when called as a witness said the statement was totally untrue.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what class of people buy these eggs?
  MR. MATTHEWS: As to what market they ultimately come to I have got no information; but there appears to be a regularly-organised system for dealing in these eggs.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what Statute these men were convicted?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Statute was the 1 & 2 William IV., under which, I think, as I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman opposite, being in possession of the eggs unlawfully is sufficient to convict.

  THE VACCINATION COMMISSION.
  DR. CLARK(for Mr. MORTON,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission on Vaccination in their recent Report, he can see his way to recommend Local Authorities to refrain from prosecuting until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the before-mentioned Report?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It would be an unprecedented and an arbitrary course of conduct on my part to recommend Local Authorities to disregard the provisions of the unrepealed law in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, and I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion.

  THE HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regiment, after landing at Chatham from India in 1888, was sent last autumn to the Portsmouth Garrison, where it has had no barracks of its own, but has been separated in detachments over three of the Portsdown forts, and also at Gosport and Portsmouth, in consequence of the Royal Artillery having been given the vacant Infantry barracks at the latter station; whether this arrangement has been costing the country at the rate of £200 a year in order to bring the various detachments together for regimental and other parades three times a week; and how much longer a state of affairs so detrimental to recruiting is to continue?
  MR. BRODRICK: During the reconstruction of some of the barracks at Portsmouth there has been difficulty in concentrating the 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regiment, and four companies have unavoidably been quartered in the Portsdown Forts and at Gosport, which has involved a cost of about £10 for tolls on the floating bridge when they had to cross to Portsmouth for parades. Whatever troops may be at Gosport have to cross to Portsmouth for field days, and tolls have to be paid. When the new barracks are finished it will not be necessary to divide a battalion as in this instance.

  ALLEGED INTIMIDATION BY THE FARMERS' ALLIANCE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the statement, in the Eastern Daily Press, of 26th May, by the Rev. Dr. Jessop, Rector of Scarning, to the effect that three of his parishioners had been dismissed from employment by the managers of the Great Eastern Railway, under pressure from the Farmers' Alliance; and whether, as the facts stated appear to disclose a primâ facie case of criminal conspiracy on the part of the Alliance, he can undertake that an inquiry will be made with a view of ascertaining their true character?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The question of the hon. and learned Member has not given me sufficient information to enable me to answer it. If he will give me further particulars I will make inquiry on the matter.

  THE EVICTION OF JAMES DONNELLY.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the case of James Donnelly, Rocktown, who was evicted by the Magherafelt Board of Guardians on the 20th inst., has been brought under his notice; whether the Local Government Board have communicated with the Guardians rebuking them; and whether the Guardians had a legal right to evict this man, and what action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: The Clerk of the Magherafelt Board of Guardians reports that an order was made against Donnelly directing him to pay £6 odd and costs within six months, and, as he failed to comply with the order, his farm was sold. The Local Government Board did not consider that they were called upon to interfere in the matter.

  POLLING STATIONS IN SLIGO.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the electors of the Parishes of Geevagh and Kimeetray, County Sligo, have to go seven and twelve miles to record their votes; and what steps will be taken to give these people better facilities to record their votes at the forthcoming General Election?
  *MR. JACKSON: The district polling stations for the Parishes of Geevagh and Kimeetray in the County of Sligo were fixed in 1885 pursuant to the provisions of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act of that year. There is no power to alter the existing district polling stations, except on a resolution being passed by the Quarter Sessions and Justices of the Peace having jurisdiction in the county.

  MULLINGAR LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Commissioners of Lunatic Asylums has been drawn to the case of Thomas Garry, late land steward to the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum, who was recently killed by a horse, the property of the Governors of that Institution; and whether, having regard to the fact that Garry was killed while in the service of the Institution, and to the number of years during which he faithfully discharged the duties of his position, any compensation will be given to his young and helpless family?
  *MR. JACKSON: The attention of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums has been called to the case of Thomas Garry, late land steward to the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum, but they are not aware of any power under the existing law by which such compensa

  223
  tion could be awarded as is suggested. If the Board of the Asylum had passed a resolution on the subject, the matter would have been carefully considered; but the Board declined to pass a resolution, as the resident medical superintendent had himself offered appointments to the children, which they, however, refused to accept.

  SCOTCH LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to say if the sums payable to Parochial Boards under the Education and Local Taxation Belief (Scotland) Bill will be paid during the current financial year, and on what basis, whether on population or on valuation, or both?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot say more than that if the Bill passes in its present shape the basis of distribution will be both population and valuation, as they shall be ascertained by the Secretary for Scotland; and as regards the first point, any sum that may be allocated to Parochial Boards will be paid as soon as possible after the receipt of the moneys by the Secretary for Scotland; but that may not necessarily be so early as the close of the present financial year.

  DERBY DAY ADJOURNMENT.
  DR. TANNER: In view of the fact of the backward condition of Public Business, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to devote to-morrow, or to permit to-morrow to be devoted, to the consideration of the horse race which takes place on Wednesday, and whether the Government intend allowing the House to adjourn over Wednesday for the purpose of attending the said horse race?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no power to prevent the discussion of the Adjournment for the Derby, which by
  224
  long custom has been allowed to precede all other business of the day. But I would point out to the hon. Member that if the Motion were carried the loss of time would not be connected in any way with Government Business. It would only affect two private Members' Bills.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: On a point of Order, may I respectfully ask whether the notice of Amendment to the Motion put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge) is in order, and whether it can be discussed?
  MR. SPEAKER: I should prefer to give my ruling when the question arises. But it appears to me that it is not in order on a Motion of that kind, which, for the convenience of the House, has a special precedence accorded to it, to move a "reasonable" Amendment, as a reason why the Motion should not be granted. It would be dragging the House into the discussion of a question utterly irrelevant to the subject, and it might lead to a long debate on a question of general morality not exclusively connected with the Derby Day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be good enough to answer a question I wish to put to him as to the proceedings after Whitsuntide. As I am one of the unfortunate Members who have their Motions put off until after Whitsuntide, I should be glad if he would say whether the Government propose to take the whole of the time of the House after Whitsuntide? It would at least put us out of our misery if he would be good enough to say whether he proposes to take the full time of the House after Whitsuntide?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not like to give a specific answer to a question of this sort. I can only say now, and I think it is not impossible, that I shall have to ask for further facilities after Whitsuntide, as Governments have been obliged to ask for such facilities on previous occasions. My own experience is that private Members' chances after Whitsuntide are very doubtful and dubious.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE—EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.
  Resolved, That the proceedings of the Committe of Supply, if under discussion at Twelve this night, be not interrupted under the provisions of the Standing Order, "Sittings of the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 234.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: I think it a matter of great regret that the Government, in disregard of the suggestions which were made to them at an early stage of the Session—suggestions approved by the Irish teachers and in general by the public opinion of Ireland—have insisted upon treating in this Bill two subjects which in principle are not connected. One of these subjects is the allocation and distribution of a money grant, and the other is the application of the leading principles of compulsory attendance. In the judgment of many Irish Members these proposals are very dissimilar in their merits. The proposal to allocate a money grant gives rise to no dissent, but it is exceedingly inconvenient, upon the Second Reading of the Bill, to be obliged to determine between dissimilar proposals. I think the Government would have acted well if they had adopted the suggestion of dividing this Bill into two—of dealing in one Bill with the money grant, under which all education in Ireland should have an option, and in the other dealing with the question of compulsory attendance. But they have preferred, in the true coercion spirit, to try and induce or compel us to govern our action upon the Second Reading of the Bill by reason of the fact that the Bill contains a money grant. We all desire to improve the position of the national teachers, and if the Bill only concerned their position and the improvement of their incomes it might pass after a brief debate.
  226
  But the Bill is freighted with a question of principle of even greater importance, and I have to say for myself that I cannot yield to such a contrivance as that of dealing with two subjects which are not connected in principle. I shall, therefore, have to express my opinion, and to act upon my opinion, in regard to the scheme and provision for compulsion as if it were the only matter in the Bill. We are told that a great financial boon is about to be conferred on Ireland, and that the giving of this boon affords an opportunity for doing something else. As to the great financial boon, I cannot forget that Ireland's share of the grant last year was seized and taken from us to make good a deficiency caused by an error of the Imperial Treasury, for which Ireland is not responsible. I lay emphasis on the fact that the Government, by refusing to distribute the whole sum available for education in these countries in proportion to average attendance, have reduced and out down the share allotted to Ireland by nearly £100,000 a year. As to the great financial boon, if your scheme is carried into law, I venture to think that by the time the salaries of clerks and officers are paid—the salaries of committees nominated by the Board of Education, the costs of prosecutions, and the expenses of administration—Ireland will be no gainer by the great financial boon, but will rather be a heavy loser. As to the financial scheme of the Bill, I cannot refrain from observing that, having £210,000 a year to distribute, which is double the amount of school fees collected in Ireland, it might have been expected that you would so arrange your scheme as to abolish the school fees and at the same time to improve the position of all the teachers. But you have done nothing of the kind. The school fees are not to be abolished; a considerable amount of them is still to be collected, and, upon the other hand, the inquiries which I have made leave me in not the slightest doubt that the position of many of the teachers in Ireland will be injured and not improved, and that the Catholic Bishops, who speak for their clergy—and their clergy are the managers of two-thirds of the national schools in Ireland—are so apprehensive of the effect of the

  227
  great financial boon upon the position of many of the teachers that they ask you to allow them, in this Bill, the same option allowed to England by Section 1 of the Act of 1891—the option of a manager to determine for himself whether he will accept your financial boon at all, or whether he will continue to apply the existing system. That claim put forward on the part of the Bishops does not indicate that your financial scheme can be regarded as a success. The only other financial observation I will make is this: that the convent schools, undeniably proved by the official records to be the most efficient schools in Ireland, are still to be by far the most poorly paid. A grievous and offensive disparity will continue to exist as to the mode of payment of these schools in comparison with others much less efficient, and I have to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a provision for the payment of these excellent schools will have to be considered in Committee. The financial boon, concerning which I have said these few words of criticism, is offered as a reason why the Government should ignore our advice and seize the opportunity which, they say, is afforded of doing something else. What else do they propose to do? They propose to get rid of the notorious defects of the system of national education in Ireland. The existing system could easily be improved, but their proposal leaves it quite untouched. The fatal error of the Party opposite in dealing with the affairs of Ireland consists in this—when they find, or think they find, anything unsatisfactory in the state of that country they conclude that the fault is not in themselves, or in their system, or their Boards, but with the Irish people. I say that in this case the fault is not the fault of the Irish people. It is the fault of your system and of your Board. The Party opposite and the Government now in power do not believe in attracting the people of Ireland, and do not believe in leading the people of Ireland, of their own wills, to do what is considered right. They prefer to drive them by coercion. Coercion is their one sauce for every dish. Even in the Land Purchase Bill
  228
  we had compulsory treatment; in the Local Government Bill, which is now a thing of the past—a pathetic or comical memory—there was to be a compulsory ejection of public bodies from office; and in the Bill before us there is to be a compulsory attendance at school. You propose a costly scheme which, in my judgment, is likely to be ineffectual for its purpose; but if an Irish Minister, responsible to an Irish House of Commons or Legislature, were called upon to deal with this question, he would propose a scheme which would not cost one penny, and which in the course of one twelvemonth would give you a better average attendance at the national schools of Ireland than the most rigorous compulsion ever secured for you in Great Britain. You may ask me what this Irish Minister would do. In the first place, he would put some life into the Board of Education. That Board (although the right hon. Gentleman, in an official exigency which I respect, spoke of it in the language of eulogy) is a coterie of ex-politicians, including many rejected candidates—a kind of museum of relics; and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that that Board has the confidence of the Irish people he may as well talk about having confidence in a collection of waxworks. An Irish Minister would put life into that Board; he would put on it some men of public force, of energy, with the faculty of initiative; and that step alone—the creation of an energetic Board, acceptable to the people, or even the introduction of an acceptable element—would work a magical effect upon the question of attendance. An Irish Minister would propose to get rid of the dry, dull, pedantic, and antiquated text-books of the present Board, which must be a torment to the unfortunate children who are compelled to read them; and he would substitute others suited to the taste and genius of the country, and up to the level of the time; and this he would accomplish by the very easy and simple method of putting an end to the absurd monopoly which the Board now holds in the production and sale of these books, and of making in Ireland, as in England, the supply of text-books for schools a matter of public competition. An Irish

  229
  Minister would end the "model" schools, which are not primary, or even mixed, schools, and which, though you call them "models," exhibit nothing whatever but this—the maximum of cost with the minimum of useful result; and the money which would be saved by extinguishing those schools might be applied to really useful and salutary purposes. It would be sufficient to provide a real training in domestic economy for the girls in the national schools of Ireland, to give the boys in the towns some practical instruction in mechanics, and the boys in the rural districts some practical instruction in agriculture; and—it may seem strange to the House—it would be left to an Irish Minister to propose that a few thousand pounds a year should be applied in providing a good fire in winter in these poor schools in the West of Ireland, where hundreds of ill-fed and ill-clad children come miles in the rainy weather and sit shivering in the cold all day. By that modest, un-ambitious programme which can be carried out on the savings of the "model" schools of Ireland, at the end of only one twelvemonth the great natural love of the Irish people for education, attracted by fair conditions, would procure a vastly better average attendance in the national schools of Ireland than you ever have in this wealthy country by the most vigorous system of compulsion. But this Government prefers to rush on with coercion in this sphere as in every other. There is, however, a previous question which they have ignored. It is: Have you made your system what it ought to be, have you made your schools as useful to the people, as attractive to the children as you ought to make them before you resort to the rash experiment, in a country holding such relations with you as Ireland does at the present time, of turning the school into a lock-up and giving to the sphere of primary education a compulsory system which would certainly have to the Irish people the poisonous savour of coercion? There is that previous question, and a duty lies upon you to discharge it before you resort to coercion in the sphere of primary education in Ireland. The Catholic Bishops perceive that there is
  230
  a previous question. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has read a resolution of the Episcopal Standing Committee which was passed a month ago. The Catholic Bishops I hold to be competent witnesses in the case. Whatever success your primary system has achieved in Ireland, in spite of its various and notorious shortcomings and defects, is due in the main to the action of these Bishops and their clergy. They have done more for education in Ireland than the promoters of this Bill, and it is no offence to the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland feel a deeper interest than any British administrator can feel in the welfare and progress of their own people, in which, of course, educational advancement is included. The Catholic Bishops, the value of whose testimony the right hon. Gentleman will not deny, say that the most urgent need is better facility for education—that you ought to have more schools, and that your schools should be better than they are. They point out that in Ireland there is no compulsory power for the acquisition of sites for schools; and when the right hon. Gentleman says, as he did in reply to a question to-day, that there are 700,000 "places" in schools in Ireland, he did not tell us how near these places are to the children. The mere statement of the existence of these places does not prove that there is sufficient and suitable accommodation, because it leaves out the vital element of the distance of the schools from the homes. Why have you denied these compulsory powers to Ireland, and why do you propose to proceed to coercion before you give to Ireland these facilities for a better school supply that you afforded a long time ago to England and to Scotland? You gave these powers to England in the principal Act—the Act of 1870; you gave them to Scotland under the Act of 1878. England has had these powers for twenty-two years; Scotland has had them for sixteen years; they have been found sufficient in both countries, but up to the present moment you have never given to any authority in Ireland power to acquire compulsorily the site for a school. Now let me bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a

  231
  case that lately came to my own in the village of Ballygarrann. In the parish of Woodford, in the County of Galway, there were a number of children who had to travel four miles in order to reach school. The infants and children of tender age could not make the journey. Application was made to your Board of Education. The Board of Education agreed to recognise a school in case they obtained a lease of the site for a term of ninety-nine years. The inhabitants applied to Lord Clanricarde for the site—a site upon a piece of barren mountain land of no earthly use to Lord Clanricarde or anyone else in this world. Lord Clanricarde refused to give a lease. Between your Education Board and your Irish landlord the people went to the wall, and the school could not be established. The parish priest assembled a number of peasants, and in this year of grace, towards the end of the nineteenth century, sixty years after the establishment of your system of national education in Ireland, these men dug sods, and built a hedge school. A teacher was brought from Tipperary, and sixty children of the village are now in attendance at that school. It is not recognised by the National Board, and the people are trying to get their education as they got it in the penal days when you made all education a crime. These sixty children attending every day at that school are amongst the 110,000 Irish children who, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are not at school at all. How many cases of that kind may be found existing in Ireland? And every such case is excluded from the enumeration and these children, taking the best advantage they can of all the facilities afforded them, are counted as amongst the absentees whose absence from school entitles the right hon. Gentleman to make this proposal of compulsion. Will you give compulsory powers for the acquisition of sites in Ireland, as you have given it long ago to England and to Scotland? The Bishops make a claim to which there can be no answer but concession; and the Bishops also represent—and I think with conclusive force—that in a great many districts in Ireland, where there are no schools sufficiently
  232
  convenient to the homes, you ought to establish infant and preparatory schools which would enable infants and children of tender age to attend. Will that provision be made? The Bishops also represent that not only do you need more schools conveniently situated, but that your schools should be improved, and they make two practical suggestions in this regard. One has regard to the fact that the bulk of the Irish teachers are still untrained, and cannot make their schools attractive and useful as teachers who are trained can make them, and the suggestion is that you should establish special courses of training for untrained teachers of long service, and further that the organisation of classes at present in many cases lamentably defective ought to be attended to by a staff of competent experts. I think you will do better work in attending to these suggestions of the Bishops made with the fulness of their knowledge than by embarking rashly on a system of compulsion which, if enacted by this Parliament, might have a very different effect in Ireland from what it would have in this part of the United Kingdom. The Bishops are not wholly opposed to compulsion. They favour a system of indirect compulsion, and their language in this regard is well worthy of close attention. They say that a system of indirect compulsion would be free from the evils and hardships which, in their judgment, would be inseparable from the execution of your scheme. And the proposals which they make are these: that employment should be restricted; and the Bishops, and I presume the clergy for whom they speak, are willing to favour a more stringent proposal upon the restriction of employment than you have inserted in the Bill. They also suggest that monitorships and all other prizes and rewards in the schools may be made dependent upon regular attendance. And I have no doubt whatever that at a much less cost than the necessary cost of your scheme it would be possible to institute a system of prizes and rewards which would be more effectual in securing regular attendance than any scheme of compulsion. In one respect what I may call direct compulsion is favoured by

