Sitting of 31 May 1880

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Alexander Martin Sullivan, esquire, for Meath County.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II., SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS, Votes 34 to 39; Class III., LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 1 to 3; Committee R.P. Resolutions [May 28] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading —Local Government Provisional Orders (Fleetwood, &c.)*[199]; Agricultural Tenants' Compensation* [198]; Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)*[200].
First Reading — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Banbridge, &c.)*[201].
Second Reading — Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment [181].
Second Reading —Referred to Select Committee — Merchant Shipping (Grain Cargoes) [168]; Fraudulent Debtors (Scotland) [185].

QUESTIONS.

  SEA FISHERIES—TERRITORIAL WATERS.
  LORD ELCHOasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will, in the course of the present Session, ask Parliament for powers to regulate or prohibit trawl and beam net fishing in the territorial waters, as recommended in the recent Report of the Sea Fisheries Commissioners?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that the Government did not see its way, during the present Session, to initiate legislation with respect to the subject men-tioned in the Question of the noble Lord.

  ARMY—LORD AIREYS COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL OWEN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War, When it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission on the Army presided over by General Lord Airey?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have to point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the body presided over by Lord Airey was not a Royal Commission, nor a Departmental Committee, but a Committee consisting solely of military officers, with whom no civilians were associated, whose opinion on certain professional questions was sought by the Secretary of State. Their Report was only presented, in a complete form, since I took Office; and as soon as Her Majesty's Government have come to conclusions on the very important questions discussed by the Committee, ranging as they do over the whole organization of the Army, and affecting the interest of almost every class in it, I will lay on the Table the Report; or, at least, so much of it as may be given consistently with the public interest. I am bound to add that the Committee was far from unanimous, and that this divergence of opinion makes it the more necessary to guard against any premature publication. I hope to be able to state the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the main questions raised in moving the Army Estimates at the commencement of the next Session.

  CHANCERY FUNDS RULES—MONEYS PAID INTO COURT.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there is any reason for the delay in publishing the list of moneys paid, into the Court of Chancery, which, according to the Chancery Funds Rules, 1874 (No. 91), should have been published last February; and, whether he will take steps to procure its early publication?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that he could not answer the Question, which ought to have been addressed to the
  768
  Financial Secretary, who, he had no doubt, would make inquiries on the subject.

  TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE 23— PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state what was the position of affairs as regards the execution of the Twenty-third Article of the Treaty of Berlin when a new British Commissioner was sent out; whether the constitution of the province of Adrianople, a translation of which was promised some months ago, has yet been translated; whether constitutions for any other and what provinces have yet been drafted; and, whether in this or any other way any bona fide and effectual step has been taken towards the execution of the Article in question?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Treaty of Berlin laid down that the Porte should depute special commissions, in which the native element should be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each Province. Instead of doing this, the Porte drew up a single draft of an Organic Law for the Provinces, and sent it to be examined by local Commissions at Adrianople, Salonica, Janina, and Kossova. On receiving the Reportsfrom these local Commissions, the Porte issued a Circular to the Powers stating that the Reports were ready for examination by the Eastern Roumelian Commission, and requesting that Commissioners might be appointed without delay. This has been done; and Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, who was selected by the Government as the Commissioner for this country, is now at Constantinople. We have heard to-day that the Porte, after making some delay, has reappointed its former Commissioners, and it may be hoped that the Commission will be formally constituted in a few days. We have heard that the Adrianople Constitution is being translated; but we have not yet received a copy of the translation.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—MERCHANT SEAMEN'S PENSIONS —LEGISLATION.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to introduce a Bill this Session to legalize the practice of re-

  769
  ceving contributions of seamen towards merchant seamen's pensions, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts in their second Report for 1879, and of the Treasury in their Letter of 27th October 1879, to the Board of Trade?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Bill will only be a short Bill, and I hope we shall be in a position to introduce it in the course of the present Session.

  PERSIA AND HERAT—TREATY OF 1857.
  MR. ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the communications received from the Government of Persia with reference to the obligation of the Shah under Article C of the Treaty of 1357, by which His Majesty agreed "to relinquish all claims to sovereignty over the territory and city of Herat," are under the consideration of the Government; and, if not, whether those communications can be laid upon the Table of the House without injury to the public service?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration the communications which were exchanged between Her Majesty's late Advisers and the Government of Persia. Those communications did not lead to any practical result, and Her Majesty's Government are not disposed to revive them; although they would gladly see some arrangement arrived at which would place the city of Herat and the neighbouring territory under a better and more settled form of Government, as the disorders which prevail have always been a constant source of political anxiety. The communications with the Persian Government have been of a strictly confidential character; and Her Majesty's Government doubt whether any of the Papers can be presented to Parliament— at all events, at present. They will, however, consult Her Majesty's Minister in Persia on the subject.

