Sitting of 25 July 1878

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) — Traherne's Estate*; Vane Tempest Settled Estate, read 2° *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Duke of Connaught, Message from Her Majesty [23rd July].
Second Heading—Prison (Officers' Superannuation) * [269]; Commons Regulation (Expenses) * [273].
Committee — Report — Intermediate Education (Ireland) [249–275]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) * [268].
Considered as amended—Highways * [261].
Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) * [237], and passed.
Withdrawn — Bar Education and Discipline * [88]; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.) [205].

PUBLIC PETITION.

  PUBLIC PETITION — PETITION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD — RULES RESPECTING PETITIONS.
  PETITION PRESENTED.
  MR. J. COWEN: I beg to present a Petition from Manchester, Bolton, Stock-port, Maidstone, Newcastle-under-Lyne, and other places, reciting the events which have taken place in the Bast during the last two years, and concluding with the Prayer—
  "That this honourable House will exhibit articles of impeachment against Lord Beacons-field, and cause him to be arrested for high crimes and misdemeanours, in order that the honour of the country may be maintained."
  I may be permitted to add that I do not agree with the argument contained in the Petition, nor do I concur in its Prayer, and I simply ask that I may be allowed to lay it on the Table.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Petition asking for the impeachment of the Prime Minister, without assigning any reason, ought to be received, and whether it is in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: This Petition, in the ordinary course, will go before the Select Committee on Petitions, and if they think it out of Order, no doubt they will make a special Report to the House. As far as I know, from all that has been stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle, I see nothing out of Order in the Petition.

QUESTIONS.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS—LEGISLATION.
  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the constant sacrifice of human life by steam boiler explosions, 416 persons having been killed, and 700 others injured thereby, since the Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the cause of these catastrophes, reported, in the year 1871, that—
  216
  "Steam boilers were placed in much frequented parts of towns and cities, under the pavements of crowded thoroughfares, in the lower storeys of houses, and in the midst of crowded dwellings;"
  and, having further regard to the fact that, notwithstanding that report, no legislation has taken place for the protection of the public, he will take the matter into consideration with a view to the introduction of some judicious measure for arresting this sacrifice of human life?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have not been able to ascertain whether the numbers quoted by the hon. Baronet are correct; but in any case I fear it is too true that there has been a lamentable amount of loss of life and injury to person owing to boiler explosions. I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this subject, and we have come to the conclusion that it requires further inquiry and consideration. I hope to be in a position at the beginning of next Session to state the views of Her Majesty's Government on this matter, which I can assure the hon. Gentleman shall not fail to receive our careful attention.

PRISON ACT, 1877—PRISON DISCIPLINE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that a prisoner in Coldbath Fields Prison, who has not been sentenced to hard labour, is confined in a cell six feet long by four feet wide for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four; whether the diet of such a prisoner includes only six ounces of meat in the week; and, whether the only occupation which the prison authorities will supply to such a person, if he desires to have anything to do, is to give him a piece of mat to pick to pieces?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had received a communication from the Governor of Coldbath Fields Prison, from which it appeared that there was no cell in the prison so small as 6 feet long by 4 feet vide. The smallest cell was 6½ feet by 5½ feet, and there were cells 11 feet by 6 feet, and 11 feet by 8½ feet wide. The dietary of a prisoner not sentenced to hard labour, included 6 ounces of meat in the week,

  217
  cooked and without bone, besides which he receives meat in soup and also suet. So far as the occupation was concerned, it was not the case that it was confined to picking a piece of mat. There was considerable variety in the occupation, which, among other things, included needlework, stocking knitting, and oakum-picking.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question whether a prisoner who has not been sentenced to hard labour is confined for 23 hours out of 24?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The Governor's answer is "Certainly not."
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the Metropolitan and County Prisons passed into the hands of the Government, the visits of the friends of prisoners have been much curtailed, and the diet of the prisoners much reduced by the cutting off of the coffee and cocoa formerly allowed; whether it is true that, under the revised regulations, a prisoner rises at half-past six and cleans out his cell, at eight has gruel and bread for breakfast, at noon dinner, at four o'clock gruel and bread again, and no further food until the next morning; whether on Sundays the diet at dinner is half a pound of cold suet pudding and no meat; whether absolute silence is required during the whole day; and, whether, when the weather is bad, a prisoner, not sentenced to hard labour, is deprived of his exercise and locked up in his cell for the whole of the twenty-four hours?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the general practice in all great prisons, before the prisons passed into the hands of the Government, was that a visit to a prisoner might take place once in three months. No change had been made in the number of visits allowed, but the length of the visits had been extended from 15 to 20 minutes. The Visiting Committee had power to enlarge the time in special cases. If the hon. Member looked at the dietary table presented to the House, he would see that the diet of the prisoners had been reduced by the cutting off of the cocoa formerly allowed. The Sunday dinner consisted, not of cold suet pudding, but of suet pudding served hot, together with bread and potatoes. No change had been made as to the rule of silence.
  218
  In wet weather a prisoner not sentenced to hard labour was not deprived of his exercise. When the weather was bad, he took his exercise in the corridor. The hon. Member could learn all about the prisons in a quarter of an hours' discussion with the Home Office officials, and he would then see that there was no such grievance as his Question implied.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—CONGRESS OF BERLIN—INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRITISH PLENIPOTENTIARY.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the following passage of the instructions of Lord Salisbury to Lord Odo Russell, dated June 8,
  "There is no ground for believing that Russia will willingly give way in respect to Batoum, Kars, or Ardahan; and it is possible that arguments of England urged in Congress will receive little assistance from other Powers, and will not be able to shake her resolution in this respect. You will not, on this account, abstain from earnestly pressing upon them, and upon Russia, the justice of abstaining from annexation, and the expediency, in regard to the future tranquillity of Asia, of forbearing to shake so perilously the position of the Government of Turkey,"
  whether this passage is intended to imply that Lord Odo Russell, one of the English Plenipotentiaries, was kept in ignorance of the article of the secret agreement of May 30th between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff, by which Lord Salisbury "consented not to contest" the acquisition, by Russia, of Batoum, Kars, and Ardahan?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Lord Odo Russell, our Ambassador at Berlin, was cognizant of the confidential Correspondence which had taken place between the Government of England and Russia. I may point out to the noble Lord that the form of these instructions, which is that of an Address from the Marquess of Salisbury as Foreign Secretary to Lord Odo Russell as third Plenipotentiary, was, in fact, the most convenient form to be adopted for putting on record the instructions given by the Government at home to the Plenipotentiaries. There was no secrecy observed in the matter.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I have another Question to put to the

  219
  right hon. Gentleman, which is, Why a Despatch of instructions, dated June 8th, from Lord Salisbury to Lord Odo Russell, and laid before Parliament, was written in contradiction to the secret Agreement between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff dated May 30th, and which was surreptitiously obtained from the Foreign Office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps the noble Lord will give Notice of that Question. I may say that it seems to me that the matter is one very much better suited to argument than to the form of a Question.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I will repeat the Question to-morrow evening.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any Correspondence in the archives of the Foreign Office in connection with the Tripartite Treaty between Great Britain, France, and Austria, of 15th of April 1856, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, either prior to or immediately after the date of the said Treaty? The hon. Member added that if there was any such Correspondence he intended to move for it.
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that there is a despatch from Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office on this subject, giving the assent of the Cabinet to the Treaty, and discussing the form of the Treaty; but there is no despatch or other document at the Foreign Office which explains the reasons that Lord Clarendon had for proposing the Treaty, or the reasons which the Cabinet had for assenting to it.
  MR. GLADSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is intended to present to Parliament a Copy of the Agreement between the Marquess of Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff, dated May 30th, 1878?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Paper surreptitiously published could not be laid on the Table of the House officially by the Government unless it was accompanied by other documents which are necessary fully to explain it. These documents, however, the Government is not at liberty to publish without the consent of other Powers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If Her Majesty's Government will give me an opportunity, or if I can find one to-morrow evening, on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, I will move for the production of that Paper.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: With reference to the answer given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I wish to ask him—or, if he is unable to answer it, perhaps some other Member of Her Majesty's Government will be able to give an answer—Whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain the consent of the other Powers to the publication of these despatches, which, as he stated, are necessary for the full explanation of the Memorandum of Agreement between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir; we have received an answer from one of those Powers, and we are not at liberty to furnish the document in question.

THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE TREATY OF BERLIN—TRANSIT DUES IN AUSTRIA AND TURKEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. JACOBBRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it having been provided by Articles 8 and 37 of the Treaty of Berlin that goods crossing the territory of Bulgaria and Servia respectively should not be subject to transit dues, Whether care has been taken to stipulate that goods from England or other countries imported into the provinces of Bulgaria and Servia, or goods exported from these countries to England or elsewhere, shall be in like manner free from any transit dues whilst crossing Austrian or Turkish territory; and, whether imports and exports to and from Bosnia and Herzegovina are, during the Austrian occupation of these provinces, to be subject to the like dues as in other parts of Turkey, or to the higher duties of Austria?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the Congress at Berlin, in conferring independence upon Servia, and autonomy upon Bulgaria, stipulated that no transit due should be taken either in the Principality or in the autonomous Province. The Treaty of Commerce under which British subjects traded through Austria into Turkey did not come under the cognizance of the Congress; and was, therefore, unaf-

  221
  fected by the stipulations of the Congress. With regard to the last part of the Question, the Austrian and Turkish Governments have not yet entered into any stipulations with respect to the administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS — DEATH OF MR. J. FULTON.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (for Dr. LUSH)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the circumstances under which the coroner for East Surrey declined to hold an inquest upon the body of Mr. Joseph Fulton, of East Dulwich, notwithstanding that the circumstances surrounding the case led to an investigation at Scotland Yard, and that there was no medical certificate of the cause of death?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had no jurisdiction over a coroner, who had to exercise his own discretion, subject, of course, to punishment by other authorities if he failed to exercise it properly. This matter was brought under his own notice in the course of last month, and the coroner informed him then that the information he received on his inquiry was obtained from two doctors who had attended the deceased, and who stated that his death was what they expected; that they had thoroughly examined him, that his heart was very feeble, and that he had other complaints. From information subsequently received at the Home Office, he thought it right to cause inquiries to be made. The police did make inquiries, and reported that there was not the least suspicion of foul play.

THE IRISH BOARD OF WORKS—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Government purpose coming to a decision as to the changes required in the constitution and administrative duties of the Board of Works, Ireland, and give effect to the recommendations made in the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Board of Works?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, the Report of the Select Committee referred to contained so many suggestions and recommendations
  222
  which required careful consideration, that he was afraid it would be hardly possible for the Government to come to any definite conclusion on the matter while the work of the Session was going on.

LAW AND JUSTICE — MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL CIVIL ASSIZES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Attorney General, What decision has been come to in regard to the periods of the year at which future Assizes are to be held, especially the period at which the third Civil Assize for Manchester and Liverpool will be held; and, whether Rules and Orders will be made, if necessary, allowing the service of proceedings during the later portion of the Vacation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, the attention of my hon. and learned Friend will have been called, no doubt, to a Report, which has quite recently been laid on the Table of the House—made by a number of Judges, who have considered, among other matters, the arrangements which should be made for holding Civil Assizes in Manchester and Liverpool. The Committee recommend that in the places mentioned three Civil Assizes shall be held—one in spring, one in summer, and one in autumn, in the month of October. This recommendation will, I believe, be carried into effect. If it is, such rules and orders as may be necessary will be made.

  GENERAL PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND) —PRISON DISCIPLINE.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to Rule 24 of the General Rules for the government of Prisons made by the General Prisons Board for Ireland, which runs as follows:—
  "24. A convicted criminal prisoner shall, during the whole of his sentence, when it does not exceed one month, and during one month of his sentence when it exceeds one month, be required to sleep on a plank bed. The prisoner shall be allowed the opportunity of earning by industry the gradual remission of this requirement after the expiration of one month; but, after he has earned such remission, he shall be liable to forfeit the same on account of idleness, inattention to instruction, or misconduct;"
  and, whether he will explain the meaning of this Rule?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the rule to which the hon. Member refers is, I find, identical in the English and Irish prison rules; but I am bound to say that I am not surprised at his asking its meaning, as I confess I was unable myself to make head or tail of it when my attention was first called to the matter, and it certainly is not by any means happily expressed. What, however, I am now led to understand the interpretation to be is, that in the case of a sentence of one month or less, every prisoner—unless excused upon medical grounds—is required to sleep upon a plank bed during the whole period of his sentence; and also that in the case of sentences exceeding one month, the prisoner may be required to sleep upon a plank bed during a period amounting in the aggregate to one month; but that such period need not necessarily be the first month of the sentence, nor, so far as I can see, need the month be a consecutive period. The latter part of the rule is accordingly framed in order to enable a remission of its provisions to be made in the case of well-conducted prisoners whose sentences extend beyond one month. As some misconception appears to have arisen upon the subject of bed-clothing, I may, perhaps, as well add that an adequate supply is invariably furnished to the plank beds, and that it is not the case that prisoners are compelled to sleep in their day clothes.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX.

  QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the "Herts and Essex Observer" of July 13th and 20th, according to which a man named Carter, since dead of small pox, was allowed, while prostrated by that disease, to lie from half-past seven in the morning till five in the afternoon of the 11th July, in the public highway near Hadham Cross; whether it is a fact, as stated by Mr. Garrett, that a number of children were allowed to congregate round the patient; and, whether he will order an investigation to be instituted into the case, and, meanwhile, direct that the children, and others exposed to the infection should be placed under observation, and steps taken, as far as pos-
  224
  sible, to prevent the spread of the disease?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had inquired into this case, and the result was that he been informed by the sanitary authority that on the morning of the 10th the man Carter, feeling unwell, applied to the medical officer of the district, who saw him, and had no reason to suppose that anything serious was the matter with him. The following morning, however, the man fell down on the roadside, and was allowed to remain there a very long time, as some time was necessarily lost in procuring an ambulance from the workhouse, which was four miles distant, and as, unfortunately, the people in the neighbourhood were unwilling to lend a vehicle for his removal. The Union officers provided suitable covering for him, and supplied him with tea and brandy, before removing him to the workhouse. It was true that while the man lay by the roadside a number of children congregated around him; but as it was not known who they were or whence they came, it was impossible to have them placed under observation to prevent, so far as they were concerned, the spread of the disease. The Guardians had, however, taken the necessary steps to have the house where the man lived, and its furniture, disinfected. Under these circumstances, he did not think that any further investigation was necessary.

ARMY — THE AUXILIARY FORCES —RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes to put in force Paragraphs 15 and 16, Clause 9, of the General Regulations for the Retirement of Officers of the Auxiliary Forces, dated War Office, May 28th 1872, by which officers above sixty years of age are to be called upon to resign their Commissions, unless specially recommended by the General Officer Commanding the District, such recommendation, in the absence of any counter report, to continue in force for five years; and, whether any officers drawing full pay of Her Majesty's Forces, are allowed to hold any Commission, except that of Honorary Colonel, in the Auxiliary Forces?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that in the Militia the regulations were strictly enforced. As far as the Yeomanry and Volunteers were concerned, the recommendations of the commanding officers were fully considered. A few officers on full pay were allowed to hold supernumerary commissions in the Yeomanry, when it was thought to be for the advantage of the Service.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS — ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE (RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, considering the lateness of the Session and the importance of having a comprehensive scheme for the re-organisation of the Admiralty, he will consent to postpone the Admiralty and War Office (Retirement of Officers) Bill until next Session; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the name, age, salary, and length of service of the Civil Servants under the Admiralty, specifying the branch in which they are serving, whether in a dockyard or elsewhere; and also Copies of all Petitions from Admiralty Civil Servants forwarded since 1870, with the Minutes of the Superintendents thereon and the replies thereto?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, the measure referred to in the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend was very important to the Public Service, and any delay would be serious both to the War and Admiralty Departments. He, therefore, hoped the House would find time to pass the Bill into law this Session. Certainly, the Government would lose no opportunity of pushing it forward. He did not see that any advantage would be derived from laying on the Table any of the Returns asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend. Some of them were confidential, and could not be made public; others would involve considerable labour and expense, and could not possibly be issued in time to be of use in connection with the present Bill.

COLONIAL MARRIAGE LAW — WESTERN AUSTRALIA —NATAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for the
  226
  Colonies (with reference to an answer given by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 18th of January last), Whether the Bill passed by the Colonial Legislature of Western Australia for legalising marriage with a deceased's wife's sister, which, having been amended according to the suggestions of the Law Officers of the Crown, was received at the Colonial Office on the 22nd of October 1877, has now received Her Majesty's Assent, and, if not, what is the reason of the delay; whether a similar Bill has been received from Natal, and whether the Royal Assent has been given to such Bill; and, whether similar Bills have been received from any other Colonies besides those whose Bills have received the Royal Assent?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the Bill passed by the Colonial Legislature of Western Australia for legalizing marriage with a deceased's wife's sister has received Her Majesty's Assent. No similar Bill has been received from any other Colony except Natal, and the Royal Assent has not been given to that measure. It was the first occasion on which a South African Legislature had passed such a Bill; the measure was opposed by considerable and increasing minorities on its various stages, and was finally only carried by the Speaker's casting vote. Under these circumstances, I did not consider myself justified in advising Her Majesty to sanction the establishment for the first time of a different law in Natal from the rest of South Africa on a subject like marriage, as to which it is obviously important that the law in neighbouring communities should be uniform, and which was, doubtless, on this account included by the South Africa Act of 1877 among the subjects to which the legislative authority of the Union Parliament should extend, in the event of the union of the South African Colonies under one Government. The matter is, therefore, left open for further consideration in the Colony.

  SUGAR CONVENTION — REFINING SUGAR IN BOND.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are urging the Governments of France, Bel-

  227
  gium, and Holland to adopt a system of refining sugar in bond in lieu of the present system, which operates as a bounty on the export of refined sugar?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have never omitted any occasion to urge upon the Governments mentioned by the hon. Member the expediency of adopting a system of refining in bond. Negotiations have been going on for some time; but, as is well known, the negotiations have come to an end in consequence of the Dutch Government having refused to adopt the system.
  MR. RITCHIEgave Notice that, on an early day next Session, he would call the attention of the House to the subject of the bounty on refined sugars, and move a Resolution to the effect that a countervailing duty should be levied on all sugar imported from countries in which the system of refining was such as practically to confer a bounty on the export of refined sugar, such countervailing duty to be an exact equivalent to the bounty.

  THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION— THE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before the debate on the Resolutions of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, he will place the House in possession of fuller information with regard to the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte which resulted in the Anglo-Turkish Convention, by laying Papers upon the Table of the House showing what communications passed between the two Governments with reference to that Convention?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As I stated the other day, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, the despatch of the 30th May, which is on the Table of the House, was in substance telegraphed some days previously. That was the first communication which passed between the two Governments with respect to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and the answer to that despatch is the despatch from Mr. Layard under date of June 5, which is also upon the
  228
  Table of the House. There have been some telegraphic communications since upon matters of detail, and these can be presented, and will be presented immediately.
  MR. W. E. FOESTER: Are we to understand that there have been no despatches—nothing except telegraphic communications?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say there were none.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN — BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—Whether he will lay upon the Table before or on Monday next a Copy of the treaty or engagement between the Emperors of Austria, Germany, and Russia alluded to by Lord Derby in a speech last Thursday, in which he is reported to have said—
  "I do not believe that the cession of these two Provinces, Bosnia and Herzegovina, could have been prevented. I will only notice as a curious fact that, although, as I understood it, the annexation was proposed by the British Representatives at the Congress, yet we well knew that their transfer to Austria was part of the original engagement between the three Emperors entered into some five years ago."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I received a few hours ago an intimation from the hon. Gentleman of this Question. I can only say, in answer to it, that Her Majesty's present Advisers have no knowledge of any such engagement as that which Lord Derby is reported to have mentioned; but if the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of his Question for another day, the Records of the Foreign Office shall be searched, to ascertain if any evidence of it is to be found.
  DR. KENEALY: I shall repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that he is not in Order in referring to a debate in the House of Lords in the present Session.
  DR. KENEALY: I beg your pardon, Sir. I said "in a speech last Thursday." I studiously avoided referring to the House of Lords in my Question.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRE-LAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to state to-day the names of the Commissioners under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I cannot name the Board of Commissioners to be appointed under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill until that Bill has passed through Committee. The names shall he communicated to the House before it has parted with the Bill—at its next stage.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SCOTCH JUDICIAL BENCH—LORD CRAIGHILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Lord Advocate a Question of which he had given him private Notice, as to the judicial arrangements in Scotland— Whether his attention has been called to information which appeared in the Scotch Papers, to the effect that Lord Craighill had not only carried out his threat of shutting up his Court at half-past 2 because the Government had not thought fit to fill up a particular office, but had suspended until the winter a case which had been under consideration for three days, and in which a number of witnesses had appeared; and, whether, in view of the great inconvenience to the public caused by those proceedings, the Government intended to take any action in the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, it is, of course, the intention of the Government to make arrangements for the efficient performance of the duties of clerk to the Lord Ordinary. Under the provisions of the Statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 118 there are two clerks attached to each Lord Ordinary, and it is the duty of one of them to leave at about 2 o'clock for the purpose of attending in his office; but the Act provides that it shall be competent for the Lord President of either Division, on application by any Lord Ordinary, to direct that any of the clerks in any Division, or any person receiving compensation or retiring allowance under this Act, shall discharge such duties in the absence of any such clerk, or if the
  230
  state of business before the Lord Ordinary shall render his service necessary. I think it is to be regretted that any inconvenience should have been occasioned to the public on this occasion, looking to the fact that the Court rose for the Long Vacation on Saturday last, and that there should have been no difficulty in furnishing the Lord Ordinary with a sufficient staff on the day this resolution was come to by him.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTING.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: As this is the 25thJuly, and there are 30 Orders, of which 22 or 23 are Government Orders, on the Paper, I think it is not unreasonable to ask for some information from the Government as to which of these measures it is intended to proceed with.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think the Question is one which is rather abruptly put. It is necessary to see first what progress is made with the Business immediately before us before I am able to answer the Question.
  MR. CLARE READ: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If there is any intention to ask the House to sit on Saturday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it is not improbable we may have to take that course; but it depends upon the progress we make with the Bills immediately before us, especially with the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill and the Cattle Bill. I hope, before the end of the evening, I shall be able to announce whether we shall require the House to sit on Saturday or not.
  MR. ONSLOW: If we sit on Saturday morning, Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with any private Member's Bill?