  233
  the Bishops, and they hit a very obvious and grave defect in your scheme. Long since you allowed local school authorities in England and in Scotland to develop a system of industrial schools. There is no such proposal in this Bill. The Bishops urge the establishment of a system of union industrial schools, to be used for certain classes of children when they are found habitually absent from school. These classes are destitute orphans, deserted children, and the children of vagrant mothers. And allow me to point out to you that even if your scheme of compulsory attendance were made the law to-morrow it would not touch these classes of children, because the parents of these children are dead, or they are out of reach, and no person could be made responsible. So, therefore, it is clear, whether compulsion is enacted or let alone, at any rate the suggestion put before you by the Bishops is one that deserves atttention. If the right hon. Gentleman has not read the Resolutions, I would direct his particular attention to the language of the Bishops with regard to the compulsory clauses of this Bill. They say—
  "The compulsory clauses of the Bill are declared to be unwarranted by the school attendances in Ireland, and we therefore protest against them as a gross interference with the rights of parents. They are particularly opposed to the natural feelings of our people and in their results, if passed into law, they could not fail, to a large extent, to render the schools unpopular, to restrict the period and the extent of school education to the minimum required by the Act, and to render the administration of the law odious in Ireland. We therefore respectfully and urgently call upon the Government to remove them from the Bill."
  Now, that is the unanimous verdict of a very responsible body of men who have done great service in Ireland, and I ask for it the most careful attention of the Government. But what strikes me most in connection with this scheme is that the time is most inopportune for it. We are now upon the eve of a General Election. The question in that election—substantially the only question—will be that of the future government of Ireland. When the electors have decided in favour of Home Rule it must be evident that the question of Irish education could be more effec
  234
  tually considered by the Irish Representatives than by any other. I therefore submit that the question of compulsion—the vital question of compulsion—in the sphere of primary education is a question which should properly be reserved until the appeal to the people has been made. I must add that the scheme is unfortunate in its sponsors. The Government have applied coercion to their entire sphere of political action; and if it is proposed to apply coercion to the sphere of education, the effect will be to kill the great natural love of the Irish people for education rather than to improve school attendance. Although you may secure some augmentation of attendances in the schools, let me tell you that you will inflict a vital blow at the cause of education. I should be inclined to lay it down as a principle, that before you can successfully apply coercion to the question of education in Ireland you must, as a preliminary, withdraw coercion from the political life of the country. If an excellent scheme were put before us, it might go far to dispose of these objections, but this is not an excellent scheme. It is blemished by serious excesses; it is marred by the most lamentable defects. The whole scheme rests, and is made to rest, upon an unfounded imputation—an imputation injurious and offensive to the people of Ireland—that the parents in that country are neglectful of the education of their children. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that imputation. The whole pivot of the case of the right hon. Gentleman for any scheme of compulsion rested upon his statement that there are in Ireland 110,000 or 120,000 children who ought to be at school, but who are not there. I say that is a delusion. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at home, in England, where, on the testimony of the Commissioners, there are at least a million of children whose names are not on the school registers. There are no such children in Ireland from which I am entitled to infer that Irish parents like to educate their children. Therefore, I say you should make education in Ireland attractive, instead of compulsory. The Reports show that there were 20,000 attendances more in Ire

  235
  land last year than in the previous year. Then, by the strangest of all possible errors, the right hon. Gentleman omitted from his compilations all the children of schools other than national schools. He omitted altogether the children of the Church Education Society schools, of the schools of the Christian Brothers, and of other religious bodies in Ireland. Now, that was a gross—and if the right hon. Gentleman were not so amiable a man I should have said it was an unpardonable—error. These schools represent attendances of not less than 60,000, which, added to the 20,000 increased attendances when comparing the years 1889 and 1890, and others, make up a total of 80,000. Therefore, instead of there being 110,000 children in Ireland who ought to be at school, the total is less than one per cent. Now, will anyone contend that the difference of one per cent. of the population in the average attendance in Ireland and England affords a rational or tolerable plea for compulsion? Consider that England is the wealthiest country in the world, and that Ireland is one of the poorest; consider that the population of England is three-fourths larger than that of Ireland, and that the schools of England are at the doors of the children; consider, also, that the West of Ireland children suffer from the utmost squalor, that they are without suitable food to eat, that they are without decent clothes to wear, and that they are subject to the stormy weather to which that part of Ireland is particularly liable; and I think it must be admitted that even if compulsion were the law in Ireland, instead of the voluntary system, the difference of one per cent. of the population in attendance in England and Ireland would not be a matter of disgrace to Ireland. I say, therefore, that the present scheme rests upon an assumption that is unfounded, and which is injurious and offensive to the people of Ireland. I also object to it, because it inflicts a great injustice on certain voluntary schools. They had grievances before; but since education has been made free their grievances have become intolerable. Why should the Christian Brothers have been excluded from the benefits of the Bill? They are recog
  236
  nised and aided by all classes, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Education Board. They are put under ban in no country but Ireland. If their schools were in England they would be recognised. Why, then, are they to be excluded in Ireland? Because of an absurd and ludicrous rule which was made fifty or sixty years ago under a state of things very different to that which exists in Ireland at the present day. I refer to the rule of combined secular and separate religions. The national system of education in Ireland was intended to be a system of separate religious instruction, but the intention was one thing and the result quite another. By the combined efforts of Protestant and Catholics there has been established in Ireland practically a system of denominational education, so far as they can make it so, by providing schools for separate creeds. The schools of the Christian Brothers are to be shut out from participating in the grant, although they meet the requirements of the law as regards attendance, examinations, inspections, and other tests. They do not ask that their religious instruction should be paid for — they provide for that themselves — but they claim to be admitted to the benefit of the system of free education which is now to become law. They are to be shut out because they will not suppress the crucifix—a strange demand to be made in a Christian country. The Christian Brothers were the pioneers of primary education in Ireland, but they are now called upon not only to remove the crucifix from their schools, but to burn their class-book, give up their religious instruction, and, in short, to violate their consciences in order to submit to what I say is a most unreasonable requirement. I cannot countenance this or any other scheme that proposes to do a gross injustice to these voluntary schools, which have rendered, and are rendering, great services to Ireland. This scheme proposes to inflict a fine upon the Irish parent—be he Protestant or Catholic—because he acts according to the dictates of his conscience in the choice of schools for his children. I warn you that unless you admit the Christian Brothers you will bring your system to a deadlock in the principal

  237
  cities and towns of Ireland. You cannot deny that the schools of the Christian Brothers are efficient schools. The only choice in many of the cities and towns is between the Protestant schools and those of the Christian Brothers. Suppose that a Catholic parent in either of the cities or towns refuses to send his children to the Protestant schools, and says, "I have as good a right to free education as anyone in Ireland, and I claim the right to send them to a school of the Christian Brothers, and that you shall pay the fee?" It must come to this: you must either provide the equivalent of the fee in the schools of the Christian Brothers or the law will become a dead letter. The system of free and compulsory education cannot go on in the cities and towns of Ireland unless the schools of the Christian Brothers are included in the scheme. May I now point out to the House what seems to me to be a conclusive reason why this scheme should be rejected? When you established compulsion in England and Scotland there was the popular franchise. Parents had a right to vote in the election of the Local Authorities which were to administer the law. But in Ireland both parents are excluded from the vote. We introduced a Bill in the very first week of this Session to confer the popular franchise in the cities and towns of Ireland, and its principle was unanimously confirmed by the House. Its Second Reading was consented to; but from that day to this the Government have refused to make any further progress with it. Is it seriously contended, for instance, that we can approve of a scheme under which a population of forty thousand in the City of Limerick would have to submit to the will of four hundred persons who would have the power of appointing a School Committee and of administering authority under the Bill? I lay it down—and it cannot be contradicted—that the condition precedent to the enactment of any such scheme as that provided in the Bill is the provision of popular franchise for the cities and towns of Ireland, and I will give no countenance to any scheme to submit the Irish parent to compulsion in the matter of education or anything else
  238
  until you give him the same franchise as has been given to parents in England and Scotland. If our Bill had been accepted, or if it were accepted now, that would alter the case, but it has not been accepted. I also object to this scheme because it makes compulsion absolute. There is nothing in the difference between the school attendance in England and Ireland to justify such a course. When you passed the Compulsion Act for England the attendance in the schools there was only eight per cent. of the population and the number of children examined only five per cent., whilst in Ireland at the present time the average attendance is twelve per cent. of the population. I further submit that this is a Bill for cities and towns and not for the rural populations of Ireland, and that is another reason why I object to it. I cannot consent to the powers proposed by this Bill being given to the National Board. The Board of Education in Ireland stands in a different relation to the people than the Education Department in England and Scotland. It is nothing more than a mere sub-agency of the Castle; and if you give to the Board, as you propose, the power of dictating what shall be the standard of annual school attendance, I warn you that you will produce a conflict in policy, in opinion, and possibly in action, between the Local Authorities and that Board. The scheme, of course, would not be complete without some special coercive power in the hands of the Government, and in this Bill you provide such a power. Indeed, you have found a new word. The Local Government Board remove or dissolve a Board of Guardians; the two Judges are to remove the County Council; but in this Bill you provide that the Board of Education shall "supersede," shall have power to supersede. Supersede is, I suppose, a more delicate word than dissolve. The word may be different, but the act is the same. It is only our venerable friend coercion making a new entrance in a costume slightly altered for the part. I cannot admit that this coercion would be properly exercised. You propose, not only that this nominated Board, this irresponsible body, shall have power to turn out of doors at any moment, at its

  239
  mere pleasure, without cause assigned, any School Attendance Committee, but also to substitute any gentlemen whom the nominees of the Lord Lieutenant may be pleased to nominate, to give them such salaries as they may be pleased to fix—and we know that public Boards are as liable as other people to be generous with money that is not their own—and to charge those salaries for an unlimited period upon the local rates. You propose to apply in the sphere of education the worst and most intolerable propositions of the Local Government Bill. I certainly feel it my duty to use such facilities as this House affords to prevent the passing into law of any proposal which will give to this coterie the power of overriding the will of the Local Authority in regard to the School Attendance Committee. Whilst I complain, on the one hand, of the proposal to vest this arbitrary power in an irresponsible Department, I say, on the other hand, there is no provision in the Bill for the due protection of creeds, of the rights of conscience of different denominations. You make no provision whatever as to the rights of creeds upon the School Attendance Committee, or amongst the attendance officers. I know very well—and I think you know—that wherever the Catholics are in a majority they will act in a spirit scrupulously fair and even generous towards other creeds. But what would happen in some parts of Ulster? I take a most conspicuous example—the City of Belfast, where, if the Bill were passed, the Corporation would appoint a School Attendance Committee and also the attendance officers. In the City of Belfast the Catholics constitute one-fourth of the population; they number seventy thousand; but by a system of juggling and trickery these seventy thousand Catholics are shut out from representation on the City Council, on which, although it consists of forty members, there is not one Catholic. In civil affairs they are without a voice. What, then, would happen if this Bill were passed? The Protestant City Council—which for a quarter of a century has never appointed or recommended any Catholic to any official post, in regard to which it might offer recommendation—will
  240
  proceed to appoint a School Attendance Committee and the officers to administer the Act, and both will be of a purely Protestant character.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think so.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member is more sanguine than I am; but on what experience does he found his opinion? Why do the Corporation appoint no Catholic to any official post in their service? Why is it that I am in a position to tell the House that for twenty-five years that has been the record of the Belfast Corporation? Why does he think they will appoint any Catholic either to the Committee or as an attendance officer? I say they will do nothing of the kind, and that the administration of the law in the City of Belfast, if you pass this Bill, will be the Protestant administration of the compulsory law on the Catholic community. The enforcement of the law will become a matter of creed and of the prejudices of creed. Excuses of any kind will be good enough in one case for non-attendance, and in the other no excuse will be valid. And let me tell you that if you had applied to fanatics to draw up a Bill which would excite the Irish people to resistance of the law, you could not have gone about it better. This Bill is full of errors and defects; but if it contained no other than this—that it offers no provision whatever for securing fair play and equity to the Catholic community in Belfast, it would be my duty to offer to it any opposition in my power. I have not argued against compulsion in the abstract. I have said that under certain conditions compulsion may be useful; but I say in regard to this scheme that it is a bad scheme, that it is a crude scheme, and that it is not accompanied by popular franchise; and I have to add that unless assurances are forthcoming in the present Debate that the errors and defects which I have pointed out will be remedied, I shall consider it my duty to oppose the Second Reading.
  MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Sexton) has, I believe, claimed not only to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland

  241
  but also on behalf of the national teachers of Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I made no claim to speak for the national teachers.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am glad to find that I misunderstood the observations of the hon. Gentleman, because I hold in my hand a letter I received this morning from a national school teacher in the North of Ireland, who is the Secretary to the Coleraine branch of the Teachers' Association, conveying in strong terms the desire of the Association for the passing of this Bill. He says—
  "For various reasons we are extra anxious to get the Bill passed this Session. It contains the most important principle that we have been agitating for for a long time—namely, compulsory education. Although, unfortunately, this principle is not carried far enough, yet the Bill recognises its usefulness. It would bring us more into line with England and Scotland on the subject of assisted compulsory education. For these and other reasons we are most anxious that the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible."
  Here we have evidence of a desire on the part of the teachers that this Bill should become law as soon as possible. The hon. Member wished that some life should be infused into the National Board of Education, and in that I agree, because I think it would be well if that were done. The hon. Member also indicated his desire to see that Education Board abolished. I myself would prefer to see the education of the United Kingdom placed in the hands of a Minister for Education, with a Department for each of the three countries, and a Department for Wales if it were necessary. One reason the hon. Member advanced in favour of a change of method of the Education Board is that it would put an end to the model schools. These schools, I contend, are amongst the most useful schools in Ireland—they are liked, and they are well conducted. I wish there were more of them in Ireland. As to the important question of compulsion, I think that principle is desirable from the point of view of getting a regular attendance at school. If there are many such cases as that described by the hon. Member where sites have been refused for national schools by Lord Clanricarde, I see no reason why the principle of compulsory acquisition
  242
  of sites should not be acceded to by the Government. For my part, however, I have not heard of many such instances. Then I also think the suggestion that there should be local infant schools is reasonable in character. Such a provision is, I think, advisable, and it would not, I believe, prove expensive. The hon. Member also spoke with considerable force of the number of schools in Ireland which are purely and solely Protestant. We desire to see less of these in Ireland and more of the mixed schools. Such schools would, to my mind, tend to foster the feeling of toleration towards those holding different religious beliefs I sincerely hope that the Belfast Committee will include Catholics among its members; indeed, if Catholicism had not some share of representation, the Corporation of Belfast would be disgracing itself. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Belfast as to the number of Catholics in that city.
  MR. SEXTON: The figures are taken from the Census Returns.
  MR. SINCLAIR: But even if the number were smaller than has been stated, it is perfectly clear that there ought to be Roman Catholic representation on the School Attendance Committee, and also that some of the attendance officers should be of that belief. I firmly believe that a feeling of justice will pervade the minds of those who have the making of these appointments. I hope that this Bill will pass into law, as it is greatly desired by those who are largely interested in educational work.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should have preferred the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) to have defined his position—whether he spoke on this subject as a Scotch or as an ex-Irish Member.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Ex-Irish.
  COLONEL NOLAN: When the hon. Member represented a Northern Irish constituency some weight, of course, attached to his expressions of the views of his constituents; but now, as regards Irish topics, that qualification, apart from his personal talent, has disappeared. The hon. Member has told us that everyone interested in this Bill is very much in favour of it, and I have

  243
  no doubt whatever that any body of men, where such a sum of money is concerned, would display a lively desire to get the greatest possible advantage and to secure possession of the money as soon as possible. In the case of the Irish teachers there is some reason for this interest. They have been cheated out of £100,000, which the English teachers have got, and they are very much afraid that they may lose a further £210,000. Thus I am not surprised that they should swallow a bad Bill if it will aid them in securing possession of the funds. I complain of the way in which these Irish questions are treated. When last year the Government introduced the Bill making a large grant to English education, I pointed out that England would first receive her money, and then that the Irish people would be left either in the lurch or that the grant would be postponed indefinitely, and that when the grant was made there would be coupled with it some hard and unfair conditions wholly unsuited to Ireland. I am sorry to see that my prediction has been fulfilled. I entirely deny the suggestion that this grant is a gift. It is only our fair share. We have always maintained that Ireland has paid far more than her fair share to the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, when you give England something like £2,000,000, why, when you give Ireland £210,000, should you describe the grant as a gift and accompany it with certain unpalatable conditions? We are anxious that there should be a good system of education in Ireland, that the position of teachers should be improved, and that all sects should in regard to this grant stand on an equal footing; but here you give nothing to the most efficient schools. When in the English Bill the Government insisted on treating all schools fairly I voted with them. Now, however, the principle is not to be extended to Ireland, and the most efficient of denominational schools in Ireland—the Christian Brothers' Schools—are entirely left out of the scope of the Bill. I come now to some of the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, I consider that the present condition of education in Ireland renders compulsion unnecessary. Even where school fees have had to be paid, the children have flocked to
  244
  school; and so, with free education, I believe that almost every child in Ireland will attend school. Compulsion will be unnecessary and odious. But there are two classes of compulsion in this Bill, while in England, I understand, you have only one. You can punish the parent for not sending the child to school, or, in districts where there are no Board schools, you can punish the employer for employing a child who has not passed the regulation standard. You are going to apply both these methods to Ireland. You are both going to punish the employer and the parent. The point I consider most unsuited to Ireland is the punishment of the employer, because everyone is aware that there is a great want in Ireland of sufficient employment for children. The Census shows that in Ireland we have a very large proportion of children and old people, and this is accounted for by the melancholy fact that when young men and women reach the ages of seventeen and eighteen they emigrate to the United States. These children would be of great assistance to their parents if they could obtain employment, but the effect of this Bill will be to prevent them from doing so. Take the case of hay-making. Employers will not think it worth their while, for the sake of employing children a few weeks in the year, to inquire for certificates. The consequence will be that they will cease to employ children, and do the work by means of machinery. Now, I acknowledge that the principle of compulsion in this Bill will not have a very widespread effect. In my own constituency, for instance, it will not affect more than about half-a-dozen families, and there are several other constituencies in the same position. This principle of compulsion is one which bristles with difficulties in Ireland. Let me ask, to what schools are the boys in the towns to go to? The girls may be compelled to go to the convent schools, and there will be no unfairness in that, because these schools for Roman Catholic girls are to all intents and purposes national schools; but there are no national schools for Catholic boys. If you compel the boys to go to the Christian Brotherhood

