HC Deb 16 March 1904 vol 131 cc1267-331

"That a sum, not exceeding £21,500,000, be granted to His 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, 1905, viz.:—

Class IV.
Board of Education 7,000,000
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain 30,000
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain 15,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings 20,000
Revenue Buildings 160,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain 160,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom 90,000
Harbours under the Board of Trade 10,000
Peterhead Harbour 10,000
Rates on Government Property 260,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland 110,000
Railways, Ireland 60,000
Secretary for Scotland 25,000
Fishery Board 8,000
Lunacy Commission 3,000
Registrar General's Office 2,000
Local Government Board 5,000
Lord-Lieutenant's Household 2,000
Chief Secretary for Ireland 12,000
Department of Agriculture 80,000
Charitable Donations and Bequests Office 1,000
Local Government Board 25,000
Public Record Office 2,000
Public Works Office 18,000
Registrar General's Office 6,000
Valuation and Boundary Survey 7,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum 3,000
Revenue Departments.
Customs 350,000
Inland Revenue 830,000
Post Office 3,800,000
Post Office Packet Service 250,000
Post Office Telegraphs 2,100,000
Total for Revenue Departments £7,330,000
Grand Total £21,500,000"

Resolution read a second time.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford) moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in respect of the Ireland Development Grant in order to protest against the non-appropriation of this grant to the purposes of primary education. In the first place, he said, he wished to call attention to the fact that this Estimate stood on an entirely different footing from any other Estimate. In the year 1902, when the English Education Act was passed, a sum of £1,400,000 was appropriated for primary education in this country, and Ireland then became entitled to an equivalent sum, but former precedents dealing with equivalent grants were put entirely on one side. First of all equivalent grants in the past had been calculated upon a certain basis laid down several years ago, giving a proportion of eighty to England, eleven to Scotland, and nine to Ireland. The Irish Members protested against this appropriation as unjust, and in the case of equivalent grants in respect of the Education Act of 1902 that proportion was for the first time put upon one side, and Ireland's equivalent was calculated on the basis of population. It was thus ascertained to be £185,000 a year. Under former precedents for equivalent grants that would have been available for primary education in Ireland, but, by the Development Grant of last year, it was provided that this money could be expended upon other subjects than the particular subject for which it was an equivalent grant. It was also provided, however, that Ireland should not, in any case, lose a single farthing of this money, because any portion of it not voted in one year would be carried on to the next year, and that the unexpended balances of £185,000 a year should accumulate for the benefit of Ireland. These changes, in their opinion, were most useful and valuable. The Estimates they were considering therefore stood in a peculiar position. As a matter of fact, it did not propose the voting of any new money at all; it dealt, so far as this discussion was concerned, with the allocation of money which had already been put by Statute at the disposal of Ireland. It would be noticed that from the unexpended balance from this grant of last year, and the sum of £185,000 this year, they had now at their disposal a sum of £233,000 odd. On this sum the first charge was a statutory one of £75,000, placed upon it by the Land Act of last year, viz.: £20,000 for the Congested Districts Board, £5,000 for Trinity College, and £50,000 in respect of loss attendant upon the working of the Act. Of course, it was profitless at this stage to make any criticism at all on this charge being placed upon the Development Grant, though there was one very grave matter connected with it to which he desired to direct attention. They agreed last year that a sum of £50,000 a year, for four years, should be charged upon this Development Grant, on the clear understanding that this sum was to meet the expenses connected with the flotation of the loans for the purpose of land purchase. Those expenses were clearly explained by the Chief Secretary, in his speech on 25th March last year, in introducing the Land Bill. He said they arose from three causes, viz.: (1) discrepancy between the dates of the quarterly dividends on stocks and the dates of half-yearly instalments of repayment; (2) the loss that might be due to flotation in temporary excess of the amount underwritten in Ireland; and (3) the loss through issuing stock belowpar.

These losses were all agreed to last year, and he was not going to go back upon that bargain in the slightestdegree, but they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a week ago that the last of the three classes of losses, the most serious of all, was not to be met by this £50,000 a year for four years, but was to be an additional charge upon the Development Grant. He said deliberately that this was not understood by them when they agreed to put £50,000 a year for four years upon the Development Grant. They all understood that this sum was to meet all the losses consequent upon the flotation of stock. He wished to point out what a serious matter this was. In the present state of the money market it was calculated that it would cost something like £26,000 for sixty-eight-and-a half years to provide interest and sinking fund on the additional stock which must be issued to enable purchase transactions to the extent of £5,000,000 to be paid for in this first year. If the money market remained as it was, next year there would be £26,000 more, and so on, year after year, until the whole of this Development Grant would absolutely disappear. Now what did he suggest? He suggested that the £50,000 a year for four years was ample at present, at any rate, to meet all possible losses. Out of this £50,000 for this year, let them take £26,000 to meet the discounts, and they would leave £24,000 for other losses. What were the other losses? Why, everyone knew that the other contingent losses that the Chief Secretary mentioned could not possibly eat up £24,000; and he did suggest and ask that the £50,000 voted for this year should be used, as far as it would go, to meet all the losses consequent upon the flotation of stock, and in 'his way £24,000 more of the Development Grant would be available this year for other purposes. He had a number of matters connected with the Estimates which he must briefly touch upon, and therefore he would leave this question of the £50,000, simply saying that he regarded it as a very great grievance indeed that the Treasury, in addition to taking this £50,000 a year to meet the losses in flotation should come down and say they wanted £26,000 more to meet the discounts consequent on the state of the money market.

Turning to the Estimates themselves, he found that in these statutory charges, amounting to £75,000, the first item was £1,000 for Bann drainage. He confessed that when he saw this first it occurred to him that it was a very poor joke at the expense of their friends opposite. If their good will were to be purchased at so small a price as this he fancied it could not be considered of very much value. He had the greatest possible sympathy with the case of the Bann drainage, and he would be delighted to see large drainage works set on foot; but this £1,000 was put in in this way. It was suggested by the Government that it would take £100,000 to carry out this work, and they were willing that £50,000 should be provided out of this fund, if the locality would provide £50,000 more. He did not know whether this were a likely contingency or not, but by way of an earnest of good will they put in this £,1000 this year. What he had to say about this Bann drainage applied to other items in the Estimates, and he wished to say at once that until something effective was done to remedy the glaring and disgraceful defects in primary education in Ireland, he should object to schemes of this kind being undertaken by this fund. The Bann drainage was a deserving object, the continuation of the present state of things there was a disgrace to the Government. If they had had a Government of their own in the last 100 years, no in the how poor and how small their resources might have been, everyone knew, and no one better than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that matters of this kind would not have been left as they were. Therefore, he was in complete sympathy with the Bann drainage, but he said that the money required for that ought to come from the Treasury, and should not be filched away from this little fund which was the equivalent for the Education Grant in England, and one half of which had already been collared by the Treasury for land purchase. He could not conceive, unless it was upon the ridiculous supposition that it would conciliate hon. Gentlemen opposite, why the Bann drainage was selected to be put in this Estimate. There were other drainage works in Ireland just as needful—the Barrow, the Suck, and the Shannon, and he did not know how many other cases equally meritorious. He rather fancied that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would support a scheme for the Barrow drainage, or the Suck drainage, just as much as he would support it for the Bann. Was the Bann put here for the purpose of trying to conciliate hon. Gentlemen with £1,000 and a vague promise in the future? He passed from the Bann drainage.

The next thing was a grand of £10,000 for the building fund of Marlborough Street Training College. Those Gentlemen who were Members for Irish constituences would have read, he had no doubt, a letter that appeared in the Irish newspapers yesterday or the day before from the Catholic Bishop of Limerick on this question of training colleges in Ireland. He desired to refer to that letter because, in his opinion, it made out a conclusive case for his view. The way the matter stood about the training colleges in Ireland was this. In 1890 there were four training colleges in the country. One of them was the undenominational college in Marlborough Street, Dublin, which had been built and equipped by the Government. In addition to that there were three denominational colleges, not all Catholic, which had been built by private funds, towards the support of which the Government were contributing nothing at all so far as building or upkeep were concerned. That was a state of inequality which caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, in 1890, applied himself to this question, he admitted the inequality, and made a declaration that, in his opinion, all these training colleges ought to be put on an equality, and ought to have what he called a free home. The result was what the Chief Secretary mentioned in answer to the Question of Lisbon, friend the Member for Kerry just now. The result was that the three denominational training colleges were put en a footing of equality with the undenominational one by the Board of National Education being obliged to give them every year a sum to cover the interest and sinking fund upon their building loan. A state of equality in that respect was established in these training colleges. The decision of 1890 was carried out, as they were told, fully in 1892. But the need for training colleges naturally and properly increased, and what happened? The Board of National Education, with the approval and sanction of the Treasury, agreed to sanction the building of three additional training colleges in the country. These training colleges, therefore, were not started by private individuals on their own responsibility. They were started with the sanction of the Board of National Education and the approval of the Treasury. They were build in Waterford, Limerick, and Belfast at enormous expense. He was very familiar with one of them, the De La Salle College in the city of Water-ford, and he did not suppose that in any part of the three Kingdoms there was a more magnificent pile of buildings, or a better equipped college than that built by the brethren of that community. After these colleges had been built, naturally they made a claim that something should be contributed towards the building fund in their case as in the case of others. How were they met? They were told "this was settled once and for all by the decision of 1890." It was stated by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, in answer to himself, who raised the subject year after year, that the question was settled in 1890 that building giants were only to go to the colleges then in existence, and that no further building grant whatever was to be made. He could quote declarations of successive Ministers to that effect: and yet they had here a proposal to put upon the Development Grant the sum of £50,000, the first instalment being £10,000, for the building of one of these colleges—the Marlborough Street Undenominational College. He submitted, therefore, that the question which was said to have been settled and decided in 1890 had been reopened. The decision to give no more building grants had been broken, and surely, if that were so, they were entitled to come and make a claim that some assistance should be given for these three additional denominational colleges. The sum that was necessary-was comparatively small in view of other expenditure. A sum of about £4,000 a year would provide, he thought, for interest and sinking fund on the buildings of these colleges. He did think that, for the sake of that comparatively small sum, it was wrong to keep alive in Ireland this rankling fee-ling of injustice and inequality. He knew that he would have no case whatever if these colleges had been built without the authority and sanction and approval of the education authority and the Treasury, and if he were not justified in saying that these colleges were necessary, and that they were doing most admirable work.

The other proposal with reference to training colleges which appeared on this Estimate was a sum of £5,000 for the three colleges he had been speaking of, but it was not in respect of building expenses. It was to enlarge their certificate so as to enable them to take in more Kind's scholars, and fill up the space at their disposal. That was a matter that he had repeatedly brought under the attention of successive Ministers also, and he was exceedingly glad that the claim at last was being met, but it was being met in an exceedingly shabby and mean way. This charge ought not to be on the Development Grant at all. It ought to be on the ordinary Estimates. It ought to be an increase of the Estimates for King's scholars. Why was it not put there? Why was everything that the Government felt it their duty to do in Ireland to be thrown on this little Development Fund Grant, whose primary object was to provide schools for poor children in Ireland? While he was glad that the certificate of these colleges was to be enlarged so that they could receive more scholars, he thought it was an exceedingly shabby and mean thing to insist on the small cost being thrown on that small fund, instead of being cast on the ordinary Estimates for that purpose.