  LAW OF COPYRIGHT.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government, this Session, to introduce a Bill to amend the
  770
  Law of Copyright; and, if not, if he can give an assurance that the question will be dealt with early next Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my hon. Friend has touched upon a subject of very great and peculiar interest to me— an interest greater, perhaps, than that attached to the question by the general public. I should be very glad indeed to see it dealt with; but I am afraid that, in view of the demands upon the attention of the House, I cannot give any specific pledge as to the time when the matter will be likely to receive the attention of the Government. The subject has been heretofore in the hands of private Members; and if any independent Member should bring forward a proposal in regard to it, it will, I feel sure, be received favourably by the Government, who would give any assistance to procure for it a fair and impartial consideration.

  CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW—LEGISLATION.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for the codification of the Criminal Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government this Session to introduce a Bill on the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, as it would be impossible to make satisfactory progress with any such measure

  ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If the officers on the Horse Guards' Staff are exempt from the rule limiting the tenure of a staff appointment to a period of five years; and, if not exempt from this rule, to explain why the officers at present holding the appointments of Adjutant General to the Forces, Deputy Adjutant General to the Forces, and Deputy Adjutant General of Auxiliary Forces, have been kept on the Staff of the Horse Guards since July, 1873; and, further, to state what period of time must elapse between the completion of five years' service on the staff and the

  771
  re-appointment of the same officer for another period of five years on the staff of the Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have to state that officers on the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief are not exempt from the rule limiting the tenure of a Staff appointment to five years, although this rule does not apply to his purely personal Staff, such as his Private Secretary and aides-de-camp. I cannot, however, find that there is any rule preventing an officer from receiving two Staff appointments in succession. As a matter of fact, only one of the three officers named by the hon. and gallant Member has been continuously employed for more than five years—namely, the Deputy Adjutant General of the Forces, who was promoted to that appointment from that of Assistant Military Secretary. The Adjutant General had been Quartermaster General, with a short interval between the two appointments; and the Deputy Adjutant General for Auxiliary Forces has only been appointed this year, having held no previous appointment at head-quarters. The question has not come and will not for some time come before me, as the only appointment at head-quarters likely to be soon vacant is that of Quartermaster General of the Forces, vacant on the 1st of July, which my Predecessor had filled up by anticipation in a way of which I entirely approve.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEgave Notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, he would take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to his reply.

  ROYAL COMMISSION UPON AGRICULTURE-REPORT OF THE AMERICAN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury. Whether it is the intention of the Royal Commission upon Agriculture to issue a Report of the Assistant Commissioners sent to America before the general Report of the Commission; and, if so, when such Report may be expected to be in the hands of Members? The hon. Member also asked, When it may be expected that the Royal Commission upon Agriculture will complete its work; and, whether the Report may be expected to
  772
  be in the hands of Members before the end of the present Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I need not tell my hon. Friend that I have no direct means of information with regard to the proceedings of the Commission; but I have considered it my duty to communicate with the noble Duke at the head of the Commission (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), and he informs me that the Report from America has not yet been received by the Commission. I believe frequent engagements connected with the General Election have caused some postponement in the preparation of the Report, and I am sorry to say the indisposition of one of the Members has also caused delay. With regard to the second Question, the noble Duke informs me that the Commission is not in a position to say when it will complete its work and submit its Report to Her Majesty.

  THE PATENT OFFICE, ENGLAND, AND THE PATENT OFFICE, UNITED STATES—THE WEEKLY OFFICIAL GAZETTE.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked Mr. Attorney General, If any reasons exist why the Patent Office should not afford the same facilities as are enjoyed by American inventors and manufacturers of becoming acquainted with the progress of invention by the issue of an Illustrated Weekly Official Gazette of new patents similar to that issued by the Patent Office at Washington?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said there was not at the disposal of the Patent Office a staff sufficient to enable them to issue a Weekly Gazette of New Patents; and the law did not give the Office powers to compel patentees to furnish the special drawings requisite to enable them to issue a publication of this kind.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDintimated that he would takeanearly opportunity of drawing attention to the administrations of the Patent Office and its vast accumulated funds.

  MALTA—CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS AND EDUCATION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What action has been taken on Sir Penrose Julyan's Report on the Civil Establishments of Malta, and on Mr. Keenan's Report on Education in Malta;