  245
  schools, you will be acting unfairly, inasmuch as no grant is to be made to these institutions. And in case these schools should refuse to take the extra number of children, are their parents to be punished by the police? I should like the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) to say what he proposes to do under these circumstances, because it seems to me that the alternatives under the Bill are unfair. I now come to another matter, and that is the very unjust way in which it is proposed to deal with the Christian Brothers. These schools have always been very unfairly dealt with except in one instance. I allude to the Bill which authorises grants to be made by the Science and Art Department—without any conditions as to religion, and under which the Christian Brothers receive an appreciable sum of money. But apart from this grant they receive nothing whatever from the State. And here I may as well explain what the Christian Brothers are. They are simply a teaching community, the children in some cases being educated gratuitously, and the money for carrying on the work is derived exclusively from voluntary subscriptions in the different towns. It may be said that it is a matter of opinion whether the Christian Brothers impart a good education or not, and that I have exaggerated the excellence of their teaching. I will, therefore, fortify my position by calling the attention of the House to the Reports of the Royal Commission of 1854 respecting these schools. The Marquess of Kildare, the Chairman of that Commission, stated that they had received no complaints about the schools, and that the Assistant Commissioners had expressed most favourable opinions with respect to them. It was also added that the education given was of a very excellent character. The Assistant Commissioners, besides speaking most highly of the education given by the Christian Brothers, reported that the school premises were in every way satisfactory, being both commodious and well furnished. Now, with one or two exceptions, these Assistant Commissioners are Protestants. They are official witnesses, and I believe their character is unimpeachable, and consequently the House may
  246
  have every confidence in the high standard of education given at these schools. I might add that a certain amount of technical education, exceedingly valuable in Ireland, is also given by the Christian Brothers. Notwithstanding that the instruction given by them is satisfactory in every way, they are refused any grant—except that from the Science and Art Department—because they also give a certain amount of religious teaching. In England, schools that impart some religious instruction are not deprived of the yearly grant, and I think it is unfair that these popular educational establishments in Ireland should be treated in a different manner. Some of the Assistant Commissioners point out that in the cases where Protestant children attend these schools there is no attempt at proselytising. Under those circumstances—and I am quite willing that the Government should put a Conscience Clause in the Bill—I think it most unfair not to include the Christian Brothers in the grants it is proposed to make under this Bill. No one can say that the children turned out of these schools are specially noted for bigotry, and as far as I can discover the teaching of the Christian Brothers is not in the least directed towards proselytising or attacking the members of religious bodies different from their own. Now, let me say a word with regard to Protestant children in particular. I am sure every Irish Member wishes to see them fairly dealt with, and there are two things to which I think they are entitled. In the first place, when there are a large number of them they should have a school of their own; and, secondly, when there are only a few in any particular district and they attend Catholic schools they should be strictly protected by a Conscience Clause, and they should not be taught out of any books of which their parents disapprove. I believe that in the Board schools in this country a chapter of the Bible is read every day. It is said that that is not religious education, and that it is a proceeding which should be tolerated by all communities. Now, the Catholics object to any such system, while the Presbyterians in Ireland are in favour of it. They say

  247
  they do not want religious teaching. All they wish for is to have a particular chapter of the Bible read—I will not say haphazard—but with the discretion of a teacher. The Presbyterians have a right to their own opinion, but I deny that they have any right to control the system of religious teaching by any other religious body. It is most unfair to say that there is in Ireland no religious persecution, because a man can send his child to any school. But by refusing to allow a grant to Catholic schools you are handicapping a particular religion, and the Catholic taxpayer, if he desires to send his child to a school belonging to the Christian Brotherhood, does not get any return in grants, and he is paying simply to educate other people's children. I will now pass from the consideration of the merits of the Bill to a practical question—namely, what are we to do with it? Here we have £210,000 proposed to be divided amongst the national schools. Now, in the first place, this Bill introduces compulsion where it is not wanted; and, secondly, we have to decide whether we will accept this £210,000 on the conditions prescribed or go without it altogether. That is a position from which the Government should relieve us. I should like to ask if the Government will strike out the first fourteen clauses of the Bill dealing with compulsion? I think they ought to consider the Irish Vote particularly in this matter, and not allow the English and Scotch Vote to decide it, because if they do that the Irish will naturally be outvoted. Another practical question I should like to ask is this:—If an Amendment is introduced, as no doubt there will be, proposing that the Christian Brothers shall receive a minimum sum of threepence per week for each scholar, what course will the Government take? I hope these points will not be passed over in silence, but that we shall be plainly told what course the Government intend to take with regard to them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is a great difference between the tone of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill and that on the First Reading. When the Bill was introduced it was received
  248
  by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with acclamation, and, apart from the question of the Christian Brothers, they appeared to be almost unanimously in favour of it. Now, Sir, there are details in connection with this Bill which will require attention when we go into Committee, but which I do not propose to deal with on this occasion. The small schools, which under the Schedule of the Bill are to receive increased grants, have been largely called into existence not by educational, but by denominational necessities. But these are points of detail which do not require attention in a Debate on the Second Reading of a Bill, and I will deal with what I consider are the two main principles of the measure which is now before us. The first is the modified form of compulsion, which is embodied in the Bill, and the second is the enlarged grant that is very much wanted to the national school teachers of Ireland. I say frankly that hon. Members below the Gangway may take the responsibility if they like of rejecting this Bill, and starving the national school teachers, but I do not think that they will vote with the unanimity that seems to be expected. With respect to compulsion, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) over and over again referred to the compulsion in this Bill as coercion. We have had worse kinds of coercion than this applied to Ireland, and I think we can put up with it; and the use of this word coercion now will show English Members how lightly the term is used in Ireland. Of course, compulsory education is coercion. The whole moral law is coercion. But this is coercion that has been applied to England, to Scotland, and to Wales with very great advantage; and in the face of the illiteracy in Ireland—forty-five per cent. of illiteracy in Galway and thirty per cent. in Donegal—I do not see that any Irish Member ought to endeavour to prevent the passing of a Bill which will compel parents to send their children to school and put an end to this great scandal. Why do hon. Members who sit below the Gangway oppose compulsion? Not a word was said against it on the First Reading, and the Member for West

  249
  Belfast said over and over again that the Bishops were opposed to direct but were in favour of indirect compulsion. I think I shall be able to prove that the Bishops were in favour of direct compulsion up to a certain point. I believe that the real author of the system of modified compulsion which exists in this Bill is Archbishop Walsh. He attended in 1890 at the Congress of the National School Teachers, and referring to a resolution which was to be submitted to the meeting he said—
  "The fourth resolution raises the vitally important question of compulsory attendance. Personally I am strongly in favour of a reasonable measure of compulsion. I note that the resolution to be proposed on the subject is most carefully worded. It speaks of a system of compulsory attendance adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the country. The meeting is of course aware that the question is a delicate one surrounded by many difficulties. In expressing my personal concurrence in the proposal I must say I limit that concurrence to the case of such a city as Dublin, or of large towns and cities if there are any similarly situated."
  But compulsion is not to be applied to the whole country. It is limited to the cities and the large towns, as the Archbishop said it should be when he spoke in 1890, and I think the hon. Member for West Belfast must have forgotten that this principle of modified compulsion was first of all proposed by Archbishop Walsh. If hon. Members from the North of Ireland—from Ulster—find any fault with this Bill it is that it does not go far enough. There is a strong feeling that if the Government have erred at all it is because the principle of compulsion is modified and limited in the area over which it is to extend. But the people of Ulster are not foolish enough to reject the Bill because it only goes part of the way they desire. They recognise the principle they desire to have, and they hope to extend it if possible. But as soon as this Bill was printed and its contents became known in Ireland, Archbishop Walsh on the 6th March denounced the compulsory clauses as an insult to Ireland. I think that is going a good deal too far, and if they never receive from this House a worse insult than this which gives compulsory and practically free education they will be able to stand a good deal in the way of insult. The Bill, as it stands, and
  250
  this cannot be too widely known, has the enthusiastic support of the whole body of national teachers. It is all very well to say that they are the people who are going to receive the money, and, therefore, they are anxious to get the Bill; but I know other people who are glad to receive money and will make great sacrifices to get it, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had any reason for the taunt he uttered.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I uttered no taunt.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The whole body of the national school teachers are in favour of the principle of compulsion. All the Protestants are strongly in its favour; and though I have no right to speak for the Roman Catholics I know that many of them have publicly asserted that they will vote for this Bill. The real truth is that the only opposition is from the Clerical Party, who are represented in this House by the Member for West Belfast, and I hope the Government will stand firm by the teachers, and, as I think, by the majority of the people of Ireland of all classes. I now come to the Christian Brothers. I have never said a word either against them or against their education. They are a most devoted body of men, and they give, I believe, a good, sound education. But as to the principles on which that education is given, I should like to ask the attention of the House to a higher authority than that of the Member for Galway. The Director of the Christian Brothers, Brother John Augustine Grace, gave evidence before the Powis Commission, which sat from 1868 to 1870, and I should like the House to remember that these schools were not excluded from the advantages of the National Board by any action of the Government or by any action of the Board of Education. These schools were actually under the Board for six years, and enjoyed all its advantages, and then withdrew. I will read the evidence given by the Director of the Christian Brothers before this Commission. He was asked—
  "Did you ever take part in the management of any of the schools that were under the Board? I did.—Did you find the requirements of the Board tend to restrict your operations? Very much, as regards the

  251
  religious element of our system.—In what respect? By the rules of the Board we were not permitted to teach in a Catholic spirit. We did not feel at liberty to avail ourselves of the reading lesson to communicate religious knowledge when a suitable opportunity presented itself; and moreover, all reference to religious subjects was to be excluded for a certain number of hours each day. Now after having given the system the fullest trial and taking into account the pecuniary advantages of our connection with the Board with the religious restrictions which the connection imposed, we came to the conclusion that to continue the connection would be inconsistent with the original aim of the Society, viz., to give a sound Catholic education to our people, for that is the main end of our institution. The Society would never have been formed if it had not been for the purpose of communicating religious knowledge, and that being the case many of our members became dissatisfied with the restrictions imposed on the discharge of their sacred and self-imposed duties."
  Then with regard to the emblems he was asked—
  "Are the emblems in your schools such as would be generally objected to by Protestants? I think so, my Lord.—Would it be advantageous to your objects to receive a subsidy on the same plan as the nuns receive it, at so much per hundred children, subject to examination and inspection? The nuns receive the grant, as I understand it, subject to the rules of the Board, by which all religious teaching is prohibited during what is properly known as school hours. We could not submit to that.—You would require it as a condition that you should be allowed to retain this exception? Decidedly."
  Here then we have a Society founded not for the purpose of giving secular education, but for the express purpose of giving religious education, and now we are asked to admit that society to the benefits of this Bill without the Society abating one jot of the principles which it has a perfect right to hold, but which it has no right to ask the Government to pay to maintain. I am told that if this Society existed in England it would receive a grant. I am speaking in the presence of English educationists, and I venture to tell Members below the Gangway that if the Christian Brothers were in England with the present rules and laws they would not receive one farthing of public money. ("Oh, oh!") The right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) knows more about education than any other Member in this House, and I do not hear him cry "Oh, oh!" I say that to introduce these schools into the National system of education would be
  252
  to break up the foundation principle of that system. That may be a proper thing to do, but it should be done with fair notice—fairly and squarely. There is no reason why every denominational school should not be admitted if the Christian Brothers are admitted, and there is no reason why the State should not proceed straightway to endow religious teaching of all kinds. But we in Ireland have disestablished a Protestant Church, and we are not willing to endow another Church by this indirect but thoroughly effective means. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) referred to the large number of schools which were denominational so far as attendance was concerned, and which were bound by the rules of the National Board, and he has claimed that where the attendance at these schools was denominational the system should be denominationalised. That would require the overturning of the foundation principle of the National system of education. These schools are denominational in their attendance now, but at any moment that state of affairs might be altered. A stationmaster might be removed from another place, an exciseman might be removed, a policeman, or even a Resident Magistrate, might be removed, and if the children of any of these people went to a school which is now denominational a change would at once have to be made. And I say that the House has no right to subject the children of such people to any danger in the matter of their faith through the teaching given at the expense of the State. The hon. Member for West Belfast also mentioned the question of the model schools, which have been long a subject of attack. I admit that if you take many of these schools in the South and West of Ireland their cost cannot be defended. They were started as high class intermediate schools, and they have succeeded in the North of Ireland and in several districts in the South. In the North I do not know a single case where these schools have failed. In Ulster they have been entirely successful. Nobody challenges their success in the City of Dublin; but I will admit that if you take these schools over the whole of the South of

  253
  Ireland their cost is not defensible. This is accounted for by the fact that the Bishops and clergy have ordered that Roman Catholic children shall not attend these schools, and those who do attend do so in spite of this prohibition. The hon. Member for West Belfast declared that these schools were carried on at a maximum of cost and a minimum of good. I deny that altogether, so far as Ulster is concerned, and I will give some facts on that point—
  "The entire cost of the Ulster model schools for the year 1889–90 was £16,706. This sum includes the school fees paid by the pupils. One-third of these fees are claimed by Her Majesty's Treasury as an 'extra receipt.' This third in the Ulster schools amounts to £922. If this sum is deducted, the balance will be £15,783."
  It must be remembered that these schools are not only teaching schools but they are also training schools for teachers, and in this way they do good and effective work.
  "The cost to the State of a student in one of the denominational training colleges in Dublin is £50 per annum for males and £35 for females. It has already been stated that there are ninety-two male pupil teachers and twenty-eight female pupil teachers in the Ulster model schools. The male pupil teachers are boarded, lodged, and educated at the public expense; the females receive an allowance in lieu of board. Setting aside the same sum for training each of these as in the training colleges, the amount would be £5,680. Deduct this sum from the balance mentioned above, and the net cost of the Ulster schools would be reduced to £10,103, and if this sum is divided by 4,193—the aggregate average attendance of pupils at these schools in 1889—it will be found that the average cost per pupil was £2 8s. 2d. The following table shows the average cost per pupil in average attendance in a number of ordinary national schools for the same year: Carmichael National School, £4 0s. 2d.; Hardwick Street National School, Dublin, £3 1s. 10d.; Sullivan Male National School, Holywood, £3 9s. 1d; Fisherwick Place National School, £3 1s. 7d."
  So far as the model schools are concerned, they have been an unmixed blessing and boon to the entire population, and the Government that would seek to lay violent hands on the model schools in Ulster would raise a storm about their heads that they would not be likely to forget. Whatever may be said about these schools in the South they have been an entire and triumphant success in the North, and I am glad the Government are standing
  254
  firm, so far as the main principle of national education is concerned. That principle has worked wonders in Ireland. At first it was boycotted by the then Established Church. It was not very popular with the Roman Catholic Church. The only religious community in Ireland which accepted the national education system in its entirety was the Presbyterian Church. We have lived to see the Roman Catholic Church use that system without danger to the faith or morals of a single child. The Episcopal Church, once established now disestablished, has adopted the system, and it is now used practically all over Ireland. It has had to contend with the administration of a non-representative Board, but that is an inheritance of evil days which might be remedied. There is no pleasanter reading than the Census Returns which show the tremendous inroads which have been made in the illiteracy of the country. If you look at each decade you will find that a steady inroad has been made, and at the present time in Antrim you will find that only nine per cent. of the children over five years of age are illiterate. In Belfast it is only eight per cent. and in Down eleven per cent. These Returns show the necessity for compulsion, and you will find also that the great mass of illiteracy belongs to the Roman Catholic Church.
  MR. FLYNN: And so does the poverty.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not say it does not, but that is no argument against compulsion, because the education would be free. I am glad the Government have stood firm by their foundation principle, and so long as they do so I am perfectly certain that this Bill will be accepted by the majority of all sections in Ireland, and it will turn out to be a great benefit and a great blessing.
  MR. FLYNN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down used to speak for South Tyrone. Latterly he has developed a tendency to speak for Ulster, and to-night he has spoken for all Ireland, and for all classes and all conditions of men. I repudiate his right to speak for anyone but the electors of South Tyrone, so long as they return him to this House. With

  255
  his usual exaggeration and undue emphasis he has told the House that certain middle class schools were more or less successful in all the provinces of Ireland. I venture to assert that with a few exceptions in Ulster these schools have been a failure. They are schools where well-to-do parents send their children to be educated at the expense of the ratepayers, and the schools have absolutely failed in the purpose for which they were established. I challenge contradiction when I say that the character of the primary education given by the Christian Brothers in Cork and the large cities is superior to the model school education. The hon. Member for South Tyrone argues against facts and figures; but though he desires to see the number of unmixed schools decrease, he must take Ireland as he finds it; and if he finds, as is the fact, that the number of unmixed schools is growing, that is proof positive that the bent of the Irish mind is to have schools founded on religion. The denominational schools in Ulster increased from 2,562 in 1867 to 4,393 in 1890, and the number of children from 380,000 to 574,000. That shows, whether the Government like it or not, that the tendency of education in Ireland is towards denominational education; and so long as the results are satisfactory, as shown by the attendance and examinations, you are bound to support the schools, whether mixed or unmixed. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) referred to the evidence of Mr. Gryce, with regard to the Christian Brothers, before the Commission years ago, as to why they withdrew their schools from the National Board. The schools were withdrawn because it was found impossible, within the regulations of the Board, to carry on the Christian Brothers' system of combining secular and religious education. It could have been no light cause which would have induced the Christian Brothers to withdraw their schools from the advantages secured by being under the National Board. It was on conscientious grounds they withdrew, and they are deserving of all admiration for it. If these schools are not to come under the Bill, I do not see how
  256
  the Bill will work. The compulsory clauses, for the present, are to apply to towns and cities, and it is there that the Christian Brothers work, and that their schools are most numerous, and are attended by the children of the bulk of the population. What are you going to do under the compulsory clauses where there is no other accommodation for Roman Catholic children than the schools of the Christian Brothers? There are thirty-two towns in Ireland where there are no national schools for Roman Catholic boys except those of the Christian Brothers. Will any School Attendance Board punish Roman Catholic parents because they do not send their children to the Protestant schools? If there is no other Roman Catholic school to send them to except the Christian Brothers' schools, what will be the result if they refuse to educate all the children without the help given to other schools? You would have to set up new buildings in all these cities at considerable expense, and surely it would be wiser, and would show some thought for Irish feeling, to recognise the claim of the Christian Brothers, and bring them under the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that if the Christian Brothers' schools were in England at this time, and were carried on as they are now, they would not receive State aid. We traverse that statement, and say that with the system carried on as at present, and with the Christian Brothers willing to submit to inspection, they would in England receive State aid.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I understood the hon. Member for South Tyrone to say that they would not receive State aid unless they adopted the Conscience Clause.
  MR. FLYNN: The contradiction of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was the first I have heard of the statement made on the highest authority—that in England the schools would receive State aid. There is a strong feeling in Ireland with regard to the Christian Brothers, and resolutions have been passed by many Public Bodies asking the Government to bring them under the Bill; and I believe that