Let him take the next item—the Tralee and Dingle Rail way, amounting to £20,000. He must repeat here what he said with reference to the drainage question. He objected upon principle to putting charges of this kind upon this fund when they were not spending a single farthing on the primary schools of Ireland for which this money was primarily voted. Apart altogether from the merits of this particular scheme, he objected to the allocation of this money. He would deal with the merits in a moment. Let him say in passing that he knew of several railway schemes, all of the most valuable character, which really ought to be undertaken and carried through in Ireland. There was the Ready and Armagh Railway which, if carried out, would, in his opinion, confer upon that part of Ireland at any rate a very great boon. He certainly thought that the Government ought to provide money for schemes of that kind, but whether the merits of the scheme were good, as in that case, or bad, as in one sense, at any rate he should show they were in the particular case chosen, he equally objected to their being thrown on this fund so long as the interests of national education were absolutely neglected and thrown on one side. Let him deal with the Tralee and Dingle Railway. He knew that there had been a grievance in this connection endured by certain persons in county Kerry. They had had a serious burden on them for this railway, which was almost derelict or of little value, and he had been in complete sympathy with his hon. friends the Members for Kerry in the efforts they had made to get this railway into the hands of some people who would be likely to work it at a profit, and in that way relieve the people of Kerry from the burden thrown on them. He repeated the expression of his sympathy again to-day. But the scheme of the Government, put forward now was a scheme which, in its essentials, was bad and dishonest, because, if he understood it aright, it was not a scheme for benefiting and relieving the ratepayers of Kerry so much as it was a scheme for benefiting and relieving the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. The scheme was, as he understood it, that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company were to be asked to buy this almost derelict railway. He heard a description of it the other day by a high authority who told him that in a strong wind the railway carriages were liable to be blown off the line. He hoped he was not libelling county Kerry. He was told that the railway was in a very bad condition. The proof of this was that the first part of the scheme was that if the Great Southern and Western Railway Company bought the railway, they were to receive from the Development Grant £20,000, or as much more as might be necessary, for the repair of the line; secondly, that the county council was to raise certain loans from the Board of Works; and thirdly—and this now was the real secret of the whole transaction— that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company were to perpetrate what he did not hesitate to call a swindle of public money and a gross violation of faith to this House in connection with the Rosslare and Fishguard line—a swindle which in 1901 they attempted to palm off in this House and which they succeeded in temporarily palming off on the Treasury, because the Secretary for the Treasury, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, told them he had agreed to the arrangement, and they succeeded in palming it off on the Chief Secretary, because the Financial Secretary told them that the Irish Office also approved of it. These were the conditions under which the Great Southern and Western Railway was willing to buy the Tralee and Dingle line, and from the fact that £20,000 was put upon this Estimate on the responsibility of the Government, he supposed he was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Government had agreed. What sort of a Government had they in Ireland?


I have an open mind.


said he could understand having an open mind, but what was the meaning of having an open mind and still putting £20,000 upon the Estimates? If the right hon. Gentleman had not agreed, what did he want the money for? The thing was absurd and ridiculous; the fact that they were making a proposal of £20,000 for this purpose was a clear indication that if a final decision had not been come to the Government had gone a long way to agreeing to the arrangement. By the Rosslare and Fishguard Railway Bill, passed after investigation by a Hybrid Committee of which he himself was A member, the Great Southern and Western Railway were bound by Act of Parliament to construct a line between Fermoy and Cork and also connect the South-west of Ireland by a bridge over the Lee. On these two conditions the Treasury and the Committee of the House of Commons agreed that the Great Southern and Western Railway should be given a sum of £93,000 which was due to the Treasury on a mortgage of one small line they had bought as part of the amalgamation. They failed to fulfil these conditions, and the Treasury, very properly, called up the money and it had to be paid. Then in 1901 they had the audacity to go to the Treasury and ask to have the money paid back to them if they built the bridge over the Lee at Cork, even though they abandoned the second condition; and they made the utterly dishonest pretext that these conditions were alternative. They were not alternative conditions. The money was to be paid only if both conditions were fulfilled. They, however, actually induced the Treasury and the Irish Government to agree to give them the money if they fulfilled this one condition, and it was not until the Irish Members raised the question by a very vigorous protest that the present Prime Minister, by listening impartially to the facts, said that this country would not be guilty of a violation of faith and that the agreement with the Treasury should not be completed. But hope sprang eternal in the breasts of railway directors. Apparently these gentlemen were quite determined to get their hands on the £93,000, and now under the pretext of the announcement of this ancient proposal of buying the Tralee and Dingle Railway, they were making another effort to carry out the same arrangement attempted in 1901, and defeated by this House. He was greatly surprised that the Chief Secretary had had anything whatever to do with the transaction. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the railway company made it a condition that the purchase of this line should be regarded as part of the Rosslare and Fishguard scheme, and that they should be allowed to give up the Fermoy and Cork line. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had had anything to do with this attempt to collar this money now. This £93,000 was originally given by the Treasury for the development of that part of Ireland where it was spent, and as far as it rested with him, at any rate, it would certainly not be allowed to be collared by this railway company and diverted from the purpose for which it was voted. There were many railway schemes, including the Dingle and Tralee one, which he would be glad to see carried out; but even if this scheme were in every sense a good and practicable one, he would protest against this charge being put upon the Development Grant, when it ought, in the ordinary course of events, to come from the Treasury on the Estimates.

He came now to his chief complaint against the Estimate; and it was that out of this money, an equivalent grant for an education grant in England, not one single farthing—unless they included what was going to be spent upon training colleges— was going to be spent on primary education in Ireland. It was quite true they agreed that this fund should be treated in a different way from equivalent grants in the past. They agreed on both sides of the House that some of the money might be spent upon other matters than education; but already more than half of it had been taken for land purchase, and certainly no one who agreed to that arrangement ever thought for one moment that none of the money, not a farthing, was to be spent on primary education. He thought that amongst Irish Members there would be probably absolute unanimity that the proposal to spend money on land purchase, Bann drainage, and God knew what, and yet not a farthing upon primary education, was not a proposal which should be accepted in any quarter of the House. Last year what really amounted to a promise was made by the Government, that one particular expenditure in connection with the national schools should be made. He did not know whether English Members were aware of the fact—it was familiar to Irish Members, of course—that in Ireland they could not get a second teacher in a school unless there was an average attendance of over sixty. In England he thought it was certainly not more than fifty. Mr. Dale, the Government inspector, who had just issued his report on the schools of Ireland, offered the opinion that the limit ought to be from forty to fifty; and Mr. Starkey, the Resident Commissioner of Education in Ireland, put the limit down as low as thirty-five. It must stand to reason that a school with an average of sixty pupils, which meant an attendance very often of between eight and ninety, could not be taught by a single man. Well, managers and teachers and people in Ireland put forward a very moderate demand that the limit should be reduced from sixty to fifty. His own opinion was that the limit; of fifty was too high, but this was the demand put forward, and as to it there was complete unanimity among all classes interested in education in Ireland. It would require an expenditure of £24,000 a year. Was it not a monstrous thing that when Parliament gave £185,000 a year to Ireland for education as an equivalent grant of £1,400,000 given in England for the same purpose, that the whole money should be spent upon discounts, land purchase, commission to brokers, drainage, dishonest railway schemes, and so forth, and that this modest sum of £24,000 required for this purpose should be refused? The right hon. Gentleman, as he had said, last year made what amounted to a practical promise that this should be done: and he wanted to know why it had been violated in this way? The right hon. Gentleman might say that there was a difficulty with the Treasury; but, after all, from the Treasury point of view they did not care on what the money was to be spent. No doubt the Treasury would like this money to be accumulated as a happy hunting ground on which they could make raids from time to time. They did not care whether it was spent in providing the necessary teachers in the schools of Ireland or for arty other purpose. He wanted to know why the promise of the Government had been schools of Ireland or for arty other purpose. He wanted to know why the promise of the Government had been violated in this way? He made a strong plea that a considerable portion of this money should be spent upon the necessary repairs, equipment, and heating of the schools in Ireland. They all listened to the debate the other night on the Education Act, and no one could help being moved by the picture drawn by the Prime Minister of the sufferings that would be inflicted on Welsh schools in certain: contingencies. The right hon. Gentleman said that if they would not put the Act into operation the children would suffer; they would not be able to get books, I the schools would not be put into j a state of repair, and that there would be I a shortage of fuel to keep the children warm. Why! this was a chronic state of things in a large number of the schools all through the poorer parts of Ireland.

He would read to the House a few words from the report of Mr. Dale. He said that as a result of his investigation he had no hesitation in reporting that, both in point of convenience for teaching and the requirements necessary for the health of the teachers and community the average school building in Dublin and Belfast was markedly inferior to the average school in English cities of equal size. Then, comparing the worst of the two countries as well as the best, he was forced to the conclusion that it was difficult to give in words any adequate conception of the buildings; in point of unsuitability and unhealthiness they far exceeded any premises it had been his lot to visit in England. What did he say with reference to the country schools? He said they were generally dirty, small repairs were neglected, and the out offices were rarely clean and at times indescribably filthy; out of 100 schools he had inspected in England he had never seen any kept with such utter disregard of care and decency as in Ireland. This neglect, he said, prevented these primary schools accomplishing their main object in training children in habits of cleanliness and order. He himself might pause to say in this connection that there was no fund for repair, upkeep, and heating of these schools; it had to be done by the teacher out of his own miserable pittance. Mr. Dale further said that the complaint of inspectors as to the complete inadequacy of the heating of the schools was only too well founded. Fuel was provided in turn by the pupils with occasional help from the teacher, manager, or parents; and the supply was not often obtained sufficiently early in the morning, or it ran short at times when it was most needed. The inspector went on to point out that in the country as in the towns there existed schools which fell far short of the standard attained even by the worst schools in the rural districts of England or Scotland. Then take the question of equipment. The children in Irish schools had to purchase their own schools books. He had seen it suggested that this was a very good thing, because when the child went home he could spend his leisure in study. But when they considered the poverty of Ireland he thought it was nothing short of a scandal that little children had to provide their own books. With reference to equipment, he was speaking the other evening to the teacher of a school in an important district, who said that the maps in his school were over twenty years old and were falling to pieces and that he could not afford to buy new maps. The floor was broken, and he had no money to put new flooring down, so that he had actually himself to engage in laying down pieces of soap boxes and tea boxes and things of that sort here and there over the holes to prevent the little children from falling through. If the windows were broken there was no possibility of getting money to mend them. Mr. Dale reported that the cost of maps fell upon the teachers, and that apart from the supply of absolute necessaries of reading, writing, and geography, the equipment of the ordinary national school was most meagre and that the average school was really below the poorest of voluntary schools in this country. He reported that there was no proper provision for equipment, and wound up by saying that the deficiencies commented upon were due in most of the districts to want of funds. That report was only issued a few days ago; it was made by a special inspector sent over to examine the country schools. In the face of that report was it not something little short of criminal that this money was to be squandered? He would substitute for the word "squandered" the word "spent" upon schemes of railway development and so on. Railway extension and facilities of transit no doubt were necessary to the future of Ireland, but over and above all things the greatest necessity was the provision of clean, healthy, and decent schools for the young children of Ireland.