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT— PRODUCTION OF PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Since I gave my Notice of Motion a few minutes ago an Answer has been given to a Question put by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) which bears upon the question; and as I wish not unnecessarily to trouble the House, I am very

  231
  desirous to know whether I understood correctly what fell from him. I understood him, in answer to my noble Friend, not to intimate an objection on the part of the Government to the production of the Agreement between Count Schouvaloff and Lord Salisbury, but to say that application had been made for the consent of certain Powers, without whose consent the Paper could not, according to usage and rule, be produced, and that one of the Powers had declined to consent, and that, consequently, Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for withholding it. In that case, I should not think it right to make the Motion of which I gave Notice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps I may say that my hon. Friend's Answer had reference not to that particular Paper, but to other Papers which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, are necessary.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Papers illustrative of it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes; but the objection does not proceed from Her Majesty's Government, but from another Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I shall not make the Motion of which I gave Notice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE—MARRIAGE OF H. R. H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT.
  Message from Her Majesty [23rd July], Order for Committee thereupon read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to move, as an Amendment—
  "That the consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be deferred until there he laid before this House a Return showing in tabular form (1) the Princes; (2) the Princesses of the Blood Royal, being Members of the Royal Family of England (excluding the Sovereign for the time being and Queens Consort or Dowager), from the accession of His Most Gracious Majesty King William the Third to the present time; specifying, with regard to such of them as succeeded to the throne, the date of such accession, and, with regard to such of them as contracted marriages with the con-
  232
  sent of the Sovereign for the time being, the date of each such marriage; and also showing separately, with regard to every Prince or Princess, the several applications (if any) made to Parliament for grants, or confirmations of grants, out of the public revenues, and the results of such applications, adding in each case a Copy of the Royal Message by which such application to Parliament was made."
  The hon. Baronet said, he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have made his statement on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. He believed that in the case of the Royal Message with reference to the Duke of Edinburgh the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: It is not usual.] The applications to Parliament to make provision for the younger children of our Kings were so largely motived upon precedent that, believing, as he did, that there were no precedents earlier than those of the present Reign which would apply to the present case, he had ventured to place upon the Paper a Notice which called for the production of documents which would show whether there were precedents or whether there were not. In the absence of these Papers, he would do his best to prove that the applications in the cases of the Dukes of Edinburgh and Connaught were wholly without precedent. He might briefly dispose of the cases before the accession of the Hanoverian line by saying that in those times there were no precedents to be found. Coming to the Hanoverian line, George I. had only one son. Here, then, there was no precedent. George II. had two sons— namely, Frederick Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cumberland. The Duke of Cumberland died unmarried, and hence in this reign, too, there was no precedent to be found. Frederick Prince of Wales had four sons, of whom the eldest succeeded to the Throne. One of the remaining three died unmarried, and two married without application to Parliament. One of these latter left no issue; the other, the Duke of Gloucester, left an only son, who married his first cousin, the daughter of George III., no application to Parliament for money being made. The King informed Parliament of the marriage in 1816, and in 1817 a congratulatory Address

  233
  was voted, but the House was not asked to go into Committee of Supply. He came now to the sons of George III., and in their cases his contention was that it could be proved that no application was made in connection with the marriage of any younger son, except with the direct view of providing for the succession to the Crown. The first of the sons of George III. who married was Frederick, Duke of York, in 1791. No provision was made for him in the year of his marriage; but in the year after the marriage an application to Parliament was made. The Duke of York was the second son of George III. It was distinctly stated in the House of his older brother, the Prince of Wales, by Sir Matthew White Ridley, the great grandfather of his hon. Friend now sitting on the other side of the House, that he "entertained no idea of marrying;" and, as a fact, it was well known to every Member of the House of Commons that, on account of a morganatic alliance which he had contracted, this was true. None of the other sons of George III. were married, and the provision made for the Duke of York in the year after his marriage was, therefore, a direct provision for the succession to the Crown. There was every human probability at that time that the Throne would be occupied by the issue of that marriage of the Duke of York. But, luckily, he was not left to draw inferences from the facts, but he had the direct admission of the responsible Minister of the day. Mr. Pitt, when proposing the Vote, had made use of words which entirely confirmed his view. Mr. Pitt distinctly said—
  "He did not think the present Motion would establish a principle or precedent… In his mind it was necessary that the House should take into consideration the degree of probability that the succession to the Grown might be involved in the transaction."
  So much for the so-called precedent of the Duke of York. The view of Mr. Pitt had been confirmed by the events of 1815. On the marriage of a younger son of George III., the Duke of Cumberland, Lord Castlereagh proposed an allowance because there was only the life of the Princess Charlotte between his future children and the Throne. A very hot debate ensued. Sir Matthew White Ridley said there was no precedent. Mr. Wynn said—
  234
  "The noble Lord had talked of precedents; what precedent was there of such a vote to a Prince of the blood on his marriage, except the single instance of the Duke of York? Were the cases in the slightest degree parallel?"— [1 Hansard, xxxi. 1031.]
  The result of the debate upon the Resolution had been a majority of 17 for the Government and for the grant. On the Report, Mr. Gordon had asked what special reason there existed for this grant? He declared that the Duke of York's case "had been proved unanswerably to be no precedent," and said that it did not follow that any King's son should on marriage obtain an augmentation of the allowance which Parliament had granted when he became of age. He moved that the Resolution be reported on that day three months, and the Government beat him only by a reduced majority. On the second reading of the Bill on the 3rd of July, 1815, it was rejected by the House. Three years afterwards the project was revived, and on the 15th of April, 1818, that Bill was rejected by the House. He might point out that in both the cases to which he had made allusion the treaty of marriage had been laid upon the Table of the House before the money was applied for, and in both the cases the money was only asked for after the marriage had been solemnized. On the 28th of June, 1815, Lord Castlereagh distinctly said that—
  "It had never been the custom, and he hoped it never would, to submit such a question to Parliament before the marriage was solemnized, for obvious reasons of delicacy and propriety." —[Ibid. 1029.]
  He came now to the last of the so-called precedents. He referred to the marriages of the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Cambridge, in 1818. The fact that the three marriages were solemnized at once was the best evidence that what was in view was the pre-eminent State necessity for establishing the succession to the Crown. George III. had not a single grandchild living, and on the sudden death of his only grandchild, his sons, who were then men past the middle age, had been requested by the Ministry to marry for the highest reasons of State. Before the grant was made, absolutely different as it was in principle from that now before them, and far less indefensible, a detailed account of the income from all sources of the Royal Dukes for

  235
  whom increased allowances were asked was laid upon the Table of the House. As the 1818 case had been quoted by the right hon. Member for Greenwich as a precedent, it was at least worthy of careful investigation by the House. On the 13th of April a Royal Message had been sent to the House, which stated that—
  "After the afflicting calamity which the nation have sustained in the loss of his Royal Highness's beloved and only child, the Princess Charlotte, his Royal Highness is fully persuaded that the House of Commons will feel how essential it is to the best interests of the country that his Royal Highness should be able to make a suitable provision for such of his Royal Highness's brothers as shall have contracted marriage with the consent of the Crown."
  He then asked their aid—
  "To enable him to make the necessary arrangements for this important purpose."— [1 Hansard, xxxvii. 1296.]
  Was it necessary to go beyond the Message to show what the "precedent" was worth? On the receipt of the Royal Message by the House, a Motion was made and carried for
  "A Return of all incomes received by the Royal Dukes from military, naval, or civil appointments pensions, or other emoluments," &c.
  This Return was laid upon the Table on the 20th of April, 1818. In support of the Motion, Lord Brougham had said—
  "The House was bound to consider the means which each possessed to answer that purpose, before any additional grant was acceded to."—[1 Hansard, xxxviii. 12.]
  In the House of Lords, Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, had used, in order to show that the case was no precedent, words still more clear and emphatic than were even those of the Royal Message. Lord Liverpool's words were these—
  "In considering the question which would hereafter arise, their Lordships would have to look at the nature of the case to be provided for. They all recollected the great and deep calamity in November last, in the death of her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte … and the general question which everyone asked himself and asked his neighbour was—how will this event operate on the succession to the Crown? This was a question which naturally arose from the state of the Royal Family. His Majesty, they all knew, had been blessed with a numerous issue; but it was singular that, of the 12 living descendants of his Majesty, seven Princes and five Princesses, the youngest Prince was now 44 years of age, and there was not one of the Princesses under 40. When he stated this circumstance, and that there was at present no
  236
  descendant from any of the married branches of the family, he thought their Lordships would not think it unadvisable to take measures to guard against any unfortunate contingency which might arise with regard to the succession. The situation in which the Royal Family stood with respect to issue must surely be regarded as an object to which it was the duty of the executive government to pay attention."— [Ibid., 53.]
  In the present case these words did not apply. They were words which Lord Liverpool distinctly used of all three cases, and, as they did not apply, the so-called precedent was worthless. In the debate which followed Lord King repeated that Mr. Pitt in 1792 had over and over again declared that it was not intended that the Duke of York's case should be considered a warrant for a similar step at any future time—"he had distinctly guarded it from being drawn into a precedent." Lord Lansdowne also contended that these succession cases formed no precedent, and added—
  "The marriage of any member of the royal family ought always to be a subject of joy and congratulation with the whole nation; but it would cease to be so, if upon all occasions such an event was to be attended with new and grievous impositions."—[Ibid., 64.]
  Lord Holland, Lord Althorp, and many others of great authority, denied that Parliament ought ever to be called upon to make fresh provision for the younger sons of Kings upon their marriage. Mr. Plunkett made a magnificent speech in the same sense. The contention of the Tories in 1818 was that cases where the succession was in view were no precedent. The contention of the Whigs was that in no case whatever ought additional provision to be made for younger sons upon their marriage, and the Whigs voted against the provision even for the popular Whig Duke of Kent. Both sides agreed that no additional provision should be made on marriage in such a case as the present, where the succession was not in view. Lord Castlereagh, in defending the grant, declared that the Royal Dukes stood out for the provision, and would not otherwise marry. He then went on—
  "It would be felt how desirable it was that the succession should be continued by a line of British princes. … Though the hopes of securing a regular succession were not closed, all the Members of the Royal Family were so advanced in life, that he was sure that neither the Legislature nor the country would wish any unneces-

  237
  sary delay to take place in the adoption of measures calculated to secure so desirable an object. … To excite some of the Members of the Royal Family to marriage was now an object of much importance to the country. … A single marriage would not satisfy the anxiety of the people on the subject of the succession—though, if those illustrious persons were less advanced in life, the case would be different. The Prince Regent had, in consequence, offered to such as should enter upon marriages with the consent of the Crown, to propose to Parliament to make such provision for them as would be consistent with public economy."—[1 Hansard, xxxviii. 79–80.]
  Mr. Canning went so far as to assure the House that—
  "With respect to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, he could assure the House that his Royal Highness would not have thought of contracting this marriage, it would never have entered into his contemplation to engage in this alliance, if it had not been pressed upon him as an act of public duty … for the purpose of providing for the succession to the Throne."—[Ibid. 107–8.]
  Lord Castlereagh was beaten on the amount. He had proposed the same sum as was now proposed—namely, £10,000 per year additional to the Duke of Clarence, and £6,000 a-year each to the other Dukes. The Duke of Cumberland having been married three years before, and there being, therefore, no question of tempting him to marry in order to provide for the succession of the Crown, the provision proposed for him was rejected by the House. The £10,000 a-year for the Duke of Clarence was reduced by the House to £6,000, and the Whig Party voted against any provision at all in the cases of the Dukes of Cambridge, Clarence, and Kent. He thought he had shown that there existed no precedent for this grant earlier than that of 1873; and as to that he and his Friends were clear, for they had voted against that grant. He considered that he had already made an amply sufficient case for resisting the proposed grant. But there was another case behind. In 1873 there were debates in the House upon the Crown Private Estates Bill, which became an Act; upon that Bill two important Amendments had been moved— one providing that as the Crown, which had been formerly debarred from holding private property in land, had now by a succession of Acts, of which the last were those of 1862 and 1873, been allowed to hold it, it was desirable that the analogy of the Duchy of Lancaster
  238
  case should be followed, and accounts of receipts and disbursements should be laid before Parliament. The other provided that, in view of the altered circumstances created by these Acts, the secrecy at present attaching exclusively to Royal wills and testaments should be put an end to. On that occasion Mr. Bouverie made a most important speech, and he voted with the Radicals against the Bill and for all the Amendments that were moved. Mr. Bouverie pointed out on that occasion that in future all applications to Parliament during the continuance of a Reign would be met, if not by the statement that the Crown possessed sufficient property to make it unnecessary that it should come to Parliament, at all events by the contention that it was possible that the Crown possessed such property, and by a demand for information. That demand for information he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) over and over again had made, just as Lord Brougham had made it in 1850. That demand for information had been refused in 1850 to Lord Brougham, as it had been refused to himself in 1872 and 1873. Now, this fact bore upon the present application in several different ways. In all the older Royal Messages the King used to be made to say that his application was based upon the consideration "that he was restrained by the laws now in being from making provision for his younger children." These laws were so strictly observed, that when the Hanoverian Kings made provisions for their younger children out of their own Civil List, they always came to Parliament for confirmation of the grant, which explained the words alluding to confirmations in the Return for which ha moved. His second case, then, was that the form of the Royal Message was necessarily different in the present case from the form of the Royal Message in the case of the applications which had been made to Parliament in the last century. By the passing of the three Acts relating to the private estates of the Crown, without any provision for the publication of accounts, and with the retention of the secrecy of the Royal will and testament, the position of matters had been so greatly changed that it was impossible for Parliament to know whether the Crown was or was not in a position to make provision for the younger children of the King for the

  239
  time being. He had, he thought, shown in the first part of his speech that there was no precedent; in the second place, he had shown that if there had been it would not apply. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be deferred until there he laid before this House a Return showing in tabular form (1) the Princes; (2) the Princesses of the Blood Royal, being Members of the Royal Family of England (excluding the Sovereign for the time being and Queens Consort or Dowager), from the accession of His Most Gracious Majesty King William the Third to the present time; specifying, with regard to such of them as succeeded to the throne, the date of such accession, and, with regard to such of them as contracted marriages with the consent of the Sovereign for the time being, the date of each such marriage; and also showing separately, with regard to every Prince or Princess, the several applications (if any) made to Parliament for grants, or confirmations of grants, out of the public revenues, and the results of such applications, adding in each case a Copy of the Royal Message by which such application to Parliament was made,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Baronet in the first observations which he made expressed some surprise that I did not begin by making a statement as to the proposals which it is my intention to submit to the House when it has gone into Committee, and he intimated an opinion that it would have been more in accordance with precedent if I had done so. I wish to correct him on that point. I think it is in accordance with almost invariable precedent that these statements have been made to the House in Committee; and, so much so, that I observe, looking to some former precedents, that on one occasion, when Lord Londonderry, I think it was, made a Motion of this kind, with the Speaker in the Chair, he was interrupted, and he apologized to the House for having brought forward in the Whole House what ought to have been brought forward in Committee. It will be seen, therefore, that it was more strictly in accordance with precedent and my duty that I should move that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, and then make
  240
  my proposals when the House was in Committee. I shall still so far adhere to that principle that I will not attempt now to make any distinct proposal to the House; but I will so far clear the ground as to intimate that the proposals I shall have to make will be of the same character and to the same extent as were made in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Now, with reference to these proposals the hon. Baronet has stated that when last the question was mooted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, he rested his argument entirely, or almost entirely, on precedent. The hon. Baronet, in taking up that point, has endeavoured to show that precedents of preceding Reigns are against the course which was followed on that occasion, and which he presumed, and rightly presumed, would be followed on this occasion. But I would venture to demur to that description of the argument which was used at the time when the Vote for the Duke of Edinburgh was proposed. I do not think that the argument did rest entirely upon precedent; and, so far as it did rest on precedent, I think it rested on precedent of a character to which the argument of the hon. Baronet is not altogether properly applicable. The argument which was then put forward, and the argument which I should principally rely upon on the present occasion, rests not upon ancient precedent, but rather upon the reason of the case as we now in these days have it before us. It is very difficult, indeed, in the situation of the Crown and its financial relations to the people, to compare the cases of application for grants to younger sons or other children of Sovereigns in former times with the circumstances under which we find ourselves at present placed. Because, if you are to compare the position of the Crown in the Reign of George II. or George III., or even of George IV., with that of the Crown at the present time, it will be necessary to take into account the circumstances of the Crown, the amount of the hereditary revenues, the amount of the Crown property, and the amount of the Civil List itself; and it will be obvious that the change which has been gradually taking place since the Revolution, and which was really only completed at the time of the accession of her present Majesty, has completely revolutionized the conditions

  241
  of these grants. It is not sufficient to say that there are differences between the circumstances under which the grants were asked for in former years and those which at present exist without taking those changes into consideration. We know, as a matter of history, that in former times the Crown might almost be said to have contracted with Parliament for carrying on the civil government of the country, and large grants were made to the Crown with that view, and large services were then charged to the Civil List which are not so charged now. Of late years, from time to time, one or other of those services has been removed from the Civil List, and the Civil List itself has been proportionately reduced. For instance, the salaries of the Judges used to be charged to the Civil List, and there were several other charges which have now been removed from it. Now, what is the net result of these changes as regards the personal income of the Sovereign? I will compare, as was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich on a former occasion, the personal income of the Sovereign now with that of George IV. The total Civil List of George IV. was £845,000. There were certain public charges then laid upon that List which are now removed, these amounting to £315,000. Therefore, King George IV. had, for the purposes for which Her Majesty's Civil List is now settled, an income of £530,000; whereas Her Majesty has for precisely the same purposes £385,000, or about £150,000 less than George IV. had. Therefore, we must bear in mind what the circumstances of Her Majesty are in that particular. Then there is another matter on which I may just say one or two words. The House will bear in mind that in all these matters, as has been frequently stated, there has been something in the nature of a bargain between the Crown and Parliament, by which the Crown, surrendering the various hereditary revenues and Crown Lands to the public service, has in exchange received fixed sums which have been granted; and, undoubtedly, upon a comparison of what the Sovereign might have received with the amount which the Sovereign did receive out of that transaction, it is not the Crown but the nation which has been largely the gainer. This is shown by an interesting
  242
  Return which was moved for at the commencement of the present Reign. Sir Robert Inglis moved for a Return showing what was the net result of these transactions between the years 1762 and 1837, and it was there found that the amount of the hereditary revenues which the Crown might have enjoyed was £116,000,000, whereas the amount of the Civil List was £69,000,000, showing a balance of £47,000,000 to the nation as against the Crown at that time. Since that time the public revenues from the Crown Lands have largely increased. They now amount to more than a total of the Civil List, or to about £410,000 a-year, while the Civil List is under £400,000; so that the position of the Sovereign is relatively less favourable now than in the last Reign, because the Civil List has diminished, while the hereditary revenues have increased. But then the hon. Baronet speaks about these allowances or grants made to the younger children of the Sovereign, and says there is no precedent whatever for any grant being asked for on the marriage of a younger son of the Sovereign except with direct reference to the succession to the Crown. I am not prepared to discuss that point with him, and I am not prepared to deny that in most, if not all, of the cases to which he has referred some reference was made to that point; but I am prepared to deny that the arguments turned, as he says, entirely upon that question. Certainly, in one of the cases—a case in which the grant was refused—that was not the point on which the argument took place. But, Sir, I do not wish to go into matters of that kind. I wish to point this out—that, at all events, the principle of making grants to Members of the Royal Family is one that has been long in existence. The first grant was made earlier, I think, than the hon. Baronet said—I refer to the grant to the Duke of Cumberland, son of George II.—
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: But that grant was not made on his marriage.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, not on his marriage; but that I do not dwell so much upon. According to the hon. Baronet's argument, it might be possible to contend that no grants ought to be made to the sons of the Sovereign; and if we adopted that

  243
  principle, of course we should stand in a very different position. But I maintain that from the days of George II. downwards there have always been grants made of a certain amount and of a considerable amount to younger branches of the Royal Family irrespective of their prospects of succession to the Throne, and these have varied very much in amount. I think, in the case to which reference has just been made, the grant at the time when the addition was asked for was considerably greater than the grant now given to the younger sons of the Sovereign before their marriage. The Duke of Cumberland was in receipt of £18,000 a-year at the time when the proposal for an additional grant was refused. Certainly there were cases in which as much as £18,000 a-year had been granted, and in which this provision had been made while the Princes remained unmarried. If you admit the principle that any grant of that kind is to be made, then on what ground is it to be made? It is with the view of enabling a Member of the Royal Family to support a proper state and dignity, and to defray the various expenses necessarily connected with his position. It seems to stand to reason if that is the case, and if it is right to make such a grant, you must in fairness and reason take into consideration whether you have to deal with one who is single or with one who is married. I could undertake to point out to the hon. Baronet in the debates to which he has referred many passages in which it is said that if it was thought that so much should be given to a Prince when single it was right that he should get so much more when married; for otherwise either the grant given to him as a single person was too large, or else he would be unable to marry, unless he was to marry for the purpose of obtaining a large addition to his income, which I do not think, with a view to the happiness and character of the Royal Family, is an argument which anyone would like to urge. Well, the position which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was this—that there was an understanding—an unwritten understanding, undoubtedly, but still an understanding, founded on reason, and which had been entirely justified by the course pursued throughout Her Majesty's Reign—that some provision should be made for Her Ma-
  244
  jesty's children as they attained to years when they went out into the world and became their own masters. When proposals were made for giving certain annuities to those Princes who had attained their majority, it was either distinctly or by inference proposed that these grants should be made during the time when a Prince remained single, and that a further sum should be given when he married. That was distinctly done, and said in so many words, on the occasion of the coming of age of the Duke of Edinburgh. When the grant of £15,000 a-year was asked for, it was distinctly stated that whenever His Royal Highness contracted marriage a further sum would be asked for; and the reason given was that if the sum asked for would suffice for married life it would be too much and could not reasonably be asked for. When the original grant for Prince Arthur was asked for I forget whether the same notice was so distinctly given. ["No!"] Well, it might not have been so distinctly given; but it was asked for with this distinct observation—that there was no reason whatever why Prince Arthur should not receive the same grant from Parliament as had been accorded to the Duke of Edinburgh. I remember perfectly well that these words were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time; and, of course, when it was said that Prince Arthur should receive the same amount of grant as Prince Alfred had received, it was understood that the reservation made in the one case should apply also to the other. I think that, under all the circumstances, it would be difficult indeed to show that that was an unreasonable arrangement. The arguments put forward so well by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), as to the relations which it was desirable to encourage between Her Majesty and her people, the reasons which rendered it desirable that some provision should be made, and that that provision should be made at the time when the sons attained their majority and when they contracted marriages, and that they should not be made prematurely independent of the Sovereign—all these reasons must be fresh in the recollection of the House, and I think all these reasons are in. full force to-day, when we are asking Parliament for a grant in a case where there are no circumstances whatever to dis-

  245
  tinguish it unfavourably from those in which similar grants were given before. When those recent applications were made it was no question of successions to the Throne that was involved. It was no question of immediate succession to the Throne, happily, which induced Parliament to make the grant on the occasion of the marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh. And similarly it is in no immediate reference, happily, to the succession to the Throne that a proposal will be made to the House to-day. The grant will be asked for now on behalf of the Duke of Connaught because he stands on the same footing as his brother —because the same reasons exist in the one case as existed in the other; and I am sure this is a case in which His Royal Highness has endeared himself to all with whom he has come into communication. He has been brought into communication with the people, not only within the limits of these Islands, but also in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, where his presence was received with the kindliest feeling, and where it contributed not a little to improve the good relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies; because, too, His Royal Highness is about to contract a marriage which is distinctly, and above all things, a marriage of affection. It is entirely a marriage of affection, and not one dictated by political reasons such as those which the hon. Gentleman has quoted and referred to; and I think that, under these circumstances, it can hardly be expected that this House would so far depart from what has been done on former occasions, or set itself so much against what I am convinced are the feelings of the people of the whole nation, as now to set a new example in the direction to which the hon. Baronet points. This is a proposal which, having reference either to the pecuniary and national relations of the Crown to the people, or to the domestic relations of which I have spoken, will, I am sure, command the general assent of the country; and although I do not at all dispute the right of the hon. Baronet to call attention to these matters and challenge, as strongly as he pleases, the relations between the Crown and Parliament, I am convinced that we shall not now be prevented from accomplishing the act which the House is about to be invited to perform.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that a fallacy ran through the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not wholly free. It was true that Parliament now dealt with the hereditary revenues of the Crown — namely, the Customs and Excise, the Post Office, and so on; and why? Because Her Majesty of her own free will chose to exchange those revenues for a Civil List. But Her Majesty only did so for her own life—it was the act of the Sovereign, not of the Crown—and when another Sovereign ascended the Throne, which he hoped would not be in his life-time, then the Crown Lands and the other hereditary revenues would revert to the Crown. But the sons and daughters of the Sovereign must have bread to eat; and if Parliament denied them the means, then another Sovereign on coming to the Throne might refuse to enter into such an agreement as that which subsisted between Parliament and the present Sovereign, and would provide those means out of the hereditary revenues. Now, up to 1688—["Oh, oh!"] A Conservative Member interrupted; but the interruption showed that he had neither Conservative feeling nor Tory knowledge. If he had, he would know that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea began his precedents exactly where they told in his favour, and did not touch those which told eminently against him. He spoke of the Act of this Reign, which enabled the Queen to hold landed property of her own; and, on this ground, he said no precedents could be found in former Reigns; but he did not go back to 40 Geo. III. c. 88, nor did he refer to the Act of the 1st of Queen Anne. If he had, he would have reasoned on it, and found that until the Revolution of 1688 the Crown enjoyed all its Crown Lands and hereditary revenues subject to certain charges of administration. When William III. came to the Throne he cared nothing for England, and told Parliament to manage the Crown Lands and take some of the hereditary revenues into its hands, only giving him a Civil List and enough to carry on his foreign war. That was the origin of the Civil List, and William III. got £315,000 a-year. He then came to the year 1777, when the Civil List amounted to £900,000, though in those days the King paid