  257
  if the Government had desired to do so they would have found the way without much difficulty. I fear very much, if the right hon. Gentleman does not consent to some such proposal, the passage of the Bill will not be easy, for we shall have much to say on the point in Committee, and have to point out many ways in which the Christian Brothers could be brought under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) proved that the compulsory clauses are not required in the towns and cities, and we cannot consent to their introduction into a Bill of this kind until you have widened the franchise under which the School Attendance Committees are elected. In many of the cities the franchise is high and restricted, and, if the Board is to deal with the working classes, the working classes should have some voice in their election. There are one or two suggestions I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman. Assistant teachers must have third-class certificates, and they are eligible to compete for second and first-class certificates; but we think the seven years' limit too long, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point with a view to reducing that limit. There may be many men with third-class certificates, who may not have served seven years, and yet may be more able than men of longer service. I would suggest that the limit should be reduced to something like three years. The present limit is a premium on indolence, and does not encourage improvement, as the assistant teachers do not care to make any efforts when they have to wait so long. As regards the whole Bill, we do not see that any case has been made out for compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman is very amiable, but I have begun to observe that he is also very obstinate, especially with regard to suggestions from these Benches. But I would beg him to understand that when a question like that of Irish education is before us, the opinions of the Irish Representatives are entitled to some weight; and I hope, when he comes to tell us what the intentions of the Government are, we shall have some earnest of more liberal intentions, and that the feelings of the Irish people
  258
  and their Representatives will not be overlooked.
  MR. RENTOUL: The chief points of objection taken to the Bill by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) were the question of compulsion and the grants to Christian Brothers' schools. With regard to compulsion, he spoke of it as a species of coercion, and suggested that the policy of the Government was founded altogether on coercion, and that in putting compulsion in this Bill they were carrying out their usual principle. I have often thought if a prize were offered to hon. Members of the Irish Home Rule Party for a speech in which coercion was not mentioned, it would be a long time before it was claimed. Compulsory education is in force in England; and as hon. Members exclusively apply the term coercion to Irish matters, I fail to see how they can apply it to compulsory education. I read an account of the action of the Irish Bishops in regard to this matter, and one part of it I cannot understand. I can understand objecting to compulsory education, but I fail to understand what they mean by indirect compulsion. The term "optional compulsion," used by the hon. Member for West Belfast, is still more difficult to understand.
  MR. SEXTON: I meant that for a while Local Bodies are to have the option of adopting compulsion.
  MR. RENTOUL: That makes it clear. With regard to compulsory education, the hon. Member knows very well the state of affairs in Ireland. The number of illiterate voters is not satisfactory to any Irish Representative, and the charge is made—not by me — that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of education. The charge was made distinctly in some of the publications of the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I take it that a man's religion is in almost every case an accident; it depends on the religion in which he is born. Feeling that, I approach the question impartially, and try to put myself in the place of the Roman Catholics. Doing so, I feel that if I were accused of being the enemy of education, I should try on all possible occasions to free myself from

  259
  every appearance of evil, and try to have the appearance of being anxious for education. Is it reasonable to think that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church are opposed to education? For they must know that people will say, "There are the Roman Catholics again; when there is a chance of education they take the lead in preventing people being compelled to educate their children." The hon. Member for West Belfast spoke of the natural love of the Irish parent for the education of his children. I am sorry I must differ from him on that point. In these matters we should speak of the places we know best, and the locality I know best is the Eastern Division of Donegal, which is one of the most prosperous in the whole of Ulster. I was for many years a pupil at several schools there, and I know that a very small portion of the Roman Catholics sent their children to school.
  MR. SEXTON: When was that?
  MR. RENTOUL: I am speaking of the time when I was at school myself. I think, on the whole, therefore, compulsion should be adopted; I think it would be for the good of the people, and I am sorry to see any hon. Member opposite, or any members of the Roman Catholic Church, opposing it. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said you were going to apply this system in the teeth of four-fifths of the Irish Members. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that there are six distinct Parties from Ireland at present in the House, and that he can only speak for one—the Parnellite Party. On the First Reading of the Bill one of the ablest Members of the Parnellite Party, the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane), made a speech in favour of compulsory education, and he has repeated what he said on the First Reading of the Bill—namely, that he would support this Bill; and therefore he has not changed his opinion with regard to the matter. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in bringing in this Bill, had omitted from his calculations of the children attending school the children in the Christian Brothers' schools, the Church Education Schools,
  260
  and several denominational schools. That is quite true; but, at the same time, I consider that this money, as I understand, is to be applied to the national system; and I think it was perfectly natural that the Chief Secretary should confine himself to the educational system which was within the purview of the Bill, and therefore I think his calculation was perfectly fair. But the hon. Member for West Belfast argued from England to Ireland, and said it was not fair, because England was the richest country in the world and Ireland was one of the poorest. That statement, of course, was to my mind unfair coming from a Representative of the City of Belfast. Belfast is, I think, from all points of view, the most prosperous city not only in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe. The progress of its wealth and population has been greater than that of any other city in Europe during the last fifty years, and yet a Representative of that city talks about Ireland being the poorest country on the face of the earth. What applies to Belfast applies to a great many of the towns in the North of Ireland; it applies to four of the Irish counties. The hon. Member forgot that in all the Unionist portions of Ireland the prosperity is greater than in England or Scotland; and if there is anything that makes Ireland the poorest country on the face of the earth it is in the parts represented by the hon. Gentleman's own friends and own Party; and, therefore, I think I am justified in applying the same tests to England and Ireland. I have shown that there is the same prosperity in the Unionist portion of Ireland as in England; and there is no doubt when Home Rule is put aside for ever, and when gentlemen like the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) turn their attention to real constructive statesmanship, that the same prosperity will attend the rest of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Belfast said he objects to this Bill because it is grossly unjust to the Christian Brothers. For certain reasons I am in abject terror in referring to the Christian Brothers, because the last time I referred to the Christian Brothers I got myself into trouble, which obliged me to go to my constituency and hold six meetings in

  261
  order to elaborately prove that I was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. By producing documentary and other evidence I succeeded in proving that I was not a member of that Church. Having learned from experience I shall not venture to say anything on that subject at all. But I think I may be permitted to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to fail to catch our point; but I am sure in point of fact they see the point very well. We have no objection whatever to the Christian Brothers' schools in themselves. What we object to is the system of denominational education, and we cannot permit—and we are not authorised by our constituencies to permit—that to be done indirectly which we are not prepared to do directly. The reason we are opposed to the system of denominational education is that we think that the bringing together of Catholics and Protestants in the same school and in the same college tends to do away with the religious bigotry which all Gentlemen, I think, on both sides of the House, deplore. Having been a pupil in a national school, and again in an intermediate mixed school, where there were Roman Catholics, and having been a student in the Queen's College, Cork, and the Queen's College, Galway, where half my fellow-students were Roman Catholics, I think it has been very beneficial to me and to all my companions. It is not from any bigotry that we object to the Christian Brothers' schools. If the objection to them arose from bigotry, I, for one, would never go into the Lobby to prevent them having a share of this grant. I would not object to them on that ground at any risk. But I think there is no bigotry in saying that we object to denominational education, because we consider that endowing denominational education is endowing the Church; and I think I can prove that very clearly. When there was an attempt made in Ireland to get rid of the Established Church, and when there was a compromise made with the Presbyterian Church and an offer made to endow the Roman Catholic Church, we knew very well that the Presbyterians took their endowment in the form of £75 a year to
  262
  each congregation; but the Roman Catholics took their grant as an endowment to the College of Maynooth, clearly proving, in my mind, that they regarded the endowment of education as the endowment of their religion. The hon. Member for West Belfast brings up again the matter of the seventy thousand Catholics in Belfast, who have got no representation on the Town Council. That statement has been made so often in this House that I confess to a feeling of weariness. It seems that the Town Council of Belfast consists of some forty Members. I can assert with confidence and without fear of contradiction, from an intimate knowledge of Belfast extending over twenty years, that there are three hundred Protestants in Belfast who would come in in the position of Town Councillors before any Roman Catholic would come in at all. I bring forward this in order to show that Belfast is not open to the charge of bigotry which that statement would seem to indicate. I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), that denominational schools in Ireland had increased marvellously between 1867 and 1890. The Established Church in Ireland was against the National Board at first, and it had a large number of schools under its own wing; but when it was disestablished, or was about to be disestablished, its leaders knew there was no fund for keeping up the schools, and they recommended that all the Church denominational schools should come in under the National Board. Consequently, an enormous number of Church schools came in at once after the Disestablishment, and that accounts, in my mind, for the enormous increase in the number of denominational schools since 1867, which the hon. Member for North Cork referred to. As to the question as to the want of a general desire to have this Bill passed, I wish to say that my own experience is this: that there is a strong desire for the passing of this Bill in all parts of Ireland. I have received letters and resolutions of the strongest kind from all quarters in favour of this Bill; and hon. Members opposite, so far as I know, have not produced any testimony with regard to the Bill from the

  263
  national teachers or from any section of the Irish people outside the clergy. I may read one resolution which I have received from the national teachers irrespective of creed, I understand. It states—
  "That perceiving from Mr. Balfour's statement in the House of Commons that he hopes to pass the Irish Education Bill before the General Election, provided no very prolonged discussion takes place upon its clauses, we respectfully call upon our Representatives to aid Her Majesty's Government in passing this measure which is so much calculated to benefit national education in Ireland."
  I therefore desire most heartily and most strongly to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. BLANE: I differ from some of the Members who sit on these Benches, inasmuch as I support the present Bill for what it is worth. There are many points in the Bill that I wish to see amended. I think that the compulsion is far too restricted. We require more compulsion. You should have the same power to compel a man to do his duty to his children as you have in this country. This compulsion is to be restricted to a few places, and not to those which want it most. Against compulsory education and against free education we have had the prophets of evil, just as we had them twenty-two years ago when the Education Bill was introduced by Mr. Forster. We were told that his Bill would uproot the Constitution, that crime would increase, that you would have to build more gaols, penitentiaries, and convict establishments, and that life and property would not be secure. Every one of these prophecies has been reversed, and there is nothing more consolatory than to take up the educational statistics in England side by side with the criminal statistics. We find that in the five years ending 31st December, 1869, 1,978 people were sentenced on indictment in England to penal servitude. That was when the population was twenty-one millions. But in twenty years after the passing of Mr. Forster's Act, when the population had increased by nine millions, the convicts had decreased to 729. Many people complained of the amount of money expended on education, but for it you have an excellent return in the diminu
  264
  tion of the money expended on prisons. No less than eight convict prisons in England, containing accommodation for upwards of six thousand prisoners, have been since 1882 assigned to other purposes. These prisons have been swept away by reason of the Education Act of 1870. We expect the same result in Ireland, we expect to increase our industry, we expect to turn our gaols to other purposes. The decrease of crime in England since education was made compulsory has saved £150,000 a year in spite of the increase of population, and we know that that amount represents a very large capitalised sum. The money, therefore, that was begrudged to education has produced large returns in every respect. This is a matter in which we may also take a lesson from other countries. At one time 95 per cent. of the French in Canada could not sign their names. That was a disastrous state of affairs, somewhat similar to that which exists in many parts of Ireland at the present time. The patriotic Canadians who advocated education were denounced as men animated by the worst ideas of the French Revolution. But the introduction of a splendid system of education produced excellent results, which were so well illustrated at the Colonial Exhibition in London. An analysis of the Returns for the counties of Ireland shows that illiteracy and pauperism go together. It is no use putting our heads in the sand, and, ostrich-like, believing that the rest of the world cannot see these things. It does see them. I may lose my seat in this House for what I am saying, but I do not weigh it against my duty under the circumstances. When we go into the history of other countries we find that it is illiteracy which conduces to the destruction of nations. The educated nations are the safe nations, and they are always victorious in war. In 1870, twenty per cent. of the soldiers of France were illiterate, and even men from the ecclesiastical colleges could not use the maps with which they were supplied by the French Government. Hence French soldiers lost their way, and were taken prisoners by the Germans; but there were no instances of Germans being similarly

  265
  made prisoners by the French. In Spain the Inquisition strangled education until, as the French Ambassador said, "Science was a crime and ignorance a virtue." The result is that Spain is now backward and non-progressive, in spite of her great mineral wealth. Holland, a little country with no such advantages as Spain, had an excellent system of education, and is now thriving and prosperous, whilst Spain is miserable and degraded. Those are the results of education, or the want of it, in nations. I will now say a word or two as to the political results of the want of education. I am in favour of manhood suffrage, but manhood suffrage has for its complement and supplement the right of universal education. Some illiterates are acute and able men, but unfortunately there are too many who cannot grasp the ideas of the age in which they live. Nothing that we have in the way of scientific skill or appliances has come from the rich. We have got it from the poor men. One of the benefits that education would give to the people would be self-reliance—it would enable them to mistrust the statements given on authority without examination. As this Parliament has educated the workmen of England, they have become self-reliant—they respect themselves more than they used to do; crime is less, and there are fewer inmates in the convict establishments, which are being turned to better purposes. Let compulsory education be given to Ireland, and to the same extent as in England. We cannot have too much of it. There is not the slightest danger of anybody being coerced more than they deserve to be. I am not afraid of there not being school accommodation for the children. There was not enough school accommodation in England when the Education Act came into force, but millions have been spent since then on schools and appliances. One special duty which is cast upon the Government in connection with this Bill is the protection of teachers, in order to prevent them being turned adrift after, perhaps, ten or fifteen years' service. I am in favour of giving teachers the right of appeal against the managers which they have not hitherto had.
  266
  Altogether, I think that the teachers have a claim upon this House and upon the Government such as no other class of men in Ireland have, and it is only right to say that the amount of money given under this Bill is entirely too small. It is only one-fifth of the sum which is annually spent on the Constabulary. The amount that is spent on education will be saved ultimately in prisons and in the reduction of crime. I intend to vote with the Chief Secretary in support of this Bill, but to amend it as far as I can in Committee. I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider the points which have been raised in a spirit of justice and equity towards the national teachers of Ireland.
  MR. WEBB: I agree with those who have argued that compulsion in the matter of education will not be well received by the people of Ireland at the hands of the power which dealt out coercion to them in other measures. When also one considers the relations of the clergy to the people of Ireland, it is impossible to leave out of account the opinions of the Bishops on the subject of a compulsory system. Some hon. Gentlemen have spoken very slightingly of the Catholic Bishops; but when we find that they represent three-fourths of the people of Ireland, it is impossible not to feel that the question must be very carefully considered. What we want to see in regard to education is that it shall be a system which is in full accord with the wishes of the people. A desire has been manifested by some sections of Protestants to hinder the full development of the Catholic population of Ireland. Now, that appears to me to be a great mistake. It is desirable to produce fully-equipped citizens instead of cramped and partially-developed members of the community. It is unfair to throw illiteracy in the face of the Catholic population, because Catholic education has been hindered by Protestants. If Catholics are behind Protestants in the matter of education, the fact is not to be wondered at; it is the inevitable result of past legislation. Anyone who examines the statistics contained in the Census Returns will now see that there has been a rise of educa

  267
  tion all over Ireland at quite as quick a rate among Catholics as among the Protestants. Gentlemen from Ulster have opposed undenominational education. I find that the religious denominations in Ulster, in comparison with the same denominations in other parts of Ireland, have more illiterates. As regards the Catholics, in seven out of the nine counties in Ulster about twenty per cent. are returned as illiterate, whereas it is only that in five of the eighteen counties of Munster and Leinster. In Armagh, Donegal, Londonderry, and Tyrone the Presbyterians are worse in the matter of education than the Presbyterians in other parts of Ireland. So that I do not think the systems of education in Ulster can be viewed as models. At present education in all its branches is narrowed. The national schools of Ireland have only twenty-five literary books to choose from, including geographies, whereas the London School Board has a list of 750 books of the same character. Then history is prohibited on the plea that Irish education must embrace nothing of a political character, but in the library of the London School Board on the Embankment I have seen books for use in the Board Schools as unfair as any Irish histories can be said to be, and religious prints and pictures are allowed that would not be allowed in an Irish Catholic School. So much regarding the general system. If there is one thing in which the Irish people are largely interested, it is this subject of education; and as regards the Christian Brothers, I have received more resolutions from Boards of Guardians and Town Councils respecting the exclusion of their schools from the grant than I have received on any other subject since I have been connected with this House. When I see how these Brothers have been entrusted with the care of boys, and when I remember that in Gibraltar and other possessions they are receiving grants, I do not discern how that course can be much longer neglected in Ireland. These men are devoting their lives to education; their schools are admirable, and the present attitude towards them is a violation of the very principle upon which Mr. Forster's Act was based. The very
  268
  essence of English legislation is that we avail ourselves of present institutions and powers, and as we have in the Christian Brothers a system working admirably, to fail to utilise it seems to me a very narrow policy. I do not think that the effort to force people to educate together is productive of so much real enlightenment and toleration as the wider system of education. I have seen the books used in the schools of the Christian Brothers, and those of the National Schools are not to be compared with them. Attending one of the celebrations at Cork last Christmas I examined the books given to the boys. The presents embraced the best English works, and indeed I do not believe it is possible in more than one case out of twenty to judge from the works the religious character of the institutions of the Christian Brothers. It is a great mistake to suppose that they are giving a narrow education, their whole endeavour being to bring out the faculties of the boys. It will be a great mistake if the Government does not lend them support. It will be impossible much longer to refuse to acknowledge the religious feeling of parents in Ireland. All parents desire that their children should be influenced by the religion they hold. I believe that our future depends largely upon education. If we are to be cramped in this connection, results in the domain of social advancement may be as disastrous as during last century, when efforts were made to put down our material prosperity.
  MR. CONWAY: To my mind this Debate has been very insincere. The speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) did not convey the impression to my mind that he was insisting upon a Division. Neither did he move the rejection of the Bill. I come to the conclusion that the propositions he advanced were aired for the purpose of hoodwinking the Bishops of Ireland. There is no intention whatever to oppose this Bill, and it would have saved the time of the House if hon. Members on this side had refrained from opposing the Second Reading. The hon. Member for West Belfast said