  773
  and, whether he has any objection to laying these Papers upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, there will be no objection to laying nearly the whole of both these documents upon the Table, and I will do this shortly. As regards the changes being made, it would be impossible to state them within the limits which the House assigns to the answer to a Question, as the alterations suggested and the changes made deal with innumerable details; but a little later, if it is wished, I shall, I believe, be able to give a great deal of information upon that subject by laying the Correspondence on the Table.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—MUSICAL INSTRUCTION.
  SIR CHARLES REEDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the permission, given ten years ago, to use the Tonic Sol Fa method and notation in public Elementary Schools and Training Colleges on the same terms as the ordinary notation is withdrawn?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, no change has been made in the regulations of the Education Department with respect to the recognition of the Tonic Sol Fa method of instruction in singing; but it is contemplated that in case the regulation in the Code which was laid on the Table in March last should come into force, the full grant will only be paid on those scholars who can read the ordinary notation.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—DERELICT VESSELS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the Report of the master of the steamship "Teutonia," which appeared in the "Times" of the 8th May, stating that he had passed at sea a derelict vessel, "very low in the water, and dangerous to navigation;" if his attention has been called to a report by the master of the royal mail steamer "Medway," in the "Times" of the 20th, that he had passed a vessel of about 1,000 tons (the size of Her Majesty's ship "Atalanta")bottomup;and, if he will take into consideration the propriety of devising some means of inducing, or, if necessary, compelling the
  774
  commanders of vessels falling in with such derelict ships firstly to ascertain, if possible, the names of such ships, and secondly, if possible, to sink or otherwise destroy them?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the reports to which the hon. Member refers. There can be no doubt that such derelicts constitute a danger to navigation; but it would, I think, be impossible to devise regulations to insure their compulsory destruction. Any legislation for such a purpose would certainly be evaded, and would lead to the concealment of the existence of these derelicts by masters of vessels who now report them. It will, perhaps, be better to trust to the common sense and common interests of masters to sink or otherwise destroy them where it may be possible to do so.

  GRAND JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND).
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with the Irish Grand Jury question early in the next Session of Parliament, and by a Bill specially directed to the reform of the Irish Grand Jury system?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, my hon. Friend asked a somewhat similar Question a few days ago, and I must again say I cannot give him a definite answer. He is very anxious for the reform of the Grand Jury system, and I think it is generally agreed that it requires reform. But it is not the only Irish matter upon which reform is demanded, and it is impossible for me to give my hon. Friend a Sessional programme for next year.

  BOARD OF CUSTOMS—ABOLITION.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will abolish the Board of Customs this year, so as to have the Customs work done by the Board of Inland Revenue and one set of officers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am afraid I cannot give any assurance to the hon. Gentleman beyond this—that the suggestion involved in this Question is one of which I am very sensible of the importance, and one which I am disposed to take into full and rather favourable consideration at the first fitting opportunity. However, it is a large administrative

  775
  measure, invoicing many changes, and probably involving in the first instance, much cost to the public. I need scarcely say that no steps could be taken and nothing carried out until after a full and careful consideration of the whole matter, which I am not now in a position to give to it.

  COAL MINES—USE OF BLASTING POWDER.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. "Whether, considering that the loss of life is very frequent from the present mode of using blasting powder in mines (as at Kiveton Park, South Yorkshire, a few days ago, where a serious loss of life took place), he will issue an order calling upon the inspectors to direct the attention of colliery proprietors and mine owners of fiery mines, where explosives are used for the purpose of carrying on the works, that they should he used only when the large body of the workmen are not in the mines; and, further, whether, in view of the fact that it must he a considerable time before action can be taken, as Mated by the Department on Tuesday last, he will direct the inspectors where they may deem it necessary to enforce, if possible, the use of explosives in the way referred to, by having recourse to arbitration, as per statute, with the owners on the subject?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said that he had received a Report from Mr. Dickinson, one of the principal Inspectors of mines, dated the 28th May, in which he said that there was no doubt that in many instances lives had been lost from the improper use of explosives in mines, and that the danger might have been minimized by the withdrawal of the ordinary workmen during the time that explosives were being used. He would see that the view stated by Mr. Dickinson as to the withdrawal of the workmen while explosives were being used in all mines where it was un-safe was acted on. It was not necessary he thought, to take any other precautions.

  METROPOLITAN WATER WORKS PURCHASE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. BRANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to in-
  776
  troduce a Metropolis Waterworks Purchase Bill, with a view to refer the terms of purchase under the Water Purchase Bill in the last Parliament to a Select Committee; and, if not, whether the Government will take any steps to maintain the basis of valuation upon which the Water Purchase Bill was framed, or to prevent the Water Companies from augmenting the nominal value of their property by charging extra rates upon any increase in the assessment of property by the new valuation now in progress under the Act of 1869, or by their own assessment other than new houses coming under supply?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, as the Question of my hon. Friend involves large pecuniary interests, which might be prejudiced by a postponed or imperfect statement of the intention of the Government, I shall ask the indulgence of the House, if what I have to say extends somewhat beyond the ordinary limits of an answer at this Table. It may, possibly, be deemed convenient that I should take this opportunity of stating with precision the course which the Government intend to pursue with reference to the measure called the Metropolis Water Purchase. It is within the knowledge of the House that a Bill was introduced into the last Parliament to give effect to certain agreements which had been negotiated with the Water Companies with a view to their purchase. That Bill came to an end at the Dissolution, if not before. Most hon. Gentlemen present are probably acquainted with the circumstances which have cast grave doubts on these agreements, in regard to their prudence and the advantages to be derived by the public in carrying them into effect. It seems to Her Majesty's Government quite impossible to take any steps to give validity to these agreements without a public and searching inquiry into the real character of these documents, and their actual relation to the value of the property to be acquired under them. The Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, the two most important representative bodies of the Metropolis, have addressed to me Memorials, desiring such an investigation, and have undertaken to render the requisite assistance in conducting it. In my opinion, that is a most wise and reasonable request. Nothing short of