  247
  some such items as those for the Judges and the Ambassadors, the latter costing £10,000 a-year. During that Reign, however, no matter what the precise outgoings might be, the Civil List was £900,000. In the time of William IV. the Civil List was relieved of all expenses of administration, and amounted to £510,000. Now, with reference to the Roign of Her present Majesty, there was a Return made in the year 1837, on the Motion of Sir Robert Inglis, and laid on the Table of the House, which was very curious reading. In his mention of that Return the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake, and a mistake against his own argument. The Return excluded the Crown Lands, and took in only the hereditary revenues of the Sovereign—such as Customs, Excise, the Post Office, certain Fees, &c. He found on inspection that the total amount of hereditary revenues alone between the years 1760 and 1837 was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, £116,784,816; while the total of the Civil List, according to the Return, was £69,385,031; so that on the hereditary revenues alone the Crown had lost, in round numbers, £47,400,000. But there was also the income from Crown Lands to be added. He had made a search, and had been unable to discover the total revenues of the Crown Lands; but he had found out the net revenue from that source during a few years, and he could state that, after all expenses had been paid, the sum actually paid into the Exchequer in 1853 was £250,000, and in 1877, £410,000. Now, if only they knew the sum for all the years from 1760 to 1837, it would have to be added to the £47,400,000 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Her present Majesty came to the Throne in 1837; and was persuaded into resigning her hereditary revenues and Crown Lands, during her life, in exchange for a Civil List of £385,000, of which £60,000 was for her private purse, and the rest for her household. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said—"The Crown contracted with Parliament;" and he spoke of" a bargain between the Crown and Parliament." It was no such thing. It was a contract between the person of the Sovereign and the Parliament, and bound no future King. Obviously, if the Queen had not made the agreement for her lifetime, and—he must repeat
  248
  it again and again—it was not for any longer period, she would not have been under the necessity of applying to Parliament for her children. She might have provided for them out of her ample revenues. It was true that she might hold private property; but that was by an Act of Parliament, passed for the very reason that the Crown Lands were alienated during the lifetime of the Crown. It was to be remembered, also, that the Crown had not descended in a direct line, so that she derived no benefit from any accumulation of private property by previous Sovereigns. [ Cries of "Divide!"] He felt sure that the interruption did not come from the Irish Members, although it came from below the Gangway, and that they would not chose for their opposition a question so eminently Irish. [Laughter.] Well, the Duke of Connaught had an Irish title, and had passed much time in Ireland, and had "won golden opinions from all kinds of men." [A laugh.] Let the noble Lord the Member for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham) go to his constituents and ask them whether the Duke of Connaught had not won golden opinions from the people of Ireland during his residence in that country? Did the Irish people not remember him with enthusiasm? Moreover, that Royal Duke was called Arthur, after Ireland's great hero—the Duke of Wellington. Was not the Duke of Wellington himself godfather to Prince Arthur? That Prince now bore an Irish title—an Irish Dukedom. Let Irish Members go back to their constituents and ask them whether they did not regard the Duke of Con-naught as an Irish Prince? just as the Duke of Edinburgh was looked upon by the Scotch as a Scotch Prince. He could not believe, then, that any opposition would come from the hon. Members from Ireland.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the arguments they had just heard, if they amounted to anything, amounted to this —that the Sovereign, at the beginning of the next Reign, would have the right to take from us all those properties which were called Crown estates, but which were really national estates, and he thought that hardly required answering. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had done well not to rest his case on old precedents; because, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke)had shown,

  249
  there were none. He (Mr. Anderson) admitted there was one precedent for this grant created by the right hon. Member for Greenwich in 1873, and which he remembered he voted against. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion justified the proposed Vote on the ground that when the first grant was made to the Duke of Edinburgh it was stated that, in the event of his marriage, a further sum would be asked for him; but no such statement was made when the first grant was given to Prince Arthur. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that all the sons of the Queen ought to be treated alike; but it seemed to him that was wrong, and proximity and possible succession to the Throne ought to make a difference: and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich proposed the grant to the Duke of Edinburgh, no doubt he had had in his mind the subject of the succession to the Throne, as the Prince in question was the second son. Indeed, he had spoken of the propriety of the grant for the second son in his speech on that occasion, intending, evidently, to draw a distinction between the second son and his younger brothers. He had himself that day presented to the House a Petition against the proposed grant, and the wording of that Petition was somewhat remarkable. It prayed the House to refuse the grant, not entirely, but until such time as necessity for it was shown. That was the point—proof was wanted of its necessity. The common belief was that the money which was voted under the Civil List, and which was given to support the dignity of the Crown, and to extend hospitality to foreign Princes and other distinguished personages when they came to visit this country, had not been employed in the full and generous way in which it was intended to be used, and that large accumulations had been made from it. The House had been refused information as to what was done with the money. The Civil List was not given for accumulation—the House had apportioned it in classes—and it was believed that there was a surplus on several items, and that this surplus was made over to the Queen, and was not used in the way Parliament intended. He had only one complaint to make against the Royal Princes, and his complaint was, not of their personal cha-
  250
  racters, but of the circumstance that they did not do certain work. Whenever there was an occasion on which a thing might be clone more gracefully by one of them than by any other of the Queen's subjects—as when some compliment had to be paid to a foreign Prince or people —they were not found ready to do that work. For example, the other day our Ally, the King of Italy, died; why was a Royal Prince not sent to represent this country at the funeral? Other nations sent their Royal Princes, and our sending only a lord in waiting had given great offence to a friendly nation. The other day the Queen of Spain died; and again a Royal Prince was not sent to attend the obsequies. The Crown of England would have been more gracefully represented in that way; friendly nations would have been propitiated instead of being slighted: but he supposed the Princes were so immersed in their own pleasures, that they could not find time—or, at all events, were not sent—to do that work which they might perform for the service of the nation.
  MR. GOLDNEYremarked that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, while he enumerated his precedents, ought to have mentioned that the Royal Dukes of George III. were in the possession not of £15,000, but of £38,000, and yet they came to Parliament for further grants. Her present Majesty, when she gave up the whole of the hereditary revenues of the Crown at the beginning of her Reign, had relied for the support of her Throne and dignity upon the generosity of Parliament.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if we had now been in Committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his proposal to be submitted to the House, I should have left my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition to deliver his sentiments upon that subject. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has most properly said that the proposal ought not to be made in the House; that it ought to be made in Committee, on the principle that all grants of money should be proposed where they could be most freely and largely discussed without the limitation that attaches to debates in this House. Having heard the frequent references of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to myself, and having been on so many former occasions engaged in submitting to the

  251
  House similar proposals, I feel it to be my duty absolutely to express my opinion upon the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has now moved. If I were to consider the Amendment with respect to what it contains as a distinct and independent proposition, the principle on which it rests is one to which I can take no objection whatever. It is that full and ample information should be given to the House to enable it to discharge its duty on a question of this kind, when it arises, with the largest possible knowledge of the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea says, for example, that if there are separate sources of income and public emoluments these ought to be made known. My hon. Friend is anxious that the income of Her Majesty, as a landed proprietor, should be made known to this House. I at once agree in the principle that if these separate emoluments were matters of serious consequence, and such as ought to weigh with the House, it would be most rational that they should be made known to us before we were called on to impose any further charge upon the people. If Her Majesty were in her personal capacity among the great proprietors of the Kingdom, I should say the House ought to be made acquainted with that before adding to the burdens of the people for the support of the Royal Family. But although we have no distinct or formal information on the subject, we know perfectly well that neither of these things is the case. Whatever ground you may take on this measure, I defy anyone to say that any adequate provision is made for Members of the Royal Family by means of any separate emolument attaching to them, professionally or otherwise, or to say that it is possible for Her Majesty to make even the meanest, the most limited, provision for them out of the means at her command. Therefore, however good this information may be, it does not bear on the question before the House. The House has to perform one of the most delicate, and in a sense one of the most difficult, of its duties. There is always something invidious in the view of a portion of the people in voting very large incomes to anybody. This is one of the subjects on which, I think, some people complain with even morbid sensitiveness when they hear of
  252
  a figure involving a considerable sum of money. Therefore it is our duty, who have the responsibility in these matters —and especially of one like myself, who has been accustomed to complain, as I often do, of the small attention paid to public economy in the present day, compared to what used to be the case 30 or 40 years ago—it is our duty, it is my duty, to take full share of the responsibility of supporting Her Majesty's Government in the proposal they are about to make, in strict conformity with precedents, which I fully admit are only precedents of the present Reign. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea complains that there are no precedents before the present Reign; but my answer to him is this—there could be no precedents, and it was not in the nature of the case that there should be precedents. The circumstances have been radically and fundamentally altered during the present Reign. I should include the Reign of William IV., which, however, did not produce any facts having any bearing on the question. The great epoch in the history of the Civil List arrangement I take to be in 1830, on the accession of William IV. When he came to the Throne a principle, which I may call entirely new, was adopted, and, I think, with great wisdom and with great advantage to the public, for the regulation of the Royal expenditure. Before that time, though there had been large sums of money placed in the hands of the Sovereign without a too minute investigation of the purposes to which they were applied, and many public charges were included in the Civil List, yet, as it has been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after deducting those public charges, a much larger sum remained available for the Sovereign than was granted on the accession of William IV., and still greater than the sum which was granted on the accession of her present Majesty. I must point out one fact not included in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which ought not to be forgotten by the House when it has to deal with this class of questions. I will not enter into the argument as to the £49,000,000, or the much larger number of millions, which my noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) would add to the loss of the Crown by this arrangement; but this it is fair to point out—that during the time

  253
  when larger amounts than the Civil List were given by Parliament, they did not dispose of the whole case, but from time to time applications were made to Parliament that greatly offended and scandalized the country, and weakened the foundation of Royalty itself, for the purpose of discharging those debts which from time to time were allowed to accumulate on the Civil List, and which the Sovereign himself was not able, without Parliamentary aid, to discharge. The great object, then, was to get rid of all applications of that kind. It was not a matter of great consequence to the people of England to know whether £20,000 or £50,000 a-year more or less were to be expended in maintaining the dignity of the Monarchy. What was important was that they should know what was to be paid, and that the Sovereign should not be put in the undignified and humiliating position of accumulating debts which he could not discharge, and then coming in formâ pauperis, and almost as a mendicant, to the doors of the House of Commons to ask for its aid to discharge those obligations. That great object has been completely attained. We started on the principle of administering to the wants of the Court and the Sovereign on a fair and liberal scale, adequate as it was then to the grandeur of this Monarchy, but, at the same time, with the strictest reference to the actual circumstances of the Royal Family at the time. It is quite plain that, from some source or other, we all require our wants to be supplied. From what source are the wants of the younger Members of the Royal Family to be supplied? They are not in a condition of life, however assiduously they may apply themselves to public duties, to earn a living for themselves—and I much more commonly hear acknowledgments of their performance of public duties than lamentations to the contrary effect. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) must see that even if a Member of the Royal Family had attended the obsequies of the King of Italy or of the Queen of Spain, whose death took place under circumstances so touching, that these were not cases in which pecuniary grants from this House could have been made—the Princes were not in a position in which they could be self-supporting members of the community. Neither their position, nor
  254
  their traditions, nor the opinion of the country, would allow them to become what are called self-supporting members of the community. The allowances which have been granted to Her Majesty are not on such a scale as to permit Her Majesty, either with facility or with propriety, so to reduce her own expenditure as to make becoming and adequate provision for the wants of the younger Members of the Royal Family. From whence, then, is that provision to come? What I think can be clearly shown—I will not say from records or covenants, but from the common sense of the case and the facts of the case—is that the intention of Parliament was, on Constitutional grounds, which I think to be sound, to administer to the wants, not only of the occupant of the Throne, but of the Members of the Royal Family, according to the circumstances of the case, and to leave to itself the right of granting further means according to the exigencies that might arise. The Civil List of William IV. was £435,000; the Civil List of Queen Victoria was £385,000, and was subject for the first time to the payment of Income Tax at whatever rate the Income Tax might be enacted by this House. Why was the Civil List of Queen Victoria less by £50,000 a-year than that of William IV.? Not because we were more economical in 1837 than we were in 1830. On the contrary, the basis of the arrangement as regarded Court expenditure was the same; but it was less on this account— that, in the case of William IV., there was the fully-developed expenditure of a Court, because there was a Queen Consort; whereas on the occasion of the Queen's accession there was no Prince Consort, and there was only one Royal personage of supreme state to maintain. When, happily, the Queen married, an immediate application was made to Parliament to enlarge the means for the Court. Can there be a more distinct proof of the main proposition which lies at the root of all the demands made from time to time, that Parliament kept in its hands the means of judging of all those occasions, and of course bound itself morally to provide for them when they arose? Therefore, really, the question is whether the arrangements that have been made are, or are not, reasonable arrangements? My hon. Friend, I am quite sure, will not stand on so

  255
  small a point in a case of this kind as a demand for information, however reasonable in principle that demand may be. There can be no doubt that from no source, except from the proceedings of Parliament, can this provision be obtained. Is it a proper, is it a reasonable provision? I may say it has had the approval of a number of successive Governments, and of a number of successive Parliaments. The first of these provisions was the one made during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston, on the occasion of the marriage of the Crown Princess. From that time onwards it has been necessary, from time to time, to make application for one or other Member of the Royal Family. On every occasion these applications have been met and answered in the most loyal and becoming spirit. I hold that the basis of the present system is essentially a popular basis, because it reserves to Parliament the power of judgment upon each case as it arises, and strengthens the control of Her Majesty over the Members of her family, and it strengthens the Constitutional control which Parliament ought in every case to exercise. Sir, taking this particular question before us, as I understand the complaint of my hon. Friend, it is a complaint, not that a provision is made, but that an additional provision is made for marriage. That is the point that he complains of. Well, that is the very thing I am most anxious to defend, and to own myself responsible for, as the original adviser of the arrangement that was made about the year 1862, and of which it was an essential part. It is infinitely better upon every ground, as I hold that a provision should be made for single— bachelor life, adapted to the condition of a young Prince living a single life, and that a new provision should be made for married life to meet the new circumstances which arise. Therefore, Sir, I give my full and entire adhesion to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. The sum of £25,000 a-year may, to some people, appear a large income for anyone to enjoy. But let any man fairly and candidly compare that with the general scale of expenditure in this country, with the vast amount and number of private incomes, not only of great families, but of men who have made their own way in the world, with the calls of every description that are
  256
  made upon Royalty, with the extreme jealousy with which the people of England look upon retrenchment, or the supposed retrenchment, of people in a high station, and then let him say candidly whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. For my part, I believe it to be thoroughly reasonable. I do not believe it is an unpopular Vote; but if it is we ought to meet that unpopularity, standing as we do upon the equity and justice of the case.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he did not propose to continue the debate at present; but it might be convenient to know that on the second reading of the Bill— which would, doubtless, be introduced to meet the Government propositions— he should meet it with a direct negative.
  LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAMsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) had accused him of laughing in the course of the debate, and also that he could not give a vote on the question for fear of his constituents. He wished to say that he was not present in the House when he was accused of having laughed, and fear of his constituents would in no way operate on him in giving his vote.
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 320; Noes 33: Majority 287.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Her Majesty's Message considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Raikes, after the discussion which has taken place before the Speaker left the Chair, I think it will be unnecessary for me to say more than a single sentence in placing this Resolution in your hands. The Resolution which I shall propose is that the same grants be made to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and his bride-elect as were made in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. There are two Resolutions. The first is—
  "That the animal sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the

  257
  Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth, year of Her present Majesty."
  The second Resolution is—
  "That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne, an annual sum not exceeding Six Thousand Pounds during her life, to support her Royal dignity."
  These are proposals precisely similar to those made and accepted in the case of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh; and, although from the discussion and the division which has taken place, it is evident that there are a certain number of Members of this House who demur to the principle of grants of this character, I think I may assume that I am speaking on behalf not only of a majority, but of the whole Committee, when I say that if such grants are to be made in such cases, there can be but one feeling that it would be only consonant with the wishes of us all that this grant should be made to one so justly beloved and so popular as His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. The circumstances of this marriage, which, as I have before said, is purely a marriage of affection, are such as to induce us to make this grant cheerfully and with generous approval. Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret is scarcely known in this country; she has been here but a short time; but the few who have had the opportunity of meeting her Royal Highness know that she is graceful, amiable, and accomplished, and that she is one well calculated to win the affections of those among whom her home may be. We have, therefore, every hope that the marriage may be blessed with domestic happiness, and that Her Royal Highness may set a bright example and do good in the station in which she may be placed. I beg to place this Resolution in your hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the annual sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth year of Her present Majesty."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I so entirely concur in all that fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich while the Speaker was in the Chair, upon the general policy of these grants, that it is quite unnecessary I should do more on this occasion than say one or two words to express, on behalf of those who sit near me, our entire concurrence in the proposal which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been observed, on similar occasions to the present, that the time has passed when great political importance can be attached to alliances between Royal Families; but I believe it will be gratifying to a great number of Her Majesty's subjects that an alliance of this kind should be formed between the Royal Family of this country and the great House which is ruled over by the greatest Protestant Sovereign of Europe. The happy event will be regarded chiefly as affecting the happiness of Her Majesty and Her Family, and I am sure the House may refer with satisfaction to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the circumstances in which this marriage is to take place. In regard to His Royal Highness, although I cannot go so far as the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) as to his claims upon the Irish people, still, there is no doubt that His Royal Highness has succeeded in making himself popular and beloved in all those parts of Her Majesty's Dominions which he has visited, and not the least has he succeeded in that respect during his residence, on military duty, in Ireland. I am sure that in no part of Her Majesty's Dominions will this marriage be more heartily welcomed, or this grant be more cheerfully acceded to, than in that part of Her

  259
  Majesty's Dominions to which I have just referred. I have great satisfaction, Sir, in supporting the Resolution which has been placed in your hands by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. MURPHY: Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. It was my lot to become acquainted with His Royal Highness in that part of Ireland in which I resided, and I can fully endorse everything that the noble Marquess has said as to the well-earned popularity of His Royal Highness in that part of the country among all classes. Having been a witness of the way in which he performed his duties, I think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not express the feeling I entertain.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: As I represent a county in which His Royal Highness has spent the best part of his time in Ireland, perhaps I may be permitted to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Cork. I was present on an occasion on which His Royal Highness was complimented by certain public bodies in Ireland. I believe that no Member of the Royal Family ever visited Ireland who has won the feeling of affection and loyalty from the Irish people more than the Duke of Connaught. With reference to an observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), I can assure him from all that I have heard or seen that there is no person who has filled the position which he has filled who has been more attentive to his duties.
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I said nothing whatever against the personal character of the Duke of Connaught.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: I understood the hon. Member to charge the Royal Family with indolence and with not attending to their duty.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Cork is not in Order in adverting to any matters of controversy that took place before the Speaker left the Chair.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: I am glad that I have given the hon. Member for Glasgow an opportunity of setting himself right with the House. The majority in the division which has just taken place will prove, at all events, that the Irish people will receive the grant with the greatest pleasure.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNE: I can endorse everything that has been said as to the golden opinions won by his Royal Highness during his residence in the South of Ireland. I was also doing duty at Fermoy at the same time, and I know that the admirable manner in which he discharged his duties was the topic of conversation among every class of the people of Ireland; and very deservedly so, because his subscriptions were most munificent. [Laughter] I can only repeat that his subscriptions have been most liberal and munificent. What has been stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow—["Order!"]—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that it is not in Order to remind the Committee of any observations made before the Speaker left the Chair.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNE: It ought to be borne in mind that His Royal Highness will very shortly become Commander-in-Chief. The present Commander-in-Chief of the Forces will in a short time retire; because the Royal Warrant, as I understand it, limits all Staff commands to officers who are not over 60 years of age.
  MR. ANDERSON: I wish to be allowed to disclaim, in the most pointed manner, the allegation which has been made against me by the hon. Member for Cork—that I have said anything against the personal character of the Duke of Connaught. Nothing was further from my mind. All I intended to convey was, that there were certain occasions on which certain duties might be done more gracefully by Members of the Royal Family—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will, no doubt, indulge the hon. Member in offering any observations he may choose to make by way of personal explanation; but I would point out to him that it is not in Order to refer to any debate which has already taken place.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Allow me to ask whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow may not be allowed to make the same speech in Committee which he made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet appears to have misconceived the Rules of the Committee. There is no Rule, and I am sure I have not attempted to state anything approaching a Rule, that would preclude the hon. Member for

  261
  Glasgow from making any observations he may think fit; but it is a Rule of the Committee that a reference to previous debates is not in Order.
  MR. ANDERSON: I merely wish to make a personal explanation in reply to the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Cork, and I was merely desirous of saying, in Committee, what I have said before, not only on one, but on two different occasions, in this House, that there are public occasions on which a Member of the Royal Family, such as a Royal Prince, might do good service to the country by propitiating foreign nations, and by doing graceful acts towards the Royal Families of other countries. But I said that Royal Princes are never found to do these things. If they were, there would be a much greater excuse for such demands as those which are now made.
  Motion agreed to.
  (1.) Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the annual sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth year of Her present Majesty.
  (2.) Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne, an annual sum not exceeding Six Thousand Pounds during her life, to support her Royal dignity.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 249.]
  (Mr. James Lowther.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the names of the Members of the proposed Board should be communicated to Parliament before the consideration of the Bill in Committee,"
  262
  said, he should not have interposed on the present occasion had it not been for the remarkable course taken by the Government on a previous occasion. When the second reading of the Bill was moved, there was a debate which lasted between five and six hours. Objections were taken to the Bill by himself, and also by various Members on the other side of the House; but, on the whole, the Bill received a considerable amount of support—a support which, in the main, might be said to be unanimous. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) made a speech containing a weighty suggestion with regard to a considerable portion of the Bill, which was described, on that occasion, as being of the first importance. Notwithstanding the fact that the debate lasted five or six hours, the Government pursued a course which was almost unprecedented. At its close, they did not condescend to take the slightest notice of any remarks which had been made in opposition to the Bill, nor did they even acknowledge the considerable amount of support given by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the main propositions of the measure. This showed the remarkable way in which Business was conducted in the House, and had it not been for the course pursued by the Government, he should not have troubled the House on going into Committee. His object in rising was to obtain the names of the Commissioners, and he submitted that it was a matter of great importance that the House should know how the Board was to be constituted. When the first Oxford University Bill was introduced, the names of the Commissioners were given before the second reading. The names of the Cambridge Commissioners were given in the Bill. In the Reform Bill of 1867, the names of the Boundary Commissioners were given, and in the case of the Irish Church, the names of the Commissioners were given before the close of the discussion. In the present case, there were abundant reasons why the names of the Commissioners should be given, and for this reason. When the Bill was once passed, the House would have no control whatever over the Board, and the Bill was so shaped, that, although certain rules were laid down in the Schedule to the Bill, the Commissioners would have the power, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, to

  263
  abrogate every one of the rules, and substitute an entirely new system. The National Education Board had been in existence for upwards of 40 years, and its history had been one of dissension and dissatisfaction. There was nothing to prevent the Board contemplated by the Bill from being wholly an Ecclesiastical Board, or it might be constituted of worn-out Judges, or of any other class of men. Now, he could not suppose that the Government had introduced the Bill without having fixed upon some Commissioners to constitute the Board. The Bill gave no constitutional check, either on the Board or on the action of the Board, and as his Amendment was based on obvious good sense and convenience, he trusted it would receive the sanction of the House. No doubt, there was a provision in the Bill that the rules to be made hereafter by the Board should be laid upon the Table of the House; but, unless some private Member obtained a good place on the Paper, there was nothing to prevent him from being counted out; so that, before the expiration of 40 days, the rule might become law. The Bill was objectionable in many other respects. It gave no sufficient encouragement to the erection of new schools; it provided no guarantee for the efficiency of the schools; and its inevitable tendency was to destroy all chance of a mixed secular education amongst the middle classes in Ireland, and it was a direct step towards concurrent endowment. If an opportunity had been given, the Presbyterians of Ulster, and the religious bodies throughout Ireland, would have made numerous complaints, and suggested numerous amendments. He would rather that the Bill should be abandoned, than that it should be passed in its present terms, because then they would have a better measure next Session. He warned the Government against pursuing the downward course of concurrent endowment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the names of the Members of the proposed Board should he communicated to Parliament before the consideration of this Bill in Committee,"—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. RICHARD: Before offering a few observations on the Bill before the House, I wish to make one preliminary remark as a Welshman. I do not grudge any educational advantages that are accorded to our fellow-subjects in the sister Isle. But it is impossible not to feel the contrast between the profuse liberality displayed towards Ireland in the matter of education, as indicated by the endowments granted to Maynooth and the Queen's Colleges, and the £1,000,000 of money now given for intermediate education, with the niggardly, miserable spirit shown towards the Principality of Wales. A few months ago, I had the honour of accompanying a deputation to the Lord President of the Council. It was by far the most powerful and influential deputation from Wales that ever waited upon any Minister for any object. It comprised representatives from almost every part of the country, from every class of the community, and from every shade of religious and political opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite from Wales, headed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire (Sir Watkin W. Wynn), were as united and earnest in their application as those on this side of the House. The object of the deputation was to ask for some aid from the Government to a most valuable and meritorious Institution, which for several years has been struggling into existence—the University College of Wales—intended to give the advantages of a higher education to the Welsh youth, especially those of the middle and working classes. The demand we made was of the most modest description. But, after waiting for several months, we have just received a reply from the Government, refusing to give us any assistance, even to the extent of a single penny. But, while I do not grudge what is done for Ireland, I do feel that it is a little hard that Irishmen, who, to say the least, make themselves very troublesome to the Government, get so much, and nothing whatever is done for the loyal and peaceable people of Wales. I begin to think that Wales is too loyal and peaceable. Perhaps, if we were to start a Fenian movement, or a Home Rule movement, and to make ourselves generally uncomfortable to the Government, they would then be disposed to listen to our voice and to pay some heed to our just claims. Now, turning to this Bill, I am sorry I