  269
  there was no connection between the compulsory clauses of the Bill and the money grant. Why, we have been for the last twenty years taught by the hon. Member's friends that compulsory education could not be enforced unless it were accompanied by free education. We have compulsory education in the clauses of the Bill, followed by a money grant which pays for the extra work which the teachers in Ireland will have to discharge, so that I think there is a very near connection between compulsion and the money grant. I think that to-night the teachers of Ireland will find that they have good friends in the House of Commons. I venture to say that hon. Members who sat here when the First Reading was asked for applauded the compulsory clauses of the Bill, and shouted out jubilantly that it was time compulsion should be enforced in Ireland; and I think those Members will to-night give a silent vote in favour of the Bill. I myself was in doubt as to whether compulsion should be applied to Ireland until I heard the leader of the hon. Member for West Belfast declare that compulsion was necessary in some form or other. The words of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Justin McCarthy) on that occasion were—
  "The right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length of compulsion. I never understood that there was in Ireland any absolute objection to the principle of compulsion, provided there was a certain amount of care in the time, the development, and the application of it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as to the necessity of elasticity in the application of the principle. What we want to know is whether the elasticity is to be elastic enough, and whether the elasticity always means that it will be elastic at the right time and in the right place."
  I venture to say there is enough elasticity in the Bill provided by the right hon. Gentleman. I know something of the compulsory clauses of the English Education Act, and I am satisfied that the clauses in this Bill are much easier than the clauses applicable to the people in this country. Three miles is the limit in England, two miles in Ireland, and where there is difficulty in the way of a child going to school, the limit may be decreased. Then, again, with regard to the exemption from attendance, there are provisions, and the
  270
  reasons are also taken into consideration. Thus there is plenty of elasticity with regard to the working of the compulsory part of the Bill. But while I approve of these conditions, I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in carrying them out. If the Bill sins at all it sins in omission. Neither the Government nor the School Attendance Committee can carry out the provisions of this Bill unless ample accommodation is provided for the scholars in future. I remember that when Mr. Forster put forward his Act of 1870 he said he would scatter good schools throughout the country. When he made his average attendance 1,800,000, school places to the number of 1,500,000 were lacking, but the working of the Education Act since that time has provided places for 5,500,000 children. In the application of the compulsory clauses the late Mr. Forster saw that it was necessary to provide additional accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to make that provision. In reply to a question by me the right hon. Gentleman adduced statistics to show that in Ireland there was plenty of accommodation. If he will look at the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education he will find on page 1 a foot-note stating that the number of pupils on the rolls who made any attendances at our schools between 1st January and 31st December, 1890, was 1,037,000. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the average attendance of boys and girls was a little over 440,000, and that the accommodation was equal to 770,000 school places; but that leaves a deficiency of a quarter of a million of school places. Suppose you were to put these compulsory clauses into operation to-morrow, how would you provide places? It would be like trying to get a quart of liquid into a pint bottle. I trust before we go into Committee on this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will do something in the direction of increased accommodation. To-day I asked a question with regard to certain insanitary schools in the County Tyrone. Of that answer I have nothing to complain; but those schools are not alone. There are many insanitary schools in Ireland, and for that reason

  271
  the attendance is in many cases low. If we add children who on account of insanitary conditions do not attend school, the necessity for increased accommodation is further shown. I am prepared to give my hearty support to the compulsory clauses believing that the Government will provide the necessary school places, and by making the schools satisfactory in a sanitary sense remove cause for hesitation as to sending children to school. As compulsion will cast additional work upon the teachers, I think the £210,000 is rightly allocated to them. I go quite as far as any Member on this side of the House in my regard for the Christian Brothers. My earliest recollections are in connection with them. And although they are doing a good work in Ireland we must remember that these schools are really secondary schools. Although I deprecate this discussion, and believe it to be half-hearted and misleading in its character, yet I am of opinion that great good will result to Ireland by the Bill, and I shall give it my cordial support.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I have observed that during the Debate the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) has been lying supine on the Treasury Bench.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has not observed correctly. I have carefully followed the discussion, and am waiting to reply.
  MR. HEALY: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. It may have been consoling to him to have heard remarks in support of the Bill from some Gentlemen on this side whose seats in the next Parliament have been provided for.
  MR. CONWAY: Perhaps your own is not too safe.
  MR. HEALY: Now, as I understand, the Government wants to get through all the Supply and a certain number of small Bills soon after the Whitsuntide holidays. It, therefore, comes to this: You may love your Bill very much, and you may dislike your opponents very much, but what prevails in this prosaic place, after all, is what is called practical politics. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), flushed by the enthusiasm of the speech just
  272
  delivered from this side of the House, may get up and make a very demonstrative speech in favour of this Bill, and he may say that he will die on the floor before he will surrender a clause; but, Sir, we are going to the country in June, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to cut his coat according to his cloth, and to be good enough to moderate any excess of ambition he may possess at this period of the Session with regard to this Bill. We have been challenged, Mr. Speaker, to go into the Lobby against this Bill. Well, I have no intention to do otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has put one or two points with great cogency. First and foremost, it is the Local Authorities who will have to enforce attendance under this Act. And here let me say that in the abstract I am in favour of compulsory education; and if you will allow us to draw up a Bill and pass it, I venture to say we will succeed in getting more children on to the school register than you will do by means of this Bill. I deny that there is any genuineness or sincerity in the mind of the Government with regard to benefitting Ireland. Why do they force upon us Bills we do not want, and refuse us Bills which we are clamouring for? It is absurd to suppose that the Chief Secretary can know what will be to the advantage of my country better than I do. The right hon. Gentleman comes from somewhere in Leeds; he is leased to us in Ireland for a short time; he draws a handsome salary for governing our country, and, under those circumstances, he thinks he is justified in dogmatising as to the manner in which my children are to be educated. How would the right hon. Gentleman like me to go to Leeds, and if I succeeded in getting on to the School Board there, boss the education of his children? Now, Sir, I will make an offer. Give us the same municipal franchise as you have in England, and we will allow this Bill to be passed without loss of time. Is that a fair offer? I think a proper Motion to make on this occasion would be one to the effect that this House is not prepared to proceed with a Bill of this kind without the existence of Local Authorities, constituted in the

  273
  same manner as in this country. I think a Motion of that kind would put Gentlemen in somewhat of a difficulty, because they are refusing to extend to Ireland the same facilities in connection with this Bill as exists in England and Scotland. If there is anything that makes me tired in this House it is listening to comparisons between Irish, and English, and Scotch Bills. Whenever it suits, the English and Scotch systems are thrust down our throats; but the moment we ask for a Bill on the same model, we are refused—the medicine is not good for Ireland. A foreign doctor prescribes for us out of a foreign pharmacopæia and in a foreign language. I am glad the First Lord has come into the House; and I will repeat the offer I have already made—namely, that if the Government will give us the same franchise for Ireland as in England and Scotland, they can pass their Bill practically without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) does not feel inclined, any more than the Chief Secretary, to accept that offer, and yet I have not the smallest doubt that his Primrose League tight-rope performances during the next mouth will consist of denunciations of the Irish Members for obeying the dictates of Catholic Bishops and refusing to allow this Bill to become law. I contend that the refusal of the Government to pass the Bill upon the conditions I have suggested shows the unreality of their desire to benefit Ireland in the matter of education, and I warn the Government that unless they allow the English conditions to obtain, we will make it impossible for them to pass this Bill. In addition to requiring the English franchise, we insist upon compulsory sites for schools, just the same as is the case in this country. Unless we possess that power, it will be absolutely impossible for us in many cases to obtain a site on which to erect a school. As evidence of this, I might refer to the Isle of Annan, where the Lord Lieutenant had to protest against the local landlords, who would not give him a square rood of land on which to build a school for the unhappy islanders. That is a most essential point. Another thing the Irish Members will not tolerate is the
  274
  power to remove or dissolve the School Attendance Committee. Again, we insist upon the application of the English model. These are three cardinal matters upon which we are entitled to satisfaction. Now, Sir, we hear a good deal about the benefits of education; but what is education? I might as well ask, with Pilate, "What is truth?" The teaching that goes on from the text books provided by the Education Department is absurd, and I think the children should be protected from learning such stuff. The whole system is a gross absurdity. You bring a lot of young men to Dublin and cram them with what is little better than nonsense. Here is one thing they have to pass in. The examiners take some of the brutally spelt words of the language we are now talking, and they say, "State the number of exceptions to the second rule of spelling." Would anybody be less uneducated if he were unable to state the exceptions to the rules of spelling? Could the brilliant statesmen on the Treasury Bench tell the House what those exceptions are? I denounce as an atrocity these absurd rules, which a number of pundits in the Education Department have got together. A breath of sweet air should be sent blowing through all these educational cobwebs. Then there is your splendid system of grammar. Would anybody be a bit the worse if they did not know it? Why should children be taught grammar? And yet, forsooth, fathers are to be fined five shillings for every day their children are not sent to school to learn it. I went into a school in Donegal a couple of years ago, and I found that not a child there could speak English, although they could all read it; and that was going on under the presidency of Sir Patrick Keenan, who, twenty years before, when a School Inspector, denounced, in connection with this very county, the system of teaching a child to read a language which they did not understand. I ask the Government if that is a sensible system to adopt. I say, if these children are to be compulsorily educated, let it be in their own language; and here I must remind the House of what goes on in Wales and the Highlands of Scotland. As I

  275
  understand, the Welsh children are allowed to pass in the Welsh language, and the Gaelic children in the Gaelic language; and I can assure the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, when we come to discuss what education is in Committee, we will put down Amendments with a view to his enlightenment on this subject, and we will thresh out the question whether the children in Donegal and similar parts of Ireland are to be compelled to learn a language as foreign to them as the Chinese, when they might get a decent education in their own language. We often hear the stupidity of the illiterate Irish peasant denounced; but if I had to spend my life on a desert island with either an Irish peasant or an Irish Chief Secretary, I should prefer to be with the peasant. Although these peasants are not educated in any sense of the word, yet they have just as much intelligence and shrewdness as those who despise them. The habit of denouncing them indulged in by the English prigs and Philistines is galling and detestable to me. And now I will say a few words about the teaching of the Christian Brothers—a worthy body of men, earning no salary, but proud to live on the charity of the people. These men devote their lives to celibacy and good works and to the education of the children of Ireland; but their offence is that they put up their crucifix in the schools. It reminds me of an old parish priest, who once remarked to me that, apparently, the lion and the unicorn meant Christianity, whilst the crucifix was the symbol of idolatry. These are the sentiments that prevail amongst our enlightened masters. Because the Christian Brothers, who devote their days and nights to good works, put up a crucifix in their schools, the British nostril goes up to an angle of seventy-five degrees. These Christian Brothers provide an education suitable to the wants of the people; but as long as it does not square with the rules laid down by the English Government they are refused all State aid. Then we object to a system which would compel children to be educated under a Board, composed of men who are, with very few exceptions, altogether opposed to the principles
  276
  and aspirations of the Irish people. And who are the gentlemen under whom this system is to be enforced? There are a number of gentlemen who have been expelled from Parliament because they did not represent the wishes of the people; there is the leading Primroser of Ireland—in fact, the Board seems to consist of one or two Judges, a County Court Judge, a Protestant minister, and a lot of expelled Members of Parliament, and you ask us to bow down and worship a Board of that kind. First reform the Board and put on it men whom the people trust, and do not attempt to administer, by means of a Board which is repugnant and hateful to the Irish people, an exclusive system which would leave 70,000 Catholics at the mercy of an alien religion. It has been held that if a man spends an hour in gaol for non-payment of a fine he loses the franchise, and the House will see how the Catholics of West Belfast and Derry are likely to fare in this respect. The Orange Corporation of Belfast cannot be trusted in a matter of this kind. The Catholics are the poorest portion of the country and the Protestants the richest. I know you represent that that is due to your superior education, but I attribute it simply to robbery in past times. If the Government desire to introduce some alleviation into the minds of the Irish people on this matter, I beg of them to recognise the Christian Brothers' Schools. There may be some principle of British logic which affords a reason why you should not do as we want, but we do not want your logic or your reasons; we want you to act on the wishes of the people. If you do not wish to give the people what they want, you can always find logic and reason on your side; but if you want to act in accordance with the wishes of the people, those wishes are that the Christian Brothers should be recognised, and should receive the assistance to which their work entitles them. Pay the men for the work they do, and if you find that they turn out children as well as the other schools pay them accordingly. What has the crucifix to do with it? I take the strongest exception to the bona fides of the Government in relation to a Reso

  277
  lution which was passed in this House the other day. We asked that a rule as to the use of schools for meetings should be applied to Ireland, but we were told that it was not suited to our country, and you refused it. Then how do you make out that this system is suited to Ireland? Who is to be the judge of suitability? Is it always to be the Tory Government? You say that one thing is not suited to the genius of the Irish people. But surely the Irish people know better than you, and now we make a demand that the Irish people should have their own way, and we are refused on the opposite ground. But this question is so entangled with contentious questions that I am afraid, unless the Government is prepared to concede something as to what is suited to the genius of the Irish people, there is very little chance of getting this Bill through this Session. I look upon this Bill as a Greek gift, not honestly or fairly intended. Of compulsory education in the abstract I am in favour, but it is given in this Bill under a guise which from its nature is entitled to, and will receive, the strongest opposition.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am sure everybody will appreciate the new character in which the hon. and learned Gentleman appears as the champion of chivalry and courtesy, and also his new character as the deliverer of Ireland from all its wrongs by a policy of preventing the poor peasant in Donegal from learning the English language. I think, if we contemplate the children of those poor peasants growing up under his system and only able to speak the Irish language, he will see that they may live to curse rather than to bless him.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: What I spoke of was the system of Sir Patrick Keenan in teaching the children English through the medium of the Irish language. The children at present are not being taught English, but only to read a few words in English.
  MR. JACKSON: I am glad to find that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He gave the impression that he
  278
  complained that they were being taught to spell words in English, and I understood that he preferred that they should not learn English at all.
  MR. HEALY: The right Iron. Gentleman is entirely in error. I do not object to their being taught English, but being taught to read a few words is a very different thing. If the right hon. Gentleman were taught to read a few words in Chinese, that would not be teaching him the Chinese language.
  MR. JACKSON: I hope, if they are not being taught to read English, they will be. There can be no question that it is our bounden duty, in the interests of the children themselves, to see that education is conferred on them in the way that will be most advantageous to them. I will now refer to some of the points that have been raised in the Debate, and I do not think it is necessary for me to argue the question of compulsion, because, as I understand, the principle is admitted by everybody. It is desirable to have some method of compulsion, not for the sake of having compulsion, but with the object of insuring a better average of continuous attendance at school. I have heard, in the course of this Debate, no proposal which would take the place of compulsion and secure the object better. No one can deny that, from whatever point we look at it, there is room in the average attendance of children at school in Ireland for great improvement. There is room not only to make the attendance more regular and continuous, but also to make a much better average attendance than is made now. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), in a speech of great ability and clearness, in which he put his points with great force, referred to the question of the relative attendance of children at school in England and in Ireland. I have gone very carefully into the figures, and I cannot in the slightest degree depart from the statement I made in introducing this Bill. I have compared the average attendance with the number on the rolls for England and for Ireland, and I have found this result. Whilst in England the percentage of average attendance to the numbers on the rolls

  279
  is about seventy-nine, the percentage in Ireland is only about fifty-nine. That, I say, is a great discrepancy, especially when compared with the facts in 1871, when the average attendance in Ireland was practically better than the average attendance in England.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has been told before that there are a million children in England who are not on the rolls. Why does he not take the percentage on the population, and then he would find that there is only a difference of about three-quarters per cent. between the two countries?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member seems to think that the number on the rolls in Ireland is relatively larger than it is in England; but if the figures are tested in that way it will be found that the percentage in England works out to 16·3, and in Ireland to 17·8.
  MR. SEXTON: Not at all; in Ireland it is twenty-two per cent.
  MR. JACKSON: How he makes that percentage from the official Returns I am at a loss to understand. I am taking the figures of the Education Department, but if the hon. Gentleman prefers to take into account the million that he has stated it makes his case very much worse.
  MR. SEXTON: Why should not the right hon. Gentleman take the percentage attendance on the population, and then it would be seen that there is very little difference between England and Ireland.
  MR. JACKSON: That again will not serve him, because, although we may take credit for a great deal, we cannot take credit for the English families being larger than the Irish families. I do not admit that the number of children is larger in proportion to the population than in Ireland.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: The number of marriages is greater in England.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid it is impossible to carry on a consecutive argument under these circumstances.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. JACKSON: I think it will be found, if the figures are carefully examined, that the position which I desired to state is accurate, and that is that
  280
  the average attendance in Ireland is much worse than the average attendance in England. That is the point I want to bring before the House. If that were the only truth I believe that would be a sufficient justification. But on the principle of compulsion I would make this remark. If it is true that there are on the rolls in Ireland eight hundred thousand or a million children, the only object we have is to try and induce or compel these children to make a better average attendance at school. There is no change in the schools to which these children are asked to go. There is no wish on the part of the Government to bring about any change. We only wish to bring to bear some pressure that will enable the teachers to get a better average attendance of scholars. I am willing to admit frankly what the hon. Member for West Belfast has said about the desire of Irish parents to have their children educated, but I must make the admission as applying to some and not to all. Something has been said to-night about the difference between the towns and the counties, between the cities and the rural districts. It is a curious fact that although you might have expected in the rural districts, where the schools are wide apart and the population is scattered, that education would be less advanced than in the cities, where the schools are near and the facilities for attendance are greater, as a matter of fact the very opposite is the case. The percentage of illiterates of children of school age is considerably greater in the cities than it is in the country districts. There is another curious fact—that both apparently in the cities and in the country districts the education of the women is better than the education of the men. I will give a few figures, and they are figures from the last Census Returns, showing the illiteracy computed upon the numbers of the population between the ages of nine and twelve, and I will take the column for males. The House will take it from me that the proportion of illiteracy is smaller amongst females than amongst males. In Donegal County there are sixteen per cent. of illiterates between the ages of nine and twelve; in Waterford, 11·4; in Wex