  777
  such an investigation will satisfy the public mind us to the true character of these agreements, and of the property with which they deal. The Government will, therefore, ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to carry out this inquiry. The exact terms of the Order of Reference is a matter of some difficulty. It is obviously not expedient to give the inquiry too large a scope, so as to hang up this urgent question indefinitely. The inquiry into the agreements can be brought into a moderate compass, so as to be disposed of in the present Session. An investigation of the whole question of water supply would, evidently, extend to far wider limits; at the same time, it would not be possible or desirable to exclude from the mind of a Committee appointed to consider the proposed terms of purchase the consideration of the question whether the purchase of the undertakings of the existing Water Companies is, in itself, the only or the best possible alternative, and whether it might not be more desirable to obtain from other sources a better supply at a cheaper rate. There is another question which the Corporation in its Memorial points to as a fitting subject of inquiry—namely, the basis of the charge for water—that is to say, the basis on which the powers of the Companies are founded, and which enable them to raise their water rents without limit in proportion to the growth of value in houses, without themselves expending any further monies or rendering any additional services. That likewise seems a matter deserving of inquiry and redress. In conclusion, I wish only to say one word as to the attitude of the Government towards this question. As respects the agreements, they accept no responsibility in regard to them. As they are to form the subject of a public inquiry it is not desirable that I should even express at this moment the opinion I entertain of them. The Government will lay them impartially before the Committee, neither as attacking nor as supporting the agreements, but prepared to deal with them as may seem best, after their true value has been ascertained. I presume they will be explained to the Committee by the gentleman who negotiated them, and who will not be the witness of the Government. They will be criticized, tested, and sifted by the repre-
  778
  sentatives of the Corporation and the Board of Works. What course the Water Companies may think fit to take with regard to them I cannot at this moment say as I have received no communication from them. But, of course, every facility they may desire will be placed at their disposal in order to state their case as they may think; but by this means the Committee will be enabled to form a sound judgment on the matter of the agreements. With reference to the whole question of the water supply of the Metropolis, I would observe to the House that it is not primâ facie an Imperial question which belongs strictly to the province of the Executive Government. It is, and ought to be, if the proper machinery were available, a question of local metropolitan administration. On this, as on many other subjects, we have to deplore the want of a central metropolitan authority for the general government of London. That is a great and urgent question, and I hope that this Parliament will not close without making an earnest attempt at its solution. But, in the meanwhile, it is the duty, as it is the wish of the Government to assist the inhabitants of London in supplying the defects of their local organization. I have thought that the best available means in the present instance was to invito the co-operation of the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board to aid the Government in a solution of the difficult matter we have to deal with. I am happy to say that that appeal has been cordially responded to. Both these great bodies, representing the inhabitants of London, have expressed their willingness to co-operate with the Government and with one another before the Committee. This seems to me a good augury for the future; and it is in such a combination that I see the best hopes for dealing hereafter in an adequate manner with a matter which so deeply concerns the health and wealth of this great Metropolis.
  MR. BRAND: My right hon. and learned Friend has not answered the latter part of the Question. The House is probably aware that the option of purchase under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) lapses on the 1st of July; and my object in putting this Question was to get an answer from my right hon.

  779
  and learned Friend as to whether the Government would, by negotiation or otherwise, endeavour to obviate the action of the Water Companies which they may take under their statutes—that is, of raising their rates to a considerable amount.
  LORD ELCHO: I rise simply to say that I did not quite catch whose statement it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman read to the House.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his very discursive answer, has replied to a Question which I had placed upon the Paper. I would only ask him when it is likely that the Select Committee will be appointed?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I shall give Notice of the Committee to-day or to-morrow.
  Subsequently—
  MR. BRANDsaid: Sir, I am sorry to interpose for a moment between the House and Public Business; but I really think I have some right to claim from my right hon. and learned Friend an answer to the Question which I put to him. I gave public Notice of the Question, and I think it was a reasonable one, and one of some little importance. At any rate, I hear that one of the Water Companies has already given notice of an intention to raise its rates. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to have the courtesy to say, at all events, whether he declines to answer, and, if so, why?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I should be exceedingly sorry to think I had been wanting in courtesy to my hon. Friend. I thought I had answered the Question of the hon. Member at great length. I will, if the hon. Gentleman desires it, read it again. The answer I gave to the Question to which the hon. Member refers is this:—
  "There is another question which the Corporation in its Memorial points to as a fit subject of inquiry—namely, the basis of the charge for water—that is to say, the basis upon which the powers of the Companies are founded, and which enables them to raise their water rents without limit in proportion to the growth of value in houses, without themselves expending any further monies or rendering any additional services. That likewise seems a matter deserving inquiry and redress."
  I intended that as a full answer to the hon. Member's Question—namely, that at the request of the Corporation that
  780
  question would be referred to the Committee. I did not wish to trouble the House by repeating it; but, at the request of the hon. Member, I have done so.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CETYWAYO.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Cetywayo, the late King of the Zulus, is still confined as a State prisoner in the Cape Colony; and, if that be so, how long Government intend to confine him, and what course they intend to pursue towards him?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, Cetywayo was by the latest telegraphic accounts—those of May 19—still in the charge of the military authorities at Cape Town, in the building described in the despatch of the l5th of September, 1879, which will be found at page 267 of the Correspondence presented to Parliament in February last. The Government are expecting a full Report with regard to him in answer to a telegram which was sent on the l5th of this month by the Secretary of State, in which he directed that Cetywayo should be allowed all the liberty which could be given to him conveniently, and that he should be allowed to see his friends. There is a Bill at the present time before the Cape Parliament for the purpose of authorizing his being detained by the civil, and not as he now is by the military authorities, at the Cape; and it is hoped that the result of that Bill may be very materially to improve his position. When the discussion on that Bill is finished there will be a further Report on the subject. I may add that the Secretary of State is anxious that Cetywayo should have all possible liberty and consideration compatible with his detention within the limits of the Cape Colony.