This report, from beginning to end, was a wholesale condemnation of the present system of primary education in Ireland. Possibly that would be the answer he would get. Possibly the Government would say, "Yes, the system is so bad that it must be revolutionised." That was his own view, but the Government would doubtless add, "Therefore we must not spend any of this money at present on education and we must give it to railways and so on. "He had two objections to that argument. If the money was not spent on education it would either go to schemes, many of which would be faulty, or else it would probably be collared by the Treasury. The most powerful answer to that argument was this—when would this necessary reform of primary education be carried out? For thirty, years the Irish Party had been claiming in that House that the system was rotten and bad and should go; for thirty years Irish public opinion had held that view. Archbishop Walsh did his best. He went on to the Board of National Education and endeavoured to effect some reform. His attempt failed, and he left the Board in disgust. Public opinion was now unanimous against the present system of primary education, yet they were not to spend money on giving fair play to little children or on maps and books or on providing decent floors and clean out-offices for the schools—they were not to do that until some English Government had the time or the inclination to introduce a new scheme and revolutionise primary education in Ireland. Yes, they had similar treatment over the University question. The right hon. Gentleman's answer on that subject was that he ought not to introduce a Bill to give them a University until there was practical unanimity on the subject in Ireland, knowing, of course, that upon that question there would never be unanimity, and that nothing would therefore be done. That answer would be made on the present occasion. It would be mocking the poor children and their wants to say that money could not be spent for that purpose until they had come to a conclusion to radically reform the system. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question put by him and in several of his speeches list year, promised to consult Irish opinion as to the allocation of this fund. He did not know what the right hon. Gentlemen meant by consulting opinion in Ireland. He should like to know how many resolutions the right hon. Gentleman had read from public bodies in Ireland, from the North, East, South, and West, of all creeds and parties, demanding that some of the money should be spent at once upon these schools. The answer would be instructive, because the right hon. Gentleman must have received them by the hundred from every part of the country Had he received a single resolution from any representative public body in Ireland saying that he should spend the money on other schemes to the exclusion of primary education. The right hon. Gentleman asked him for his opinion and he gave it, objecting to the Tralee Railway expenditure and urging him to put on £24,000 for the increase in the number of teachers. But the right hon. Gentleman had left the Tralee Railway expenditure on and the education money off. That was the way the right hon. Gentleman consulted public opinion in Ireland. Last year the original proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was no need to consult anybody, because the fund was not to be on the Estimates at all, but was simply to be voted to the Irish Government. After discussion, however, it became necessary to bring the matter before Parliament, and now even though the money was on the Estimates, it did not appear that Irish opinion would have any influence at all. By public speech in this House, by private representation, by the declaration of every public body in Ireland, one course had been pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman, and yet he had taken the exactly opposite course. In these cases consultation on these matters were useless and some, indeed, might be said to be humiliating.

Finally he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give them some general statement as to his views respecting the future of this fund. What did he intend to do with it? Did he intend to pay other sums into this fund? What was he going to do with the savings in the administration of Ireland? He had never told them what those savings amounted to. During the discussion on the Land Bill he said he would make a saving of £250,000 which would go towards meeting the charge on the bonus, although the charges on the bonus would not reach £250,000 for many years to come. What was he going to do with those savings? Was he going to put them into this fund? So far as the savings to the extent of £250,000 were concerned, he was pledged to provide that amount whenever it was necessary. That did not mean that because he promised £250,000 towards the bonus he would have to pay the £250,000 to-day. If so, he would have to provide for the bonus twice over before he was done with it.


One of the elements in the arrangement was that the £250,000 of savings would accrue at an earlier date than the charges in respect to the bonuses, which would ultimately amount to £390,000.


said that was the case, but the £390,000 was the total amount of the chargeability to the bonus which, in the end, when it was all paid, would fall upon the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman had already made about £250,000 savings.


I undertook to institute economies in the case of the Irish Government which would reach £250,000. With the savings effected in the course of five years the charge for the bonus was to be set off. The accrued charge for the settlement of the bonus will ultimately amount to £390,000.


said his point was that if, as he believed, the right hon. Gentleman had made savings amounting to £250,000, and he commenced to pay the £250,000 now, in the long run he would have paid a great deal more than the charges on the whole bonus. The right hon. Gentleman was ambitious about these economies in his speeches on the Land Bill. He said that they would amount to a larger sum than £250,000, and spoke of £400,000 or £500,000. What was he going to do with the balance? Was the balance to go into the Treasury, like other balances that happened to accrue in Ireland which were collared by the Treasury? He wanted to know about the unexpended balances under the Labourers Acts. There was £50,000 in the hands of the counties now. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to rob the labourers of the counties? Was he going to make that sum a present to the Treasury? These were matters of vital importance to Ireland, and he had gone into them at some length and with some elaboration, because it was the first opportunity they had had of dealing with the Development Fund. He thought everyone interested in Ireland would see the vast importance of seeking some explanation as to the real position of the facts and as to what the policy of the Government really was. He ended, as he begun, by protesting with all the vehemence at his command against this money going to the Treasury on the one hand for the Land Act charges, and to railways and other objects on the other hand, while the poor little children of Ireland were being left poor, miserable, and neglected.


said he cordially agreed with all that had been said by his hon. and learned friend. He cordially agreed with the view expressed that the Irish Development Grant should not be mortgaged to the operation of the Irish Land Purchase Act, and also that the first charge on the Development Grant ought to be a charge in favour of primary education. This was the first time this Vote had ever come before the House, and that being so it was only right that opportunity should be taken for discussing it on the Estimate. The Estimate seemed to be drawn up in a very loose and haphazard way. If the proposals put before the House to-day were part of a general well reasoned and well thought out scheme for the development of the country he would not have a word to say about them, but under the proposals submitted it appeared to him certain districts of the country had been selected for favoured treatment and other districts left out in the cold. With regard to the drainage of the Bann, no doubt the people living in that district deserved assistance from the Government just as much as the people of any other district, but why was this district selected especially and other parts of Ireland which required to be drained just as much left out? The people of Enniscorthy desired to have that place made a seaport and had as much right to have it done at the public expense as other people to have their district drained. With regard to the Tralee and Dingle Railway the same remark applied; he had no objection to them receiving the £20,000 which was put down, but he thought that amount ought to come from another source than the Development Grant. That railway had had its very fair share of attention, and he did not see why on the first occasion that this Vote was brought before the House, this railway should be selected for special treatment. If it were a question of putting £20,000 into this railway the money should come from the Irish Board of Works, for the reason that the railway was one of their creation and construction, and was handed over by them to the county of Kerry, with a guarantee that it was in a fit and proper condition for the objects for which it was destined, and the blame for the inefficiency of the railway was due to the Irish Board of Works alone. Hon. Members from Ireland would watch this question with a great deal of care, and would oppose every attempt on the part of the Government or the Great Southern and Western Railway to break the pledge given to the country when the amalgamation was entered into, which placed the whole of the railway system of Southern Ireland in the hands of that company. With regard to the £93,000 which the Great Southern and Western Company were allowed then to keep, that was for a line for the development of the county of Waterford and the surrounding districts, and hon. Members from Ireland would see that that intention was carried out. The toll bridge in the county of Waterford should be freed with part of that money. The ratepayers of these counties had an interest in the matter, and they would see to it that if it was proposed to divert this £93,000, it did not go into the coffers of the Great Western and Southern Railway.

He did not intend to go into the question of technical education on the present occasion; the views of Nationalist Members on the subject were well-known to the Government, but there was one point to which he desired to call attention. Some time ago the Chief Secretary proposed to give Ireland a sum of £7,000 for technical education, and a few nights ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised: o give £3,500. In the Vote under discussion there was an item of £3,500. Was that the money promised by the Financial Secretary or was it a portion of the amount promised by the Chief Secretary, or was it a separate sum altogether? In any case it would not affect his strong objection to this Development Grant being charged with any money for Irish technical instruction in view of the fact that money already due to Ireland had never yet been paid out of the Treasury or any explanation given in regard thereto. It had been recently stated that from 1890 to 1897 the average amount given to Ireland for technical instruction purposes was about £3,000. He objected to the statement at once, but the point had not been cleared up. According to the Returns of the Science and Art Department from 1890 to 1897 a total amount of £108,174 was voted for technical instruction in Ireland, whereas the amount spent was only £49,545. He was entitled to ask what had become of the difference of £58,629 between the amount voted and the amount spent. Was it still available for the purposes for which it was voted, and, if so, how soon would it be allocated to those specific purposes? A further point on which information was required was the effect of the Act of 1902 upon Ireland's claims under the Act of 1889. With regard to future transactions under the Development Grant, every Irish Member would naturally look at the matter from the point of view of the interests of his constituents, but there were probably some matters to which all would agree that some of the money should be devoted. Those matters of agreement could be found only by discussing the question in Parliament. With that object in view he would ask the Government to consider whether something could not be done to develop the fishing and boat-building industries outside the congested districts. It was always much easier to keep in existence established industries than to start new ones, and the industries to which he had referred stood in danger of extinction. Facilities were also required on the South and South-east Coast for the construction of piers and harbours. If Members were generally agreed, he would suggest that the Chief Secretary should consider whether a portion of the Development Grant might not be devoted to these purposes. He begged to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out '£21,500,000,' and insert '£21,490,900.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)

Question proposed, "That '£21,500,000' stand part of the Resolution."


said he had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and agreed with almost all he had said. This Development Grant appeared to be very similar to the Church Surplus Fund, which had always been a sort of much cow, from which anybody who wanted money for any purpose could easily obtain it. For seventeen or eighteen years he had done his best to induce successive Governments to take up the question of the Bann drainage. When the right hon. Gentleman took office, he believed—and he still held that belief—that they had a Chief Secretary who really desired to further the progress and prosperity of Ireland, but he would rather that that purpose was carried out at the expense of the Treasury than at the expense of the Development Grant. The Bann drainage presented a state of affairs which he did not believe could exist in any civilised country other than Ireland. It was not on all fours with other drainage questions in Ireland. He did not think there was any drainage area in the same position as that drained by the Bann which had suffered under so much absolute injustice. He would give a short history of the Bann drainage. In the year 1844, before he entered the House of Commons, the occupiers and owners in that area suffered from periodical flooding of the Bann, and they petitioned the Board of Works and lodged £1,000 for preliminary expenses, and the Board of Works consented to undertake the drainage. They sent down their engineer to get out a plan for the drainage of that area, and he did so, and after considerable time and a most elaborate examination of all the details, a scheme was produced. The Estimate was that it would take three years to carry out this plan and that it would cost £109,000. Upon those terms for drainage alone the owners and occupiers of the flooded lands consented to enter into the scheme, and what happened? The Board of Works in Ireland adopted their own method of carrying out this drainage scheme. Instead of engaging contractors bound to finish the work in a certain time they proceeded to do it themselves with their own engineers and surveyors, and engaged labour by the week, which was an extremely expensive method. The result was that I it was nobody's interest that this work should be concluded at any stated time, and the House would scarcely believe that instead of three years it took twelve years to complete. [An HON. MEMBER: That is Dublin Castle government.] At any rate that is the way it was done and it cost £162,000 instead of £109,000. Whose fault was that? Was it the fault of the owners or occupiers? They could not influence the Board of Works in carrying out their own system. To add to this misfortune the famine came which caused so much evil, and the Board of Works very rightly used those drainage works to give employment to the starving population. What they contended was that the extra expense involved in employing these labourers ought not to I have fallen upon the occupiers but upon the Government who used those works to assist the distressed. All these extra expenses were piled up upon the unfortunate owners and occupiers. Time went by and other drainage was carried out all over the country, with the result that lands which were never flooded before in this area became flooded. These unfortunate tenants and occupiers near the Bann and Lough Neagh had paid in cash from the time those works were started £166,000. He thought that I was a very large sum in order to prevent the inhabitants being drowned. He had heard of passive resisters in this country, but he thought this case showed how extremely patient the people of Ireland were. During the last fifty years these unfortunate people had gone on paying drainage rates, and they had seen, year after year, their farms under water and their houses invaded by the flood. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland had come down and visited the flooded districts and seen the houses with six inches and one foot of water in the kitchens and the bedrooms, he might have been influenced so much that he would have done something more generous than this "magnificent" proposal. No doubt his right hon. friend would say that he would do more but for that terrible person the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would remind the Chief Secretary that yesterday the Treasury was enriched by £100, which was another injustice to Ireland, not inflicted this time by a Saxon, but by an Irishman. There was a very easy way of showing hospitality. If he wished to establish a reputation for hospitality, and he went out into the streets and met some poor man and said, "My friend, I will give you a dinner of the best kind if you will only pay half," he did not think that would be a very satisfactory dinner to a poor man, and yet that was the kind of proposal made by his right hon. friend to those tenants and occupiers who had boon ruined and partially drowned. The men survived, but their crops did not survive, and they had been ruined by these floods. After all this injustice under which they had suffered and the tremendous burden which the Board of Works and their mistaken scheme had inflicted upon them, the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to give to these drowned-out tenantry £50,000 if they would find another £50,000. The Government were prepared to give £20,000 to the I Great Southern and Western Railway, but they would give nothing to the North j of Ireland without asking for a quid pro quo. [An HON. MEMBER: They ask for a quid pro quid. Did his right hon. friend imagine for a single moment that; a solution of this pressing problem would be attained by this proposal. Could any body possibly conceive that these occupiers would consent to go on seeing their farms flooded year after year and paying drainage rates when they had already paid £166,000. Did the Chief Secretary imagine they would be content to pay £50,000 more in addition to what they had already paid I He called it a farce, and he hoped his right hon. friend would be able to give some satisfactory explanation and hold out some hope of a better proposal. They wanted a bonâ fide offer to the suffering population in the North of Ireland and not a delusion. He had no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him in this for they were all ready to support anything which was for the good of Irishmen. He hoped the Chief Secretary would in his reply enable him to go to the North of Ireland and say the Government did not really mean to make a joke of them. If he interpreted rightly the Estimate before the House, the people in the North of Ireland would say they had been treated with absolute levity.