  265
  was not present at the second reading. If I had been, I should certainly have united in the course taken by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). I have since carefully read his very able and temperate speech, and I am bound to say that I concur in almost every word he uttered on that occasion. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not, in any sense, a sectarian speech. He did not object to the manner in which this money is appropriated, because it went to this, or that, or the other religious Body; but because the Bill violates a great principle, because it involves a departure from the educational policy pursued for many years in Ireland, and because it foreshadows other and still more important and dangerous changes, which seem logically to follow from the position now taken. The Bill starts by appearing to recognize what I hold to be a sound and salutary principle—a principle for which I have always contended in this House—that when the Government deals with education, it can only deal with the secular element; that religious instruction lies beyond its province and competence; that it cannot touch that without doing violence to conscience on one side or the other, and sometimes on all sides. This does not mean that religion should form no part of education. No one would more strongly object than I do to such an exclusion. But that the State, dealing with public money, must restrict itself to aiding, and encouraging and inspecting secular instruction, leaving the religious element to be provided by the parents and guardian, and by the churches through such voluntary organization as they may think fit to adopt. But this Bill, after laying down that principle, proceeds in its details to a flagrant violation of it. That provision especially which gives payments for results to schools, will, in effect, amount to nothing less than an endowment of all kinds of denominational schools out of the revenues of the Disestablished Irish Church. Now, I, at least, can take exception to this, without incurring the suspicion of being actuated by any bigoted or intolerant feelings towards the Roman Catholics. I object to it, not because it gives money to Roman Catholic schools, but because it gives money to sectarian schools. I objected to this in English and Scotch education; and I can, therefore,
  266
  with perfect consistency, object to it in Irish education. I am anxious that hon. Members from Ireland should understand the position taken by me and by those whom I represent on this occasion. No doubt, the Nonconformists are ecclesiastically as wide as the poles asunder from the Church of Rome. But we have always contended that, however widely we may differ from them in that respect, they are entitled to perfect equality of civil and religious rights with ourselves, and we have always helped them to obtain that equality. We stood side by side with them in their agitation for removing the disabilities under which they so long laboured. The best proof of this is the fact that, in 1829, immediately after Roman Catholic Emancipation had been carried, Mr. O'Connell appeared on the platform of a Nonconformist Association, well known in those days, called "The Protestant Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty," to acknowledge, in frank and cordial terms, the services rendered by the Nonconformists in the struggle which had just been crowned with success. These were his words—
  "I have come here as the representative of the warm-hearted feelings of the people of Ire. land. I stand hero in the name of my country, to express our gratitude, in feeble but insincere language, for the exertions made on our behalf by our Protestant Dissenting brethren. I have come here to express my thankfulness for the support which they have given to the great cause of my country."
  And when that strange anti-Catholic agitation swept like a hurricane over this country in 1850 and 1851, and issued in the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, I, for one, withstood it to the best of my ability, and exposed myself to some reproach by contending that the Roman Catholics had a right to make any arrangements they thought necessary for their own spiritual order and discipline. And I repeat that I object to this Bill, not because some of the money may go to Roman Catholics— I have not the slightest idea what proportion may go to them, what to the members of the Disestablished Church, and what to the Presbyterians—but I object to it because it gives public money to promote and perpetuate sectarian education. And I shall, therefore, cordially support those Amendments of which Notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Member

  267
  for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) and others, in the hope of making it at least less obnoxious and dangerous than it is in its present form.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: At this stage of the Bill I must say a few words; because the Bill, in its present form, commits a real injury on the poorer classes in Ireland. Ireland and Scotland are two countries poor in the raw materials of industry, and they require —more than England—to develop the natural abilities of their populations. Scotland has done that largely, through its elementary schools. Only a small percentage—at the most 7 per cent—of children in elementary schools show aptitude for superior education. Well, it has been our principle in Scotland to plant a ladder between the lower schools and the higher schools, and to sustain the youths while climbing up the ladder by small bursaries or scholarships. Has this led to the neglect of the remaining 93 boys out of the 100 who have no aptitude for superior education? On the contrary, the infusion of higher subjects elevates the entire school, and gives a breadth and a vigour to its whole teaching. The result which this Bill fears, that if the scholarships are open to the national schools, the many will be injured for the benefit of the few, is wholly belied by our experience. The danger can be guarded against by the simple expedient of refusing scholarships to a national school unless its elementary passes are also considerably above the average. In Scotland, no grant is given for higher subjects unless there has been more than 75 per cent of passes in the examination for the ordinary standards. I know how difficult it is to argue such a cause as this in England. Here we are accustomed to look upon education to the masses very much as a pauper's dole; and, therefore, we give it with a niggard hand, and not with a generous free bounty. In Scotland, we try by scholarships to attract the intellectual few out of the mass of the population, and to convert them into producers of wealth, instead of allowing them to remain mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now, this is what I want to persuade the House to do, by lowering the fee for examination from its prohibitory amount of 10 s. to 2s. 6d., and by withdrawing the words which prevent
  268
  the Irish national schools receiving result-fees if they educate promising boys to compete for scholarships. Something might be said against my Amendment, if the scholarships under the Bill were attached to well-organized secondary schools. Even then, there ought to be a bridge between them and the primary schools. But the scheme of the Bill is to pay for knowledge, however and wherever acquired. It seems to me to be a double and a fatal error to cut off the national schools from the new scheme. First, because you raise an artificial barrier between the poor and the middle classes, and say to the former—"Thus far shalt thou come, and no further." Second, because you depress the intellectual fund in a poor country, when experience proves there is never too much of it for national wants. I could enlarge much upon this theme, but I do not desire to have protracted discussion on this Bill. One appeal, however, I must make to the House. The annual sum which you are about to apply for scholarships is, in my estimation, very large, and the prizes are upon an honour scale rather than on a pass scale. When the Scotch Education Bill comes on, I am going to try to persuade the House to let the ratepayers of Scotland furnish just one-tenth the sum, or £3,000 a-year, for intermediate education in Scotland. I contend, therefore, that, if properly administered, there are ample funds now provided as a stimulus for higher education, both in middle-class and in primary schools. For you do not require to pay for such a useful commodity as superior education to the middle classes; but rather, by prizes, to indicate when that commodity is good. For the poor, help ought to be more direct, and yet the Bill proposes to shut them out from all participation of a fund which comes from the surplus of a disestablished Church. That Church gave its ministrations to all classes, irrespective of sex, and making no difference between rich and poor. When we apply its funds for education, ought we not to be as broad in the distribution of the benefits? My proposal, then, is to remove the obstacles which bar the lower classes from seeking higher education, and thus to give to poor Ireland the inestimable benefits which poor Scotland has obtained, by bridging over the chasm between the elementary schools and the

  269
  higher education of the country. I cannot conceive anything which would tend more to the prosperity of Ireland. If you have a country poor in the raw materials of industry, the more is it necessary to train its citizens in that knowledge which is required to enable them to take part in the intellectual competition of nations. You cannot lessen the results of the proposed Bill by enlarging the area of its action. A very forcible remark was once made— that while you lessen the power of many things by spreading them over too large a surface, the power of science increases the more widely it is diffused. That wise saying is contained in the Papal Bull which founded the University of Aberdeen, and my Roman Catholic Friends in this House might take it to heart, and endeavour to extend the operations of this Bill to all classes of the Irish people, by removing the restriction which shuts out the poorer classes from the benefits which it confers.
  MR. E. JENKINScongratulated the Government on the Bill containing one or two points which, coming from the other side of the House, were rather extraordinary; for it was the first time that any Government had brought in avowedly a Bill simply for secular education, to be supported by funds taken from religious uses. It should be pointed out, for the information of the country, and that the people might understand the true meaning of the measure, that by the Bill the Government were introducing a system of concurrent endowment. To that he, for one, could never consent. There were very great and serious defects in the constitution of the proposed Board, and in the powers that were to be assigned to them. The whole thing might be placed in the hands of clerics who would not enjoy the confidence of the people; and, therefore, it would be better to lay down, as a necessary rule, that the Board should consist of lay members only. The House ought to provide that there should be some security that the education which would be encouraged under the Bill should be liberal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree that the Bill should specify one of the subjects in which the students were to be examined. With regard to the Conscience Clause, if they were going to encourage edu-
  270
  cation by a system of concurrent endowment, should they not insist upon the managers of schools, who would receive money directly or indirectly in respect of pupils passing examinations under this Bill, throwing open their doors to children of all denominations within the reach of such schools?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) complain of a want of courtesy on his part, or on the part of his Colleagues, in not making a reply the other night to criticisms which had been made on the Bill. He did not mean in his silence to be discourteous, nor did he wish it to be understood that there was any want of appreciation on his part as to the value of the hon. Gentleman's observations. The suggestions offered in the course of the debate on the former occasion related almost exclusively to matters of detail, and it was not expected that the Government should at once pronounce a definite opinion upon the many points urged. The speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich was a most able answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry. With regard to one of the questions touched upon in the present discussion, he could not admit that there was an absence of all check upon the proceedings of the Board to be constituted under the Bill. The Board would be incapable of departing in any way from the decision at which Parliament had arrived without Parliament having a full opportunity of considering the matter. If there should be any valid objection entertained to a new scheme promoted by any Board of this kind, the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon such scheme. The course which the Government now proposed to pursue was that which, he believed, had been uniformly adopted with regard to similar bodies, and had not, he thought, been productive of inconvenience. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) spoke of the spirit of profuse liberality in which the Imperial Parliament approached the question of intermediate education in Ireland, and compared it with the miserable, grudging spirit in which a similar question with regard to the Principality with which he was connected was treated. The hon. Gentle-

  271
  man, however, omitted to state that this profuse liberality on the part of the Imperial Parliament was merely affording to the Irish people a share in their own money. That, he thought, disposed of most of the criticism on that head. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had made a remark about the exclusion of national school teachers from the result payments mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill. He thought that a wise exclusion. The national school teachers had a great work to perform. Upon them devolved the task of primary education in Ireland, and he thought it would be departing from sound policy if encouragement were to be held out to them to step aside from their legitimate functions, and devote their time, in a great measure, to another branch of education. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the surplus as being part of the fund originally enjoyed by all classes, and, therefore, complained of the exclusion of those getting primary education. [Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR: The exclusion of the poor.] Certainly; but the only way in which he presumed the poor could be included was in the manner he spoke of. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the claims of the national school teachers were before the House, he (Mr. J. Lowther) ventured to throw out the hint that a portion of the surplus of the Church fund might be made available with regard to some portion of their claims. That, he thought, merited the attention of the Government, and he might further point out that they were not now appropriating the entire surplus of the fund, and that there was still a considerable portion unappropriated by the Bill, and that the claim of the lower classes of the community might not impossibly be dealt with at some future time. As to the entrance fee mentioned in the Bill, its object was, as the House would clearly see, to prevent fictitious candidates from presenting themselves for examination by way of a practical joke. The amount of the fee was put down at 10 s., but there was no obligation to maintain it as a limit. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) spoke of the Bill as establishing the principle of concurrent endowment, and said he wished the House to take note of the fact that the
  272
  Government and Parliament were now establishing a precedent whereby money hitherto devoted to spiritual purposes was to be devoted purely to secular purposes.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the words "secular education" were used in the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: But the hon. Gentleman wished special note to fee taken of the fact that the Government and Parliament were affording a precedent for the application to particular secular interests of money heretofore devoted to spiritual purposes; and he then went on to establish, to his own satisfaction, the conclusion that the Bill would at the same time promote a scheme of concurrent endowment. Now, he thought that those two propositions fairly answered one another. [Mr. E. JENKINS: They are both in the Bill.] Secular instruction had not been put into the Bill without an object. That object was that money given by Parliament should be given exclusively in respect of secular instruction, and he denied that concurrent endowment in any shape was promoted by that measure. The hon. Member had thrown out suggestions as to the composition of the Board which were, no doubt, entitled to consideration. Now, he was not himself in a position to enter into any discussion as to the component elements of that Board. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had commenced his speech by expressing the opinion that the Board should be named before the House proceeded further with the Bill. It was by no means the general practice to adopt that course. According to the precedents in such cases, it was at a later stage of the Bill than that at which they had arrived that any announcement was usually made as to the component elements of a Commission of that kind. It was, of course, necessary that the Government, before mentioning the name of any gentleman for so trustworthy a post, should communicate to him their intention to offer him a seat on the Board; and it would hardly be respectful to Parliament that Government should make offers of that description before Parliament had, in substance, sanctioned their proposal. Therefore, it was not intended to announce the names until the Bill had passed through Com-

  273
  mittee and Report. In doing that, the Government thought they would be complying with general practice, and also showing proper deference to the opinion of Parliament. In conclusion, he hoped that he should not be deemed wanting in courtesy if he did not now travel further into the points which had been raised; but urged the House to allow the Bill to proceed without any unnecessary delay.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought it would be advisable to exclude Italian and German from the subjects of examination.
  MR. D. DAVIES,referring to what had been said by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), admitted that that money belonged to the Irish people, and did not grudge them it. At the same time, the people of Wales asked for a very moderate sum—namely, £2,500— for a Welsh University, and. he was sorry that the Government did not grant it. The Welsh people were exerting themselves in the matter, and he himself was happy to subscribe towards the institution; but the Government might surely give a small amount of help in aid of voluntary contributions. His constituents told him that until the Welsh Members obstructed Business in the same way as the Irish Members did, they would never get anything. He did not want to do that; but he only warned the Government not to put the Welsh Members in that position. There had been a wonderful change in the House since the Bill was introduced. The measure was thought by persons out-of-doors to be a sop thrown to the Irish Members in order to keep them quiet, that the Government might finish the work of the Session. There were in Wales about 1,500,000 of very loyal subjects, who did not give any trouble to the Government, or put the country to any expense. They and their Representatives took what they could get; but they wished to stand up for their rights. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would not refuse the small grant of £2,500 towards enabling the people of Wales to obtain in the Principality that higher education for which they could not go to Oxford or Cambridge. He was under a pledge, if the Government would only give £2,500 for a College in Wales, to contribute £4,000 himself over and above the sum
  274
  he had already paid towards the same object.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the Bill gave almost carte blanche to those who would carry out its provisions; and he was not surprised at the feeling which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) at the prospect of £1,000,000 sterling being voted away without the House knowing by whom the money was to be spent. Who, he asked, were to be the Plenipotentiaries whom they were to appoint to regulate the intermediate education of Ireland? There were slight indications from Wales, and also from Scotland, that the people of both did not like that manner of doing business. The Government had hitherto been trusted by the great body of the Protestants of England; but they would find that the confidence reposed in them would not be increased by the abstinence from frank and open communications they had shown on that subject. Probably, if the House was content to remain in ignorance, the Government would take advantage of this disposition and keep them in the dark.
  MR. VERNERagreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry, that it would not be advisable to divide on the Motion, as it was not their wish to lend themselves to a line of mere delay or obstruction. Reluctant, as he was, to interfere with the course of Her Majesty's Government, he felt it his imperative duty to protest against this attempt to stereotype a mode of management of the education of the South of Ireland which had been proved to have a baneful effect. They had always been told that the only system of education which would suit the people of Ireland was an undenominational system; but they had found that the Board appointed to carry out that system with regard to primary education was appointed on a purely denominational ground. It was now proposed to have a Board of the same objectionable kind for intermediate education, and he could not understand it, except it was explained by the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, who feared that the Government must have some desire that concurrent endowment should be carried out, and go further. He (Mr. Verner) could not see any other reason for its being introduced into the Bill, and he

  275
  thought it would be far more to the advantage of intermediate education in Ireland that there should not be this introduction of the denominational element. In his opinion, a smaller Board of paid Commissioners, who would merely administer the Act, without indulging their opinions or views one way or the other, would have been preferable; but if the present arrangement was to be carried out, he did not go so far as the hon. Member for Dundee, and he would not confine it to laymen. Possibly, the Chief Secretary might think the point he had touched upon a mere matter of detail; but, in reality, it had an intimate connection with the success or failure of the proposed system. He had not heard of the composition of the new Board; but, no doubt, the Government, to judge by their course hitherto, would please their Friends opposite.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 23: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Establishment of Board).
  MR. E. JENKINSmoved, in page 1, line 7, after "established," to insert "of laymen and graduates of any university in Great Britain." The hon. Gentleman said, the object of this Amendment was professedly and designedly to exclude from the Board those who might be clerics of any denomination. It was obvious, therefore, that the proposal did not affect any particular denomination. The object was to prevent anything like an attempt to form a sort of clerical cave in the Board, which was a very small one, and which would have very important powers. He might point out that it was not in the least necessary that all the clerics on this Board should be members of any particular denomination, in order to make it unadvisable that they should be there at all; because the Board would have a very important function to perform—that of framing the rules, and creating the system under which this large sum of money was to
  276
  be expended. The Committee would see that having, as this Board would have, the right to dictate a large number of subjects in addition to those named in the Bill, it was quite possible that there might be a combination of clerical elements which might be injurious to the promotion of intermediate secular education. There was no doubt that the Bill itself did appear to be very different in one part from what it appeared in another part. In one part, it promoted secular education; in another part, it practically promoted denominational education by concurrent endowment. Supposing the Government were not protected by explicit words in the Act, from influences being brought to bear upon them to place ecclesiastics upon the Board, it was clear that if the Lord Lieutenant was to elect a Presbyterian, or an Episcopalian, it would become necessary, in order to make the thing square, and have a proper balance of parties, to appoint ecclesiastics from the other denominations. It was to protect Government from anything in that direction that he brought forward this Amendment. But there was another object, and it was this—that the members of the Board should be graduates of some University. It was for the purpose of securing that there should be, at all events, some sort of primâ facie academical position and potentiality. It was quite clear that something must be done in order to secure that. It had been pointed out that the description he proposed in his Amendment would exclude persons who were academically competent, who were not graduates of Universities in Great Britain, but who belonged to Catholic Colleges in Ireland, and that such persons might be qualified to sit on the Board. He should be quite ready to give way with regard to that point, supposing the Government were ready to accept the principle of his Amendment. If they could suggest some way of ascertaining the academical qualifications, he should be willing to insert it in the Bill. But two main points which he suggested by his Amendment, which he urged on the consideration of the Government, and which he felt were of great importance, were that the Government should protect themselves from any influences being brought to bear in various parts of Ireland, and that it should be made a qualification

  277
  that every member of the Board should be a layman, with, of course, the requisite academical qualifications.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not find it necessary to press this Amendment. He would remind the hon. Member and the Committee that there was a large number of persons in Ireland who, under ordinary circumstances, would have enjoyed a University education, but did not; and by passing this Amendment, these persons would be virtually excluded to a large extent. With regard to the desirability of excluding clergymen, he would observe that such a course had not been thought necessary on any other Education Board. But apart from that, it was to be remembered that in Ireland intermediate education was, to a large extent, in the hands and under the guidance of clergymen of various denominations—clergy of the Established Church, of the various Nonconformist Bodies, and of the Roman Catholic Church. What would be the effect of excluding clergymen of those various Bodies, who took so much interest, and had so much experience, in the promotion of education? Nothing could be more fatal to the Bill. No one, he was sure, would desire to see any particular element predominant; but, on the other hand, no one who desired the success of the Bill would wish to see any particular element excluded, especially the particular element which had already taken so great a part in education. Nothing could be more ruinous than to exclude them. The result would be to exclude some men whose presence was necessary to the success of the scheme. The hon. Member spoke of the creation of a clerical Cave; but did he suppose it likely that clergymen — Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian—would join in a Cave against the laymen? It was not likely that such a thing should happen. He believed that the suggestion which the hon. Member had made was founded on a mistake which had unaccountably got into the minds of some hon. Members, to the effect that a large proportion of the people of Ireland would attempt to wrest this Bill into a scheme of sectarian education.
  MR. E. JENKINSrose to a point of Order, and said, the hon. Member had misunderstood him. It was not with
  278
  reference to religious education at all; but with reference to the liberal character of that education that he made the remark.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he believed that the dread which the hon. Member, and some other hon. Members, entertained of a liberal education in Ireland, arose from the idea that the Irish Members were endeavouring to wrest this Bill to sectarian purposes. So far as he knew anything of the history of this question, they had no such intention. They desired—and desired as strongly as any Member of the House— that this measure should be a measure to be really and generously enjoyed by the people of Ireland, and that it should be equally well-fitted for all classes of the community.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that just before he came to the House, he was reading the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) in 1874, when he brought before the House the necessity for adopting some measure for the encouragement of intermediate education. He proposed that there should be an examination, but he expressly stated that he did not propose to reward the managers of schools, or the instructors in schools, because that would raise the question of denominational education.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYrose to Order. He must request the hon. Member to read his words, as he could not accept his version as a real representation of what he said.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the hon. Member doubted the accuracy of his memory, he could assure him that the words he had used were very much to that effect. He read the speech with great attention. It was a very able speech in many respects, and the hon. Member could not dissociate this question as to the character of the Board from the latter part of the Bill, which he expressly, in 1874, said he abstained from pressing because it would raise the denominational question. He, therefore, could not help thinking that the hon. Member's correction of what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was rather lame. He could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, because he thought the total exclusion of all clergymen would be an anomaly. If he

  279
  had proposed that four should be laymen, and only three ecclesiastics, he should have voted with him.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR,hoped the hon. Member for Dundee would not press the Amendment to a division. In Ireland there were numerous gentlemen of the highest qualifications for a seat on the Board; but they were not graduates of any University. Besides that, he should be very sorry to see clergymen not trusted as citizens; and no man could be better qualified for a seat on the Board than that most accomplished scholar, Dr. Russell, the Rector of Maynooth.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the wish of the Government was to secure for the Board gentlemen of position, of learning, of experience in educational work; and if it were necessary to include clergymen or persons not having a University degree, he believed Parliament would not be so illiberal as to prevent their nomination; but there was no intention in the mind of the Government, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think, of having a majority of clergymen on the Board, because no person in Ireland would like to see that.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the Amendment excluded everyone but graduates in Great Britain. Did the hon. Member for Dundee mean to exclude graduates of the University of Dublin? As the Amendment stood, it excluded any graduate of that University. He must say that this appeared to be just a specimen of the rashness with which Amendments were sometimes placed upon the Paper without due consideration. Hon. Members were not treating the House with proper respect when they did not take the trouble to ascertain that Ireland was not part of Great Britain before placing an Amendment upon the Paper. He would advise the hon. Member not to trouble himself too much in this matter, and to deal with it as little as he could, until he had made himself better acquainted with the subject.
  MR. E. JENKINSreplied that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) should have listened to the observations on which he had ventured to comment before he spoke upon them. When he had brought this matter before the Committee earlier in the evening, he had distinctly stated that
  280
  he felt the awkwardness of the form in which he had drawn this Amendment. He had felt that there were many members of the Catholic University who were well qualified, academically, for these posts; and, therefore, he knew how difficult it would be to draw up the Amendment in such a way as would carry out his intention. In these circumstances, he had expressed himself as being perfectly willing to accept such alterations in it as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) might suggest. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick, however, had thought right to read him a lecture because he had interfered with this Bill. It was true that he was a younger Member of the House than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick; perhaps he was not half his age as a Member; nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to lecture him upon the responsibility he owed to the House before he put an Amendment upon the Paper. He certainly was not going to take his orders in such a manner from any Irish, English, or Scotch Member in that Committee, and he would inform the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that he was not in the habit of bringing forward questions with which he had not taken pains to make himself fully acquainted. He hoped, after the explanation he had given, that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would see the propriety of qualifying the observations he had made in reference to his action in this matter.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that he had no qualification of his observations to make, because the hon. Member for Dundee had given no explanation whatever. The Catholic University was a totally different institution from the Dublin University, and had no power to grant degrees; but the Dublin University was on a level with Oxford or Cambridge, and the Amendment as framed—and he dealt with it as framed—prevented the most distinguished member of Dublin University from being appointed to this Irish Board of Education. He did not mean to doubt the hon. Gentleman; but, before he gave Notice of such an Amendment as this, he ought to have considered that Ireland was not a part of Great Britain.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas sorry to have misquoted the remarks of the hon.