  281
  ford, twelve; in Galway, 13·7. The others range from about three up to nine per cent. In Dublin City the percentage is 14·9; in Limerick, 11·6; in Waterford City, 14·7; in Galway City, 14·5. The percentage of illiterates in the cities as a whole is 9·3, whereas the percentage in the counties is only 8·1. Therefore the percentage of illiterates in the cities is, as I have said, greater than in the country districts. Between the ages of nine and twenty there are in Ireland, according to the last Census, no fewer than 78,900 persons who can neither read nor write. I think that is a condition of things which it is our duty to alter, it is our duty to find a remedy for. That is not a fault of the existing system. It is the fault of those persons who neglect to see that their children go to school. There are some other figures that I might have referred to; but I will state this fact generally: that of the children who fill the industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland only six per cent. can read and write.
  MR. SEXTON: Many of them are deserted children.
  MR. JACKSON: I agree that many of them are deserted, but it is exactly these children we want to get into the schools.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Hew do you do that under this Bill?
  MR. SEXTON: You can do that under the existing law.
  MR. JACKSON: There will be no difficulty in dealing with deserted children, and children who fill the industrial and reformatory schools, as well as with other children under this Bill. But what I wanted to point out was that a very large proportion of the children who are sent into these industrial and reformatory schools are sent there from the cities, and we think this is a very serious condition of things. We have more illiterates, and worse attendance; we have more crime, and more children who are being brought up in crime, in the cities than in the country. It has been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast that compulsion is not suited to Ireland, and apparently it has been put forward that it is not suited to the Roman Catholic portion of Ireland. All I would say on that
  282
  point is this. There are a large number of Roman Catholic schools in this country, and I see no difference between the Roman Catholic schools in this country and the Roman Catholic schools in Ireland as regards the ability to give average attendance. In England the average attendance at the Roman Catholic schools is just as good as it is in the Board schools or in the Chinch of England schools; and, therefore, it is not a question of religion. The cost of education in Ireland is far higher than it is in England, and therefore I think it is quite clear, as regards the application of compulsion, that that is not a question which can be more objectionable to the Roman Catholics in Ireland than it is in England. I believe the Roman Catholics in England would be the first to acknowledge that the application of compulsion in this country has contributed largely to benefit their schools and to improve the average attendance. With regard to the other points that were raised I need only say a few words. The hon. Member for West Belfast referred to the resolution passed by the Bishops, and said that any resolution passed by such a body was deserving of every respect and of the most careful consideration. One of the objections raised was with regard to the supply of schools; it was pointed out that more schools were wanted and that a better supply of schools ought to be provided. I entirely agree with the view that if it be found that, by reason of increased attendance, the schools are either overcrowded or there are not schools enough, more progress ought to be made in the building of schools. It must not be supposed, however, that nothing is being done in that direction. We are making grants to the extent of £40,000 a year in aid of the building of schools in Ireland, and the process of building additional schools and replacing the old ones is going on at a fairly satisfactory rate. Another question was the want of facilities for training teachers. I favour as strongly as anyone the providing of additional, facilities for training teachers and improving the qualifications of those who have not been trained. To my mind it is one of the blots on the education

  283
  system in Ireland that we have practically only one-third of the teachers in the national schools who are trained teachers—only one-third hold certificates as trained teachers. In this respect the Roman Catholics are worse off than the Protestants, for of the Roman Catholic teachers only one-fourth are trained teachers, while about fifty-two per cent. of the Protestant teachers are trained. Anything which can be done to improve the training and the supply of trained teachers will have my active support. Reference was made to the establishment of local infant schools. I say that it would be impossible to provide infant schools apart from the other schools, because the children who attend them could hardly come and go without someone to take care of them, and it is a great convenience if the small children can go to school with the elder ones. I think the objection could be met by the provision of better school accommodation. Now, Sir, a point to which great importance has been attached, and which I admit is important, was raised by the hon. Members for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) and West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who both attached great weight to it. It is that no provision is made in the Bill of compulsory powers for the acquisition of sites. I think the House will agree that if the case can be made out—one or two instances were given—that there are cases where land is refused for sites for schools, the difficulty must be got over by giving compulsory powers, and I think it will be possible to bring up a clause to meet the case. Reference was made to indirect compulsion and the limiting of employment. As regards indirect compulsion I am bound to say, so far as I am able to understand the proposals that have been made, we might arrive at this result: You would prohibit employment, and unless you took some steps to secure education the children would be neither employed nor educated, which I think would be a rather worse position than the present one, for there would be no advantage in keeping the children idle unless you are going to get them into the schools, and they would be better in employment than idling about the streets. I do not think, therefore, the proposals are
  284
  very practicable. Reference was made to the convent schools, that they were badly paid. The Bill deals with money now at our disposal, and I will venture to say that, as regards the allocation to convent schools under this Bill of their portion of £210,000, they have no injustice done to them. It will be generally admitted that they have been treated fairly, but it must be borne in mind that convent schools have it in their power to be paid on exactly the same terms as any other schools. They can come forward and adopt classification, and be paid class salaries; twenty-five of these schools are so paid. The other two hundred and forty-seven are paid by capitation grant, but very much better than they used to be; and it is admitted that, as regards the allocation of the money under this Bill, we have done full justice to them. The hon. Member for West Belfast raised several other objections, one of which was—and his words made considerable impression on me, as I desire the protection of every creed—that there is no provision for the representation of the various denominations on the Attendance Committees or among the officers. I have all the way through desired that there should be no friction, no injustice done either to Protestant or Catholic; and anything I can do to prevent friction and to give due representation, so that there shall be no feeling of injustice on one side or the other, I will do.
  MR. SEXTON: Extend the franchise.
  MR. JACKSON: Well, that would neither meet the difficulty nor remedy it. I think some Amendment might be made in Committee which would secure that not less than one of each denomination should be on the Attendance Committee, and that there should be a proportional representation of the various denominations on the Boards of Management. My own impression is that you could not have a more practical body to work what is called compulsion, but what I desire to call ensuring better attendance at schools, than a committee consisting largely of school managers themselves; and if some plan of that sort would meet the view of the hon. Gentleman, I should be glad, as far as I can, to carry it out, as it is not opposed to the principle

  285
  of the Bill, and is desired in more than one quarter. I will endeavour to find some words to meet the case. The hon. Member referred to the Education Department's power to fix the number of attendances. On the introduction of the Bill I stated that our object was to give as much elasticity as possible in this respect, and not to have a hard and fast rule applied to both town and country. There might be some districts in which it was possible, without inconvenience, to have a better average of attendance than in others, and I thought it desirable that that should be taken into account. My view was that it was better to leave it to the Education Department, but if it is thought better to leave it to the School Attendance Committees of large districts to fix the minimum number of attendances, subject to the approval of the Education Department, I do not see any objection to that. Then, with regard to the power of the Education Department to supersede the Attendance Committees. Well, Sir, I am no lover of the power of superseding bodies of this description; but I say it is no use, it is futile, to form a committee and entrust it with important duties of this description unless you provide some means of enforcing their fulfilment in case of failure or refusal. I think the proposal in the Bill is the best. If we were to insert a new election instead of that proposal, the Department might call upon the Local Authority to elect a new committee, but there would be no power to enforce it.
  MR. SEXTON: There would be the same power to enforce a new election as to enforce any other election.
  MR. JACKSON: I have thought, in the absence of any better plan, that that suggestion in the Bill is the simplest and most effective. If any hon. Member has a better plan I shall be glad to consider it. Now, Sir, with regard to the question of the Christian Brothers. I felt this, listening, as I did, to the hon. Member for Waterford: I wondered why the Christian Brothers did not come within the rules of the Education Department. There was nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Webb) to show that the Christian Brothers do anything
  286
  that would shut them outside the reasonable limits laid down by the Education Department; and my surprise is, listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, that the Christian Brothers do not take advantage of this grant from the Education Commissioners. It entirely rests with themselves. And if we are to believe, as I do believe—I do not dispute it—the descriptions which have been given of the Christian Brothers' Schools in this House, it is to me a matter of the greatest surprise—
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Why do you not admit them?
  MR. JACKSON: The Education Department are perfectly willing to admit them, and the fact is that the Christian Brothers themselves were at one time under the Education Department, and did receive a grant, and they themselves took their departure.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Why?
  MR. JACKSON: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford and the description he gave of the Christian Brothers' Schools, I really am at a loss to understand why the Christian Brothers refuse to accept the grant of the Education Department. It cannot be a question of religion, because we have the fact that there are about 70,000 children in convent and monastery schools in Ireland, some of these schools being controlled by the friends of the Christian Brothers; and we have nearly 70,000 children who do receive a grant from the Education Department, and I cannot for the life of me conceive—and, as I heard him, the hon. Member said nothing to show—why the Christian Brothers should keep themselves outside the rules of the Education Department. I think I have touched upon most of the points which I have heard raised, and I hope I may now make an appeal—
  MR. SEXTON: The franchise?
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the franchise, I do not think the franchise is a question which has any relevancy to, or any connection with, the Bill which is now before the House. I do not suppose for one moment that the hon. Member for North Longford or any other hon. Member can give any reason why we should mix up the question of the

  287
  franchise in Ireland with the question of education. But I hope I have said sufficient to show hon. Members opposite that there is no desire on the part of the Government to do otherwise than to try to meet, as far as they can consistently with the principle of the Bill, any hon. Member on any of the details. I believe the Bill will confer great benefits on the children of Ireland, and I do hope, and I make this earnest appeal to hon. Members on behalf of the children of Ireland, that they will not refuse to give to these children the great boon which this Bill will undoubtedly confer upon them.
  MR. KNOX: I do not intend to detain the House for more than one minute. As to the question of the Christian Brothers, I regret the right hon. Gentleman has not made any concession. I think that any one who had listened to this Debate would be convinced that on no point has a stronger case been made out than in the case of the Christian Brothers. It is intimately connected with the question of the main object of the Bill, the effect of which will be to destroy in many cases the separate schools of the Christian Brothers. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was that this religious order, who at one time allowed their schools, or some of them, to come under the National Board, now refused to accept a grant from the Education Department. In the first place, the reason is because the rules of the Board have been changed, and that prevents them from coming under it.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member cannot for a moment be prepared to assert that the Christian Brothers left in consequence of the alteration of the rules.
  MR. KNOX: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the course taken by the Christian Brothers was partly in consequence of the alteration of the rules, and that it was partly in consequence of the way in which the rules were worked. We know now that these rules were worked by some members of the Board for the purpose of proselytism. That, combined with the rule which prevented emblems being used in the schools, drove them out; and all
  288
  they ask is that that rule should be removed, and that the same liberty should be given in the choice of books that is given to every voluntary school in England. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could go down to his constituency in England and tell them that they were to have no books in their voluntary schools in England, if they were to get a Government grant, except those that were prescribed by the Education Minister of the day? I wonder how they would have liked it if, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield was Education Minister, he had prescribed all the books which were to be used in the schools. They would not have stood it for a moment, and the Christian Brothers only ask for the same liberty in this matter as is enjoyed by the English voluntary schools. But, perhaps, the most important point upon which the right hon. Gentleman has not met us is as to the question of the franchise. On the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill the same question was raised. Now the Local Government Bill is no longer practically before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had met us by saying that in the event of the Local Government Bill not being proceeded with he would give facilities for passing this Session the Bill to confer a wider municipal franchise on Ireland, I think we should have been able to allow this Bill to pass the Second Reading without a Division. He has unfortunately not given us any such undertaking. The inclusion of the Christian Brothers' Schools in the system of national education is a matter on which no legislation is necessary. I think it only needs a slight alteration in the rules, which can be made by the Executive Authority of the Irish National Education Board. If without any such alteration, or without any change in the present narrow and restricted suffrage in the majority of the Irish towns, the Bill, as proposed, is to pass into law almost in its present shape, it will be found to be ineffective. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "until the Local Authority charged with the

  289
  administration of compulsory powers is elected on a franchise similar to that which prevails in England and Scotland, and the scheme of free education is fairly applied to all efficient elementary schools, this House is not prepared to proceed with this Bill."—(Mr. Knox.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  (11.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 53.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893.
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £4,632,350, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893—namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.

  £

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  15,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  8,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  4,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  6,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  3,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  4,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  54,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  20,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  35,000

  Harbours, &c., under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

  3,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  2,000

  Caledonian Canal

  —

  Rates on Government Property

  10,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  20,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  8,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  11,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  13,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  17,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  —

  Board of Agriculture

  5,000

  DR. CLARK: There are two or three little questions that I do not intend to raise now except to ask for some information about them. The first is with reference to the Fishery Board for Scotland—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (, &c.): I rise to Order. I wish to know whether I can afterwards raise a question on the Board of Trade Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): It depends whether a Motion is made in reference to the reduction of subsequent items.
  DR. CLARK: I do not intend to move any reduction. I think the Scottish Fishery Board should change their policy, and instead of spending ten, or twelve, or twenty thousand pounds in making large harbours, should under the new circumstances spend some money in small sums on the smaller and older harbours. The smaller harbours are getting into disrepair, especially in the Highlands, because there is no one now to look after them. The landlords used to do that; but as they cannot raise the rents of the crofters, they are permitting some of the old Board of Trade harbours to fall out of repairs. £200 or £300 is all that is necessary to maintain some of these small harbours, and I trust that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able before the Report stage to communicate with the Fishery Board, and to tell us what course they intend to carry out. There is one more item that I want some information about. There is a portion of this Vote for the present Labour Commission. On several occasions I have tried to get a Sub-Commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of farm servants in Scotland, who occupy a different position to the farm servants in England. There they live in bothies, and are boarded by the farmers. The late First Lord of the Treasury suggested to me that the present Labour Commission ought to investigate this as a branch of the labour question, and a couple of months ago I had a correspondence with the Duke of Devonshire, the Chairman of the Commission, and I understood then that they intended to appoint a couple of Sub-Commissioners

  293
  to investigate into the condition of the farm servants of Scotland. A number of these farm servants in various parts of Scotland have been holding meetings for the purpose of electing delegates to give evidence before the Sub-Commission. Week after week and month after month have since passed, and I want to know whether it is the intension of the Labour Commission to take up this question, and have a special inquiry into the case of the Scotch agricultural labourers? If it is their intention to do so, I will not press the appointment of a Special Sub-Commission for Scotland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member an answer with regard to the intention of the Labour Commission. Of course, we have no official cognisance of what the Commission does; but I hope I am right in saying it is the intention of the Commission to appoint a Special Sub-Commission for the purpose of inquiring into agricultural wages in Scotland, and, no doubt, the whole condition of the agricultural labourer will be fully investigated. The hon. Gentleman says perfectly truly there is very little or no resemblance between the special conditions under which the Scotch agricultural labourers work and those under which the agricultural labourers in the South of England work.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for information with reference to the report which has appeared in the papers lately of the persecution of the Catholic natives in Uganda. The question is not only of Colonial or even of Imperial interest; it is rapidly assuming almost international proportions.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member's question has reference to the Foreign Office Vote, which has already been passed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I did not know that the Foreign Office Vote had been passed.
  MR. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON (, &c.): I move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, in order to call attention to the
  294
  ill-judged, overbearing, and I believe illegal action of the Scotch Education Board with reference to—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I rise to Order. I wish first to ask the right hon. Gentleman for information as to what has been done on the coast of England and Wales with reference to the Fisheries Vote. The salaries and expenses of the Fishery Inspectors have been increased, as well as the expenditure in connection with piers and harbours. Much has also been done for Scotland, where scientific investigations have been made with reference to the fisheries and harbours. But nothing has been done with regard to the fisheries or harbour accommodation on the coast of Wales. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he is prepared to recommend the Treasury to do, and whether investigations are to be made on the coast of England and Wales?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): There are parts of the coast of England and Wales, and particularly in Cornwall, where the people have provided for themselves the harbour accommodation they require by taking the proper steps for the purpose. What ought to be done is that someone should move in the matter, get plans and estimates prepared, and then come to the Board of Trade with a definite proposal to raise the necessary capital upon the security of the harbour dues, or in some such way. If the hon. Member will induce the persons interested in the coast he refers to to take the same action, I shall be happy to do all in my power to forward a suitable scheme; but I cannot ask the Treasury for a free grant, for that is contrary to their rules. An inquiry would also be altogether useless until the Board of Trade have a definite proposal before them.
  MR. ABEL THOMAS: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can be aware of the facts of the case. Years ago there was a successful fishery in Cardigan Bay, but now it is gone. The position of the land is also such that the harbours at Holyhead and Milford Haven are useless to the fishermen in Cardigan Bay.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The subject of harbours of refuge does not come within the scope of the Vote now under discussion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will send Inspectors down—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The question has been put and answered.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir, it has not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I shall be in Order to criticise the last Report prepared by the Inspectors. I say that that Report—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing this question on the present Vote.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I should be in Order in discussing the character of the work done by the Inspectors, and in showing that more might be expected of them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to criticise the way in which the Inspectors discharge their duties, but not the question whether additional duties should be cast upon them.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not additional work that I am discussing now. As this may be the last time I shall have the opportunity of speaking in this Parliament, it is important to my constituents that I should bring this question forward, and so long as I have the honour to represent them I will endeavour to do so. I would suggest that Inspectors should be sent to the coast of Wales, in order to make inquiries with reference to the fisheries there. All I will say with reference to the general character of the Report of the Inspectors is that it is a singularly barren one—one of the most miserable Reports I have ever read. For instance, I find here that because a certain Board of Conservators on their first appointment appreciated their duty, that action was deprecated. In Mr. Berrington's Report in regard to this case it is stated—
  "The Board of Conservators of the Dwyfach, on their first appointment last year, appeared hardly to have appreciated the duties which have devolved upon them."
  What was the action of this Board? The first thing they proposed was to
  296
  reduce the licence fee from five guineas to one guinea, in order that the charge might be in consonance with the character of the fishing. Because this alteration would place it in the power of poor fishermen to follow their pursuit with some possibility of return, the Board of Trade officers condemned the change. The Board of Conservators is a Public Body, knowing the wants of the locality; and as their action was reasonable, I think I am right in criticising the condemnation of a proceeding dictated by sense of duty.
  MR. ROBY: I am anxious to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Law Reports are not included in the Library of this House. Last year I was answered that the matter was under consideration, and that there was some difficulty in the way of finding room. Therefore, I suggested that it would not be necessary to get more than the Reports for the last thirty or forty years. At present the only method of getting the Law Reports is by sending to the House of Lords, and there are inconveniences in connection with that proceeding. As to the necessity for these Law Reports, take the case, for instance, of the Rating of Machinery Bill, which turned entirely upon the construction given by recent Law Reports to the rating of machinery. It seems to me reasonable that this House should have access to the Reports, and I cannot understand any reason why we should not. In the Library there are a large number of books which are hardly ever used, and yet they occupy places which might be usefully devoted to books which Members are desirous of consulting. I trust the Government will do something to remedy this defect, and I would suggest that the interval of the General Election would afford a convenient opportunity for rearranging the Library, and introducing such necessary works as the Law Reports.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I only desire to say one or two words in reference to the fishery question. My observations have reference to the manner in which the Local Government Board over-ride the resolutions passed by the Boards of