Referring to the technical buildings attached to the Queen's College, Belfast, the hon. and gallant Member said that ten or eleven years ago £8,000 were voted by the House for the erection of these buildings. About £4,000 were spent in digging the foundations, and after the walls were partially built nothing more was done. There the walls stood staring at the people of Belfast. He did not know what happened to the remainder of the money. He should like to know why the process of erecting those buildings had been suspended. A private offer had been made of £10,000 for the purpose of equipping them if the Government would finish them. IIe saw no mention in the Estimates of a sum for this purpose, and he thought it would have been much better employment of the Development Grant if the Government had proceeded with the erection of these buildings instead of giving the money proposed to the Great Southern and Western Railways Company. A large sum, amounting to £108,000, was to be devoted to the erection of a College of Science in Dublin. He did not grudge that expenditure. The people of Ulster were always delighted to see money spent in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: Our own money.] Partly Irish money, no doubt. While they were going to spend this money in Dublin, why did not the Government do something for Belfast, which, although not the capital of Ireland, was the capital of industrial Ireland, the largest city in Ireland, and the city which, to his mind, had redeemed the character of the Irish people.


Loud cheers from Sloan.


The Irish people had been accused broadcast of being incapable of taking their place beside the other great progressive nations of the world, and especially beside their great predominant partner. In Belfast they had shown they could do that. Why was it? He did not say that the intellects of Ulster men were keener or brighter than those of the Southerner. Certainly not. There was no brighter man, no man more capable of advancing along the line of progress and knowledge, than the Irish Celt in Ireland. But the difference arose through placing Irishmen under different conditions and in a different environment. In part of Ulster they had perfect freedom of thought, and therefore they had no bar to their progress. That was a condition of affairs not to be found in other parts of Ireland, and it would be the duty of the Nationalists, who said they loved Ireland, and he believed they did, to take away from their path whatever shadow rested upon it and which had hitherto prevented them, with all their natural ability and opportunities and living in a far more fertile portion of the country, from advancing as quickly and as far as the people in the North along the line of progress and prosperity.

MR. EDWARD BARRY (Cork County, S.)

said he wished to refer to the matter of the Tralee and Dingle Railway. He was the representative of a seaboard constituency in which there was a thriving fishing industry. The establishment of that industry was largely due to the generous and philanthropic aid of an English lady. Owing to the want of transit facilities from the South of Ireland to England, and the failure of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to carry out their promise to erect a bridge over the river Lee, the fishing community were placed at a great-disadvantage in the way of getting fresh fish conveyed to the market. If there was a bridge over the Lee transit would be greatly facilitated. At present the boxes had to be carted from the Bandon terminus to another station, and that wasted a great deal of time. In the South of Ireland in the last two years, and particularly in his own constituency, some experiments had been made in the growing of early potatoes, and this industry also was placed at a disadvantage for the same reasons. The experiments had so far been very satisfactory. While money might be expended to advantage in improving the transit facilities there and in other parts of Ireland, he sympathised too much with the condition of the primary schools to wish that this £20,000 should be practically given to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. He urged that in the interest of the industries he had mentioned a bridge over the Lee should be provided in order that transit to the market might be facilitated. At the same time he was most anxious that this money should be devoted to improving the school accommodation and equipping the schools with proper apparatus. If they were to teach the young idea how to shoot they must provide a congenial atmosphere, and he hoped that some money would in future be spent in meeting the needs of the schools in the South of Ireland. It had always appeared to him that it must have a most demoralising effect not to provide sufficient accommodation forthe children. He was not claiming that this £20,000 should be spent in building the bridge over the Lee, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would bear in mind that the directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company should carry out the obligation imposed upon them, and remove the grievance complained of in the South of Ireland.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said he hoped he might be permitted to intervene in the debate for a few moments in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to the cause of education in Ireland. He remembered the time when elementary education in Ireland was thought superior to that of England and that they in England might learn a lesson from Ireland. No doubt since those days very great progress had been made in England, and the schools here were now very much better; but corresponding progress had not been made in Ireland. He hoped, indeed, that it had not gone back. There were many things which, to his own knowledge, required improvement; and there was nothing more urgently required than a comprehensive scheme of Irish education. And when the Government brought in such a scheme it would be warmly supported from that side of the House for two reasons. First, because they had received very great support from the Irish Party in passing the English Education Bill the session before last; and gratitude would induce them to cordially help the Irish Members to obtain a better system of education for Ireland. Second, because he regarded the education of the Irish people not as an Irish question at all; it was an Imperial question. It was the interest, therefore, of every Member of the United Kingdom to see that the Irish people were well educated, and that they should enjoy the same educational advantages as the people of England and Scotland. The system adopted in England and Scotland of entrusting the obligation of providing education for the children to the local authorities would, he hoped, be extended to Ireland. That would be a part of self-government in Ireland which everybody would be only too glad to bestow on the Irish people; and he hoped that the Government would soon introduce a measure of that kind.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

said he was sure Irish Members on that side of the House had heard the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University with great satisfaction. It was only right to say that that was not the first occasion in the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary career in which he had intervened in the discussions in this House in the interests of Ireland. He thought that Ireland might congratulate itself on the fact that the Development Grant had been ear-marked to the extent that this money was not to be wastefully spent for the purposes of corruption, instead of for purposes useful to the whole country. But the present mode of disposal of the money had this disadvantage, that English Members might come down to the House, year after year, and imagine that additional grants of new money were being made to Ireland, and might be horrified and shocked that these increased grants were being made to Ireland in the Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to take some means, either by an instruction or by some statement on the Estimates, to safeguard the Irish public and the English representatives in this House against misapprehension in this regard; that this was money; not voted for the first time, that it was a grant made in 1903, and was being disposed of as years went by. The present Estimate was exceptional; there was no precedent for it. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking on the Estimates before the House, made some observations which he did not comprehend, as to his responsibility for the item of £20,000 for the Dingle and Tralee Railway.


said he would deal with that matter in his reply.


said there ought to be no doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was responsible or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in England was the right hon. Gentleman's master on this question, and the right hon. Gentleman looked at it, not from the point of view of Ireland, but from that of the Imperial Exchequer. If that were the case the interests of Ireland were greatly in danger. In connection with this matter he wanted to know why it was that so much money should be saved up and carried forward when there were so many needs in Ireland. He was suspicious of every transaction in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of England had to do with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, in his speech, with which most Irish Members on that side of the House agreed, referred to the use which had been made of the Irish Church Surplus Fund. Perhaps few hon. Members of the House had a recollection of the real moral to be derived from the distribution of that fund. £30,000 a year was to come to Ireland from chat fund, and there was the Maynooth Grant which was revised at the time of the disestablishment of the Irish Church. Now these two grants were actually charged on Irish funds and the Treasury was relieved to that amount. He confessed he thought it was quite possible that Ireland was going to be treated in a similar manner in regard to this grant. If not, why was £118,000 to be hung up this year? What was it for? His own opinion was that the Treasury had forced the right hon. Gentleman not to allocate that amount, in order that they might be able to lay hands on it for Government demands which ought properly to be provided by fresh Votes; and it was hoped that the process would, from the very fact that it went on from year to year, become so familiar that the House and even the Irish Members would not remark upon it, and that Ireland might be safely cheated. If he could help it, he certainly would not allow the matter to be forgotten. They all recognised that this money was for all Ireland, not only for the South West and East of Ireland, but for the North also; and he thought they ought to insist on a full allocation of this money every year. They ought to insist on an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he intended to do with the £118,000. Money had already been drawn out of the fund and paid to somebody. It was provided by the Act of last year that two-thirds of the Development Grant should only be paid for the financial year 1903–4; but it appeared from the Estimate that out of that two-thirds, £48,000 had been already appropriated. There was no explanation as to what had been done with it. Surely that was an omission which ought to be supplied before the debate closed.

Needless to say, when his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford spoke, he spoke for the whole Irish Party. It was his own personal opinion that the most universally urgent of all the demands from Ireland was the improvement of the primary schools. No one would deny that. The matter of drainage was of great importance. In fact, there were hundreds of objects on which every penny of this money might be usefully spent ten times over. But, after all, the matter on which there was the greatest agreement and the least objection was that a generous amount of this money should, for the next two or three years, be spent on the improvement of the primary schools; and he was glad to think that the opinion expressed by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford was shared by every Irish Member in the House. If that were the opinion of the entire Irish representation, what moral right had the right hon. Gentleman to refuse that demand? What right had he, an Englishman, to dictate in a matter of this kind? The House of Commons had voted the money to Ireland; and the only question now was how it was to be distributed. The Irish Members of all shades of opinion had expressed the view that the money should be spent in a particular way, and what right had a stranger who governed the country against the will of four-fifths of its inhabitants to gainsay them? The right hon. Gentleman was not free from obligations on this matter. Last year he was asked if the question of primary education would receive consideration as well as other questions, and he replied in one emphatic word, "Certainly." [Mr. WYNDHAM: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman accepted that statement. Then he would ask the right hon. Gentleman who framed the Estimates, who did he consult as to the £20,000 for the Great Southern and Western Railway and for the other items? Last year, also, the right hon. Gentleman spoke with satisfaction of the fact that local councils were now in existence; and he said that he would be better able to deal with this matter in accordance with Irish views than if these bodies were not in existence. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask a single county council for its opinion as to any of these items? He did not. Yet those bodies were the creation of a Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman, during the last few days, gave a proof that they could be trusted to deal with the administration of the Labourers Acts; yet they were not to be consulted on the spending of this money, in which every one of them was deeply interested. Of course, the last persons the right hon. Gentleman would consult were the representatives of the Irish people. They were pariahs and outlaws. They might be good enough to put into gaol, but not for purposes of consultation with reference to the expenditure of public funds. The right hon. Gentleman placed the Estimate on the Paper without consulting a single representative of the people of Ireland. That was a bad sign as regarded the future.

His hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford sympathised with the demand for the drainage of Bann. They all did. But he wished it to be known that the question of the Bann drainage was not in a different position from the drainage of the Suck, Barrow, or Shannon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh complained that works had been instituted and left half finished for the drainage of the Bann. That was the case in connection with the drainage of the Shannon, Suck, and Barrow. The whole item really suggested to him that it was a mere piece of deception on the part of some humourist of the Treasury. A sum of £50,000 was to be voted for the Bann at the rate of £1,000 a year. Therefore, the work of drainage would extend over the period of the average life of an Ulster-man. In 1889 the right hon. Gentleman was formally or informally connected with the Irish Government. He was then acting as the writer of very able letters for the Prime Minister, who was then Chief Secretary, letters which possessed a great deal of literary ability but very little wisdom. At that period the Prime Minister dealt with the question of drainage, and brought in four separate Bills which he asked the House to treat as one scheme. That showed how many complicated questions were involved. One matter was whether there was to be local control or not, and another was whether the landlords or the tenants should pay for the improvement. If no provision were made for the repayment of these loans, the result would be that the landlords would derive the whole benefit in the increased value of their land. What did the light hon. Gentleman mean by putting this £1,000 on the Estimates this year before he had brought in a measure to deal with all these questions as they occurred? Was it intended that there should be no Bill, and that this £1,000 was to be handed over to the Board of Works to do what they liked with. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to revert to the old system that Parliament itself had condemned, or adopt the new principle which recognised the right of those who had to provide the money having some voice in the expenditure of it? He was concerned that this £1,000 was a political bribe, and if the Ulster Members consented to it they deserved to be sold into slavery. It was a piece of political corruption which ought to be inquired into, and he was glad that the hon. Members from Ireland had induced the Government to allow them to discuss this matter as it was being discussed at the present moment. This Vote would be discussed every year, and those who followed him in the debate to-night would make it plain to the right hon. Gentleman that the most humiliating thing which Irish Members had to endure under the Union was the necessity of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman or any British Administration with regard to the disposal of Irish money.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

expressed his pleasure at the presence of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who had rendered stalwart assistance to the Irish Members last year when they were endeavouring to get this Vote placed upon the Estimates. He agreed substantially with the general criticism of the hon. Member for Waterford, and, although he did not profess to represent all the Ulster Members, he thought he might say that that was the opinion of every Member on that side of the House. The first question he wished to deal with was that of the drainage of the Bann. He was interested in that question for more than one reason. The first Committee on which he sat in that House, in the year 1887, was one set up as part of the Unionist policy of the day, namely, the Committee on the Arterial Drainage of Ireland, and they inquired then very elaborately and with great minuteness into the whole question debated in the House to-day. He had no hesitation in giving his opinion now as to the reason why those labours came to nothing. The real truth was that it was the question of the rate upon catchment area which wrecked the whole proposal. The Chief Secretary had placed an Estimate of £1,000 on that Vote for the purpose of the Bann drainage. He wanted to ask him if he had made any arrangements with the local authority within the catchment area for the contribution of that; £50,000 of which he spoke. Was he quite certain that they would fall in with this scheme of £100,000, of which they would have to pay £50,000? The next question he had to ask was, what was to be done with that £1,000?. He thought he knew. Were they to have another engineering report? That would just be like the Board of Works all over. He could understand the Board of Works suggesting that their knowledge of the question was not quite ample enough, and it would be better to send down a couple of engineers to report on the whole question, and for that £1,000 would be of use. He hoped the Chief Secretary would tell them, and they should see what the answer was before voting. £1,000 was a sum which in itself was of no use and he had no belief and no faith in those drainage estimates. Hon. Members who had sat in the House twenty years would remember the drainage scheme for Lough Erne. An estimate was given by the engineer. That estimate was doubled, and then they had to comeback again for more money, and the result was that both landlord and tenant around Lough Erne had been saddled with a drainage charge which militated seriously against the purchase and sale of land at this moment. He wanted to ask the specific question whether the authority in the catchment area affected by the drainage scheme would contribute their share of the amount? If they would not, there was no use in spending even £1,000.

The second Question he wished to refer to was the matter of the treatment of the training colleges. He was not quite certain that he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford's diagnosis of that part of the scheme. He was not sure that in 1890 absolute equality was agreed to between the denominational training colleges and the Government training college. There was no doubt that the denominational colleges received very liberal treatment—not more liberal than they deserved—although he opposed it at the time—one lived and learned, bat this Vote was rendered necessary by common decency. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford that the question being reopened in that way from sheer necessity, the whole question was open and not that part of it alone which concerned the housing of the King's scholars in Marlborough Street College. And what he had said in the House and to the Chief Secretary was this, that the question of principle having been established and settled, namely, that those colleges ought to be a charge on the nation and that they ought not to be left to private enterprise, he had no other interest in it save that the equipment of those colleges should be adequate for the great work that they had to do. Therefore, he made no objection to grants to those colleges in Limerick, in Waterford, or in Belfast. He thought they ought to be supported. He had claimed for the undenominational college in Marlborough St. proper and adequate treatment, and he thought that treatment ought to be extended to ill colleges honestly carrying on their work. He understood that the site would cost £15,000, and of course the site would have to be secured before the building could be started. Therefore, as only £10,000 appeared in the Estimate, unless the landlord was to be paid by instalments, the money now asked for would not even secure the site, still less commence the building.

On the question of railways he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in principle. He knew nothing personally about the Tralee and Dingle Railway, but the impression produced on his mind by what he had heard was that it was one of those numerous railway "jobs" which were from time to time perpetrated. By placing this railway grant on the fund, the Chief Secretary at once aroused a desire for similar treatment in other parts of the country. He did not think these railway matters ought to be put on the Development Grant at all, but, if they were to be, he would state what was the desire of his constituents. Two sessions ago a Bill was passed authorising the construction of the Newry and Tynan Railway. His constituents were deeply interested in the matter, because it would make a connection between the Clogher Valley Light Railway and a seaport. The Clogher Valley Railway was run at a cost of a shilling rate to the ratepayers of Tyrone. This new line would give them about 68 miles of railway, one staff would work the whole system, the same rolling stock would suffice, a great saving of expense would be effected, and, inasmuch as they were guaranteeing a considerable sum on the Clogher line, the Treasury would reap considerable advantage from its increased prosperity. The Great Northern Railway Company were opposed to the line, and the difficulty of his constituents was that they could not get through rates between any station on the Clogher line and England. The whole cost of the new line was estimated at £225,000, of which the locality offered to raise £150,000. The modest demand of his constituents was that, if railways were to come on this grant, the balance of £75,000 spread over three or five years was not too much to ask for a line of railway which would develop a part of the country greatly requiring development, and materially enhance the value of the railway already in operation. The Development Grant was in many respects a good idea, but it had the great disadvantage that it enabled the Treasury to avoid legitimate burdens on the Exchequer by pushing them on to this fund. Year by year they would find that being done. All through Irish history the Treasury had been a hard stepmother, doing nothing generously, and the real objection to the idea of the fund was that it just enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "We cannot afford this or that; take it out of the Development Grant." He hoped the Chief Secretary would resist that tendency on the part of the Treasury, and the present debate would assist him in so doing. With regard to primary education and its needs, he agreed with all that had been said. Mr. Dale's report, over which he had glanced, was wholly against the sanitary condition of the schools, their equipment and everything else. Surely if that report had to be considered, the right hon. Gentleman could do something in the interim. Could lie not at once allocate a portion of this fund to the removal of the defects revealed in that report, so that the sanitary condition might be improved and the teachers relieved from the burden of providing practically the whole of the equipment of the schools? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say he was prepared to do that, for by so doing he would remove many of the difficulties which had beset Members in the discussion of the matter.


said that although many hon. Members wished to take part in this debate, he thought the time had come when he ought to reply. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his right hon. friend and all who had taken part in this debate had necessarily gone at length and with considerable detail into a great many separate subjects not simple in themselves and indirectly raising a number of financial questions of complexity and importance; therefore he should have to ask the House to bear with him if his reply was somewhat lengthy in character and if he had to advance certain views on finance which he gathered would not, in every case, be readily accepted by hon. Members who sat for Irish constituencies. He would like to make three general observations. If they took the forthcoming financial year 1904–5, it must be acknowledged, he thought, that were this grant not in existence the probability of the Treasury expending large sums of money in Ireland upon public works was extremely remote, so remote that they might legitimately leave it out of account. The second general observation was that in England and Scotland, if money was voted for education or other purposes and not expended, the unexpended balance returned to the Treasury. As the hon. Member for Waterford had acknowledged, by this plan of the Development Grant that was avoided and thus a benefit special to Ireland was given. There was one other general observation. It was this, that in England and in Scotland education was supported out of the rates, but that was not the case in Ireland. Therefore, although it was perfectly true that the condition of the Irish schools was not one which they could contemplate with satisfaction, it was also true there was no local assistance towards remedying their present condition. Therefore there was a need of scrutinising carefully any proposals for spending money upon this or that need in respect of education until, perhaps, a somewhat fuller consideration had been given to the whole matter. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford said this Estimate stood on a different footing from any other Estimate with which they had to deal. That was true. It was so true that he had presented the Estimate in a form which was unusual, and which would be indefensible if it was in the least like any other Estimate. But it was not. He had deliberately presented this Estimate as a skeleton Estimate—that was to say, it left a large unexpended balance under this Development Grant. He had presented it not only as a skeleton Estimate, but as a tentative Estimate; that was to say, it would be subject to variation in the light of the discussion of that afternoon. Everybody agreed that it was very necessary to have a preliminary discussion. Some might say that, had he given more arduous attention to his duties since the last session, he could have collected all the opinions which might legitimately have been advanced. He might express regret for not having done so, but he offered no apology. He thought any one who had listened to the discussion that afternoon would feel that except for a discussion in which all who were interested could take part, it would be beyond the power of any man to collect the general sense of the Irish people. It should be borne in mind that this Development Grant was intimately connected with the finances of the Land Act, and that he had to devote the bulk of his time to the administration of that Act and to thinking out the financial provisions of that great measure. Therefore anything put into this grant ought in his judgement to receive the support of Irish opinion. There was, however, this other factor, that nothing could be put into the grant unless it was assented to, on financial grounds, by the Treasury, who in this matter did not attempt to interfere with the policy of the Irish Government as accepted by Irish opinion. The Treasury was entitled to see that no considerable continuing charges were put upon this grant without considering that this grant was connected with the Irish Land Act. In respect of education the Treasury and any person interested in the economic devotion of money to Irish needs, and in that category he included all Irish Members of Parliament, must feel that some regard must be paid to the use of monies which were now being divided in ways which he would not call wasteful but which were bringing in a very slight return. They could not proceed on the method of saying, "Here is an admirable object—I will give £24,000 in one case and £18,000 in another," without taking some weeks to consider such an important document as Mr. Dale's report. The hon. and learned member for Waterford was not to suppose that he was saying that nothing was to be done until he had a scheme revolutionising primary education. It was only reasonable, when a document of such importance had been presented only three or four days, to read it before putting it as a charge on the grant.