  281
  Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). The language actually used by the hon. Member on the 9th of June, 1874, was as follows:—
  "He would not ask for a Capitation Grant, payable to the trustees in proportion to the success of their students, because though that might be very desirable, he could not conceal from himself the fact that it would involve an expenditure to which the House might be unwilling to consent, and it would be argued that it would be for denominational education."— [3 Hansard, ccxix. 1273.]
  The hon. Member's words, therefore, were not quite so strong as he had put them, but they distinctly admitted that it was open to argument; and he presumed the hon. Member thought that it was to be argued in opposition to his proposal that it was for a grant in aid of denominational education.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that considering that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass, it was scarcely wise of him to extend his observations to Amendments which had not yet been proposed. He had looked carefully through these Amendments, and they certainly did not appear to be open to the strictures which the hon. and learned Member had made upon them. At all events, it would not save time to make strictures upon them by anticipation. His object in rising was to save time. He had no reason to suppose that the hon. Member for Dundee would take a suggestion from him; but they were agreed, he knew, upon many points on educational matters, and he would advise him not to press his Amendment. He could not help seeing that there were great difficulties to be encountered in dealing with this subject. He entirely sympathized with the hon. Member in one part of his Amendment—namely, that which proposed that the Members of this Board should also be members of a University who had taken degrees; because that would be a guarantee that they were persons who had received a liberal education. On the other hand, it could not be denied that it would be unfair to exclude from the Board members of the Irish University. There were many Catholic gentlemen who were members of that University, who were distinguished for their learning and ability, who would be most proper persons to place upon the Board. For instance, the hon. Member's Amend-
  282
  ment, if carried as it stood, would exclude Dr. Russell. In these circumstances, he must say that he did not see how it was possible to lay down any satisfactory rule on the point. Then, as regarded the latter part of the Amendment, although no one would regret more than himself to see too much of the ecclesiastical element on the Board, yet it would be a most illiberal thing to say that no ecclesiastic should be a member of it. There was nothing he disliked more than to impose disabilities upon any class. There could not be a more devoted friend to education than Dr. Lloyd, the present Provost of Trinity College, Dublin; and yet this Amendment would exclude him from the Board, and the same thing might be said with regard to many other clergymen in both Ireland and England. On the whole, therefore, he did not think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, although it was doubtless proposed with a liberal intention, excluding, as it did, such men as Dr. Lloyd, would meet with the approval of the Committee. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would be content with the discussion which had taken place, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he would remind the hon. Member for Dundee, who possessed a great literary reputation in that House, that the object of this Bill was to meet the want of liberal education which, unfortunately, existed in Ireland. It was almost a matter of wonder that that want was not even greater than it was at present, considering under what great disadvantages, with regard to liberal education, the Irish people laboured. In these circumstances, he hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would not throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of passing this measure. Although the Bill might not come up to the ideal of the hon. Member, still he must admit that its effect would do much to raise the standard of education in Ireland. He therefore begged to exgress a sincere hope that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he hoped that the Committee would allow him to explain that the cause of the misunderstanding which had arisen between himself and the hon. and learned Member

  283
  for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was a misprint in the Amendment he had proposed, the words of it appearing to be "Great Britain" only, instead of "Great Britain and Ireland," as he had intended they should be. He had not had his attention directed to the fact before, and he ought to be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having pointed out the mistake to him. After the opinion which had been expressed by the Committee on his Amendment, he should not feel justified in detaining them longer in reference to it. He would merely say, in reply to the observation of the hon. junior Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), to the effect that there was no precedent for the proposal he had made to exclude the ecclesiastical element from this Board, that there was no precedent for allowing ecclesiastics to administer intermediate secular education. He begged to be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he should not move the next Amendment on this clause that stood upon the Paper in his name. He would, however, move the next Amendment to the clause of which he had given Notice. He proposed, in page 1, line 17, after "year," to insert—
  "Subject to the power of displacement above vested in the Lord Lieutenant. On removal of either by the Lord Lieutenant, the Board shall elect for the remainder of the term a substitute or substitutes."
  He thought that it would be seen that, unless these words were adopted, some little difficulty would arise with regard to the re-election or the substitution of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board when their offices became vacant.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he did not think that these words were really required; because the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member for Dundee would not be likely to arise very often in practice.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how the matter stood. First of all, the clause stated that—
  "If any vacancy occurs in the office of any member of the Board by death, resignation, or otherwise, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may appoint some other person to fill the vacancy."
  284
  But then, in the earlier part of the clause, it was said that these offices were to be held during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Supposing that these officers were to be displaced by the Lord Lieutenant, the Board could only appoint to these offices at their first meeting; and the question would be, whether the Lord Lieutenant could legally displace the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board when once they had been appointed?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would be glad to give the subject his consideration before the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that, under those circumstances, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Assistant Commissioners and other officers) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Salaries and expenses) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Functions of Board).
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the omission of the 3rd sub-section of the clause which provided—
  "For the payment to managers of schools, complying with the prescribed conditions, of fees dependent on the results of public examinations of students."
  The object of the Bill was to provide for intermediate education in Ireland, and it was solely in furtherance of that object that he now moved the omission of this 3rd sub-section of the clause. If he believed that the retention of this sub-section would tend to the improvement of intermediate education in Ireland, he should have been the last to have opposed it; but it appeared to him that instead of its doing good in that direction, its operation would be positively mischievous in relation to the future progress of education in Ireland. The main scheme of the Bill was to stimulate education in that country by means of prizes to be given to those who distinguished themselves. This subsection proceeded upon the principle, not of giving the prizes to the students who distinguished themselves, but to the managers of the schools who produced

  285
  them. He asked, whether such a course was either necessary, or desirable? This sub-section was so essentially different from the provision for awarding prizes to successful students as to involve the principle of concurrent endowment, and the payment that was made for producing certain results might be devoted to something else. It was not necessary, for the cause of education, that payment should be made in this way, and the desired result — that of applying a stimulus to students—would be more certainly secured by awarding prizes to them individually. After all, a master might fail to present his boys, and the result would be that he would lose the reward of his labour. Just at the last moment some difficulty might arise between the master and the parents, and the latter might refuse to permit their children to go up for examination, and the master would lose his legitimate reward. He was not striking so much at the proposal to pay money for this purpose as at the mode in which it was to be paid. He was aware that it had been objected that if all the money were expended in Scholarships and prizes, the attention of the masters would be concentrated upon the most intelligent boys, and the others would be neglected. If prizes of £3 or £5 each were given to all boys who passed in three classes of subjects in the average standard, the danger that individual boys would receive too much attention would be obviated. The character of this mode of payment would be better realized, if it were considered in its application to University education. If so much were given to the managers of Colleges for each student who matriculated or took a degree, it would be seen that regular contributions, amounting to considerable sums, would, practically, result in the endowment of strictly denominational Colleges. This mode of payment was not necessary from an educational point of view, and from a religious point of view it was objectionable; and, therefore, he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 3 from the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 16, to leave out after the word "students," to the word "students," in line 19, inclusive.—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the hon. Member for Liskeard did not appear to bear in mind that there were two analogous cases in which the Government paid by results. The first was exactly in point, it arising out of the payment for primary education. A large proportion of the grant for elementary education was paid for results in precisely the same manner that the hon. Member for Liskeard deprecated—namely, not to the pupil or to the parents, but to the manager of the school. In the second case, the analogy was, perhaps, not quite so obvious, although it really applied to the present case with equal force. The £500,000 that was voted annually for the Volunteers was paid to the captains or colonels, who got the men together, and not to the men themselves, the grant being paid for results. That plan had been found to work very successfully. These two cases completely answered the objections of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and showed that the system of payment to the managers of the schools, as proposed by the 3rd sub-section of the clause, would work well. The hon. Member for Liskeard said, that it was a mere accident whether the students would come up for examination; and that, therefore, the managers would be obtaining payment for a mere accident. That argument might be good enough of any single student coming up for examination; but it would not hold good where a large number were to be brought up. Nothing was more uncertain than the life of one man; but nothing was more certain than the average duration of the lives of a large number of men. It would be found that the average number of students coming up for examination would be always about the same. The average number so coming up would be equally constant, at all events, with the average number of persons annually run over in the Strand; and of the total number who were examined, a certain number would pass, proportionate to the educational advantages of the schools, from whence they came. But then the hon. Member for Liskeard went on to say—"Why not give the prizes to the boys themselves?" What was the common sense view of the matter? If the money were given to the boys themselves, they would, in all probability, merely squander it in giving themselves and

  287
  their friends a holiday treat, or, at the best, they might buy a box of mathematical instruments with it, and go to the wrong shop for it. Or, said the hon. Member, it might be given to the parents themselves. But then the parents might give it to the schoolmasters—perhaps half would do so. The boys, however, would not get so much stimulus, in an educational point of view, from that course being adopted, instead of giving money directly to the teacher. If the money were given to the teacher, he would constantly be urging upon the boys the necessity of their earning a prize. He had no doubt that the whole band of teachers would be able and willing to coach boys to pass for the larger prizes. It would be pleasanter, and, perhaps, more profitable, work to instruct such boys who would make a figure in society than to produce average men, who made the wealth of the nation not because they were the cleverest, but because they were the most numerous.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished for information as to who were to be the managers of these intermediate schools? In the case of elementary schools the word "managers" was most carefully defined; but no such definition was contained in the present Bill, which had reference solely to intermediate education. It was important to have information on this point, in order that the money might be paid to the right persons. In illustration of what he meant, he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was the manager, or who were the managers, of the Royal School at Armagh—was the manager the headmaster, who only contributed to the success of the school; or was the management vested in the Board of Commissioners in Dublin, whose duties were restricted to the appointment of the head-master, and who had just as much to do with the actual management of the school as the House of Commons had? In the event of a number of boys from this school passing, to whom would the capitation grant be paid, and how would it be applied? He thought the Committee ought to have information on this point before being asked to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he did not rise to answer the question asked by
  288
  the hon. Member who had last spoken, for he entertained no doubt that it would be very easy to ascertain the names of the managers of these institutions; but he wished to say a few words on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard. His hon. Friend said the object of the Bill was to promote intermediate education in Ireland, and he should like to know how that education was to be promoted, and what was the want at present existing? Taking the last question first, he would say that, as far as the Roman Catholics were concerned, what they wanted was really good schools with efficient teachers. Well, was that more likely to be supplied by paying the successful teachers or by giving the money to the pupils, who, by themselves or their parents, might do what they liked with the premiums awarded? If the money was to be disposed of in the way he had suggested last, it would fail in accomplishing what he took to be the main object of the Bill; and therefore he thought the Amendment would defeat the object which he felt sure its Mover had at heart, and which he had stated to be the object of the Bill.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the further the discussion proceeded, the more clear it became that the Government had laid before the House a very admirable scheme in a very loose manner. It was very important to know, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had suggested, whether any definition was to be included in the Bill as to who were to be the managers of the schools? and it was no answer to a suggestion to say that the fact could be very easily ascertained. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), referring to the question of payment by results, said the same system prevailed in England. So it did, but the conditions were different. In England the payment depended upon inspection; under the present Bill there was no such provision. Again, the Bill provided for certain pass examinations; but it gave no definition as to what the students should be examined in, in order to obtain a pass, and so entitle the managers of the schools—whoever they might be—to take the results fees.
  MR. MURPHYthought the Bill sufficiently explained the nature and constitution of the managing Bodies of the schools; and enabled the Lord Lieu-

  289
  tenant and the Commissioners to ascertain for themselves what the duties of the managers were, and how they were to be performed.
  MR. GORSTsaid, if that was the explanation it made matters even worse, because it would enable the Commissioners to give the public money to whomsoever they thought fit. Parliament certainly ought to take such steps as would secure the money finding its way into the right hands.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that one of the chief duties of the Commissioners would be to determine who were the managers of schools, and they would do that according to the varying circumstances of the cases. If a hard-and-fast line was to be drawn by the Statute, there would, practically, remain nothing for the Commissioners to do.
  MR. ERRINGTONobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would make the Bill not only worthless, but injurious. He took it that the intention of Parliament was to raise the general standard of intermediate education in Ireland; to induce able men to take part in the educational work—instead of mere adventurers, who look up "cramming" as a profession—and also to raise up permanent institutions for intermediate education. Not one of these points would be gained by giving certain prizes for what he might call hot-bed students. He objected to any system which would have the effect of transforming the intermediate schools into a class of "cramming" institutions.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard raised two questions of extreme importance in connection with education. Looking at the question solely from an educational point of view, he wished to consider it with regard to the novel principle which it introduced—a principle which, if it was drawn into a precedent, would not only do great harm to Irish education, but would re-act prejudicially upon English education. Hitherto, two distinct principles had been resolutely acted upon with regard to the distribution of public money in aid of education—firstly, that the schools receiving grants should submit themselves to inspection by properly appointed public authority; and, secondly, that the teachers in such schools should
  290
  have certificates of efficiency. Further, it had always been insisted upon that Parliament should know explicitly into whose hands grants of public money went for distribution. As far as he could see, this Bill set at nought each of these, which he had always regarded as cardinal principles, in reference to the granting of public money for educational purposes. His own view was that the main object of many of his hon. Friends who sat near him was to promote not so much intermediate, as denominational education in Ireland. He could not, in any circumstances, consent to depart from the principle of inspection—a principle which, he thought, was one of the utmost importance, in that it enabled the Education Department to know something of the schools beyond the point of mere educational and examinational efficiency. He hoped some assurance would be given on this point before the Committee disposed of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard. The question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as to the hands into which the money grants were to go, was one of the utmost importance; and he hoped the Government would give their serious attention to it. Unless it was most clearly defined who were the managers, there was no security that any portion of the results fees would go to reward the teachers who had brought about the results in question. What security would Parliament have that the teachers were not under the thumb and control of some ecclesiastical authority, who would deny them any right to the smallest part of the results fees which they had, practically, earned? Looking at the question from an economical, as apart from an educational, point of view, he thought the duty of the House of Commons was clear. They had to dispense public money, and they ought to take every care and security possible to have defined, with the utmost distinctness, the purposes to which the money was to be devoted, and the hands into which it would pass. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) had said, in answer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, that if money was given in prizes instead of in the shape of payment for results, it would prove a great encouragement to "cramming." He

  291
  could not understand this argument; because the interest of the teacher in such a case would not be to select special pupils for "cramming" purposes, inasmuch as the pupil, and not the ''crammer," would be rewarded. In the case of payment for results, on the other hand, it would not be the "crammed" but the "crammer" who would reap the reward. He could not help thinking that the argument about "cramming," which he should not have used—for he objected to it—if it had not been introduced into the debate, was often in the mouths of persons who objected to all systems of examination in any shape. His own experience, both as one who had been examined and had conducted examinations on many occasions, led him to the conclusion that, properly conducted, examinations threw extraordinary light upon the individual capacity of the persons examined. He thought it was possible to escape from the dilemma by adopting the English system in reference to payment for results by submitting the schools to public inspection. If the proposal for such inspection was refused, they could only conclude that it was refused for some very good and strong reason. Believing that the grounds for the refusal, and the refusal itself, would not promote the cause of education in Ireland, he should have no alternative but to support the Amendment.
  MR. BUTTthought the point which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was a mere bugbear, which could be removed by a slight change in the draft of the Bill. As far as the question of the managers of the schools was concerned, he should think they would be the persons who managed the schools, and he saw no valid objection to such a body on the ground that it was or might be ecclesiastical in its character. If any attempt was made to alter the Bill in this particular respect, the result would simply be to mar the measure, as many other measures had been marred, by intolerance, though ostensibly framed for the purpose of serving Ireland. The person who managed schools and received the payments for scholars was, to his mind, the person who ought to receive the result fees. If the word "managers" required to be explained, let the explanation be given; but do not let the Committee forget the more important ques-
  292
  tion—one of the most essential parts of this very imperfect attempt to stimulate and aid Irish intermediate education— namely, that all the attempts of the Government would be vain unless they could carry the convictions and affections of the Irish people with them. He would press upon the Government the fact that the Bill had been received with all but universal satisfaction by the people of Ireland; and that if the principle of payment for results was struck out of it, that feeling of satisfaction would disappear. The Irish people would not submit for a moment to the giving of Exhibitions and nothing more, because there were many schools—principally Protestant—which were richly endowed, and would train students specially for those Exhibitions; while the other schools, which had no endowments, would not be able to secure any of the prizes nor, in fact, any of the money which was set apart by the State for educational purposes in Ireland. To take the course which was involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard would be to put a weapon into the hands of those persons who wished to keep alive in Ireland the spirit of disaffection; and to reject the principle of payment by results would be to create a feeling of opposition to the Bill which could not but extend to an enormous extent. In Ireland they wanted something more than Exhibitions which would stimulate the activity of pupils and afford to them the means to prosecute their studies. They wanted, not an increase in the number of schools generally, but good intermediate schools; and these could not be secured unless encouragement was given to the teachers by the payment of results fees. How were good schools and schoolmasters to be got? There was certainly one way, and that was by undertaking the entire educational system; planting a school and a schoolmaster wherever they were wanted, and providing all the necessary funds. If that was done, the Government would have a perfect right to insist on public inspection of every school before making a grant; but nothing of the kind was proposed by the present Bill, and no Government in its senses would undertake so great a responsibility without greater deliberation than had been bestowed upon the present measure. The Government had under-

  293
  taken a far more modest and limited operation—namely, that of encouraging schools which had hitherto carried on their work without any endowment from the State. The State said, practically— "We are neutral on the question of denominational education; we willingly ignore that question, because we leave religion to yourselves, but we will aid you on the one condition, that you give us a good manufactured article; give us educated men, and doing your own work, you may do it in your own way." The Government and the country owed much to the cause of intermediate education in Ireland, by reason of the fact that the lavish grants made in aid of primary education had checked some of the means by which education was in former time afforded. When he was very young, and before he was sent to one of the Royal schools, he received his education from a Methodist minister in his father's parish—an old gentleman who had the reputation of being the best classical scholar in the county—and who gathered round him pupils drawn from the middle class in society, some of whom were now clergymen holding high positions in the Roman Catholic Church, and others of whom were then, and still remained, members of the Protestant Communion. This was a case of mixed education, being given in what was practically a denominational school—a system which might, with advantage, be pursued in the future; but which would be materially impaired if the payment of result fees were not allowed to obtain. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government was establishing denominational education by paying results fees. The Irish people wished to see the principle adopted; the Government professed a wish to carry the Irish people with them; but they, at any rate, entertained, if they did not adopt it, a proposal which would run counter to the wishes of the people. Education did not consist in a pupil being able to pass a particular examination; therefore, he was strongly in favour of payment for results, in preference to the giving of prizes or Exhibitions for extraordinary proficiency in particular subjects; in fact, all he wanted, and all the Irish people wanted, was that the Government should give assistance to the existing schools, and establish others where they might be
  294
  needed. The system of Exhibitions and prizes would tend to the encouragement of "grinders"—he disliked the appellation "crammers" as much as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) did —instead of encouraging the real masters of the schools. The giving of Exhibitions and prizes would certainly create a demand for teachers; but they would not be teachers of the class likely to be most useful in the general work of education. He could not support those who wished to institute a system of inspection in intermediate schools, because it would involve a needless expenditure of time and money, and would lead to a great deal of bickering and quarrelling. Let the schools manufacture educated men in their own way, and they would be sure of their reward, without reference to the process of manufacture which they might choose to adopt. He was quite sure it would be better to let the Bill pass in its present form, than to run the risk, by attempting to improve it in essential points, of losing the confidence of the Irish people.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, they were told it was not enough to reward the scholars; they must reward the school teachers. Who were those teachers? Most of the schools were in the hands of the religious Orders or other Roman Catholic priests. The regular or Monastic Orders of the Church of Rome would not submit their establishments to inspection. Why, then, should they endow schools which would not submit to their inspection? He perceived a secondary object in this Bill. If they made these payments to these schools, they would contravene the law by which these Monastic establishments were held to be illegal. The promoters of this scheme were aiming at the repeal of the law which declared these institutions to be illegal. There were legal as well as constitutional objections to making payments to these schools. This was an objection recognized by most of the countries of Europe; and while he would vote for the payment of the educated man, he objected to pay for schools which were so constituted that they rejected inspection. Were they driven to this—that they must contravene the law? If they endowed Monastic schools, they would raise additional obstacles to the erection of independent

  295
  schools such as that in which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was educated; they would raise a barrier against enterprize in that form. Let them adopt the Amendment now before the Committee, and go straight to their object, which he admitted to be legitimate—the encouragement of intermediate education. He would do much to meet the wishes of the Irish people, for he was convinced it was the want of education which made them so dissatisfied; but when they asked him to encourage Bodies known to disseminate principles which produced alienation, he replied that if they could attain their object by other means, they ought to adopt those means, and not go out of their way to endow establishments and an anti-national system under which a largo portion of the Irish people was now enthralled.
  MR. SULLIVAN,in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, thought the Committee must have been very much reminded of a character in one of the stories of Charles Dickens, who was continually referring to the head of Charles I. He was waiting during that speech in order to see when the Jesuits and Cardinal Cullen would make their appearance. If the hon. Member would go over to Ireland, he would find that he was making a wail on the floor of the House all too late; for if it were illegal to recognize the existence of religious Orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland by giving them what he (Mr. Newdegate) called State endowments, he must learn that they enjoyed those State endowments already, and that, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, they well earned the money which they received. At Glencree, in County Wicklow, he would find one of those religious Bodies conducting a school partly with the money given by the State; and there was no Government or Administration in Ireland the officers of which had not testified to the success of that experiment made in the direction of "concurrent endowment"—a phrase in many ears more mysterious and awful even than the word "Mesopotamia." Let the hon. Member go over to Ireland, and he would learn that the illegality of which he complained had been sanctioned by the Legislature of which he was a Member.
  SIR PATRICK O'BEIENwas aware that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had a craze upon the subject of Catholic institutions, and would, therefore, only address himself to one of his observations. The hon. Member had referred to the deleterious character of the education likely to be afforded by those establishments. The answer to this was that if managers in Ireland were to spend time in imparting to their pupils education of that kind, they would not be likely to receive a very large amount in result fees. In matters of education he was with Bishop Butler, who drew the distinction between the terms "emulation" and "envy," that the one regarded a person in the hone of being raised to a higher level, while the latter described the feelings that would drag another man down. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was in favour of levelling up. With reference to the kind of education received at intermediate schools, he remembered that when he was at Trinity College, Dublin, they were generally over-weighted by the students who came up from those schools; but who, after their first year, did not retain their superiority, and this Bill would, in some degree, remedy that inequality. Every hon. Member of his persuasion should assist in passing the Bill, in order to give encouragement to the schools, and enable themselves to meet their fellow-countrymen on an equal footing. He put it to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), whether he intended to put his philosophical views against the unanimous opinion of the people of Ireland? With all deference to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he would remind him that he was possessed of English prejudices, and had not for any great number of years been associated with his countrymen, the Irish. He expressed his thanks to the Government for the introduction of the Bill, which he trusted would soon pass into law; for it was, in his opinion, the best measure that had been introduced for many years with the object of benefiting the Irish people.
  MR. EWARTwas not insensible to the weight of the objections urged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and he frankly confessed that it would be disagreeable to

  297
  him, and against his feelings, to see result fees given to the religious Orders in the way indicated by the hon. Member, and as he had no doubt they would go if the Bill passed. Yet, looking at things as they existed in Ireland, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard, even though the Roman Catholics of Ireland got a share of these funds to aid in the better education of their youths. He very much doubted that if all the advantages were given in Exhibitions, as the hon. Member-for North Warwickshire proposed, it would serve the end he had in view; for what would be easier than to have an arrangement with the pupils that the Exhibitions should, in the main, go to the teacher. They wanted in Ireland two things—first, some aid to the teacher; second, some aid to the pupils. The latter the Bill proposed to give in the way of result fees, some of which would undoubtedly pass from the manager to the teacher. He had some experience in Ireland as a manager of a high-class intermediate school, and the great difficulty experienced was the want of means to pay first-class teachers. He hoped the Bill would pass, and he believed it would enable them to provide good teachers for the intermediate schools. He looked forward to a great improvement in the education of his countrymen; and, in his opinion, the Bill would give satisfaction, and tend to the happiness of the people of Ireland.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Grorst) had remarked upon the absence from the Bill of any definition of the term "manager." There should be no difficulty on this point; but, in his opinion, it would be very difficult to frame a wording that would assist anyone of ordinary intelligence in his endeavour to understand the meaning of the word "manager." He had just said that he was not in a position to afford the Committee information as to the component elements of the Board about to be appointed; but he could assure them that it was not intended to select gentlemen incapable of satisfying themselves as to the ordinary meaning of plain terms. He believed it would occur to every hon. Member that a definition of the word "manager" was unnecessary. Now, with regard to the payment of results fees. Something had been said about
  298
  a guarantee that the money would go to the persons entitled to receive it; but was it to be supposed that it would be handed over to anyone who applied for it? Was it not more probable that the Board would apply the 7th subsection of the 6th clause, which afforded a guarantee that the money would only be paid to persons entitled to make application for it? The fees would go to the manager, who, in his view, was the person who "kept the bag," so to speak, and paid the teachers; and no one of average intelligence could go far wrong in determining who were entitled to receive the money. It was said in the course of the debate by the hon. Member for Liskeard, that "the Lord Chancellor had alluded to result fees as affording a good precedent." When the question of University education came to be dealt with, he (Mr. J. Lowther) had perused authentic records of what had taken place, and failed to find any such expression of opinion; and he, therefore, made bold to say that his noble and learned Friend had never said anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had stated that Parliament had always prescribed that public money should not be given in aid of education unless the schools were subject to inspection. He thought, if hon. Members would look, they would see that these conditions were strictly complied with in the Bill. They would see that by the 3rd clause of the Bill, the Assistant Commissioners should act, when required, as Inspectors as well as Secretaries. That, of course, contemplated the exercise, by the Board, of the power of inspection whenever it was thought fit. He was, therefore, justified in saying that not one sixpence would be given to an institution that was not liable to inspection. He thought the fees in question were needed to carry out the object of the Bill, which was the development and improvement of intermediate schools, and, when it was required, the calling into existence of new ones. With regard to Exhibitions, he thought if these, whether great or small, were given to any child, the parent might come in for a share; but that the last person likely to get any of the money would be the teacher. With reference to the supposed enforcement by managers of a condition that a proportion of the Ex-