  297
  Conservators. Some time ago a very vexed question in the county I have the honour to represent was whether or not the close season ought to be extended, and the Board of Conservators passed a resolution that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they were of opinion that the close season ought to be extended a fortnight, or may be a month. That resolution was forwarded to the Board of Trade, who, for some reason or other, deemed it proper to over-ride the deliberate intentions and wish of the Board of Conservators. The proceeding struck me as being rather high-handed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will give some reason for the action of his Department.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I think I remember the case to which the hon. Member refers. The resolution was discussed when a snowstorm prevented the attendance of the Upper Water Conservators, who, I understand, were strongly opposed to the change. As it was carried, when only the Lower Water Conservators were present, I deemed it wise that there should be delay in order to afford an opportunity for further consideration.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I was not aware of the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman; but I am under the impression that the resolution was passed on two different occasions.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Yes, and curiously enough there was a snowstorm on each occasion.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I hope there will be a reduction of the salary in question under this Vote, as on almost every occasion the Board of Trade deem it their duty to over-ride the wishes of the Conservators who, of course, have a local knowledge of all the circumstances of the matters they deal with. The point we have to consider is whether the over-riders are within their rights? It seems to me very hard that where the Conservators deem a reduction of fee necessary, the Board of Trade should refuse their sanction. This action, however, is not confined to one solitary case. The County Council of Carmarthenshire
  298
  applied for a certificate, doubling the number of members whom they were entitled to appoint on the Board of Conservators. We know that the squires of the county are, as a rule, appointed to these Boards of Conservators, and the County Council representing the inhabitants applied for an increase of members. The Board of Trade found it impossible to concede to that request. My hon. Friend suggests that a gentleman should be sent to inquire into the local circumstances, and if that were done I am sure it would be found that the County Council fairly represent the wishes of the inhabitants. In these country places, where the squirearchy is in the ascendant, it appears that they have the ruling power, and that they, to use a common expression, lead the Board of Trade by the nose in these matters. In the mining districts where the fishing is of no importance at all, except for gentlemen who fish for sport, the Inspectors of the Local Government Board attend and do their best to stop the prosecution of industry for the benefit of those who desire to fish for sport alone. On page seven I find it stated—
  "From the Ogmore we learn as a matter of surprise that a few salmon have again been seen in the river. Their appearance is ascribed to the fact that the tin plate works are no longer in operation. The Llantrissent Tin Plate Company admitted the offence [of polluting the Ely River] and submitted to an injunction restraining them from repeating it."
  I am able to tell the Committee that that Report is absolutely incorrect. No offence was admitted, and no consent was given to an injunction against pouring the refuse of the tin-plate works into the stream. I hope my hon. Friend will move the reduction of the Vote, to enable the Committee to express their opinion with regard to the conduct of these officers in refusing to sanction a reduction of the licence for fishing where it was absolutely necessary to enable the fishermen to earn a living, and for their willingness to stop the tin-plate works in order to give a little sport in a river where practically no fish exist.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) has given no explanation of the conduct of the Board of Trade in

  299
  refusing to sanction the reduction of licences, I feel it necessary to move the reduction of this Vote by £100. This is a matter of considerable importance. If these Inspectors proceed upon the general principle that £5 ought to be the minimum fee applicable to every stream in England, I think they are acting wrongly, because a £5 licence may pay in one stream and not in another. If the licence of these fishermen had been reduced, there would have been a fair prospect of their continuing to make a living, but without that reduction they are unable to do so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £30,000, for the Board of Trade, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: We are anxious to know, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, whether or not, when the Board of Conservators, as at present constituted, passes a resolution, the Board of Trade intend to override their decision?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: That depends upon the circumstances of the case. Of course, the object of the Board of Trade is to preserve the salmon rivers as far as possible in the general interest of the inhabitants. It is a difficult matter to deal with all the streams, because there are always conflicting interests to consider. My main reason for refusing to agree to the particular resolution referred to was because on both occasions it was arrived at without the opportunity of all the interests concerned being fairly represented at the Board. If, however, at a meeting of the full Board of Conservators, representing all the interests concerned, a similar resolution is passed the matter will be carefully considered by the Board of Trade. With regard to the general question, I can only say that I think that hon. Members have attacked the Board of Trade without full knowledge of the facts. There are only two Fishery Inspectors, who have to visit all parts of the country in connection with salmon and sea fisheries. They are constantly holding various inquiries, and their time is fully occupied. The particular case referred to by the hon.
  300
  Member, where one of the Inspectors objected to increase the number of licences for a certain river, is one that I had not present in my mind; but I understand it was desired to obtain further information on a proposed decrease of the scale. There are many detailed matters to be considered in a question of this sort which I cannot deal with in a general way. The hon. Member appeared to wish to draw the attention of the House to another matter; but instead of doing so he branched off into complaints against the Inspectors, which I can assure him, if he will take the trouble to inform himself, he will find there is no cause for.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I only rise to say that I made no attacks on the Fishery Inspectors. I only wished to have an answer to the question I asked the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have taken pains to inform myself of the particular circumstances of this case, and I can assure the Committee that the decision of the Inspectors in this matter has caused me considerable surprise. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that no summer licences have been taken out. The fishermen, however, make use of the river, and public opinion is so strongly in their favour that no prosecution has been instituted. Looking at the matter from the point of view of preserving the salmon stream the decision has had a calamitous effect.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Gentleman will put me in possession of the facts, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Since the right hon. Gentleman promises to inquire into the matter I do not wish to press it any further, and I will, therefore, withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: No answer has been given to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby), who asked that a complete set of Law Reports should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Being a lawyer, I have some difficulty in speaking on this

  301
  matter, because I may be accused of being specially interested from a personal point of view. The hon. Member for Eccles is not a lawyer, but whether lawyers or laymen we all feel it to be a hardship that we cannot see a volume of the Law Reports without sending to the House of Lords for it. They are always very kind there in obliging us, but we know that their duty does not necessitate their sitting till a late hour, so that if one wants to see a volume of these Reports he cannot do so when the evening is far advanced. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir John Gorst) that there is a strong feeling in favour of the Library of the House of Commons being supplied with a complete set of Law Reports, and I hope he will see his way to meet us in this matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I must remind the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) that there is a difference between the two Houses, inasmuch as the House of Lords is the highest Court of Appeal, and the Law Reports are constantly required there by the learned Lords for reference. I believe that the Library of the House of Commons contains all the recognised textbooks on law. The Law Reports would be a great addition to the Library, and would necessitate the displacement of perhaps more useful books for general use. However, I will take care to consider the subject, and make inquiry before next Session.
  MR. ROBY: It is not out of any feeling of jealousy that we ask for the Law Reports. But I assert that the House of Commons, having more legislative work to do than the House of Lords, has a right to demand the materials necessary for forming an opinion on certain legal matters. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is so unsatisfactory to me that I feel inclined to move the reduction of the Vote, because it is evident from the tone of his remarks that he does not think it desirable to turn the Library from a comfortable sleeping chamber into something more useful. I do not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but unless I can get some
  302
  more satisfactory information from the right hon. Gentleman I shall do so.
  MR. KNOX: I am afraid we want something more than the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into consideration. On the 28th March I got an answer to the same effect, and it scarcely seems as if that consideration is likely to produce the result we desire. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is nothing more misleading than to go by text books. Words are often interpolated which alter the sense of passages, and the books for which we ask will be most useful when we get into Committee on the Irish Local Government Bill, which we expect to do very shortly. We should then be able to study the reports of cases which have been raised on points in the Local Government Bills of England and Scotland, and those points will, in all probability, be raised in the Irish Bill. In order to afford the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving an answer which will be more satisfactory to the House, I will move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £60,000, for Stationery Office and Printing, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Knox.)
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I am sorry the Attorney General is not here, because I am perfectly certain that he would be in favour of this proposal. The price of the Law Reports for 1865 to 1890 is one hundred guineas, and you could get the Irish Law Reports for thirty guineas more. The Secretary to the Treasury has pointed out that the House of Lords requires these volumes for the purposes of their judicial decisions, but we require them for purposes of legislation. At present we are entirely dependent on the Library of the House of Lords, and sometimes we find it impossible to get what we require. This is only a small expenditure, and I think the House would confer a great favour on a deserving class of Members if they would see that this class of literature is provided. The right hon. Gentleman said that this would alter the character of the Library. That is not the case. The

  303
  text books are merely useful as a reference to the law books, and the addition of the law books would therefore be only a proper supplement. Many of the text books in the Library are out of date, and I may say that the Library as a whole is not up to date. On most legal subjects there are two or three standard works, but there is only one in the Library, and in most cases the worst work has been selected. I may mention that there is at present in course of publication a new series of revised Reports, under very able editorship, which will contain all the Reports previous to 1865. It is expected that there will be about fifty volumes at £1 each, and that will cover the whole period of reported cases in English law; and these volumes, with what I have already suggested, would properly equip the Library.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will condescend to admit that the demand is a reasonable one, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not meet the convenience of the House. I should like very much to know who has the decision in this matter, and I would put it to them that the cost will not exceed £200.
  SIR JOHN GORST: This question has been put to me before, but I am not entitled to pledge the Government in the matter of expenditure in these Law Reports. I think it is scarcely reasonable to expect me to do that. The hon. Member (Mr. Matthew Kenny) gave his estimate of what the cost would be, but I think you would find if you fully equipped the Library with all the English, Scotch, and Irish Law Reports you would spend a great deal more than the sum he has stated. What I would suggest to the Committee is this. We are now discussing the Vote on Account, and if we pass this hon. Members do not lose their control of this matter. It will come up in the Estimates in the ordinary way, and I will undertake that before the Stationery Vote is reached this matter shall have been considered by the Treasury. If the hon. Member will raise the question on the Stationery Vote in the Estimates I will undertake that he shall have an answer.
  MR. ROBY: I do not wish to press the matter further. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was raised last June, and at that time he said the matter was under consideration. We seem to have got no further, but after the specific promise he has given tonight I think we may believe that something will be done.
  MR. KNOX: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—(Interruptions.) Very well then, we will divide upon it.
  Question put.
  (12.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 132.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I desire to move a reduction for the purpose of calling attention to the administration of the Office of Woods and Forests. It will be within the recollection of the House that I have brought this matter under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on several occasions, and he more than once promised, and eventually did, in deference to a feeling expressed in the House, do something towards lightening the charges imposed on the mining industry of North Wales. But we are not satisfied with matters as they stand. The right hon. Gentleman has answered questions from time to time, saying that he will not have one fixed sum to be charged on mines royal, and that means that the holders of the two hundred leases now in existence shall go on working, not knowing what they are going to be charged, and when they are similarly circumstanced to the one mine where the right hon. Gentleman has made a reduction, then he will consider the matter. Now, the right hon. Gentleman might as well ask a man to build a house on his land before having the ground rent fixed. It is not reasonable. What we contend for is that the charge shall be one uniform sum. We do not want a fixed scale or a sliding scale on rates for the first time imported into the control of metalliferous mines by the Woods and Forests Department on the recommendation of a

  305
  gentleman whose experience has been of coal mines, not of metalliferous mines. The complaint I have to make is this. Notwithstanding the existence of all the leases of which I have spoken, only two or three of them are being worked and have been worked under great difficulties. It is not many years ago that the Woods and Forests charged ten per cent. on the turnover of mines and claimed twenty-five per cent. of the sale price upon realisation, and now it is the fact that in some cases the charge is reduced to one per cent. in royalties, and no part of the sale price is demanded. Still absurdities exist. The House will scarcely believe that though only a quarter of an ounce of silver is obtained from a ton of ore, the Crown claims a royalty upon that. Now, I need not argue out at length that the Government ought to accede to the wishes of those who have endeavoured at great outlay to develop a new industry, instead of taking up the position on the law, saying, "We stand upon our judgment, and that is all we care about." It is not a fair position to take up. The law has not been reviewed for three hundred years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer took an active part a short time since in trying to enforce against this industry by means of an execution the payment of costs incurred and the fees of the Attorney General in reference to an attempt to obtain a review of the law which had not been considered for centuries, and in respect to which the Judges differed. The right hon. Gentleman has taunted me, saying I should never have gone into Court at all; but how, unless we agitate and take such action can we get our grievances redressed? The right hon. Gentleman has not treated the matter in a fair and liberal spirit; he has gone away with the "bit in his teeth" as it were, and hence all the difficulty and delay have occurred. For years he refused the reduction of royalties until the feeling in this House compelled the reduction. The right hon. Gentleman should remember what royalties mean—that they may mean all the profit when charged upon a product; and if I may be allowed to look back on an incident I once before endeavoured unsuccessfully
  306
  to bring before the Committee. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that when Joseph went down into Egypt—into the land of Goschen—we have the first recorded instance of an attempt to create a corner in corn, and an exceedingly clever operation it was—(interruptions)—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to a practical discussion of the question.
  *MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I say in considering the origin of royalties, when Joseph first created that corner in corn—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have told the hon. Member on previous occasions, as the Committee will remember, that the Royal Commission which has been appointed to inquire into this question of royalties will, in due course, present its Report. From month to month I have expected that Report, and until it is presented it would be discourteous to that Commission, and would be contrary to all precedent in such matters, if I attempted to come to a final decision upon matters the Commission is specially charged to inquire into. From the Report of the Commission I anticipate practical guidance in aiding us to arrive at a decision as to the proper way of levying royalties. Waiting such Report, I, in the meantime, am prepared to give such relief as it is possible for me to give.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I hope the answer may satisfy my hon. Friend that it is not right to harass the right hon. Gentleman pending the presentation of the Report of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has hope that the Royal Commission will offer some guidance as to the proper way of levying royalties, but will it not be in excess of the powers of the Commission to make recommendations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission has no power except to report the evidence taken? I have this from the noble Lord at the head of the Commission, and when during the previous Session of Parliament I endeavoured to press on the late

  307
  Leader of the House the importance of giving power to the Royal Commission to make recommendations as to the course of future legislation, I could get no satisfactory answer. I think there would be no difficulty in the case even at this late sitting of the Commission in extending the powers of the Commission, so that recommendations might be made, and this would be of material assistance in considering the question.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Speaking without my attention having been specially directed to the point, I think it would be extremely difficult at this stage of the proceedings to make a change in the arrangements of the Royal Commission. It is a matter of some importance, and I will consult the noble Lord at the head of the Commission. It is, I think, undesirable to make the change. I hope we may soon see the Report, and I am unwilling to interpose any difficulty or in any way to prolong the labours of the Commission.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish to delay the production of the Report. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates my point. It would not widen the scope of the inquiry. Speaking as one of the witnesses before the Commission, I may say that I was asked questions in reference to future legislation, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of evidence has been given by various witnesses as to proposed legislation. What I suggest is that instead of the Commission being limited to simply reporting the evidence taken, the Commissioners should summarise the various recommendations made by witnesses in answer to questions, and express their own opinions in relation to them. I do not press for an answer now, but as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested the possibility of consulting the noble Lord at the head of the Commission, perhaps he will be able to give me an answer later on.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I do not desire to take up time, and it cannot be said that I have ever obstructed Business. But it is a very serious matter I desire to raise. There is the greatest difference between Crown
  308
  mines and private mines. We shall have a general Report from the Commissioners now considering the question of royalties. What I desire to impress on the right hon. Gentleman is this: in settling the Civil List all these mines were taken over by the State in consideration of a very large sum of money given to the reigning monarch—that is an absolute fact not to be denied. That being so, these mines belong to the State, and, therefore, they belong to the people; and inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared with any scheme by which the taxpayers may secure the working of the mines, surely it is a dog-in-the-manger policy not to allow them to be developed in the manner in which they could be developed but for the working being hampered with unfair restrictions. I draw a great distinction between these mines and other metalliferous mines, and I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the people should not be shut out from having the advantage of the development of this industry.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to discuss the question on its merits, but I do remember the right hon. Gentleman giving my hon. Friend identically the same answer nine or ten months ago. But my object is to elicit an answer to a question which properly arises under this Vote for Woods and Forests. The predecessor of the present Secretary to the Treasury promised in discussion on the Estimates to have an inquiry made into the system of royalties paid on the slate quarries in Carnarvonshire, and that inquiry was subsequently held by Mr. Foster Browne. It was a public inquiry and the proceedings were reported in the local newspapers, but I do not find that the Report has been laid before Parliament. I presume it has been printed; but I wish to ask whether the Secretary to the Treasury will bring the Report before Parliament or give facilities for seeing it?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I think the least the office of Woods and Forests can do is to make the Report public, so that every hon. Member may see it. I

  309
  know that there have been great complaints with regard to the working of these quarries in Carnarvon and in other counties. The inquiry, I believe, was very carefully conducted by Mr. Foster Browne and reported to the Department. I trust there will be no difficulty in laying that Report on the Table.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I have had no notice of this question, but I will make inquiries. It relates to occurrences which took place before I came into my office. I will give the hon. Member an answer on Thursday.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that if the Report can be supplied we shall have it before the Report of this Vote is taken?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I am unable to answer as to the Report until I have made inquiries, but I will do my best to give the hon. Member the opportunity of seeing it. I may remind the hon. Member also that of necessity we must take the Report of the Vote on Account to-morrow, and that there will be full opportunity for him to raise the question on the ordinary Vote in Supply.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: That would apply to all discussions on a Vote on Account, but I do not think there will be any disposition to forgo the right which has always been exercised in this House, to discuss grievances on a Vote on Account. We are also told that there is to be no discussion of the Estimates this year, by reason of a compact between the two Front Benches. But will the right hon. Gentleman deny that, this inquiry having been instituted in consequence of pressure brought to bear in this House, the House is entitled to have the Report on the Table? I think we are entitled to press the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Report shall be laid on the Table.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Gentleman has thought fit to ask me a question, and I have promised to give him an answer to-morrow. I cannot do more. I cannot undertake to lay the Report on the Table; I know nothing of it. If the hon. Member will give notice of a question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.
  MR. KNOX: I have a question to ask in reference to Class III. By the rules of the Commission in reference to the distribution of seed potatoes Guardians of Unions were bound to accept only such seed potatoes as were passed by the Inspector appointed for the purpose; and the Cavan Board of Guardians, acting on the advice of the Inspector, refused to accept certain potatoes, as not being, according to tender. The vendor sued the Guardians, who defended the action, producing the Inspector as a witness. In the result, however, the Guardians were cast in £400, for verdict and costs against them. I have brought this matter several times before the various Departments in some way concerned under the Treasury, and I have a Petition couched in most respectful terms from the Guardians requesting that consideration may be given to their claims on this account, seeing that the Guardians have been placed in this false position in consequence of complying with the law. In the neighbouring Union the Guardians refused to follow the advice of the Inspector; they distributed the potatoes, which grew well enough. Now, I submit that in such a case the Guardians, being placed in this position simply in consequence of obedience to the Inspector; in compliance with the Act, have a fair claim to compensation. I raise the question now, as it concerns the Land Commission Department, with a hope that I may receive such an answer as will not make it necessary to move a reduction, and divide the Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I regret that the hon. Member has not given either my right hon. Friend or myself any notice of his intention to raise this question. For my own part, I do not know that I have heard anything of the case.
  MR. KNOX: But I have asked the question half a dozen times. It is easier to ask questions than to get any definite answer.
  MR. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any question having been addressed to him.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Member has taken me completely by surprise in raising this question without any notice whatever. The