There is nothing new in this report at all, and everybody connected with the schools knew these things before.


did not think that destroyed his argument. There were many other heads upon which expenditure was needed and some upon which economies could be effected, and that being so it was proper to consider the subject more or less as a whole. He would come to the education part of the hon. Member's speech later. He thought they would expect from him some observations in regard to what had been described as a grave matter, namely, that £50,000 a year should be placed as a first charge upon the Development Grant for four years, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had expressed the opinion that it ought to bear all the losses which might be inherent to the flotation and management of the stock. The hon. Member did not impute any breach of faith in any words he used on the First Reading of the Land Act, and the whole purport of his remarks was clear and he apprehended its meaning.


said the words seemed to him quite ambiguous and capable of two meanings.


said it was impossible to suppose that a charge only imposed for four years could meet losses which were continued for sixty-eight-and-a-half years, and it was obvious that something else was contemplated to meet losses if the issue was to start below par. It was to the interests of Ireland that this sum of £200,000, which was made up of four instalments of £50,000 a year, should be treated as a separate working balance, for if a sufficient working balance were not kept it would be necessary to have recourse at irregular periods to the guarantee fund for temporary advances to meet such charges as that on dividends and stock payable before the annuities came in. The retention of £200,000 as a working balance would buoy these temporary drafts, and the net charge on the guarantee fund of each year would enable the final charges to be taken out in a convenient manner in each year, thus ensuring a minimum of inconvenience to all concerned. He would give an example of what had happened. There was this working balance of £200,000, £50,000 of which had already been paid, accounting for the balance of the sum carried over from last year. The condition of the money market had been such as to render it expedient in the permanent interests of Ireland to delay the issue of this stock for a short period. The small initial advances which had to be made in respect of purchases completed had been made out of that £50,000. If there were no working balance available they would have had to float perhaps £150,000 worth of stock at an inconvenient period, and one prejudicial to the interests of Ire land. Keeping that margin they could issue their stock in a convenient amount. The other principal object for which that working balance was retained, was to meet the losses due to having to pay a dividend on the stock when issued before the instalments from the Treasury were received. It was impossible to administer a great fund like the Irish Land Purchase Fund, with payments into it and out of it taking place at different times, unless a considerable working balance was kept capable of being used at any time to tide over temporary difficulties. The hon. Member might wish the money came from another source, but he would scarcely dispute the necessity and advisability of having such a working balance. He might say in passing he thought the hon. and learned Member took a gloomier view than he was prepared to take of the loss likely to accrue from floating below par. The hon. Member mentioned £26,000. That would mean issuing at £5. He trusted they would do better then that.

Now he came to the hon. and learned Member's second point. He illustrated it by speaking of the Bann drainage. He said that ought not to be done until something had been done for primary education, and that he for his part objected to every other item which appeared in these Estimates. Did hon. Members quite grasp what was the principle of this Development Grant? The hon. and learned Member himself had stated it quite accurately. It was that if they were not prepared with a mature scheme carrying with it the general Irish assent, they were not to lose the money. That was secured. But it was also stated very clearly last year that capital charges, not continuing charges, could be placed upon this grant whilst they were waiting to deal with some prominent question which would need a recurring grant. If the hon. and learned Member said be objected to the Bann drainage or to some railway scheme (as he did) that was valid, but there was no general ground for saying such expenditure ought not to be put on this grant until a considerable amount of it had been devoted to education. He freely admitted he was committed to the £24,000 a year. He had prepared these Estimates under the circumstances he had described.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

asked if it was intended to provide a second teacher?


Yes, in schools with an average attendance of fifty, instead of sixty as hitherto. In this matter the Treasury agreed with him, and ho had endeavoured to alter it, but he was too late. He saw no difficulty in dealing with that in a Supplementary Estimate later on, and when he had also considered what economies ought to be effected. He would take the items which stood in the Estimates and consider the criticisms which had been passed upon them. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the Bann. He had an argument to adduce in favour of the Bann drainage which had not yet been put forward by any hon. Member who had spoken. He held, in considering the Development Grant, that some account might fairly be taken of the allocation of money under other grants, and he reminded hon. Members opposite of the undertakings given in respect of Bann drainage nearly two years ago when he was endeavouring to pass the Marine Works Act through the House. He did on that occasion undertake that the Bann should have the earliest favourable consideration of the Government. He referred to that in the discussion on the Education Estimates, and he understood that hon. Members opposite took no very grave exception to his view that there was a scheme due in respect of the River Bann. His hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone had asked what the £1,000 was for. It was a token Vote on this Estimate. [An Hon. MEMBER: What is that?] It was an indication that he had not given the go-by to his pledges. He would now answer the second Question of the hon. Member, which was whether this was going to be spent on plans for works. His answer was no. The Board of Works were engaged in studying this question, because they had a story to tell as we11 as his right hon. and gallant friend. The Board did not accept his view. The preliminary charges for any scheme for the drainage of the River Bann were not being paid for out of the Development Grant, they would fall on the Estimates for the Board of Works. It had been suggested by his hon. friend and specially by the Member for North Dublin that the Development Grant would be a kind of shield and buckler to the Treasury in defending them from any onslaughts by Members interested in Ireland, and preventing the general taxpayer from contributing to Irish purposes. That was not the case. Here was one example showing that the ordinary expenses of the Board of Works came upon the Estimates. There were other automatic increases on the Estimates, especially under the head of education. Yesterday the House passed a Supplementary Estimate which was not quite so large as he intended it to be, but still a very substantial Estimate of £29,400. It could not, therefore, be said that he was an accomplice of the Treasury in trying to put ordinary demands on the Development Grant. The ordinary expenditure for education under heads which had hitherto been sanctioned would of course come upon the Estimates, but he would remind hon. Members that this Development Grant must be held to be, as was stated by him last year, to be in the nature of an indemnity of the Treasury for perfectly new demands of an educational character. It would not be reasonable as between Ireland and Great Britain that Ireland should take the equivalent for the £1,400,000 paid in respect of English education, and also a further sum from the Treasury for education purposes. Primarily this £185,000 was available for education in Ireland. He had stated why he had put this in as a skeleton Estimate, and he would not repeat what he had said.


Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what the local authorities said about the contribution.


What will happen to this scheme of drainage of the Bann if the people along the river find themselves unable to pay the extra £50,000?


said he thought his hon. friend had put the question quite clearly. He was not prepared to say at present that the Government ought to pay the whole of this charge. If need be, he would go at almost any length into the Bann question, but he did not feel quite justified in taking that course before the whole House, therefore he would prefer only to state the view entertained by the Board of Works that it was not quite proper that the Government should pay for the whole of this scheme. The Board disputed many of the contentions put forward by his right hon. and gallant friend. He had referred to the Bills introduced in 1888 and 1889, but it was never contemplated in those Bills that the taxpayer ought to pay the whole of the charges. On the contrary the Bann was quite a small part. The total estimate was £60,000 and the public Exchequer was only going to contribute £20,000. His own proposal was a larger one, but it had broken down because the people in the area would make no contribution. His hope was that now that Ireland had got local self-government the bodies representing large areas might associate themselves with this House in carrying out schemes of a widely beneficial character. But if they did not, he could not disguise from his hon. friend that his task with the Exchequer would be such a difficult one that he very much doubted if it would be entirely a success. In Great Britain money was not expended on objects of this character at all. This was a special treatment of Ireland by which public money was spenton the drainage of rivers and the construction of railays—aspecial treatment which ought to be given to Ireland and which he had always advocated—but he thought it was treatment which must in future be forthcoming from this Development Grant as lie should proceed to explain.

Dealing with the Marlborough Street College, he said that the site was estimated to cost £15,000, but he was informed by the Commissioners who had the management of education that they had £5,000 available for this purpose, and therefore he had only put down £10,000 in the Estimate. In reply to a Question put to him this afternoon, he gave his view of the Marlborough Street Training College question. He h id gone into the matter very carefully and had no doubt whatever in his own mind that when the compromise effected by the present Prime Minister was carried out, the other training colleges in Dublin would get a better grant than the Marlborough Street College. It was on grounds of sanitation and public decency that money was to be spent on the Marlborough Street College. He understood therefore that no objection was taken to this per se, but that in dealing with the Marlborough Street College they ought to deal with the provincial colleges. The hon. Member knew that that plea had been put forward before. He called these colleges provincial, not as a derogatory epithet, but as distinguishing them from the metropolitan training colleges. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford would see that that would involve a further charge of an educational character, and he must believe that any such charge must be considered in relation to other charges which he and the hon. Member advocated. He advocated that the charge of £24,000 a year should be placed on the Development Grant for the purpose he had described. Many people advocated some immediate expenditure of money on technical instruction. He would not go into that in detail. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford had repeated arguments to-day which no doubt he urged on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate the other day. He would not reopen that debate, as he would only deal with the resources at his command. In his judgment technical instruction would have to be defrayed out of this Development Grant. He was told after very careful inquiry that at least £18,000 a year in addition to the £62,000 a year which the new Department could now demand for that purpose—taking the Development Grant into account—ought to be devoted to technical instruction in Ireland. That would make £80,000 in all. There was another important head upon which the best opinions held that some considerable expenditure should be made, but he said that in this the first year of the Irish Development Grant he should not be asked to commit himself to an indefinite number of proposals which involved considerable continuing charges on this grant. On the one hand, the fact that this grant was hypothecated to a certain extent under the financial provisions of the Land Act had to be considered, and in the second place, he had to look to the fact that a good many of the charges for education which ought to fall on this grant would fall upon it. Therefore, he would not pledge himself to anyone, and certainly not to two or three proposals until some account was taken of the other expenditure which would be demanded, and some attempt was made to effect economies pari passu. They knew that a great deal of money had been wasted in education in Ireland, and it was not in the interests of the country that that should continue. He claimed that they should proceed with some economic caution before they attempted to sanction any further expenditure at all. He believed the hon. and learned Member for Waterford took no exception to the provision made for the other training colleges.