  BRAZIL—BRITISH CLAIMS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to British claims of long standing against Brazil, which the late Government frequently stated to be on the eve of satisfactory settlement; and, if he can give any assurance that, the present Government will insist on all these pending matters being brought to an issue?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, some delay has arisen in consequence of

  781
  the Brazilian Government desiring to revise their list of counter claims, and also by reason of the recent change of Government in Brazil. But Her Majesty's Government hope that negotiations will shortly be resumed on the subject.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty is now prepared to grant the Greenwich Hospital age pension of 5d. per diem to all qualified Naval pensioners on their attaining the age of 55 years; and, if not, upon what principle the selection is to be made from amongst those qualified persons who have attained that age?
  MR. T. BRASSEY,in reply, said, the number of Greenwich age pensions was limited to 7,500 by Order in Council of the 29th of June, 1878, and that number would not suffice to give the age pension to every pensioner on attaining the age of 55. In awarding these pensions, the seaman's health, his ability to contribute to his own support, and the number of persons dependent upon him were taken into account. By the same Order in Council it was enacted that seamen in receipt of a naval pension of half-a-crown a day should not have the age pension in addition.

  INDIA—SALARIES OF INDIAN OFFICIALS—RETURN.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBERNasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the probable date at which certain Returns as to the salaries of Indian officials, Covenanted and Un-covenanted, European and Native, will be laid upon the Table of the House, these Returns having been ordered by the late House of Commons on the Motion of the Eight honourable gentleman now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the orders of the House of Commons were forwarded to India on the 17th of July last, with a despatch inquiring what expenditure of money was likely to be involved in a compliance with them, and within what period the Returns could be made. On the 22nd of January, 1880, the portion of the Return prepared in the India Office was sent to India with a request that certain columns
  782
  might be filled up, as the information was not to be obtained here, and the Paper returned as soon as possible; and Lord Cranbrook again requested to be informed when it was likely that the Indian portion of the Returns would be transmitted. No reply has been received to either despatch; but there can be no doubt that the Returns will involve much time and labour in all the Provinces of India. A further despatch will be sent asking when the information may be expected.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the twelfth paragraph of the Order issued by the Local Government Board on the 29th April 1880 commanding relieving officers to post copies of a list of destitute persons relieved cut of the workhouse, with their names, the number of dependent persons of the family, and the residence, "in such public places as the board of guardians shall direct;" if any such order as this has been enforced of late years in Ireland; and, if, having regard to the poverty at present affecting Ireland, and to the danger that persons in temporary want of out-door relief may be deterred from seeking it by the exposure of their names, and of the misery of their families in public places, the Local Government Board will direct the paragraph in question to be modified?
  MR. W. E. FOPSTER: Sir, in the year 1852 an Order was issued by the Local Government Board in Ireland commanding relieving officers to post copies of a list of destitute persons relieved out of the workhouse, with their names, the number of dependent persons of the family, and the residence, "in such public places as the board of guardians shall direct." Owing to the numbers relieved out of the workhouses having been for several years very small, the practice of posting lists of persons relieved fell into abeyance; but in the month of March last it was deemed necessary to remind the Boards of Guardians of the Order. It was thought that the ratepayers ought to know how, and for whom, their money is expended; and though it is the bounden duty of the relieving officer to see that real destitution