  299
  hibitions should go to them, he would say that that would be obtaining, in a covert way, the object the Government desired to keep above board. He hoped the Committee would retain the words proposed to be omitted.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), in his opinion, had not been very successful in reminding the Committee of the results of the Catholic suppression in Germany. He did not think that Germany could be congratulated on the production of that distinguished non-Catholic, Dr. Nobiling. Again, he could not but think that all those expressions of terror, horror, and fear came with singular inappropriateness from an Englishman; because it was a fact that not the worst part, but the best and highest part, of popular education in England was almost exclusively in clerical hands. He did not know that the pupils of Harrow, Eton, and Rugby were distinguished by anything deleterious as regarded the education they received. Some fear had been expressed on that side of the House at the Papal character of the education which the fees were to reward and encourage. He would venture to give the Committee an illustration of the character of the education likely to be so rewarded and encouraged. It was but the other day that a deplorable accident happened at Oxford. A brilliant young student of Pembroke College, holding a Scholarship was, unfortunately, drowned in the river. That student, who was already regarded as certain to attain the highest distinctions at Oxford, had been a pupil and student of Queen's College, Galway; but had previously been through a lengthened course in a Catholic school, conducted not only by Catholic teachers, but by Catholic ecclesiastics. On the news of his sad death reaching Galway, one of the Professors of the College, with grief and feeling, which astonished no one, read a notice of the young pupil, and in the course of that notice he remarked that on the entrance of young O'Connor into Queen's College, he was already possessed of a sound classical knowledge, and the ordinary subjects of intermediate education, and was not to be surpassed in Greek by the captains of Eton, Rugby, Cambridge, or Oxford. This was the testimony of the Professor of Greek, with regard to the education
  300
  given in a Catholic intermediate school; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) was quite certain that the fact of their being Catholic would not, in the mind of any Member of the House who loved education, be an obstacle or objection to the payment of result fees to such managers and teachers who were capable of turning out men equal to his old friend George O'Connor.
  MR. HIBBERTinquired of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther), whether he would consent to insert in Clause 6, Sub-section 7, after the word ''describing," the words "by inspection or otherwise." He had gathered from the speech which he had just made that he considered inspection to be provided for in the Bill; and there could, for that reason, be no objection to the insertion of those words. It seemed to him that the addition proposed would carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and be of great use to many hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the Amendment. He could not support the Amendment, and thought that the proposal contained in the sub-section then under discussion was very much in accordance with the system carried out in this country. He could conceive no reason why the Government proposal should not be adopted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcould not agree to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), as he did not think any alteration necessary.
  MR. COURTNEYexplained, that in his reference to the speech of the Lord Chancellor, he did not say that the noble and learned Lord spoke of result fees as creating a precedent. The Lord Chancellor had declared that the present Bill was a preparation for legislation in respect of Universities; and it therefore followed that anything done in the present Bill must necessarily be of great weight at any future time, in defence or extenuation of any new proposals of the same character. With respect to inspection, the Bill provided none, in the sense in which his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had used the word. Payment by results hitherto had had a totally different meaning from payment by results in the Bill. In payment by results under the board school system, and under the voluntary system they were dealing with organizations, and

  301
  they inspected organizations. They inspected the organization for primary schools, the results of which they were going to pay for, and they did precisely the same in respect of voluntary schools. In this case, there was no inspection whatever of the organization of intermediate schools. The only thing they were going to ask for was that a manufactured article of a certain quality should be turned out. If that were so, why incur the inconvenience of dealing with managers? Why not deal at once with the manufactured article? Here he would refer to the most interesting experience of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). He referred to the time when he was a boy, and to the schools which then existed in Ireland. But these schools were supported because they turned out good scholars. Owing to the reputation thus secured, scholars came to them; and, in the same way, if the lads themselves, or their parents, were paid, instead of the manager, voluntary schools would spring up and prosper, because the turning out of successful boys would be resorted to, and boys would come to them. Thus, in order to obtain prizes, parents would patronize the schools where the education might be relied upon to produce that success. In that way only could they secure the improved education which was the main object of the Bill. They must remember that in this Bill they were only dealing with a prize boy, and unless they went and examined the school itself, and saw its working, they could not tell whether a thoroughly good education was being generally given. But, dealing, as they necessarily must, with the manufactured article, he asked whether they did not secure it much more conveniently, and without the disadvantage attending this scheme, by paying directly to the parent instead of to the manager? Who was the manager? The Government might say that the recipient of fees was the manager. Well, suppose the master got a certain portion of the tuition fees, was he the manager, or the person who appointed him? They could not get out of that. But there was another difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick said he did not care whether it was a denominational school or not. But if they were dealing with the
  302
  managers of a school, they must take care to secure this elementary condition —that all boys should have equal power to resort to that school. They were bound, if it was a denominational school, to see that it was so guarded and checked by a Conscience Clause that all boys might go to it, otherwise they were not dealing fairly with all classes, and they were devoting money to a public school to which a certain section of their boys might be unable to go. So that directly they dealt with the managers, they had this difficulty of a Conscience Clause, without any corresponding advantage. All the educational advantages hoped for would be secured by increasing the Exhibitions and prizes to the boys. On these grounds, he must press his Amendment.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) appeared to have had his orders to stick to every letter of the Bill; but he must warn the Government that if they were going to continue as inflexible with regard to Amendments which had yet to be proposed in this Bill as they had hitherto done, it would be fatal to its progress. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members around him, who had been accustomed to obstruction, said "Oh, oh!" but they must remember that the points which had been raised that night were of the deepest importance, and they must not be angry with him and other hon. Members if they felt rather inclined to insist upon them. But he desired to disclaim any sympathy with the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); and if the Committee would give him their attention for a moment or two, he should show the real distinction there was between the argument which had been used on the opposite side of the House, and that which had been advanced on his side. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire occupied a position which was very different from that which he, for instance, occupied. The hon. Member, having supported denominational education in England, and believing that English children who were not taught religion would be damned, was perfectly willing that Irish children should be damned. He did not sympathize with that sort of argument, nor did he go with the hon. Member at all in the attack which he had made

  303
  upon Roman Catholics. That was not the point before the Committee. The point which had been raised by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Courtney) and others was, whether or not, as this was a Bill which professed to be in aid of intermediate secular education—a principle which he had always and still supported—it was right that the matter should be so arranged as that there should be incidentally a concurrent religious endowment. That was a very different question from that raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. They simply adhered to the principle of secular education, and objected to any endowment of any religion whatever. He hoped it would not be thought that the time of the Committee had been wasted in pointing out that distinction. But the question now was—what were the Government going to do? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), had not given the Committee any satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there was vested in the Board a certain power of inspection; but then it was a power which they were not bound to exercise, and the point which they put was this—was it, or was it not, right that payment for results should be allowed in cases in which the Board might, if it chose, decline to inspect the efficiency of the teachers, and the character of the education given in the schools? He thought it would be most dangerous if, with reference to Ireland, they introduced this entirely new principle; and he felt that, unless the Government were prepared to consider the matter, any opposition which should be offered to that principle as it stood in the Bill would be perfectly justifiable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 165;
  Noes 47: Majority 118. —(Div. List, No. 237.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Rules to be made by Board).
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that a point which had already been the subject of some discussion might, he thought, be conveniently referred to at this stage of
  304
  the Bill. It was as to how far the Bill did, or did not, include the education of girls. He was free to confess that when he moved the second reading of the Bill—
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I rise to Order. I wish to ask what is the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining an Amendment, which I understand he intends to move to the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that when he moved the second reading of the Bill, he was under the impression that as drawn it did not extend to the education of girls. Since the second reading, this subject had been very carefully gone into; and he was now informed that it was a matter certainly open to a good deal of legal doubt as to what the exact application of the present wording of the Bill might be. He believed that those hon. and learned Gentlemen who were acquainted with what was known as Lord Brougham's Act would understand the nature of the doubts that had arisen; and certainly, so far as the Government were concerned, they had no objection whatever to the benefits of this scheme being, in a reasonable way, thrown open to girls as well as to boys. He certainly should have objected to raising any question which might give rise to lengthened debates upon women's rights, or any topics of that kind; and if doubts had not arisen as to the construction of the Bill as drawn, he should have been disposed to deprecate the opening-up of a controversy which was not necessary to the fulfilment of the ostensible object with which the Bill was introduced. But as matters now stood, he would suggest that either now, or if the Committee did not like to adopt the words without Notice, on the Report, the following words should be introduced after Subsection 3:— "For applying, as far as conveniently may be, the benefits of this Act to the education of girls." He might mention that these words were taken, as nearly as might be, from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and he thought they would meet every reasonable requirement. He begged to move the insertion of these words.
  MR. COURTNEYthought the Committee were in a somewhat unfortunate position in having this Amendment suddenly sprung upon them. As the

  305
  words had not been put on the Notice Paper, the Committee could not easily judge of their effect. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were taken from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but their experience of the working of that Act was not at all satisfactory. It was quite true that, under that Act, the Commissioners were instructed to do what they conveniently could in the way of promoting the education of girls; but, in point of fact, they had done next to nothing—he might almost say, nothing at all; and, as he believed that the benefits of the Bill, as it was at present drawn, were equally open to girls as to boys on precisely the same conditions, it was a limitation of the Bill, and not an enlargement of it, to insert a Proviso giving the Commissioners power to deal, "as far as conveniently may be," in their discretion, with the education of girls. In fact, the Bill, as it stood, did admit girls equally with boys to its full advantages. On that ground, he thought it would be inconvenient that a decision should be taken upon the point at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the matter might be deferred to the Report. Speaking for himself, he would rather have it deferred to the Report than that it should now be decided, for this reason—that the Amendment did certainly limit the Bill as it stood. The matter was now brought before them in a manner in which they could not possibly decide at once as to what was the proper plan to be adopted. This special Proviso clearly pointed to a different style of examination for girls from that for boys. Speaking for himself, he should most strongly deprecate any such distinction. The University of Cambridge had examined boys and girls under the plan of this Bill for many years. The boys and girls were admitted to precisely the same examination; the same papers were sent to them; and they were examined by the same Examiners. These local examinations had been conducted with so much success in the last year that, whilst there were 2,800 junior boys, there were 1,216 junior girls; and whilst there were 935 senior boys, there were 856 senior girls. The experiment had been tried for many years in this country with success, and the precedent might, he thought be followed with advantage in Ireland.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must entertain some doubt as to whether the Bill, as it stood, would apply to the education of girls; otherwise, he would scarcely have given Notice of an Amendment which had been placed in his name on the Paper. Yet, when the Government generously and opportunely came forward with an Amendment of their own, in order to remove all doubt in the matter—an Amendment which would, he believed, be quite as effectual as that of the hon. Gentleman, and quite as easy of comprehension—the hon. Gentleman, for reasons which he could not understand, declined to accept their proposal, and desired to withdraw his own, thus leaving the whole question at issue in a state of uncertainty. As to the Endowed Schools Act, the reason why so little had been done under its operation for the education of girls was that the funds had to be administered under the restrictions of trusts, which did not exist in the present case.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, as he took a very great interest in the question under discussion, he was not disposed to run any risk with regard to it; and he could not, therefore, concur in the course which the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) wished the Committee to adopt. The proposal of the Government was, he thought, well entitled to their favourable consideration, and he hoped it would be accepted. He, at all events, was prepared at once to close with the offer which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), and to agree that this Amendment should be at once inserted in the clause. If any further question should arise with respect to it, it might be dealt with on the Report. He did not, however, think that any difficulty would arise, because the words of the Amendment were taken from the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; and, in his opinion, the amount of discretion which the Amendment would give to the Commissioners might very fairly be vested in them.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,while he should not object to the Amendment of the Government — the concession made in which he hoped would not be carried further—said, he certainly should offer his most strenuous opposition to the Amendment which stood on the

  307
  Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). It should be borne in mind that the fund to be disposed of under the Bill was not very large, and, indeed, was not sufficient to provide for the requirements of the male youth of Ireland; and, therefore, it would not be expedient that it should be divided equally between girls and boys.
  MR. HERSCHELLbelieved, that as the Bill stood it would apply to boys and girls alike; but expressed a hope that, in order to clear up any ambiguity which might exist, the Amendment of the Government—which, in his opinion, would be perfectly sufficient to carry out the object in view—would be accepted by the Committee.
  MR. MELDONsaid, it was supposed by some hon. Members that girls would be treated more favourably under the Bill, in its present shape, than if the Amendment of the Government were adopted. But, be that as it might, the course which the Government had taken in dealing with the question appeared to him to be most extraordinary. Both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, it had been distinctly stated that the Bill had been drafted with the view that it should not apply to girls; and that, upon that point, the Government would not give way. Why, he should like to know, did they now propose to deviate from that policy? Was it because they were convinced that they were originally wrong? Nothing of the kind. It was simply because a mistake had been made of their draftsman, and that it had been found that girls might obtain some advantages under the Bill as it was drawn. For his own part, he was not one of those who objected to a reasonable provision being made for the education of girls; but he certainly objected strongly to the victory which the proposed Amendment would give to the advocates of women's rights, whose object was not that there should be a limited measure dealing specially with the education of women, but that the same education should be given to girls as was given to men. How did matters really stand with regard to the question? For years and years the subject of intermediate education had been discussed and pressed on the attention of the House. When the present Bill was at length introduced, not a word was said about afford-
  308
  ing any aid as to the intermediate education of women; and he would point out that in Ireland the same necessity did not exist for any such aid as existed in the case of boys. Ireland was studded over with exceedingly good schools for the education of girls; but for boys no such provision was made. The result was that while girls could be satisfactorily educated in that country, it was found necessary, in many instances, to send boys belonging to the same class for the purpose of education to England. There was only a sum of £1,000,000 available for educating boys under the Bill; and the result of extending its provisions to the education of girls, as was proposed, would be to render it entirely useless and inoperative, as it was, to a great extent, already, seeing that the amount to be disposed of was so small. It was not, he contended, a right course to adopt to change the vital principle of the Bill, simply because the Government draftsman had made a mistake. He hoped, therefore, that the question would not be pressed further that evening, and that it would be fully considered before the Report. If it was really advisable that some provision should be made for the intermediate education of girls in Ireland, then let that be done after due deliberation, and not in the hurried manner in which the Committee was now asked to proceed.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYcould assure his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down that the question at issue was not one of women's rights, but simply of their education, and that the object of the Amendment was nothing more nor less than to educate the women of Ireland, that they might be better able to discharge their duties as daughters, wives, and mothers. There were in Ireland, it was quite true, already excellent institutions for the purposes of female education; but it could not be justly said that that education stood in need of no stimulus. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would place boys and girls on a perfect level in matters of education. He would have them submitted to the same examination, and, for all he knew, would establish competitions between them. Now, identity of education might do very well in theory in England, though he doubted whether it was found to answer in practice; and the hon. Gentleman, he ima-

  309
  gined, hardly supposed that those girls who passed the Oxford and Cambridge examination, were fairly representative of the girls of this country. But, however the case might be in England or Scotland, Ireland did not want the same thing; and any attempt to establish identity of education as between Irish boys and girls would, he felt satisfied, end in failure.
  MR. J. P. CORRYwas very much obliged to the Government for having proposed the Amendment, and thought the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would do well to accept it; for it was calculated, in his opinion, to confer very great advantages in connection with the cause of female education in Ireland. He was, he must confess, astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) object so strongly to the proposal; but, for his own part, he entirely approved of it, and hoped the Government would adhere to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the question before the Committee was one which exactly concerned women's rights, although it might very easily become a question of women's wrongs. For his own part, he could see nothing more reasonable than that money, which was about to be appropriated to the advancement of intermediate education in Ireland, should, "as far as conveniently might be," be employed in promoting the education of girls. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had told the Committee that a vital principle of the Bill was that no attention should be paid to their education; but the hon. and learned Gentleman could, he thought, scarcely have been serious in making that statement. After all, it should not be forgotten that the very monies from which the endowment under the Bill was to come, had been used, whether rightly or wrongly, for the advantage of both men and women; and although it might be true that there were already good schools for girls in Ireland, the Committee would, he could not help thinking, make a very great mistake if they allowed the Bill to pass without making, as far as it could be reasonably done, some provision for the education of the female population of that country. The way in which the Government proposed to carry out that object was, it seemed to him, on the
  310
  whole, better than the mode suggested by the hon. Member for Liskeard. It was rather a strong thing to say that no discrimination should be made between the sexes in the matter, and he felt thankful to the Government for the very reasonable course which they had adopted.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped the hon. Member for Liskeard would be satisfied with the manner in which it was proposed by the Government to extend the benefits of the Bill to the education of girls. After all, the real object which the Committee ought to keep in view was the best mode of assisting those of the middle classes in Ireland, whose incomes were limited, in educating their children, and it did not so much matter whether the money was spent upon girls or upon boys. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) appeared to be of opinion that the money would go but a very little way in promoting education if it were divided between the two sexes. That, he thought, was a view of the matter which was entitled to attention; and it would be well to consider whether the fund to be disposed of under the Bill could not be increased, so as to meet the requirements of both.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGwas not an advocate of what were called women's rights; but he knew that there existed a considerable deficiency in the means of providing female education in Ireland; and he, therefore, cordially supported the Amendment, which would, he felt sure, be received with great favour by all classes in that country.
  MR. COURTNEYwould offer no further opposition to the Amendment proposed by the Government, although he certainly preferred his own, which he should reserve to himself the right of bringing forward at some future stage of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. JENKINSwished to propose an Amendment which, he said, was, in his opinion, necessary for the purpose of securing that literature and languages should, in some shape or another, form part of a boy's studies under the operation of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor, in "another place," had made a very startling statement, which he drew from the Report of the Commissioners in 1871.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to a debate which had taken place in the other House during the present Session.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he had not referred to any debate, but simply to a statement which had been made in "another place," drawn from the Census Commissioners' Report of 1871, to the effect that only 13,814 were engaged in learning in the schools in Ireland Latin, or Greek, or other languages, or mathematics, and that in one county there was in a particular school only one boy learning any one of these subjects. The Committee would at once see the importance of that statement, because it would serve to show what might be the character of the education which would be given under the operation of the Bill, when a very great improvement was made in the teachers in those intermediate schools. Now, what he proposed, in order to meet that difficulty, was nothing very dangerous. If hon. Members would turn to the Schedule of the Bill, they would find that the subjects of examination set down there were six in number—namely, Latin and Greek languages and history, English language and history, foreign languages and history, mathematics and the natural sciences; and then came, lastly, the very vague definition—"Such other subjects of secular education as the Board may from time to time prescribe." The Committee would at once perceive how the number of "such other subjects," relating to commerce, or something of that sort, might be enlarged; and, if any hon. Member would look at the Schedule, he would also find that a student would be obliged to answer satisfactorily in only two subjects in order to pass, and three in order to take honours. Now, that being so, there was not the slightest provision, he contended, made in the Bill to secure that under its operation even an elementary knowledge of literature or languages should be obtained. It was to remedy that defect that he proposed to add to Sub-section 4 of the clause the words "subject to the conditions of this Act." It was not an unreasonable proposal, because it would secure that the elements of four subjects, at least, should be taught to the students. He ventured to submit to the Committee that some such provision as
  312
  this was essential, when they found that the Government were unwilling to have inspection, and unwilling to give the House satisfaction as to the character of the education which was to be given. Hence he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see his way clear either to adopt his proposal, or one similar to it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERagreed with a good deal of that which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins); but he hoped he would not press his Amendment, as he would consider some of the points on Report.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there was a word used in the Schedule to which he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. That was, as to the various modes in which the word "subject" was used. It was quite necessary to have an interpretation of that word. In one place it was used as representing a whole class of subjects; whereas, in another case, it obviously applied to one thing only. Therefore, the interpretation he asked for was necessary.
  MAJOR NOLANentered his protest as to the degradation which he thought the Bill would cast upon mathematics and the natural sciences if the Amendment was accepted. Such a course he strongly objected to.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he should not like to agree to the Amendment if he thought it degraded mathematics and the natural sciences. The Amendment provided, as he approved, for the study of literature; but that would not prevent the study of mathematics. Anyone who was familiar with Universities or intermediate studies must have seen that certain subjects of natural and physical science were constantly taken refuge in by boys who tried to earn a reputation. But under the present Bill that could not be done. He thought nothing could be more suitable than the study of literature; and he considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee very valuable, so as to insure the proper teaching of classics. At present, classics were taught in Ireland; but the teaching did no intellectual good to nine boys out of ten. If it

  313
  was made a point that mathematics be studied properly, and not in a slip-shod way, the Bill would do a good deal to raise those studies from the discredit into which they were falling.
  MR. BUTTdid not say that the Amendment would degrade mathematics; but he strongly opposed taking such questions as it involved out of the discretion of the Board.
  MR. E. JENKINSwithdrew his Amendment, but again wished to point out how very important the subject was. They were giving money, as the Bill stood, without any security as to the inspection of the schools. That being so, he hoped, on Report, the Government would take the means of securing that which his Amendment aimed at.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GORSTmoved an Amendment to Sub-section 7, with the view of seeing fees paid were properly applied. He did not for a moment say the managers of schools were not efficient bodies; but Parliament ought to see that the fees received were applied for the purposes of the Act, which were to improve intermediate education in Ireland. He might remind the Committee that in the case of the Elementary Education Act for England, there were the most ample securities that the fees which were received by the managers should be applied to improving the education given. Without wishing to discuss the regulations laid down by the Board, he thought there should be ample provision for the due application of the money which might be received.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdid not think the Amendment was necessary, because the object of his hon. and learned Friend was attained by Clause 5 of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had an Amendment to move which he was sorry was not on the Paper; but he had desired to see the results of previous Amendments before he put it. His proposal was to the effect that in cases where money was paid, the schools should be inspected. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said more than once that inspection was provided for in the Bill. He (Mr. Fawcett) was perfectly aware that it was; but it did not, in the slightest de-
  314
  gree, follow that the inspection contemplated would be secured. He thought it a very unfortunate thing that the House should depart from a very important principle and a very important precedent, which had been uniformly observed in Acts relating to education—and that was, whenever money was given as payments for results in those cases, public money being so given, public inspection should follow. The Committee having decided, by a large majority, that payments by results should be maintained, of course, those who objected to such a course were bound to accept their decision. Therefore, he did not, in the slightest degree, wish to revive a controversy which had been settled, or in any way alter the intentions of the Committee by anything like a side-wind. He accepted it as absolutely decided, that there should be, as regarded intermediate education, payments for results, just in the same way as it was provided under the Elementary Education Act in England. But such payments ought necessarily to be followed by inspection; and, although the Bill provided for inspection, his Amendment had for its object making the intentions of the Bill more precise as to attaining the real principle of inspection. He therefore moved his Amendment, which simply asserted that in every case where managers received money as payment for results, in those cases, the schools superintended by such managers should be inspected under the authority of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 10, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words "for the inspection of the schools the managers of which received any payments under this Act."— (Mr. Fawcett.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney would see that the first thing which would arise if his proposal were adopted would be to add very largely to the working expenses of the Act. Incidentally, no doubt, they did comtemplate inspection under certain conditions; but inspection was to be the exception, as the Government did not contemplate

  315
  that the Board would find it necessary to adopt constant inspection. But whenever there was reason to believe that inspection was necessary, it would be adopted.
  MR. E. JENKINShoped the hon. Member for Hackney would press his Amendment. The Committee had no guarantee of efficiency; there was no certainty that proper subjects would be taught, and there was not to be any inspection. He ventured to ask the Committee, whatever the other House might do, whether it was right to pass the Bill in its present form? It was a matter for consideration—after the discussion which had taken place that night, after the manner in which it had been shown that the Bill failed in almost every particular to secure anything like efficient education or an efficient result for the money to be paid—whether the House should allow it to pass?
  MR. BUTTsaid, the Amendment, if carried, would mean the total re-casting of the Bill, and a departure from every principle laid down in it. There was inspection in the Bill, but it was very wisely limited. He asked the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and the other Members who supported him, whether they thought they had a better knowledge of the wants of the Irish in respect to intermediate education than the Irish Members, and whether they thought they were better judges of the way to manage such education than the Irish Members? What was the object of the inspection proposed? The real fact was that if they inspected they controlled; and he considered the real meaning of the proposal was to put the whole of the schools under the control of the Government, and to allow them to interfere with their internal arrangements. He assured the Committee that the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney must end in total failure. The parties who were proposing and supporting the Amendment knew nothing about the wants of Ireland. He was glad to see that the Scotch Members, generally, who took part in the discussion, had spoken temperately and with a knowledge of affairs; but, at the same time, he must say he considered it a very suspicious thing that the Paper should be black with Amendments by English and Scotch Members, while not a single Irish Member had
  316
  one proposal to alter the Bill. He repeated, this was a very suspicious thing; and, seeing that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney was a complete departure from the whole principle of the Bill, he hoped the Government would act upon their own judgment of what was right and reject the Amendment, not heeding the temporary obstruction which had been offered to the passing of the measure.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was quite impossible to carry out inspection under the Bill as it stood. It was quite certain that the schools would be conducted by religious Orders, and it was well known that they would not be subject to inspection.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIScould not help thinking that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was singularly inconsistent. He said there was inspection in the Bill; but that, if it was to be made a reality, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Bill would require re-casting.
  MR. BUTTdesired to correct the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry. What he did say was that there was limited inspection provided for in the Bill; but that if extended, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Bill would require re-casting.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, it really amounted to this. If the Conscience Clause, to which they would presently come, was to be anything else than a sham, inspection would be absolutely necessary. That was the only way by which they could be sure that the Conscience Clause would be a reality. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told the Committee plainly enough that inspection was to be the exception and not the rule. Why was that to be the case in reference to an Education Bill for Ireland? The House would not allow any public money to be given for educational purposes in Scotland or England without adequate provision being made for inspection. This was done for two reasons. The first purpose was to insure respect for religious opinions, and prevent religious liberty being infringed upon. The second purpose of inspection was to see that the schools were efficient. To provide inspection for schools in Ireland, they were told, would destroy the Bill. He was quite aware of the reason