What I said on that point was that of course this fulfils the demand made for a long time, but that it puts the money on this fund rather than on the ordinary Estimates.


said that was foreign to his general argument, and whether the hon. and learned Member accepted the general argument he could not tell. This was a new charge never acceded to before, and if it was to be charged to the Treasury, clearly it must fall on the Development Grant and not upon the ordinary Estimates. A great deal had been said in the course of the debate about the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and he should like to say a few words on that head. The hon. and learned Member was mistaken in supposing that any communication he had had with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company had entered into the question of the £93,000. That was not so. He had nothing to do with that. That matter he left to the hon. and learned Member to fight out with the railway company and the Treasury, as it was not his business. Why did he interest himself in the Tralee and Dingle Railway? He felt bound to take some account of the allocation of other Irish moneys to the different parts of Ireland. The Marine Works had placed a sum of £100,000 and the savings upon other sums, at the disposal of the Government, for the purpose of assisting the congested districts of Ireland and also in Clare. He was trying to make an intelligent statement, but he admitted that the ramifications of the different funds and claims ran into each other and made it rather a desperate enterprise. He would not be led away into explaining why Clare was included. In the main the funds provided under that Act were for the western seaboard of Ireland. Kerry was on the western seaboard and that county had Tralee Harbour. It would not be proper to spend the money on the harbours in Kerry. It was well known that certain baronies were heavily rated in respect of that harbour, and also for the Tralee and Dingle Railway. The Member for Kerry and others had approached him and the Treasury again and again, asking that these baronial guarantees should be decreased. The Treasury had always refused, and, he believed, rightly, to deal with the problem in that way, on the ground that when any locality entered into binding contracts with the Government to pay a certain sum per annum on certain terms in respect of benefits received, they could not, without creating an unfortunate precedent, alter those terms at a later date. The only way in which the ratepayers' grievances in Kerry could be met was by the Government spending such a sum on the Tralee and Dingle Railway as would induce the Great Southern and Western Company to take over the working of the railway. The policy of this and every Government was, rightly or wrongly, not to take up the working charges of any railway, but to build the railway and then hand it over to a company to work. This had been described as a dole to the Great Southern and Western Railway. It was certainly not an adequate inducement, because the company maintained they would lose £1,500 a year by accepting the bargain. He maintained they would lose only £500 a year, but it was indubitable that they would not make but lose by the Tralee and Dingle scheme taken alone.


May I ask if they have not also stipulated that it should be regarded as part of the Tralee and Dingle scheme that they should be relieved of obligations resting on them respecting the Cork and Fermoy Railway?


said he had never had that put to him before. If they proved that they would not lose money they would deal with it as a separate issue. If hon. Members for Ireland desired to see Kerry relieved in this matter he hoped the company would receive more lenient treatment from the hands of Irish Members. His business was to use the Tralee and Dingle Railway with the object of relieving the Kerry rates. In view of the allocation of money under the Marine Works Act he maintained it was fair he should prosecute that effort, provided it did not involve too large a charge on this fund. He would not pursue the argument about the £93,000 for the Cork and Fermoy Railway. They could not get blood out of a stone. If the railway had not got the money it could not construct both lines. It was worth while considering whether they should not be encouraged to do the one which the greater number of the people of Ireland desired, rather than the one which was desired by only 300 people on the proposed line. That, again, was a matter for the hon. Member and not for him. He should be very glad, if he were asked, to use his good offices with the railway directors concerned. His desire was to reduce the rates in Kerry and to see the bridge over the River Lee built, because, the fishing and early vegetable industries could not be what they ought to be until that communication was made.

MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

Is the railway to be handed over to the Great Southern and Western Railway without any obligation whatever as to the protection of trades in other parts of the country?


said he would not follow the interruption. His argument was that as Kerry did not benefit under the Marine Works Act there was a certain claim on the part of Kerry to preferential treatment. The Rosslare and Fishguard Line and the Dramahaire Railway scheme were proper subjects for consideration in the future; but in the first place he must admit the claim of primary education. He could not spend this money for any other purpose, but it was generally agreed after they had a flotation of the land stock and they were able to take a more favourable view of the financial future, if they could then find a plan for meeting the needs of primary education and there remained some sums over, they might be devoted to the Newry and Keady Railway. The hon. Member for North Dublin asked him about the sum of £118,000 of savings. They would be devoted in accordance with the general opinion of Ireland. The question of the Queen's College was also raised. The action of the Treasury was not so ludicrous as had been represented. The Treasury said they would pay half if somebody else would pay the other half. He understood that the late Mr. Harland, whose loss they all deplored, had intimated that he would pay the other half. Private persons had spent money on other buildings but not on this college, and the Treasury desired to complete this building before they went into other matters.


How is the right hon. Gentleman going to consult Irish opinion in regard to the future?


said a debate such as they had that afternoon formed a very good method, and he should use every other means he could. He had been asked to make a general statement on the finance of this grant. The hon. Gentleman had asked him what was to be done with the savings. Well, he had always held that it was for the best interests of Ireland, and the true interests of the Treasury, that the savings effected in the course of Irish Government should presumably, as a matter of right and practice, be devoted to needs which might be felt in Ireland, but which were not felt in Great Britain, Exception was sometimes taken to his argument on that head. He had heard it said by hon. Members sitting for English constituencies, that considering the proportionate contribution of Ireland for Imperial purposes, she was not entitled to any exceptional treatment; but that argument would not bear the test of examination. He contended that the allocation of the savings effected in the course of Irish Government to Irish purposes was based upon economic facts—upon the fact that Ireland's arrested development was not only an evil for her, but deprived her of all financial elasticity, and it so happened that Ireland's proportionate contribution was smaller than it might otherwise have been. Few people felt that it was possible to differentiate the taxation as between the two countries. If the same taxes were imposed in both countries Ireland, being the poorer country, would produce a relatively smaller amount for these taxes, if they were maintained unaltered over a period of years, than they would produce in England. Again, if higher taxes were imposed, such as a war tax, the returns from England would quickly respond; but in Ireland they were beginning to reach the danger point at which taxation ought not to be increased. That being so, Ireland's proportionate contribution must be less than that of Great Britain. He proposed to realise as many savings as possible and to place them in the first instance on the Development Grant. That was merely an extension of the principle of the Development Grant, which he thought a useful extension. There was, for example, a saving of £150,000 now lying idle in Ireland to the credit of the Fines and Fees Fund. He proposed to bring in a measure which would carry that balance into the Development Grant Fund. There was another balance of something like £71,000 of the Local Taxation Account. That balance he should also propose to carry to the same account. There was also a sum of £50,000 which was the unexpended balance under the Labourers Acts. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had expressed the opinion that that sum should be preserved in some way to the labourers of Ireland. He should be glad to consider that opinion, but if that sum were also added to the Development Grant Fund, that would not preclude them from devoting it to the labourers at a later period. But if there was a suspicion as to the ultimate fate of that money it was not for him to press his opinion. It would not, however, go very far in effecting any useful object under the Labourers Acts. There were other savings which could be effected. The other day Mr. Justice Barton was transferred to a vacancy which had occurred in the Chancery side of the High Court of Judicature in Ireland, and it was not the intention of the Irish Government to fill up the vacancy created by that transferance. A saving of £3,500 a year would thus be effected. In the measure which he had mentioned they contemplated reserving the right of saving another £3,500 a year on a vacant judgeship, but regard must be had to the exigencies of the public service. There would be a saving of £7,000 a year, and possibly more, and that, he suggested, should also be carried over to the credit side of the Development Grant.


asked how much had been saved on the constabu- lary and other services and what had become of it?


said he had undertaken to institute economies in the cost of Irish Government which would lead to a saving of £250,000 in five years. These economies had been mainly effected in regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary in accordance with a carefully thought out scheme framed with the entire concurrence of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He believed that they could make changes in the organisation of that force and benefit it at the same time. They would have fewer but better men if they had a smaller establishment. It would be necessary to work out the reduction of the establishment in such a way as not to inflict injury upon the existing members of the force. Nobody was being turned out of the force. The reduction would be effected by reducing the number of recruits taken each year. The saving last year was £18,000, next year it would be £61,000, the year after £97,000, the year after that £132,000 and so on up to £238,000 on the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1909. There was also a saving on the Dublin Metropolitan Police of £2,500; a saving of £3,000, and ultimately of £4,000, in law charges; and savings on reformatory and industrial schools of £1,100; on the Land Commission of £1,800; on prisons of £3,000, and on resident magistrates of £500. These savings must follow automatically on what had already been done and would give a sum of £245,900 in five years. But there were others, including some further savings on resident magistrates, which would bring up the savings in five years to £250,000. Two years later these savings would amount to £278,000. In respect of £250,000 the Treasury must have the full benefit of the savings, but when they increased above £250,000, then in accordance with what he had said, they might be treated as the other savings already realised were now being treated; that was to say, unless there was some cause shown to the contrary, they would be available for the removal of economic defects in Ireland, or for other Irish purposes. In his judgment it would be wiser, when such savings accrued, to put them into the Development Grant, have a discussion year by year, and devote them year by year to the needs of Ireland in accordance with the wishes of those entitled to them.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he thought the House would agree that they had listened to a profoundly interesting speech from the Chief Secretary. It was a speech specially interesting to his hon. friends, because the right hon. Gentleman had been able to annonnce his entire conversion to some of the demands and to some of the principles which, for nearly a quarter of a century, they had been vainly urging on the Government of the day. His hon. friends who, like himself, had grown old in the Parliamentary fight, would know that one of the opinions they had endeavoured, during that period, to impress on the House of Commons and on the Government was that the Government of Ireland was extravagant, and that it was extravagant because it was corrupt. The right hon. Gentleman did not put it quite in that way; but when he announced that he had been able to make large reductions in the cost of the constabulary, the judiciary, and even the resident magistrates, it reminded him of Falstaff's proportion of bread and sack. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had set the seal of truth on the principle which they had always urged, that the Government of Ireland was one of the costliest as well as one of the worst in the world. He regretted that the House was empty during the early part of the sitting. It was always very regrettable that English Members, who because of their majority were mainly responsible for the government of Ireland, would not favour Irish debates with their presence until the time for voting arrived. Had English Members been present they would have learned a most remarkable and instructive lesson as to the attitude of Irish opinion towards the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh delivered an able and amusing speech, which was listened to with pleasure in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman told the story of the drainage of the Bann, and he said it was a story which would not be possible in any other country except Ireland. He agreed, although it might be possible in Turkey and in some parts of Russia, where the supplies from the Treasury were great, and where the amount which reached the people was small. £167,000 had been spent on the drainage of the Bann; yet, in spite of that vast expenditure and the taxation which the people paid with exemplary patience, they had the satisfaction of seeing their lands submerged year after year. He had ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House, and had ventured to describe it as an object lesson of Dublin Castle rule, and he welcomed the right hon. Gentleman as one of the critics who had found the Dublin Castle form of Government in Ireland the most rotten form of Government in existence. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that while England could give a large return in taxation, it was because it was increasing in wealth and population, and that Ireland could only give a small return because wealth in Ireland was almost stationary and the population was decreasing. Those were the blesssings obtained by Ireland by this form of Government. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman could not be expected to know the whole of the details of Irish administration when his attention had been so taken up with the administration of the Land Act. In fact he had not expected to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place this evening. Governments had gone out on smaller majorities on previous occasions, and on less important questions— ammunition for instance. He was reminded of the words of Macbeth— The time has been That, when the brains were out, the man would die, And there an end; but now they rise again, With twenty mortal murders on their crowns, And push us from our stools. Or, in other words, from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, in summing up the effect of the indissoluble union, of which he was one of the greatest advocates, had said that the predominant partner was increasing in wealth and population, whilst the country it was governing from this House was dwindling in population and stationary in wealth. The right hon. Gentleman had exactly stated the case for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated this was a tentative Estimate. He advised the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it now, and bring it forward in a more complete form later in the session, and then, after the instruction which he had derived from this debate —and nobody would deny that the debate had been very instructive—and after further consultation with those who were entitled to speak for Ireland, he might bring in a revised Estimate, and thus save a division this evening, which must occur if the Estimate were pressed in its present form. He objected to the fundamental principle of the Estimate. Money was given to England for education and an equivalent grant was given to Ireland for the same purpose. That was the principle which underlay the equivalent grant, yet in this Estimate they were dealing with money given to Ireland for education in Ireland which it was proposed to spend on everything except education. The right hon. Gentleman was not only acting quite in accord with the topsy-turvy system that regulated everything Irish under the rule of this Parliament, but justified his action by saying that certain works were required in different parts of Ireland. What guarantee had the Irish people that the educational money which was to be spent on the Bann would be better spent than the money which had already been spent in the past. What guarantee was there that ten or fifteen years hence they would not see another Chief Secretary coming forward with a demand for another £100,000 to be spent quite as improperly in this way. The proposal was an unjust proposal. It was never intended that the equivalent grant should be made a shield for the Imperial Exchequer and that by the expenditure of the equivalent grant the Imperial Exchequer should be saved from carrying out those undertakings which should be carried out by Imperial expenditure.