  783
  is relieved, it must not be forgotten that it is necessary to take step3 to prevent imposition.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT —COMPENSATION.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, after the expiration of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act on June 1st persons now having claims for compensation for personal injuries can proceed with those claims at the forthcoming or any subsequent Assizes; and, whether the expiry of the Act will in any degree interfere with the existing powers of Grand Juries in cases where the aggrieved persons have served all the requisite notices and otherwise complied with the provisions of the Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, with the expiration of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act on the 1st of June the powers thereby conferred on Grand Juries to make presentments of money by way of compensation for personal injuries will cease; and, therefore, no applications for such presentments can be made at the next or any subsequent Assizes. This will be the case whether the preliminary notices required by the Act to entitle persons to apply for such presentments have or have not been served before the 1st of June.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY-DAILY ADMISSION.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can arrange that the National Gallery be thrown open to the public every weekday throughout the year?
  MR. ADAM: Sir, since the Question put to me on Thursday last by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope), I have been in further communication with the Trustees of the National Gallery, through Mr. Burton, the Director. They are now considering the question how to accommodate the public as far as possible without unduly interfering with the usefulness of the Gallery as a place for art education. In these circumstances, I should be much obliged if my hon. Friend would repeat his Question at some future time, when I shall be prepared to state the decision at which the
  784
  Trustees have arrived. I may add that, as First Commissioner of Works, I have no power to alter or amend regulations regarding the National Gallery; and, further, I may state that the Trustees wish it to be known that they have no special desire to close the Gallery in October if the staff at their disposal were sufficient to enable them to keep it open, and this matter will receive the careful consideration of the Government.

  INDIA—EAST INDIA (ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT).
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to Return No. 37 of the last Session of the last Parliament, entitled "East India (Ecclesiastical Department)," If it is true that the large sum of £200,000 per annum, drawn from funds supplied by the general taxation of India, is not spent in providing chaplains for the Civil and Military servants of the Queen only, but also for "persons altogether unconnected with Government;" if, notwithstanding the resolution of the Indian Government to reduce the expenditure on Church establishments, chaplains are still being appointed to stations where there are few or no officials; and, whether, before next Session of Parliament, ho will undertake to look into the subject with a view of remedying the complaint that Her Majesty's subjects in India, who are not Christians, are taxed to provide clergymen for European and Eurasian residents in that country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend, I have to state that the total annual expenditure in the Ecclesiastical Department of India appears to amount, at the Government rate of exchange, to £ 180,131. In their despatch given on pages 3 and 4 of the Return, the Government of India state that the expenditure in this Department has since 1870 been revised and reduced, and they hope to effect further reductions during the current year of 1880–81. There are a few stations to which chaplains are allotted where, according to the Return, "few or no Europeans" attend church; but such chaplains are charged with "out-stations," requiring periodical visits, and have other duties to perform which are mentioned by the Bishop, and

  785
  by the Archdeacon of Calcutta in his "General Remarks" contained on pages 54 and 55 of the Return. I am not aware that there has been any complaint of the character referred to in the last part of the Question of my right hon. Friend. Undoubtedly it is the case that at some stations persons altogether unconnected with the Government avail themselves of the ministrations of the Government chaplains. I do not think it would be possible or desirable, however, that these chaplains should be precluded from attending to the spiritual wants of other persons than those employed by Government, although, of course, they are primarily intended to minister to the spiritual wants of officers in the service of the Government. I am quite willing to make inquiry whether there are any cases where chaplains are not required for the legitimate purpose of this appointment.

  SOUTH AFRICAN COLONIES—SIR BARTLE FRERE.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Can he name a day when he intends to bring forward his Motion with regard to Sir Bartle Frere, and what are the terms of the Motion?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his Question in a few days I hope I shall be in a position to give him a definite answer.
  MR. ONSLOW: Will the hon. Member name the day? ["No, no."]

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE —FILLING UP OF VACANCIES.
  MR. ARNOLD: Sir, I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Whether the Royal Commission on Agriculture will, in regard to their Report, have the co-operation of Mr. Goschen and of the Lord President of the Council; and, if not, whether, in view of so serious a loss, the Government will nominate other Gentlemen to serve on the Commission?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) has resigned his seat on the Royal Agricultural Commission. I
  786
  need not say that Mr. Goschen, on account of his employment elsewhere, has been led to take the same step, and he will be quite unable to perform the duties of a Commissioner for some time. Her Majesty's Government, under the circumstances, have thought it right to supply their places; and they have obtained the services of Lord Carlingford, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT —EXTRA POLICE IN THE COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the number of extra police stationed in the county of Mayo, the number of iron huts or other buildings erected for their accommodation, and the cost to the people of that county for the maintenance of this extra force?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member placed his Question on the Table on Friday evening; and as I did not see it until Saturday, I have had no opportunity of obtaining information on the subject from Ireland. I shall endeavour to obtain that information, and if he will repeat his Question on Thursday I may be able to give it to him; or perhaps he would do better to move for it as a Return.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS—MINISTER OF COMMERCE.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to create a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, with a seat in the Cabinet, according to the Resolution of the late Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the subject contemplated in this Question is a matter which would involve a very extensive re-arrangement of the Business of the Government; and the machinery at their command is too heavily called upon at the present time to render it at all possible for them to take into their consideration any such extended and complicated change. There are, however, some subjects, not without importance, as to the re-adjustment of some