  311
  matter is strange to me; but I would repeat what I have said in reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George). If the hon. Member will give me notice I will endeavour to give him all the information in my power.
  MR. KNOX: The right hon. Gentleman surprises me, because in March last he gave me an answer, in which he said that the matter was under consideration. I naturally supposed that after the interval the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give me some definite reply. The question had reference to the case of "Bryan v. the Cavan Guardians." I will state the case again.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I recollect now. The hon. Member asked as to a question of costs incurred by the Cavan Guardians whether the Board of Works would remit the amount.
  MR. KNOX: That is not precisely the case. The costs were paid long ago; they arose out of litigation due to the action of the Government Inspector.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The question is whether the costs are or are not to be remitted to the Cavan Guardians? I told the hon. Member that the question could not be decided until the next seed rate is about to be paid, and that is the only answer I can give him now.
  MR. KNOX: But I was told in March that the matter was under consideration.
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is so, and it will not be decided until the seed rate is paid.
  MR. KNOX: There is no question of the payment of the rate, which will be duly met in August. The matters are not connected. The Guardians have paid this sum of money through the fault of the Government Inspector. The right hon. Gentleman would put off a settlement of the question until the next Government is in Office; that is what it comes to. There is no question of the Guardians meeting their liabilities. The Government having the facts have had due time for consideration, and I submit there should be a decision now, not a delay until August. I move to reduce Class III by the sum of £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £15,000, for the Irish Land Commission, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Knox.)
  SIR JOHN GORST: I hope the hon. Member will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. He asked me whether certain payments made by the Cavan Guardians can be remitted. I then said that the question was under consideration. It was considered by the Local Government Board, with the result that it was decided the matter should be left in abeyance until the rate is received. I will make further inquiries, and ascertain the reason for the matter being thus left in abeyance, and will inform the hon. Member when I have done so.
  MR. KNOX: I have no wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. I will be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will say that the question shall be decided on its merits within a reasonable time, irrespective of any seed rate. The right hon. Gentleman can perhaps give me an answer in a couple of days.
  SIR JOHN GORST: It is impossible for me to say when, but I will ascertain the reason for the postponement; and if the reason does not appear sufficient, I will press the Local Government Board to come to an immediate decision, which will be subject to the approval of the Treasury.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. STEPHEN WILLIAMSON (, &c.): There is a matter of importance I think it my duty to bring to the attention of the Lord Advocate, and it was the subject-matter of a Petition I presented to the House a short time ago, asking for redress. It has reference to the School Board election in Port Glasgow in March last. Nine members had to be elected; but three nominations having been withdrawn, and the regulations not affording time for the nomination of three other candidates, only six members were voted for and elected instead of nine. The six members formed themselves into a School Board, and, with the assent of the Education Department, added three of their friends to make up the required number of nine Members of the Board. The

  313
  election was not valid in consequence of only six members having been voted for, but they perpetrated an act of grievous wrong in dismissing their clerk, Mr. Hood—a solicitor of high repute and standing in the town—simply because he told them that they were illegally constituted as a School Board. Unfortunately, however, this illegally-constituted Board was backed by the Education Department in Edinburgh; but so deeply did some of the townsmen resent the action of the Board dismissing their clerk, that application was made to the Court of Session which decided that the Board was not legally elected, a decision which was confirmed on appeal. The Education Department being urged to comply with the Statute, it was natural to suppose that they would order a new election, which I understand Clause 15 of the Education Act of 1872 requires. But even supposing there was a choice of two courses open, the nomination of a new Board would be a high-handed proceeding, and prudence and common sense would suggest a new election. But, no; the Education Department chose to follow their own course, and they nominated the very men who were declared by the Court of Session to be illegally elected—the men who had perpetrated this grave wrong of dismissing the clerk because he declared the true state of the law. This has been done despite the wishes of a large number, if not the majority, of the ratepayers. The Petition presented had 1,400 signatures. I am told that a Memorial has been presented to the Lord Advocate in the interest of the nominated School Board, and this, I am told, was largely signed in public houses; and in relation to this I may mention that Mr. Hood is a strong temperance advocate. The irritation caused in the town is extreme, and I think I am justified in bringing this matter forward; and I hope I may have an assurance from the Lord Advocate that this grievance will be redressed; that in this and similar cases the illegality will be remedied by the election of a new Board, not by the nomination of a Board by the Department. Also, I would press upon the Lord Advocate the necessity of an amendment of the regulations to allow of proper time for the nomination of
  314
  new candidates in the case of withdrawals.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I do not think the hon. Member need have any fear that the regulation will not be in conformity with the Statute. He is in error in supposing that Section 15 governs such a case as he has referred to. If he will look at Section 13 of the Act of 1872 he will see that the Department have three courses open when an election is declared invalid, as in the case he has referred to. They may continue the pre-existing Board in office; they may order a new election, or they may nominate a new Board, It will be in the recollection of the Committee that I said, in answer to a question, that Port Glasgow was not a solitary instance in regard to which difficulty had arisen, and it had been considered by the Department out of the question to order a new election in every case of this kind with its attendant expenses. The Department resolved to exercise the option conferred by the Statute, and they issued nominations, which they had reason to believe would be acceptable in the locality. It is ample justification for the course pursued when I say that since these nominations were made—now a good many weeks ago—not a single complaint has reached the Department with regard to any of the localities with the exception of Port Glasgow. I take it, therefore, that the course taken by the Department has commended itself to the common sense and wishes of the people in the various localities. The hon. Member abstained from saying that a majority of the ratepayers of Port Glasgow were in favour of a course other than that taken; and since then an influential Memorial, signed by six hundred or seven hundred ratepayers of Port Glasgow, has been received expressing in strong terms their sense of the propriety of the course followed, and which the judgment of the Court of Session left the Department free to take, and I do not believe it has led to any inconvenience in the locality, or is likely to do so. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with my assurance that, the judgment of the Supreme Court having

  315
  been given, it will be followed in regard to any future regulations issued by the Department.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: It was impossible for me to say more than that the Petition I mentioned was signed by 1,400 persons. The Memorial to the Lord Advocate had only some six hundred signatures. I do not understand that the judgment of the Court of Session indicated any course to be followed; it simply declared the election invalid. It was for the Department to adopt the course most consonant with local feeling, and though I am not a lawyer I still think that course is prescribed in Clause 15. With the explanation that the regulations of the Department will be overhauled, I do not wish to press the matter further. I had hoped that something would have been done to assuage the local feeling that a grievous wrong had been done in the dismissal of the clerk who simply declared the state of the law, and his view proved to be correct.
  MR. GROTRIAN: I take this opportunity to call attention to the discrepancy which exists in the pay of officers of the Excise and Customs officers performing identically the same duties. With equality of service the difference in pay is very striking. The duties of the officers of either Department in relation to foreign or British spirits and beer are equally responsible; but I find that while in the Customs the maximum pay for officers of the second class is £220, in the Excise it is only £150, a difference of more than forty-six per cent. against the Inland Revenue officers. Again, in the first class the maximum paying £340 in the Customs and £250 in the Excise, a difference of thirty-six per cent. In the grade of supervisor again the salaries are respectively £480 and £300, a difference of sixty per cent. against the Excise officer. The qualities required in either class of officers are equal; their responsibilities and duties do not differ, and I do not understand why there should be this great difference in salaries. I do not say that the salaries of Customs officers who fill very responsible positions are too high. I assume they are fair and equitable, and therefore the officers in the Excise Department are at a disadvantage. I know that the question has been con
  316
  sidered on more than one occasion by the Board of Inland Revenue, and that some slight concessions have been made; but what these officers ask for, and what I hope will be conceded, is an independent inquiry into their claims, and in which the views of the Service may find expression. I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee, though I should under other circumstances be quite prepared to still further support a claim which I hope will be acknowledged to an independent inquiry.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Before the hon. Gentleman receives his reply, I wish to turn to quite another set of topics in which the Irish Members are concerned. In the first place, I claim that something should be done in reference to Green Street Court House in Dublin. The state of the Courthouse is a public scandal, against which Judges have protested again and again, and we have often called attention to it in this House. The Government demand that the Corporation shall contribute a third or two-thirds—I am not sure which—towards the building of a new Courthouse; but we claim that an Imperial Court such as this is, the citizens of Dublin having no value in it and having no right to appoint any of the officials, from the Recorder to the doorkeeper, should be paid for from Imperial funds. Why should we, the ratepayers of Dublin, be expected to pay for the Court? The Government may say we have done so before, but now a different view prevails, and when you take a prison without compensation, upon which the Corporation have spent £100,000, the least you can do is to provide a decent Courthouse for your Imperial business; or, better still, remove that business to the Four Courts. My next question has reference to the prison warders in Ireland, and I ask, would it not be well, now that the Government have given up the practice of detaining political prisoners, not to insist on the warders wearing their uniform when off duty and outside the prisons? Why are they treated differently in this respect from prison warders in England? The men feel the regulation most keenly. They have to deal in prison with a rough convict class, and they feel that

  317
  when off duty they are liable to be spotted, and to be treated with violence or insult when their uniform is recognised. The Chief Secretary visited Mountjoy Prison lately, I believe. Perhaps he there heard something of this complaint, and the claim of the men to be allowed, as warders in England are, to wear their own clothes when off duty. The last point I have to raise has reference to the breach of the undertaking given by the Government to deal with the question of the use of schoolrooms for public meetings. The Resolution passed by this House requires for its adoption in England that legislation should be passed, but in Ireland it is merely a matter of regulation. All you have to do is to send the Resolution to the Board of Education in Ireland, and they will apply the rule. I quite agree that regulation is required, and that you cannot throw open the schoolroom for anybody to make a racket in it; you must have some regard to the purpose for which the meeting is convened. In England you require fourteen days' notice, security against damage; that religious and anti-religious meetings shall not be held, and the manager's consent. Why not ask the Education Board in Ireland to draw up similar regulations? I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to tell the Education Board that the Resolution of the House within reasonable limits ought to be carried out. I am quite aware of the difficulties, but they can be met by regulations which will ensure that proceedings shall be conducted decently and in order by either Party. The managers of a school should be allowed a veto, and with reasonable safeguards the practice might be followed as in England.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think the matter is quite so simple as the hon. Member seems to indicate. As I understand it, the Resolution of the House of course gave no power in England or Ireland against the consent or without the consent of the school managers. The hon. Member seems to think that the Education Department would have power in Ireland. But, for instance, take the case of the non-vested schools. The Education Department will have no power to compel the school management to afford facilities for holding political meetings. Then take the case
  318
  of the convent schools. It is not intended to limit the use of the schools to political meetings; they are to be equally devoted to municipal and other meetings; and I do not think the Education Department in Ireland has power to compel either convent schools or monastery schools or non-vested schools to offer these facilities. It is not a matter on which the Government can have any strong opinion. My own view, until I heard the hon. Member, was against opening the whole of the schools of Ireland, because if you open one you must open all. I should like to say that I think it would be desirable to make due inquiry as to what the opinion in Ireland is. I do not think you can make a distinction between one school or Party and another, because if these schools are to be available for such purposes they must be available for all such purposes and persons. I should be glad to ascertain what is the view taken, as the speech of the hon. Member has rather surprised me. The simplest course, perhaps, would be to move that Ireland be included in the Bill. The hon. Member will, however, probably see that it is desirable I should make further inquiry before committing myself on the question. With regard to the prison warders, I have not heard of any difficulty arising from the wearing of uniforms outside the gaol. I should be disposed rather to take the view that the uniform, instead of being a cause of hostility, would rather have caused protection. ("No!") I do not agree with the hon. Member. A warder in uniform is known by everybody, and in case of attack would receive more protection than one in ordinary clothes.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is not so much a question of hostile attack upon a warder; but, as some of the warders explained to me when I was in Londonderry Gaol, a question of not being able to go out for a short holiday without being subjected to insult.
  MR. JACKSON: I have made inquiry into this matter, as I heard something of it from another source. The particular gaol was mentioned, and I was assured that no opinion of that kind had ever been expressed by any warder.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Of course not to the Governor.
  MR. JACKSON: Surely it is not a question there need be any hesitation about. As to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), I am somewhat surprised, and will make inquiries as to the fact. The information I received was that there was no such feeling, and that the wearing of the uniform was rather a protection than otherwise. The other question was about the Green Street Courthouse, and I do not know that there is anything I can add to what I have previously said in answer to questions on this subject. I may, however, mention to the Committee that a suggestion has been made that it would be possible to build a Court for less money than the original estimate, which, I think, was £42,000 or £45,000. At that time the Government agreed to contribute £13,500, and I then said I would recommend the proposal to the Treasury if the Corporation of Dublin desired to renew the proposal. I have heard recently that a suggestion has been made that a Courthouse sufficient for the purposes could be built on some site—owned, I think, by the Corporation, and which they would probably give—for about £13,500. I think negotiations are at present going on between the Corporation of Dublin and Dublin Castle; but in the course of a day or two I shall know more about the matter.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Might I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to take the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland as to the site of the Courthouse? It is really very desirable that the Courthouse should be in a central position. I have always been amazed that the Government did not insist upon getting a Court in the Four Courts, and by only making a conversion effect an enormous saving. If you could take some of the existing buildings, and at a cost of £5 or £10 erect a dock suitable for prisoners, you would have a Court which would suit everybody. I never could see why £40,000 was necessary to build Green Street. As to the prison warders, I
  320
  really think the right hon. Gentleman cannot be aware of the controversy on this point. What the warders complain of is the very point my hon. Friend has raised—that when off duty they should be compelled to wear their uniforms. The right hon. Gentleman says it serves the interests of protection, but why not give them the option? The rule is of new make; it was made during the Crimes Act period, I think, rather to mark out the warder in order that he might not come into contact with any member of the Nationalist Party. The necessity for that has now disappeared, and I trust the Government will allow the warders to now mingle with the ordinary public without carrying with them the trade mark of Her Majesty. On the other subject I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman has fairly met us. What we ask is that the rule which prohibits political meetings in schools should no longer obtain. That would relieve the management, and would also give a liberty which this House has declared itself in favour of. I do not agree with the logic of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that if we have one we must have all. What we want is to satisfy the people, and therein seems to be a great want in the minds of the people of England. The right hon. Gentleman says he will look into the matter. In answering a question put by me on this subject the right hon. Gentleman did not give me such a reply as I had reason to expect. I simply asked him whether he would send copies of the Resolution of this House to the National Board of Education. He gave one of those replies which are a sham, because he did not tell me what he was going to do. I think such a Resolution should have been sent on to the Department. I again respectfully ask that it be done, and if it is I shall be satisfied, because if Sir Patrick Keenan has a copy of that Resolution, and wishes to drop on the managers of the National Convention, we shall be able to have a twist on him.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I only wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed as to the warders, if he thinks that they do not feel the grievance which has been put

  321
  forward to-night. It is probable that the right hon. Gentleman's source of information could not possess sufficient knowledge, because my experience of sub-officials is that they do not care to make complaints about these matters to their superiors in office. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts are as stated, and I may remind the Committee that I brought this matter forward two years ago. I trust the Government will do their best regarding a grievance which the prison warders asked me to aid in remedying.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As to the question of allowing schools for public meetings, I would point out that the distinction between schools has already been under consideration. One of the proposals of the Ballot Act was that public schools should be taken for the purpose of polling booths. In applying that general provision to Ireland the case of the convent schools was considered, and one of the enactments in that Bill is that any school attached to a religious house should be taken for the purposes of a polling booth. I would also point out that as the law at present stands in Ireland, we are in a worse position than England. In England the managers can lend a school for a political meeting; but if in Ireland the managers venture to lend it for that purpose, they do so at the peril of having the grant stopped. Seeing the House of Commons has passed a Resolution on the subject, I do think the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to communicate that Resolution to the Board of National Education in Ireland.
  MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.): It is not a question of Party politics which the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has raised. When I was contesting North Antrim I remember the difficulty of securing places for public meetings. Frequently the farmers were compelled to employ their barns in order to allow of a meeting being held. I think the Government would confer great convenience on Ireland by allowing schools to be used by either Party for public meetings.
  MR. MATTHEW KENNY: I wish to point out to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to
  322
  the Green Street Courthouse, that when he considers the amount the Government will advance towards the building of a new Courthouse, he might include the value of the present site, which I would recommend him to sell. I would also suggest that the new Courthouse be built on one of the vacant sites near the Four Courts, which can be obtained at the present time. The only person opposed to this in Dublin is the Recorder of the City, and he is opposed to it because he wishes to administer the ordinary Civil business of the County Court away from the reach of the Bar. He has the utmost objection to the attendance of the members of the Bar, with the result that he administers his Court in a fashion peculiar to itself, and without parallel in any other portion of the United Kingdom. I think we may expect from the Government a little more than £13,000 towards the building of a new Court, which, unless it adjoins the Four Courts, will be of no advantage to the general body of practitioners.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I give notice that I will to-morrow put a question on the subject.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 292.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Second Reading of this Bill? Why not take it now?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I have no objection. I should be very glad to take it now.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 365.)
  CHANGED FROM

  WITNESSES (ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND PARLIAMENT) PROTECTION BILL.—(No. 287.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I move to report Progress. This is a Bill from my point of view entirely obnoxious. It is little better that a Coercion Bill in disguise, and I shall give it the strongest opposition in my power.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Thursday.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 299.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 354.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (BATHGATE WATER) BILL.—(No. 348.)
  Reported without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. (No. 363.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 72.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  TOWN HOLDINGS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 71.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SALMON AND FRESH-WATER FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 258.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) [SALARIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an increase of the Salaries of the Commissioners appointed under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and to make further provision respecting the Land Commission.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, the sum of £4,662,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  NATIONAL DEBT [CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS].
  Resolution [27th May] reported, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 385.]

MOTIONS.
CASUAL WARDS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill for the provision of Central Stations in connection with Casual Wards in London, and for other purposes relating to such Casual Wards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Long.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 384.]
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (NO. 2) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Conybeare, Bill to prohibit the holding out of inducements to Children to visit public houses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Allison, Mr. M'Lagan, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 386.]
House adjourned at Three o'clock a.m.