Did the House realise the state of education in Ireland? It would be a revelation to English Members to hear that in Ireland at the present day poor boys and girls were going to school with sods of turf under their arms, to light the fires in the schoolrooms provided by a benevolent Government, and this was just as much a living institution as it was in his boyhood. Hon. Members opposite might think he was drawing on his imagination but he would support what he said by a reference to the Blue-book. Mr. Dale in his report stated that the complaints of the inspectors as to the inadequacy of the heating of country schools were only too well founded, and that fuel in the form of turf was in most cases supplied by the pupils. There was a picture of Irish schools! Sanitation practically did not exist. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh claimed that Belfast had saved the credit of Ireland. As a great centre of native industry all Irishmen were proud of Belfast, though some might hold that its political opinions would be better if more rational, and that its Christianity would not be less perfect if it were of a less militant and aggressive character. But even in Belfast—again quoting Mr. Dale's report—the North Thomas Street School, containing about fifty children, was held in a most unhealthy room, seven-feet seven-inches high, lighted and ventilated by a few tiny windows about three-feet by one-foot six-inches in size. The worst schools in the most reactionary districts of England were far superior to the best schools in Ireland. What excuse had the right hon. Gentleman given for this state of things? Simply that the report was only three days old. But all these matters had been complained of year after year by the inspectors of schools. For two generations they had been calling attention to the evils referred to in the report. Everybody was agreed that the inner drainage of Ireland was as bad as it could be. Numerous speakers had referred to the deplorable intellectual condition of that country. Was there anything sound in Ireland? The extravagance and corruption of the Government had been brought before the House by no less a person than the Gentleman responsible for that Government. Was it not time for Parliament seriously to consider whether the present state of things was one which, for the safety and honour of the Empire, any more than for the benefit of the people of Ireland, should be allowed to go on? He believed that some of the facts stated in the debate would remain in the minds of those who had heard them, and that Members, at any rate on that side of the House, would be strengthened in the conviction that something required to be done to raise Ireland from her present position. It had been said that Belfast was more prosperous than the rest of Ireland, because of its intellectual freedom. Intellectual freedom! What Ireland was suffering from was intellectual starvation. What she wanted was an intellectual awakening, but how could that awakening be expected when the schools were such that the children themselves had to bring sods to make their own fires? If anything were wanted to mark more deeply this tragedy of the intellectual and material decadence of a country under alien government, it might be found in the fact that these people, starved of education, were the very people whose forefathers, centuries ago, before Oxford was able to teach, or Cambridge to instruct the people, disputed philosophy and theology in every University of Europe, from Paris to Bologna, where learning and religion had to be taught.

MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)

was understood to express a doubt whether Mr. Harland had offered to provide the remaining half of the cost of certain buildings connected with Queen's College, Belfast. It could not be denied that that institution had done a great work, and that it would do more if it were not starved in every way by the Government. More than ten years ago, he was a member of a deputation which endeavoured to induce the Government of the day to do something for the college, and they were then told that the Government were willing to assist if the people of the locality proved themselves to be sincerely anxious to improve the condition of the college by supplying certain funds. They had supplied £50,000 or £60,000, and still the Government had done nothing. They were now proposing to provide the highest class of technical education, and Belfast had; offered £10,000 for the erection of engineering buildings and the provision of instruction in the highest branches of the subject; but the scheme could not be properly carried out without assistance from the Government. It was hardly fair for the Government to urge the locality to make special efforts, and then, when the efforts had been successfully made, to decline to give the help that was necessary. As to primary education, everybody was agreed that improvement was absolutely necessary, and he believed the Government did not deny it. He could only regret that the Devolopement Grant did not propose to deal more liberally with primary education.


reminded the Chief Secretary that the report which had been referred to was presented in September last year, and therefore instead of having had this report for three days, he had had it for many months, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government could have consulted about everything that was said in condemnation of the unsatisfactory conditions of education in Ireland. Did the Chief Secretary wish to devote this grant to this, that, and the other scheme? He had stated that he intended to add £24,000 to the grant in order that the schools might be better staffed. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was going to do that, because nothing was more wanted than that the staff of teachers should be increased. He hoped the Chief Secretary would take into his consideration the subject which had been so fully described by every hon. Member who had spoken to-day, namely, the question of heating and sanitation in Irish schools. Any persons who knew anything of the condition of Irish schools would be ready to admit that if they were to improve education they would have to begin by making the surroundings of the children such as would instruct them in ideas of cleanliness. This change was essential if Irish education was to be improved. These reforms could be done at once if only a serious effort was made. There was no possibility of dealing with education properly until this, as well as every other subject connected with the government of Ireland, was placed in the hands of the Irish people. It had been said that the people of Ireland took no interest in technical education, but at that time they had no power to levy a rate for technical instruction. What had happened in Ireland as the result of the Local Government Act of 1898? A great change had been effected, and the Irish people taxed themselves for technical education, and they were now engaged in a scheme all over Ireland which, in five or ten years, would undoubtedly have very great effect in the condition of Ireland. They ought to do the same thing with regard to elementary education, and let the people have something to say in regard to it, instead of permitting it to be managed by Dublin Castle officials. He should welcome a scheme which would give the Irish people an opportunity of taxing themselves for that greatest of all interests, the education of their own children. No man had more strongly advocated that the whole of this £185,000 should go untouched to Irish education. The Chief Secretary had stated that works which urgently needed some help should be carefully considered. He asked the House to listen to a few figures with regard to the Dingle Railway. In the year 1900, for that railway alone, a tax of 2s. 10d. in the £ was imposed upon a district which at that time was wholly congested. In 1902 that rate was 2s. 8d.; in 1903, 3s. 10½d.; in 1904, 3s. 6½d. How could they expect a district like that to bear the burden of a railway? Was it fair that this congested

district should bear such an enormous charge while money was lying idle and was not being devoted even to educational purposes.


said the right hon. Gentleman had told them that this Estimate, so far as it dealt with the application of the money, was only a tentative Estimate, and he admitted that it must be altered. Would he now consent to withdraw it and after further consideration bring up a new Estimate? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members cried out "No, no," but they knew nothing at all about it, and the Chief Secretary would readily understand his point. He did not want to divide the House, but he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman would carry out his suggestion to withdraw this tentative Estimate and bring up a new one.


said he was afraid he could not accede to that suggestion. He had been obliged to put it in this form because it had to be in by a certain date. He agreed that it was tentative, and would be modified on those points he had mentioned, and he should bring in an Estimate in substitution for this one.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 57.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bignold, Arthur Coghill, Douglas Harry
Aird, Sir John Bigwood James Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Blundell, Colonel Henry Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Allsopp, Hon. George Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boulnois, Edmund Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brassey, Albert Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Arrol, Sir William Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bull, William James Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir. H Burdett-Coutts, W. Cripps, Charles Alfred
Bain, Colonel James Robert Butcher, John George Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Baird, John George Alexander Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Balcarres, Lord Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cust, Henry John C.
Baldwin, Alfred Cautley, Henry Strother Dalkeith, Earl of.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbyshire Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Captain C.B.(Hornsey) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Davenport, William Bromley
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc. Denny, Colonel
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Chapman, Edward Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hanlets
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Charrington, Spencer Dickson, Charles Scott
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Clare, Octavius Leigh Digby, John K. D. Wingfield
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Clive, Captain Percy A. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Remnant, James Farquharson
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Ridley, Hon. M. W. Stalybridge
Duke, Henry Edward Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Burning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Kerr, John Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Keswick, William Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Faber, George Denison (York) Kimber, Henry Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r Knowles, Sir Lees Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Russell, T. W.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawrence, Sir. Joseph(Monm'th) Sackville, Col. S. C. Stopford
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse
Fisher, William Hayes Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Fison, Frederick William Llewellyn, Evan Henry Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sharpe, William Edward T.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Simeon, Sir Barrington
Flower, Sir Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Forster, Henry William Lonsdale, John Brownlee Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W. Lowe, Francis William Smith H.C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Fyler, John Arthur Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gardner, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Spear, John Ward
Garfit, William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop Macdona, John Gumming Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Maconochie, A. W. Stock, James Henry
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Graham, Henry Robert M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cray, Ernest (West Ham) Martin, Richard Biddulph Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E.(Wigt'n Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gretton, John Maxwell, W. J.H(Dumfriesshire Thornton, Percy M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Tollernache, Henry James
Groves, James Grimble Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hain, Edward Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Tuff, Charles
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Mitchell, William (Burnley) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Valentia, Viscount
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morpeth, Viscount Walker, Col. William Hall
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Morrell, George Herbert Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morrison, James Archibald Warde, Colonel C. E.
Haslett, Sir James Horner Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Mount, William Arthur Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hay, Hon. Claude George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Whiteley, HJ Ashton und. Lyne
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Helder, Augustus Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Newdegate, Francis A. N. Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Hoare, Sir Samuel Parkes, Ebenezer Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Hope, J. E. (Sheffield, Brightside Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Horner, Frederick William Percy, Earl Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart
Hoult, Joseph Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Houston, Robert Paterson Plummer, Walter R.
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hozier, Hon, James Henry Cecil Pretyman, Ernest George Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Hunt, Rowland Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pym, C. Guy
Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred. Rankin, Sir James
Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton Reid, James (Greenock)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Bell, Richard Caldwell, James
Ainsworth, John Stirling Black, Alexander William Causton, Richard Knight
Allen, Charles P. Blake, Edward Cawley, Frederick
Ambrose, Robert Boland, John Clancy, John Joseph
Atherley-Jones, L. Brigg, John Condon, Thomas Joseph
Barran, Rowland Hirst Broadhurst, Henry Clean, Eugene
Barry, E. (Cork. S.) Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Cremer, William Randall
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Burke, E. Haviland Crombie, John William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Burns, John Cullman, J.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lundon, W. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Robson, William Snowdon
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, John
Duncan, J. Hastings. M'Crae, George Roe, Sir Thomas
Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw's Bghs M'Hugh, Patrick A Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Emmott, Alfred M'Kean, John Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Fenwick, Charles M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Markham, Arthur Basil Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Ffrench, Peter Mooney, John J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Flynn, James Christopher Murnaghan, George Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nannetti, Joseph P. Soares, Ernest J.
Furness, Sir Christopher Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Strachey, Sir Edward
Grant, Corrie Norman, Henry Sullivan, Donal
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Nussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Brien, James F. N. (Cork) Tomkinson, James
Hammond, John O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Toulmin, George
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Dowd, John Weir, James Galloway
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Joyce, Michael O'Malley, William Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Mara, James Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Langley, Batty O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Shee, James John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Parrott, William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Leamy, Edmund Partington, Oswald Woodhouse, Sir J. T(Huddersf'd
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Pirie, Duncan V. Young, Samuel
Leigh, Sir Joseph Price, Robert John
Long, Sir John Reddy, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Levy, Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford Thomas Esmonde and Captain D melan.
Lloyd-George, David Redmond, William (Clare)

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Vote.