  787
  weighty branches that are connected with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's Question; and I may possibly be able in a short time to make a further communication to the House on the subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND.
  MR. ALDERMAN W.M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been received by the Government to the telegram sent out by them on Friday as to the treatment of the Basutos?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, we have received from the Cape a reply to the telegram which I mentioned on Friday, to the following effect:—
  "My Ministers assure me that the latest official Reports from Basutoland are the reverse of alarming. They entirely concur in the latter part of your message."
  The latter part of the message alluded to urged, I may remind the House, that the Ministers at the Cape should proceed with caution and consideration for the Basutos, and pointed out that it would be disastrous to cause, by harsh or precipitate measures, disaffection in a tribe hitherto loyal.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Committee of Supply he postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) Committee."— (Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSexpressed his belief that the Motion, as it stood, would not accomplish the object in view, inasmuch as a number of Notices of Motion intervened between the Orders of the Hay and the Motion of which Notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Bart-telot). Therefore, he proposed to amend the Motion by adding, after "Committee of Supply," the words—
  "And the Notices standing before the Notice of Motion relating to the Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) Committee."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "Supply" to the end of the Question, in order to add the -words
  788
  "and the Notices of Motion standing before the Notice of Motion relating to the Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) Committee ho postponed until after that Notice of Motion,"— [Mr. Watkin Williams,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that by one of the Standing Orders of the House it was laid down that in the case of a Select Committee concerning the Privileges of the House a Member might be appointed and nominated at once without Notice. The Notice of additional names proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex to the Committee on the Parliamentary Oath only appeared on the Paper on Saturday; and, therefore, it was impossible to move any Amendment to the names. In these circumstances, he wished to know whether it would be competent to any hon. Member to propose to change one of the names without giving Notice?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already stated, in answer to a Question put to him on Friday, that every proceeding with reference to this Committee, after what occurred on the first occasion, could not be regarded as a question of Privilege. It seemed to him, therefore, that it was necessary to give Notice of the addition of any names to this Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the Notice of Motion just given with reference to the Order of Business was couched in the usual terms, and would produce the desired result.
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYcontended, on the other hand, that it would be necessary to amend the Motion in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvonshire.
  MR. SPEAKERexpressed his opinion that the original Motion would accomplish the object which was aimed at.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  Resolved, That the Orders of the Day suh-sequent to Committee of Supply he postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) Committee,

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) £5,364, to complete the sum for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that according to the instructions issued by the Treasury, where any officer in any Public Department was receiving additional remuneration beyond his salary in such Department, then his double salary was to appear in the Estimates of both Departments. In the Household of the Lord Lieutenant there were 16 officers, and only one of these appeared on the Estimates as receiving additional remuneration from some other source. He believed, however, that it was the case that more than half of these officers were in receipt of remuneration from the Public Votes under other Estimates. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, why the rule laid down in the Treasury Circular had been departed from in the present instance?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that he was not aware of any case where what the hon. Member mentioned took place; but he would make inquiries upon the subject.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he should like to know why the Ulster King of Arms received £500 per annum from the Irish Record Office Vote as Keeper of State Papers, in addition to his other emoluments.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he believed the salaries had been fixed a long time since, and could not be altered during the lifetime of the present holder of the office.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £28,778, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was also, he believed, in virtue of his Office, the President of the Local Government
  790
  Board in Ireland, and in that capacity was charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the Relief Act, which was passed in the last Session of the late Parliament, he thought that perhaps it would be convenient, and it certainly would serve to allay some considerable anxiety in Ireland, if they were to take that opportunity of ascertaining from the right hon. Gentleman, more fully than they had yet been able to do, what precise steps he was taking in view of a promise contained in the Queen's Speech, and also in view of the Circular he had issued. It was probable that a very large strain would be thrown upon the Department of the Local Government Board owing to the charitable relief in Ireland being likely soon to come to an end. He should also like to remind the Committee of the measures which had been taken up to the present time by Parliament in order to meet the great distress which now existed in Ireland—measures which, in his opinion, had proved themselves altogether inadequate to the work in hand. In the last Session of Parliament there were two Acts passed for this purpose; one the Seeds Act, a very useful Act—the effect of which would not be seen until after the harvest; and the other, the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, containing, amongst others, the following provisions:—It gave power to the Guardians in the scheduled Unions to grant out-door relief in food and fuel: but up to the present time that provision had not been taken advantage of. Secondly, Boards of Guardians who had elected to borrow sums of money necessary for relief from the Commissioners of Public Works were given authority to borrow them at 3– per cent interest. That provision of the Act had not been much used. Further power was given to the Boards of Guardians under the Act to borrow sums of money necessary to defray the cost of out-door relief allowed under the Act from the Commissioners of Public Works at 3½? per cent interest. So far as he had been able to ascertain, that power had been little used, as Boards of Guardians did not, to any marked extent, up to the present time, give any assistance in the shape of out-door relief. He now came to those portions of the Act which had been used to some extent—namely, the power which was given to the Commissioners of Public Works to advance