  317
  why inspection was not provided in the Bill, and why it was objected to. The real reason for such a course of procedure was that it was a denominational Bill. It was a Bill for the purpose of endowing denominational education in Ireland. It was meant to be so, its operation must be so, and it was accepted as such by those who were greedy to accept it, and who knew that if it was altered as proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney, it would be destroyed as a purely denominational measure, and, therefore, would not be accepted by them. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had plainly said that the alteration proposed, if conceded one jot or one title, would have the effect of qualifying the Bill, and, in. point of fact, making it worthless in the eyes of the Irish Members who supported it. In reality, this Bill, which was introduced at so late a period of the Session, after having been in the Government bureau for months, was to be thrust down the throats of hon. Members, and to be passed without any concessions being made to those who opposed it. Considering that not to provide inspection was contrary to the principle on which money was voted for education in England and Scotland, he should vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney if he divided the Committee, and as he hoped he would.
  MR. EVANSwas desirous to see the Bill passed; but he could not conceal from himself the importance of the discussion which had taken place. What was the use of providing a Conscience Clause unless some kind of inspection was decided on? He certainly thought it necessary to provide for inspection, as suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the Bill had, in its present form, been accepted by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, without objection, and the animosity of the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Lewis) who had averred himself a strong Protestant, and who had said he represented a strong Protestant constituency, was not justified on the part of Protestants generally. He (Mr. Butt) must say this—that dealing with an intricate question the Government seemed to be satisfied that it would be better not to touch the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney. The Bill made certain things necessary
  318
  for payment by results, and one of these was the provision of a Conscience Clause. No school whatever, conducted as an intermediate school, would consent to Government interference at every turn for the sake of payment by results. It was not a question of religious, but of gentlemanly, feeling, and both Protestants and Roman Catholics—and he must say it was only from Protestants that he had heard complaints—would indignantly object to it. If inspection was to be obtained, it must be purchased at a greater price than was offered for it in the Bill. They had within the limits of the Bill all the inspection that could be properly carried out. Any attempt to subject the intermediate schools of Ireland to a general inspection would, he believed, prove futile.
  MR. MACARTNEYwas very much astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) say that all school managers in Ireland would object to inspection. For his part, he did not believe Protestant school managers would object to it in the least. Rather they would invite it. He thought it most extraordinary that the Assistant Commissioner should also act as Secretary and as Inspector. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick stated that when the Board thought it necessary they could send down an Inspector. That was to say, those gentlemen would send down one of themselves. If, however, they had onerous duties to perform, how could they afford time to inspect schools? He was also very much surprised to hear the Chief Secretary for Ireland say it would be impossible to provide funds for the inspection of schools. Surely, the number of intermediate schools could not be large. They were not by any means so numerous as the national schools, which, of course, required a great number of Inspectors. A couple of Inspectors would, perhaps, be all that was necessary, and he thought the money devoted to paying them would be very well spent.
  MR. FAWCETTinterposed between the Committee and the division he was about to take, only for the purpose of entering his protest against the language used by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in reference to the English and Scotch Members who happened to take part in that debate. He had distinctly referred to them as if they were

  319
  guilty of an act of intrusion, and said— "What did they know about Irish education?" Now, he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that he (Mr. Fawcett) was just as sincere in this matter as he was. The hon. and learned Member warmly welcomed English assistance in carrying out his views on the Land Question, which was much more difficult for English Liberals to understand than this question of Irish Education. He was then as lavish in his praises of English Liberals as if they were the most enlightened of men; but when they happened to disagree with him the hon. and learned Gentleman changed his tone. Now, he (Mr. Fawcett) altogether objected to this attempt to separate English, Irish, and Scotch Members. To say that English Members should not concern themselves with Irish questions was introducing into that House Home Rule in its worst form. He put it to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick whether, if English Members were entitled to vote on such a complicated Irish question as Land Tenure, they ought not to express their opinions on the question of the inspection of schools? If inspection was good for education in England, it was good for it in Ireland. If it was necessary to have inspection in order to secure a proper expenditure of the public money devoted to education in England, it could not be less necessary to have the same sort of security for the proper expenditure of the public money devoted to education in Ireland. They did not wish to force inspection upon those schools which objected to it; but they did not do so in England. All they said was, if the managers of those schools wished to obtain certain payments, they must earn them in a certain way. There was no difference in this matter between England and Ireland. None, at any rate, had been pointed out, nor had any reason been shown why the same rule which applied to elementary schools should not apply to intermediate schools also. Some day or other the Bill would be drawn into a precedent for intermediate education in England. If it passed, it seemed to him absolutely impossible that the Conservatives and Liberals who supported it could refuse to extend to England the principle of payment without inspection. Feeling that an important principle was involved
  320
  in this question, he thought it his duty to divide the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 126: Majority 84.— (Div. List, No. 238.)
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he did not know that he quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do in reference to the next Amendment on the Paper, which stood in his (Mr. Jenkins's) name. The Amendment was as follows:—In Clause 6, page 3, to add the following sub-section:—
  "(10.) The rules shall provide, in the discretion of the Board, either that one of the subjects in the Schedule (1), (2), or (3), shall be necessary in pass and honour examinations, or that it shall be necessary for the student in either of such examinations to obtain one-third of the possible marks in any four subjects."
  He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, this was the Amendment to which he referred at a previous stage of the discussion. If the hon. Member would withdraw it, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would consider it before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (No payment unless conditions as to religious instruction be observed).
  MR. FAWCETTobserved that they had now reached an hour at which they might fairly report Progress. It could not be said that the Movers of the Amendments had wasted a single moment of time. He had himself advised the withdrawal of an Amendment which might have occupied hours, and the discussion upon it did not last more than 20 minutes. They now came to the most important clause of the Bill, after he and other hon. Members had been in the House continuously since 7 o'clock— he meant the Conscience Clause. The Government surely did not expect to get the Bill through Committee at a single Sitting, considering that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill had occupied nine nights. If this education measure was being considered for the first time in Committee on the 25th of July, he was not in the least degree responsible for it. He thought the wisest course they could now pursue, considering the

  321
  importance of the subject and the lateness of the hour, was to report Progress, and, accordingly, he begged to move that they should do so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. He had mentioned the 25th of July; they were now actually at the 26th, and it was customary at that advanced period of the Session to prolong their discussions beyond the usual time. He hoped the Committee would make a little sacrifice of its convenience in order that the Bill might proceed. They had already got through the substantial part of the measure. No doubt, there would be some discussion upon the clause before them; but after it had been disposed of very little would remain, as it was his intention to accept some of the Amendments on the Paper. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would proceed.
  MAJOR NOLANbegged the hon. Member for Hackney to leave the Irish Members this one night. They had not had one for a long time. All of them, with the exception of three or four, were anxious to go on with the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsupported the Motion, though he had no doubt that if the Government and the Irish Members wished it, they could force the Committee to sit longer, and treat all suggestions for an alteration of the Bill as they had treated them hitherto. He would remind the Committee that this was really a most important clause, and that, moreover, it was not the only subject on which discussion would arise. There was a very important Amendment in regard to national schools still to come —one which he was sure deserved careful consideration and discussion. Unless they were told they were bound to pass the Bill through Committee that night, he thought it hard that the discussion should be continued. He should certainly vote in favour of the Motion, out of regard for the interests of the people of Ireland — ["Oh!"] — at all events, of certain people in Ireland. With reference to a remark which had fallen in the early part of the evening from the hon. and learned Member for
  322
  Limerick (Mr. Butt), he (Mr. Lewis) begged to say that he never spoke of himself as a representative of the Protestants of Ireland on this question. All he claimed for himself was that he represented a considerable number of persons in Ireland who thought deeply on this question, and who desired that their views should be laid before and considered by that House, though, like himself, they were perfectly prepared to be beaten. He thought it right to make these remarks, because the hon. and learned Member was entirely in error in supposing that he (Mr. Lewis) put himself forward as representing any body. That was to say, he did not represent any particular constituency, but only those persons who disagreed with the Bill.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Member admit that he did not represent any constituency on this question.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18;
  Noes 134: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that, although he still thought it extremely inconvenient to proceed with the Bill at that hour, there was nothing which he disliked more than for any hon. Member not to accept the decision of the House or of the Committee. He was perfectly satisfied, therefore, with the protest which had been made; and, after the division which had just taken place, he should offer no further opposition to the measure being proceeded with.
  MR. J. P. CORRYmoved, in page 3, line 24, after "Board," to insert—"that such school is open during certain specified hours for secular instruction alone." His object was to secure that no children should be excluded from any school because of their religious convictions; but that they should have a full opportunity of receiving that instruction to which he conceived they were entitled under the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 24, after the word "Board," to insert the words "that such school is open during certain specified hours for secular instruction alone."—(Mr. James Carry.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Government and the Committee would be acting contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill if they accepted the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdid not conceive that there was any occasion for the Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved that no Amendment could make the clause anything but a pretence. A Conscience Clause without inspection was nothing but a trap for unwary parents, particularly in the case of Monastic schools.
  MR. CHAELES LEWISsaid, he believed Parliament had been informed that this clause was framed upon the precedent of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but the fact was that it differed from the provisions of that Act as much as possible. The English Education Act provided that religious instruction must be at the beginning or end of school hours, so as not to interfere with a certain specified time for secular teaching which all the scholars might receive alike; but, under the clause which was now before the Committee, there was nothing to prevent the managers of schools from rendering it inoperative by refusing to receive scholars of particular classes and denominations. In England and Scotland schools were kept open to all comers, and the protecting influence of the Conscience Clause came in to prevent proselytism.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32;
  Noes 111: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in page 3, line 25, after "pupil," to insert—
  "Is refused admission to such school on the ground of religious belief, and that no pupil."
  The Proviso was one which could not, he thought, be well refused. He regarded it as an important elementary principle that, if public money were to be paid to a public school, that school should be freely open to the children of the people who were ready with the necessary fees, and that the Board should not make any grant to the managers of a school unless it could be shown that no child had been refused admission on the ground of religious belief.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 25, after the word "pupil," to insert the words "is refused admission to such school on the ground of religious belief, and that no pupil."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that all the schools in Ireland were at the present time practically denominational.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the result fees to be given under the Bill would make it the direct personal interest of managers of schools to take as many pupils as they could.
  MR. EVANSsaid, that not very long ago a scheme was received from the Commissioners which had been adopted in the management of schools in the neighbourhood with which he was best acquainted—that of Derbyshire. One of the provisions of the scheme was that no pupil should be excluded in consequence of religious belief; and he did not see why that which was suitable for boarding schools in Derbyshire should not also be suitable in Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, it was impossible for him to look at the provisions of the Bill, from beginning to end, without being brought back to the conclusion that this was a measure for the endowment of denominational schools. He might be in a minority at the present time in that opinion; but in the course of the past week he had received communications from intelligent persons in Ireland, showing that they were beginning to understand the subject; and he was convinced that when the measure was actually in operation, some hon. Members would regret that they did not take up a different position from that which they had occupied in the course of the present discussion.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, reference had been made to the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; but he did not think that the interpretation which had been put upon that Statute was altogether correct. The sections of the Act which had been spoken of were not of general, but of special application; they did not say that every child, whatever his religion, should have a right to attend any school; but that if a child was entitled to admission on other grounds, he should not be excluded from

  325
  attending a day school merely because of any difference in religion.
  MR. COURTNEYthought that compliance with the principle for which he contended could be secured by making it a condition of result fees that the managers of schools should receive such scholars as were brought to them.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISremarked, that if, in the case of the English Endowed Schools, when Parliament was not dealing with public money, but with private endowments, it was thought necessary to have a Conscience Clause, how much more necessary was it when dealing with public money, to have an effective clause of that description.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it appeared to him that the proposal of the ton. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was altogether impracticable. If the hon. Member was not prepared to go further, it was simply childish and absurd to suppose that any adequate protection could be derived from his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 28;
  Noes 107: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Finance).
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to a point of considerable importance. Under the Bill a permanent Commission was about to be formed which would have the administration of large sums of public money devoted to secular education. This Commission would perform the functions of an ordinary Civil Department of the State. It was, therefore, desirable that the proceedings of that Commission should be brought under the review of the Legislature, and this could only be done by providing that the salaries of the Commissioners should be annually voted by Parliament, as was the case with every analogous Commission, whether the funds they administered were or were not voted by Parliament; such as the Endowed Schools Commission, the Charity Commission, the Copyhold Commission, the Education Boards, the Woods and Forests, and others. In the ease of the Greenwich Hospital
  326
  Commission, which formerly was not voted by Parliament, the abuses were so great, mainly owing to the absence of annual review, that it was found necessary to charge them on the Votes of Parliament, repaying the amount from Greenwich funds into the Exchequer. There was no instance of a permanent Commission dealing with funds devoted to secular purposes, and acting as a Civil Department, not appearing in the annual Votes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he saw no reason why Parliament should be asked to vote a sum of money which it did not provide, but which was to be provided from sources altogether independent of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, would place upon the Paper the exact words of any Motion which he might contemplate on the subject, it would be duly considered by the Government.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that in the case of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission, whose members administered £300,000 a-year, all their expenses were paid out of the funds which they so administered, without being subject to the review of Parliament.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that the funds referred to by the hon. and learned Member were not applied to State purposes.
  MR. E. JENKINSthought that the provisions for auditing the accounts of the Commission to be appointed under the Bill were somewhat imperfect. This was an important matter, and he hoped care would be taken that the accounts were submitted to the Controller and Auditor General, and laid before Parliament.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, care would be taken that Government supervision was exercised in the auditing of the accounts.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that what was wanted was that the audit should not be by Government. The audit should be independent, and not under the control of the Government, and the proper authority was the Controller and Auditor General.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not state that the audit would be made by the Government, but that it would be conducted under Government superintendence. However, he was quite willing to consider the point which had

  327
  been raised before the stage of Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  SCHEDULE.
  THE O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 5, after line 13, to insert the following sub-section:—"(1.) The Irish language, literature, and archaeology." The object of the proposal was to provide for instruction being given in the schools on those subjects. In a Bill of this description it was eminently desirable to recognize the fact that there was an Irish language, and that a knowledge of it would be useful. There were, no doubt, a great many persons in Ireland who spoke that language; but there were not many who knew it grammatically, who were able to write and read it, and to decipher it in manuscript. His proposal was not a mere matter of sentiment, but one which would, if adopted, prove practically useful.
  MR. J. LOWTHERhoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would not feel himself under a necessity to press his Motion to a division. Irish literature covered a wide ground; and, as regarded the Irish language, he thought it was substantially a dead language. It could hardly be seriously contended that a knowledge of that language was necessary in Ireland towards a good liberal education. As matters stood at present, he had not sufficient information to justify him in accepting the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERhoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would not be contented with the statement of the Chief Secretary; but would, if necessary, go to a division on the subject. He might remind the Committee that a Memorial, signed by 40 or 50 Members of Parliament, had been presented in favour of the proposal now under consideration; and when a Bill of this kind was being passed—a Bill which was intended to meet the wishes of the Irish people—could the Committee disregard the opinions of the Representatives of that people, as expressed in that document? He sincerely trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would reconsider the matter.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, there were in Ireland a literature and a lan-
  328
  guage of great value, which threw much light upon the character, the ancient history, and the tendencies of the people of that country. He believed that 50 years hence it would be part of the programme of every Irish educationalist to insist upon a knowledge of those subjects which the hon. Member desired to see included in the present Bill. He joined with his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), in hoping that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would re-consider the matter.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRdesired to point out that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) were accepted, it would alter the whole structure of the Schedules, which at present included only six subjects.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that if Greek and Latin were to be separated into two, there would also be an increase in the number of subjects.
  MR. SULLIVANstrongly appealed to the Government to re-consider the subject. He could assure them that this was a matter which deeply touched the feeling of Ireland—one which touched that feeling more, perhaps, than anything else. Was this a moment, when a patriotic citizen of Edinburgh had collected from his countrymen no less a sum than £10,000—he referred to Professor Blackie—for the endowment of a Celtic Chair in the University of that city, for the Government to say "Nay" to a request like the present, made to them by the Irish Representatives? He might remind the Committee that in a previous Session he had appealed, and not in vain, to the Prime Minister to recognize Irish language and literature by giving a grant of money in connection with the ancient manuscripts of that country; and he stated then, what he stated now, that, owing to the neglect of education in Ireland, if the ancient language of the country was not more extensively known, they would soon be incapable of translating those manuscripts, which were of priceless value, not only to Ireland itself, but to the whole of Europe.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he heartily joined with hon. Members who had spoken, in appealing to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to agree to the request which, he believed, was unanimously pressed upon him on the part of the Irish Representatives. There was at present—

  329
  and had been for many years—a Professor of the Irish language at Trinity College; and it was proposed that that Chair should be endowed in memory of an accomplished man who had taken a deep interest in the subject. Another well-known Irish citizen had left £5,000 a-year towards the cultivation of the Irish language. With these examples before them, he hoped the Government would see the importance of the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and would recognize the undoubted fact that great interest was taken in Ireland in this matter. He believed that nothing would give more general satisfaction throughout that country than a recognition, under this Bill, of the Irish language.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that as one who had occupied the post which his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) now filled, he could assure the Committee, and especially the Irish Members, that the Government had not the slightest wish to place a ban upon the Irish language, or to depreciate the wishes of the Representatives of Ireland on the subject. Obviously, however, the matter was surrounded with a good many practical difficulties. While there was a considerable number of persons in Ireland at the present day who spoke the Celtic language, there were but few who were qualified scholars in it; and if the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon were adopted, he ventured to say that in but few schools would it be possible for those who attended them to secure efficient instruction in Irish language, literature, and archæology. It might be possible in time, and it might also be desirable, that a knowledge of those three subjects should be extended; but the extension could only come with time. Other branches of learning of great importance were not named in the Schedule of the present Bill; but it rested with the Board to introduce them, when they saw fit, among the list of subjects. He hoped that at that hour of the morning—2.30— the hon. Member for Roscommon would see the propriety of not pressing his proposition to a division.
  MR. BUTTwas acquainted with at least one seminary in Ireland—a Roman Catholic institution—in which no difficulty was experienced in receiving instruction in the Irish language. For-
  330
  merly there were many men of eminence as scholars in the ancient tongue of his country; but the number of such men was declining every day, because no encouragement was held out to them. For that reason, if for no other, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon was one which ought to command the attention and approval of the Government.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would undertake that on the Report he would, in some shape, embody in the Bill the recognition of the Irish language, Irish literature, and Irish history, he would not press the subject further on the Committee; but unless the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance that a provision for the purpose should, in some shape, be inserted in the Bill upon the Report, it would be necessary to divide the Committee on the question.
  MR. E. JENKINSdesired to point out to the Committee that this was a matter of University Education, apart from Intermediate Education. And what would be the effect of adopting the proposal? A man might pass in Irish language and literature, and then in some subject of secular education to be settled by the Board, and there would be nothing to insure that a proper and sufficient education was given to such competitors, which it was the great aim of the Bill to provide. There was nothing, in fact, to make it compulsory.
  THE O'CONOR DONexpressed himself willing to insert qualifying words in his Amendment, before "the Irish language," so that the number of six divisions of the subjects should not be increased.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had no wish to stand out upon the point if it was the desire of the Committee, especially as he attached very little importance to it; and he would, therefore, at once say he would consider the matter on the Report.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 5, line 14, after "language," insert "and." He intended next to move to insert, after "history," "of England and Ireland." The hon. Member observed, that from the manner in which that portion of the sub-section was

  331
  worded, it seemed to imply that any history written in the English language would comply with the conditions of the section. He did not know whether that was meant, or that the history was to be the history of England alone.
  MR. J. LOWTHERassumed that what was meant was the history of Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that Irishmen in general regarded "English history" as meaning the history of England. A great many Irishmen would arrive at the same conclusion upon that. A great deal of the difference of opinion which prevailed among different classes of Irish people arose from the fact that a great many Irishmen did not study the history of their own country. If Englishmen could be brought to study the history of Ireland, he thought the result would be satisfactory to both countries. He thought it should be of Great Britain and Ireland.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsuggested that the sub-section should be—" The language, literature, and history of Great Britain and Ireland;" otherwise, they would be leaving out a great deal of Irish literature.
  THE O'CONOR DONthought that Amendment a better one, and would withdraw his own.
  MR. E. JENKINSobserved, that he took it that the Irish language would be included by that wording.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, and the Gælie.
  MR. PULESTON: And the Manx.
  MR. BUTTreminded the Committee that the legal language of Great Britain and Ireland was the English.
  Amendment (The O' Conor Don) negatived.
  Amendment (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed.
  MR. E. JENKINSagain reminded the Committee that the Amendment now proposed would include the Irish language.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHreplied, that the Board would put a natural interpretation on the words of the sub-section.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 5, line 16, after "history," to in-
  332
  sert "or any one of them." He had intended to propose "or any two of them;" but he thought the present Amendment was preferable, in order that the knowledge of both should not disqualify.
  MR. E. JENKINSobjected, that this would be reducing the requirements to a minimum, after Latin and Greek had been separated. It would then not be necessary for a boy to pass in any first-class subject; but two very small subjects indeed would enable him to obtain the advantages which the Bill held out.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that what most struck him was the extraordinary magnitude of those prizes. They were, in fact, honour-prizes, and not pass-prizes. No such prizes were known in the corresponding institutions of Scotland. If this principle were finally adopted, they would have to cut their scholarships in two. If they so cut the subjects into parts, they must cut the scholarships also, and not give such prizes for such trifling subjects.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. Gentleman would leave the provision as it originally stood.
  THE O'CONOR DONfeared that many boys would not be found able to pass in two modern languages at present, and to make it obligatory would be equivalent to abolishing both; while there were some boys who would devote themselves to learning either French, or German, or Italian. They would not, however, find in the schools with which the Bill dealt, either the boys to learn, or the teachers to teach, all three languages. He thought, therefore, if they desired to encourage the study of modern languages, the requirement should be confined to only one.
  MR. J. LOWTHER,referring to the remark of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as to there being honour-prizes, and as to the ease with which they were obtained, observed that, to obtain them, the student must pass in three subjects. Still, he had no vanity of authorship of the Amendment, and he thought what was suggested was an improvement on the original draft of the Bill, for the idea of the boys being expected to know those three languages was never contemplated. It ought to have been put in a category by itself; but he never contemplated all three.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he concurred in what the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said with regard to those languages. He wished, however, to express his regret that Latin and Greek had been separated by an earlier Amendment. He now had to suggest that an Amendment should be inserted in the Bill, on the Report, to the effect that if a boy passed in three subjects, it should be compulsory, for the purpose of his obtaining those rewards and distinctions, that one of the subjects should be Greek, or Latin, or mathematics. If they did that, they would then have an examination worthy of the competition for higher honours and rewards, and thus answer the intentions of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh.
  MR. SULLIVANwished to remind the Committee that in some of the Universities it was strongly recommended that an option should be allowed, not to take up Greek, but two modern languages instead.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he thought that, looking at what they had been doing, it would be well if the Government would fix on certain subjects as essential.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexplained, that he had stated he considered the suggestion an improvement, and would consider it on the Report.
  MAJOR NOLANthought that, if there was such a thing as "cramming," which he did not believe, they had taken the best means of discouraging it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "subjects," and insert "divisions."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in page 6, line 2, after "himself," to insert—
  "Unless the Board shall, for special reasons to be stated by them in each case, dispense with this condition of eligibility."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in page 6, line 11, to leave out "October," and insert "April."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that if the fees were kept at 10 s. for the notices given by the students, it would be an intimation to poor Irish people that they need not apply for admission to any of the benefits which the Bill was intended to confer. He should move to leave out 10 s. at page 6, line 14, and insert 2s. 6d.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved to insert "divisions" instead of "subjects," consequent upon the same alteration previously made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in page 7, line 3, to leave out "in the proportion of one for every ten students who shall pass in three subjects at the least."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved to insert after "course," in page 7, line 6—
  "No student to whom such a prize is awarded shall continue to hold any exhibition under this Act previously held by him."
  MR. COURTNEYthought such a provision was scarcely necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out, in page 7, line 33, "not being a national school," and he observed that the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had a similar Notice on the Paper. The subject would, he thought, require some amount of consideration and discussion, which could not be devoted to it now, as it was nearly 3 o'clock, and he therefore proposed to move his Amendment on the Report.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
  (Sir Windham Anstruther, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir Graham Montgomery, Mr. Ramsay.)
  [BILL 124.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYmoved that the Order for Committee be

  335
  discharged. In doing so", he appealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deal with the subject-matter of the Bill himself next Session. It was high time that the questions in dispute between the Parochial Boards and the Railway Companies in Scotland, as to valuation procedure, should be settled, and he should he very glad to see the Government undertake the duty of bringing that about.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS [STAMP DUTY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to impose a Stamp Duty on Licences to keep Retreats for the reception of Habitual Drunkards, and also on every Patient admitted into such Retreat, and for the renewal of such Licences, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the control and cure of Habitual Drunkards.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  ELDERS WIDOWS' FUND [DEFICIENCIES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of such sums as may be required to make good the deficiency in the Elders Widows' Fund, and to enable the Trustees from time to time to meet the current liabilities of the said Fund, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to enable the Trustees of the Elders "Widows' Fund to apply the Capital of the said Fund in aid of Income, and for other purposes relating thereto (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Debtors Acts Amendment (163).
Committee—Freshwater Fish Protection* (155– 173); Weights and Measures (161).
Committee — Report — Marriage Preliminaries (Scotland) * (149–172); Commutation of Tithes (151); Police (Expenses) Act Continuance * (165).
Report—Epping Forest * (164).
Third Reading—County of Hertford * (154); Roads and Bridges (Scotland) * (157), and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS—STRANGERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees a Question of which he had given him private Notice— Whether, at the next meeting of the Committee appointed in reference to the Offices of Clerk of the Parliaments and Usher of the Black Rod, he would bring under its notice the regulations under which strangers were now admitted within the precincts of their Lordships' House, with a view to their re-consideration and enforcement? The strangers who were admitted to their Lordships' House were not merely persons of their own sex; indeed, the most important portion of them were ladies. The Rules under which they were admitted, from a period so long ago as 1849, in which year it was decided that Peeresses and unmarried daughters of Peers should be admitted to the Gallery of the House.

  199
  The only change which had been made since that time was in the year 1864, when it was determined that only one unmarried daughter of a Peer should be admitted on occasions when it was expected there was going to be a considerable debate. That Rule, so altered, stood till the present time; but under the regulations of their Lordships' House there were no means of enforcing these rules. These was only one doorkeeper appointed to take charge of the doors on both sides of their Lordships' House. To show the way this system worked, he could not do better than describe what took place on Thursday last. On that occasion it was well known that the Prime Minister was going to make an important statement, and, of course, the ladies trooped down to the House, not in scores, but in hundreds. There were no checks; they were permitted to enter the House so early as half-past 3 o'clock. Their Lordships might imagine the feelings of the one doorkeeper when he found himself confronted with legions of ladies, all determined to hear the Prime Minister. The result had been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and complaint, as their Lordships must have heard. So much for the Ladies Gallery. The wives of the eldest sons of Peers had also complained that the modest box set apart for their entertainment was generally occupied by the time they arrived, and that they found themselves in a position decidedly inferior to the unmarried daughters of their Lordships. Perhaps, however, it was thought they had a certain amount of compensation for that in the fact that it was tolerably certain, in the ordinary course of events, their Lordships would give way to their eldest sons, and their wives would thereby find themselves in a position from which, at the present time, they were most rigidly excluded. The same sort of difficulty was felt on Thursday last in the Diplomatists' Gallery. When various distinguished diplomatists arrived, they found their seats occupied by persons who were not diplomatists, and who did not give way. They had, therefore, to leave the House, or to take up such inferior positions as they found themselves able to obtain. He must also call attention not only to what took place on that occasion, but to what ordinarily took place on the steps of the Throne. In regard to the steps of the Throne,
  200
  there was no Order of their Lordships' House; but it was the immemorial practice that the eldest sons of Peers, Scotch and Irish Peers and Privy Councillors should be admitted to the steps of the Throne. But, as their Lordships must have seen, persons who belonged to none of these categories found their way there. He had himself seen distinguished dignitaries of the Church, Members of the other House of Parliament, and other persons who had no right to be there, congregated round the steps of the Throne. If they were to have Rules, would it not be well to have those Rules enforced? Would it not be advisable that Rules, dating 30 years back, should be re-considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and, when they had been revised, that proper means should be taken to make them effective, and so to prevent the confusion that had arisen not only last Thursday, but on many previous occasions, which their Lordships would remember? He begged to ask the noble Earl the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he was only Chairman of the Committee, but he would bring the matter before it if their Lordships wished him to do so. He did not see in what manner they were to enforce any regulations it might choose to make in regard to the countless number of ladies who came down to their House. There were no doubt considerable abuses in the way the privilege of entrance was exercised. A policeman might be of some advantage in stopping irregularities in regard to the use of the Diplomatic Gallery, for certainly to break into that Gallery and keep out the diplomatists was a very decided offence. But he did not see how they could employ the same means in regard to the Ladies' Gallery. Their Lordships had largely the remedy in their own hands. They could easily prevent all but such ladies of their families as had a right of admittance from coming down on such an occasion as last Thursday. He could only hope that the statement which had been made regarding the inconvenience that arose on Thursday last would have its effect upon those who, by their conduct, caused that inconvenience.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the subject was one of considerable im-

  201
  portance, for there could be no doubt that, even supposing the Rules were rigidly observed, there would still be a most enormous deficiency in the accommodation for those who naturally expected admittance. There was a common error that the side Galleries were set apart for Peeresses. The fact was, their Lordships might sit there and even address the House from those Galleries. It was only a matter of courtesy that anyone holding the Office he had the honour to hold, if he saw, after the House met, that those Galleries were not likely to be occupied by Peers, might order the doors to be opened for the reception of Peeresses. That was only a contingent privilege of admittance. He had many years ago proposed, and he now made the suggestion again, that the Galleries of the House might be made to accommodate two rows of seats up the whole length of the House. He was informed that this would add to the acoustic properties of the House, and would in no way interfere with the architectural symmetry of the building. It would make the Galleries much more comfortable.
  LORD TRITROasked, whether it would not be well to admit to these Galleries only by ticket?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was, no doubt, foundation for the complaints to which his noble Friends had referred. He did not see that there was much necessity to enforce strict Rules on ordinary occasions; but, on great occasions like last Thursday, there certainly ought to be something done. He was told that in several cases large numbers of the same family came down and succeeded in occupying places. It was a reasonable Rule that at such times only one daughter of a family should be admitted, and this Rule ought to be enforced.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought their Lordships ought to be thankful that things were no worse. There was an occasion on record—Horace Walpole told them of it—when ladies striving to gain admission, and getting in between two doors, kicked and screamed, and made such a noise, that the Lords were unable to carry on their proceedings for several hours. The ladies of the present day showed, at least, more decorum than to conduct themselves in. that fashion.

  THE TREATY OF BERLIN—THE POET OF BATOUM.—EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: Some remarks of a contradictory character regarding the port of Batoum were made lately in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) and myself. I made a statement on one authority; the noble Earl contradicted it on another. I have no doubt that we both thought we had the best authority for our statements; but both authorities being anonymous, I felt it my duty to appeal to the Hydrographer of the Admiralty. I have not the honour of his personal acquaintance, but I am told he is a gentleman in whom may be placed the most implicit confidence. He has favoured me with the following Memorandum on Batoum:—
  "Batoum can only be described as a bay, and not as a harbour. The area within which ships can anchor is limited to a circle of about 850 yards in diameter; but this area is further reduced by the very deep water, upwards of 45 fathoms, of the central part. The anchorage ground in any reasonable depth is thus confined to the shore segment of the circle, and certainly not more than three iron-clad ships could take up anchorage here, and swing clear, even with a limited amount of cable, and in fine weather. With reference to the statement made that the port has contained 13 men-of-war and a transport, this could only have been effected by the ships being placed parallel to each other at short distances, and their sterns secured to the shore, near the town on the western side of the bay. These are not conditions attached to free anchoring ground, and it could only be under very exceptional circumstances that such a squadron could be so packed, and even then with insecurity.
  "F. J. EVANS, Hydrographer.
  "July 25th, 1878."
  I thought that an authentic document of that kind should be placed before your Lordships.

  THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE — MARRIAGE OF H. R. H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT.
  Order of the Day for the Queen's Message to be taken into consideration, read.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, in asking you to consider the Queen's Gracious Message, I have to move—
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to thank Her Majesty for the most gracious communication which it has pleased Her Majesty to make to this House of the intended marriage between His Royal Highness

  203
  Arthur William Patrick Albert, Duke of Con-naught and Strathearne, Earl of Sussex, Duke of Saxony, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, third daughter of His Royal Highness Prince Fried-rich Carl Nickolaus of Prussia, and to assure Her Majesty that this House, always feeling the most lively interest in any event which will contribute to the happiness of the Royal Family, will concur in those measures which may be proposed for the consideration of this House to enable Her Majesty to make a further provision for His Royal Highness on this occasion."
  My Lords, the duty and affection which your Lordships' House, and I may say the country generally, have always felt towards the Royal Family are sentiments I need not at all dilate upon. They have their origin, I think, in two principal reasons—the one public, and the other private. The first is the conviction of the country that the sustained order of our national life, which characterizes this country, and which is the Lest security for the liberty and welfare of the community, is mainly owing to our Monarchical institutions; and the private reason is that I think the undisguised details which reach the people of the domestic life of our Royal Family are such as to excite the liveliest interest in the English people, who are always interested in the happiness of the hearth. The lady who is betrothed to our Prince is the daughter of an illustrious and Imperial House; but I believe that these splendid accidents have nothing to do with the union which is soon about to be solemnized. It is a union of the heart and of the affections. The time has gone by when the balance of power formed one of the clauses of Royal marriage treaties. With regard to that lady, I believe there are some noble Lords present who have had the advantage of making her acquaintance, and I know they will agree with me that I use no language of flattery when I say she is distinguished by her intelligence and her accomplishments, and for winning simplicity, both of thought and manner. The Duke of Connaught is known to us all. He sits amongst us as his Peers. He is known to the country for his spotless life. He is devoted to a noble Profession. He is not a soldier of parade, but of service. When the terrible contingency of war seemed to be hovering over this country, the Duke of Con-naught was the first to express a hope that he might be allowed to be sent
  204
  forth to defend the honour and the interests of his country. I am happy to think that this terrible contingency has now disappeared. That is a circumstance which will only add to the satisfaction the country will feel at this union. I, therefore, beg now to place in the hands of your Lordships the Address which I have moved.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I should like to add a few words to what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite. I think I speak for those behind me, as well as for myself, when I say that I entirely concur in the sentiments he has expressed with regard to the loyalty of this country, and the value which the nation places upon our Monarchial institutions. In speaking of Royal or high marriages, the difficulty is to avoid unmeaning compliment towards the persons about to contract them. Now, my Lords, about seven years ago, it was my lot to propose to this House an Address somewhat similar to the present, in which Parliament was asked to make some provision for Prince Arthur, as he then was. At the time, I remarked very shortly that there was scarcely a young man of any class who had secured more completely the goodwill of those with whom he had associated, either in his own Family or Profession, or in the society in which he moved; and I alluded to the good service he had done the Royal Family by his demeanour in North America, which had largely aided in strengthening and maintaining the feeling of attachment borne by the people of the Dominion towards the Sovereign and this country. I venture to think that now, after the lapse of seven years, no one can say that they were words of flattery on my part; for the illustrious Prince has during that period fully maintained the good opinion of him which I then expressed. The noble Earl opposite has alluded to His Royal Highness's connection with the Army. The Duke of Connaught is one of the few persons serving in all arms of the Service; and in each one of each he has been equally appreciated, his popularity being especially increased by his demeanour and excellent conduct during his sojourn in the sister Kingdom of Ireland. I have not the advantage of a personal knowledge of the illustrious lady to whom he is about to be allied; but I understand, from what

  205
  has been said, that the noble Earl's statement is entirely shared in by those who do know her. It is a great satisfaction to us to remember how much those Princesses who have become Englishwomen by marriage with the sons of our Sovereign have endeared themselves to the country of their adoption, and there is every reason to believe that the same happy result will be accomplished in the present instance.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: As a military Member of this House, and as one who has seen something of the service of the Duke of Connaught, I desire to say that the opinion I have heard expressed by officers of all classes is that His Royal Highness, by his careful, punctual, and zealous performance of his duties in every branch of the Army, had shown his determination to make himself an efficient soldier for the service of his country. At Gibraltar, the officers there—never thinking that their words would be repeated here —spoke of him in the highest terms as a subordinate officer connected with the Adjutant General's Department—a post with which he identified himself so as to win the approbation, not only of the General commanding, but of every officer with whom he came in contact. I feel that your Lordships will pardon my occupying your time in saying these few words, to which I will only add that the conduct of His Royal Highness has afforded the brightest example to every young officer in the Service.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message of Tuesday last considered accordingly.
  Then an humble Address of thanks and concurrence ordered, nemine dissentiente, to be presented to Her Majesty thereupon; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  COMMUTATION OF TITHES BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)
  (NO. 151.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD HENNIKER,in moving that the House do now go into Committee on the Bill, explained that the measure was a very short one. It passed the House of Commons without discussion, and had the approval of the Home Secretary,
  206
  the Tithe Commission, the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the Queen Anne's Bounty Board; but as he had not explained to their Lordships the provisions of the Bill on the second reading, he would do so on the present occasion. According to the present law, an owner of building land could compel the tithe owner of such land to consent to the redemption of the rent - charge, the amount received was paid over to Queen Anne's Bounty Board and invested in Consols. There were no other compulsory powers on either side. The owner of non-building land could exchange it for land as a better possession for the tithe rent-charge on his estate, or he could redeem the rent-charge on his lands up to 20 s. a-year, with the consent of the tithe owner in either case. No further power existed at present. The Bill before their Lordships merely extended existing Acts; it created no new machinery. Clause 1 extended the compulsory power as to building lands to other cases, which experience had shown it necessary to include. Clause 3 extended the provisions of 9th & 10th of the Queen, c. 73, s. 5, and allowed either the landowner or tithe owner to redeem without the consent of other parties. Their Lordships would see in the clause the words, "if they see fit," "they" meaning the Tithe Commissioners; so that full protection was given so far as the payment of money was concerned. By Clause 4, the tithe owner and the land owner, with the consent of the Bishop and Patron, and the approval of the Tithe Commissioners, were enabled to redeem the rent-charge, which could not now be done, however advantageous such a proceeding might be to both parties. There was no fear of any injustice occurring under the clause, guarded as it was by the necessity for the approval of the Tithe Commission, and the contents to which he had referred. As some Amendments were to be proposed to the Bill, he had thought it necessary to make this short explanation to their Lordships.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he would reserve the Amendments of which he had given Notice until the third reading.
  House in Committee; Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

  DEBTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Earl of Limerick.)
  (NO. 163.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that under the Debtors' Act, 1869, and the Debtors' Act (Ireland), 1872, when an application for attachment was made against any person who had failed to comply with an order of the Court as to payment, the Judge had no option in the matter; he was bound to direct that the attachment should issue. Many cases of hardship had arisen out of this arbitrary rule; and very frequently in instances where there was a legal, though not a moral, responsibility to the law in this respect, Judges had expressed their regret that no discretion was allowed them. There were only two clauses in the Bill, the first of which recited that—
  "In any case coining within the exceptions numbered 3 and 4 in the fourth section of the Debtors Act, 1869, and in the fifth section of the Debtors Act (Ireland), 1872, respectively, or within either of those exceptions, any Court or Judge, making the order for payment, or having jurisdiction in the action or proceeding in which the order for payment is made, may inquire into the case, and (subject to the provisions of the said sections respectively) may grant or refuse, either absolutely or upon terms, any application for a writ or attachment, or other process, or order of arrest, orimprisonment, and any application to stay the operation of any such writ, process, or order, or for discharge from arrest or imprisonment thereunder."
  Their Lordships would see, therefore, that the Bill simply left to the Judge or Court a matter which was now beyond his or its discretion; and to such a change in the law, he thought, there could be no opposition. If the House agreed to the second reading, he would be prepared to insert modifications for the purpose of bringing the Bill into harmony with that introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack last year.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)
  (NO. 161.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Power of Board of Trade to verify metric weights and measures).
  EARL FORTESCUEmoved an Amendment, the object of which, as he explained, was to legalize the verification of weights and measures on the metric system. To him it seemed very remarkable and invidious that in this, the greatest commercial country in the world, engaging in large contracts on the metric system with other nations, the only weights and measures authorized by law to be verified should be the imperial, the equivalent of which in the metric system were given in the Act in figures running to five places of decimals. Though the metric system had rather retrograded than advanced in the favour both of Parliament and the public during the past few years, yet it had now been adopted compulsorily in countries numbering some 200,000,000 of inhabitants, and permissively in countries with some 100,000,000 more. Considering the constantly increasing extent of our commercial transactions with many nations, and especially with the French, using the metric system, it did certainly seem to him desirable that the facilities now given by the Bill for the use of that system for scientific, should be extended to trading, purposes.
  Amendment moved, in page 10, line 15, to leave out from "trade" to end of clause.—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD COLCHESTERobserved, that he did not intend to move the Amendments, of which he had given Notice, to the 50th and the 53rd clauses, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill having given Notice that he could not adopt them. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would hold out some hope that hereafter some legislation would be attempted on the lines of his (Lord Colchester's) suggestion, if, after a reasonable trial, it was found that the "local authority" did not satisfactorily discharge the duties which devolved upon

  209
  them under the Bill. He did not hope, or desire, that the imperial system should be superseded by the metric system. As he said on the second reading, all he wished was that the two systems should be put upon an equality, and that where buyer and seller agreed, the metric standard might be used.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had already stated that the Board of Trade were strongly of opinion that the Bill went far enough in its provisions as to the metric system, and that it could not go further, at present. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite. He must add that this Bill was a consolidating measure, and he did not think a Bill of this kind was the proper place for the introduction of a new principle—namely, a change of such great importance as the establishment of a new system of weights and measures. He thought the noble Earl, and those who agreed with him, ought to be content with the step taken by the Bill in the direction he desired. Should this Amendment be carried, no doubt, the Bill would be lost. He did not believe that this was the wish of the noble Earl—to throw away all the labour which had been expended in preparing the measure, and to put off carrying out the many improvements in the system in force which it contained. He, therefore, appealed to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment.
  On Question? Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 39 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Local authorities and local rates).
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he had an Amendment which he feared would fall under the same objection as the Amendment which had just been negatived. He had, however, seen and heard a great deal which convinced him that the permissive power granted to these local bodies should only be temporary, and that it should only be continued until they saw whether those bodies were willing to gracefully abdicate the functions for which they were in no way fitted. What were the facts of the case? These strong municipalities were intrusted to the control of Inspectors in this matter, and the poorest class of householders were not likely to get much
  210
  consideration at their hands. The members of small corporations were, on the other hand, very often the very class of persons whose weights and measures required inspection, and the very class liable to be called to account for negligence, or worse, in this matter; and even those of them who were not likely to be called to account themselves were animated by an esprit de corps which would render effective inspection exceedingly difficult.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend. Here, again, the question of a new principle was involved. The Amendment proposed to take away all power from the local authorities which they at present possessed, and this it was proposed to do in a consolidating measure. The Board of Trade were by no means prepared to propose so great a change, and he could not agree to the Amendment.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Power to local authority to make bye-laws as to local verification, &c).
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he had also an Amendment, the object of which was to transfer the machinery for carrying out the Act from the local authorities to the Board of Trade, giving the local authorities, however, the power to make bye-laws which the Board of Trade might enforce. There was no fear, he said, that the local authorities would be too vigorous in the application of the law. It was much more likely that they would neglect the matter altogether. He thought the Department of the Board of Trade would be well qualified to work the Act in all cases. It ought, at all events, to have the power to recommend bye-laws, which could be enforced if the local authorities did not voluntarily draw them up and apply them. Considering how much they favoured centralization in some other matters, he was surprised at the Government's enthusiastic worship of local self-government in this. He did not wish to press the Amendment, but he hoped it would before long be adopted in legislation. He would inquire, in future, how far the local authorities had made use of this clause, and if they had not applied

  211
  it, he would again propose that the power should be taken away from them. He suggested to the Government the desirableness of enabling Inspectors of weights and measures to visit canteens to which civilians were admitted to make purchases. It was important to stop some scandalous abuses arising from clashing jurisdictions in this matter.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, this was a most important clause. The powers it gave to the Board of Trade were most valuable—to make bye-laws, to make regulations, and secure the proper enforcement of the law at the request of the local authority. To force them to make certain bye-laws was quite a different thing. The Board of Trade were not prepared for such a change. The powers they considered to be quite sufficient under this clause. Hero, again, a new course of procedure was involved by the Amendments of his noble Friend, and this measure was not the proper place for its introduction. Both this and the former Amendment to Clause 50 pointed to centralization of the most complete kind. He could not accept the Amendment. The noble Lord had mentioned canteens. He was aware of the Hounslow case mentioned by his noble Friend. It could not be expected that the commander of a regiment would willingly consent to the interference of an Inspector. He would, however, call the attention of the proper authorities at the Board of Trade to the subject, so that the law might be clearly denned by bye-laws, when an opportunity arose.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 54 to 77, inclusive, agreed, to.

  APPLICATION OF ACT TO IRELAND.
  Clause 78 (Providing of local standards and sub-standards).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he wished to bring forward the Amendment he foreshadowed on the second reading of the Bill. It was intended to remedy the inconveniences attending the verification of local standards in Ireland. It provided that the local standards of the county of Dublin should be recognized as Board of Trade standards, and that the local standards throughout Ireland should be verified by them. They were to be verified in London every five
  212
  years; and, as the matter was a constabulary matter in Ireland, it was proposed to place them in the hands of the head of the constabulary. The great expense and loss of time that now occurred would thus be removed. However, Clause 37 of the Bill appeared to empower the Board of Trade to deal with the matter, as it provided for the verification of local standards in any place; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would give some assurance that they would deal with the matter under this clause. The urgency of the case with regard to Dublin was greater than it was with regard to any place in England and Scotland; for, besides the expense of sending the local standards long distances for verification, there were certain climatic differences between the two countries to be considered.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, before Clause 76, to insert as a new Clause—
  (Standards in custody of Inspector-General of Constabulary to be equivalent to Board of Trade standards.)
  "The local standards which at the passing of this Act are in the custody of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, shall be verified by the Board of Trade not less than once in five years, and shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act as regards Ireland to be equivalent to Board of Trade standards; and the said Inspector-General shall, subject as aforesaid, have the same powers and perform the same duties in relation to the said local standards as the Board of Trade have and perform in relation to Board of Trade standards."— (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, the Board of Trade were disposed to think that the present system in Ireland of verifying weights and measures was not satisfactory; it led to unnecessary trouble, and unnecessary and great expense. The Board of Trade were prepared to take some steps to remedy this evil; if possible, by sending Board of Trade standards over to Ireland to be kept in Dublin. Before any such step would be taken, the Irish Office and the Treasury must be consulted. This would require time. If his noble Friend the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment, he would undertake, on the part of the Board of Trade, to communicate with these Departments on the subject, to see what could be done. No clause would be necessary to carry out what he had proposed, as the provisions of Clause 37

  213
  would be quite sufficient to meet the case.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, it could, no doubt, be done now, but only in a manner that was most expensive. What he desired was that it should be done in the cheapest manner.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS BILLS—(Nos. 130, 122.)
  On the Order for going into Committee on the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill and the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill,
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEasked that the Order should be postponed, and he intended to-morrow to bring before the House certain Resolutions regarding the use of steam power on tramways. It would be well, he thought, that the whole matter should be discussed together.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, on Monday week the noble Earl at the Table requested him. to postpone the consideration of these Bills in Committee. He then stated that he could not postpone them for more than a week or 10 days. As then agreed, he had put these Bills off till to-day. He could not do more than that in justice to the promoters, for they had been put to very great expense and trouble by the action of Parliament during the last two years. In fairness to them, he could not put the consideration of them off longer, and the noble Earl himself said he did not wish the Bills to be lost by lapse of time. He (Lord Henniker) was quite ready to go on with them; but after what the noble Earl had said, he could do no less than to put them off; for it would, probably, be more convenient to their Lordships to consider the main question in dispute —that was to say, the use of steam on tramways—on the discussion upon the Motion of the noble Earl, when the whole question would be raised. He did so with regret, for he thought the promoters and others concerned in these Bills had good reason for asking their Lordships to come to a speedy decision on this subject.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, there were six other Bills of a similar character involving the use of steam power.
  Committee put off till To-morrow.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS—VIVISECTION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, When the Return relative to the Medical and Scientific Experiments upon Living Animals would be laid on the Table of the House? The subject excited a great deal of public interest, and the Reports of the Inspectors who visited places registered for such experiments were anxiously looked for.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that on the Motion of Mr. Mundella, copies of this Return had been distributed to the Members of the other House, and a copy only came into his (Earl Beauchamp's) hands that morning. He would communicate it to their Lordships' House.
  Then an Address for—
  Return of Licenses granted under the Act 39 and 40 Victoria chap. 77 to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals.— (The Lord Steward.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.