  791
  money to the owners of land and the sanitary authorities at 1 per cent per annum, no interest being levied for the first two years, for the purpose of permanent improvements in land, and for the purpose of works which could be executed by the sanitary authorities under the various Sanitary Acts. Now, he found, on referring to a Return which was obtained on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that £1, 184,000 had been applied for, to be distributed under these provisions among the owners of land in the scheduled Unions up to the 20th of March last. Of that amount £354,8i0 only had been sanctioned, and of the amount sanctioned, only £69,955 had been issued to the date he had mentioned. By the same Return it was shown that £141,179 had been applied for, up to the same date, by the sanitary authorities. Of that amount, only £31, 807 had been sanctioned, and the actual amount issued was only £2,569. So that of the amount authorized by the Act of last Session to be lent to the landowners for the relief of distress in Ireland, only about one-eighteenth had yet been issued, and only about one-fourth in round numbers of the loans applied for had been sanctioned. In the case of the sanitary authorities, only one-seventieth of the amount applied for had been issued; but it was true that one-fifth of the amount applied for had been sanctioned. From information that he had collected, which, he thought, would convince many people who doubted the reality of the distress in Ireland of the emergency which now existed, he was enabled to state that about £580,000 had been spent in the different distressed districts in Ireland in the shape of private charity to relieve the distress. Ho found, also, that of the amounts subscribed by the charitable, and now in the hands of the priests, Bishops, and others for the relief of distress, there remained only about £120,000 unexpended. Thus it had been found necessary, in order to keep the people from dying in thousands, to spend in four months in the shape of charity £580,000; there remaining only £120,000 more to last for the next three or four months before the harvest. Those facts supplied material for a very great deal of serious consideration. He had shown, on the one hand, what had yet been done by the Government for the purpose of meet-
  792
  ing the existing state of affairs in Ireland —he had shown that, up to the present time, only about £100,000 had been issued by the Board of Works for the purpose of affording employment under the Relief Act of last Session in the distressed districts. On the other hand, it had taken £580,000 spent in charitable relief to keep the people alive during the past three or four months. Now, he wanted to know if the machinery under which the loans were issued worked so roughly and so badly as to break down, what was there, then, to prevent hundreds of people from starving during the next three or four months? He would assume that £354,000 had been sanctioned in loans, but not issued by the Board of Works up to the 20th of March, and that that money would be forthcoming very much more quickly than it had hitherto done. But what reason, then, had they to suppose that all that money would reach the people who had been kept alive hitherto, and who had been in receipt of charity since the commencement of the year? He knew, as a matter of fact, that in many of the most distressed districts, where the people had been most largely in the receipt of relief, the smallest sums had been applied for by the local landlords under the Local Act of last Session; and, consequently, the only thing these people would have to fall back upon would be the administration of out-door relief by the Poor Law Boards or the workhouse. What would happen if the people were driven to adopt one of these alternatives? The rates were paid in Unions by people who themselves were in a starving condition —namely, the small farmers and others. The Unions, in fact, were bankrupt; and if a rate were levied for the purpose of supplying out-door relief it was only levying relief for the starving upon the starving. He should be told, perhaps, that money was to be advanced at 3½ per cent to the Unions; but if the Unions were in a bankrupt condition now, what probability was there that they would not be bankrupt when they required the money, and for a long time afterwards? He did not think that a loan would be of any use in remedying that difficulty. The fact still remained that the people upon whom they had to depend to repay the loan were bankrupt and were starving and utterly unable to pay the rates. During the Famine of 1845–6–7 many in-

  793
  stances were known in which the rates largely exceeded the value of the rateable property in the Unions; and if the people in the Unions were driven bank upon the rates the same thing must happen now as happened then, and the rates would amount to such an enormous sum as would be impossible to pay them. He did think that some little debt was due from England to Ireland in respect to this matter. Rich and prosperous England had contributed less to the distress in Ireland than had Australia. More money had come from Australia than from England, and five times as much had come from Canada and the United States. The exertions of Parliament had been confined up to the present to passing the Act of last Session giving power to the people to borrow their own money—not English money, but the money of the Irish farmers themselves, and in the hands of the Commissioners of the Disestablished Irish Church. That money was to be lent by the Poor Law Board to local landowners and to the sanitary authorities. But supposing this machinery, provided by Parliament for the Irish to borrow their own money, was equal to the purpose, the fact would remain that Parliament had done nothing out of Imperial resources to meet the extraordinary crisis now existing in Ireland. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would wish to do everything he could to prevent the distress. But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the wide extent of his responsibility, and must not forget that it had taken £580.000 to keep the people in the West of Ireland alive during the last four months, and that had it not been for the money contributed by nearly all the known world the people of Ireland would have died in thousands, He regretted very much to see the right hon. Gentleman rely too much on the inadequate provisions made in the last Parliament to meet the emergency. The present Government had been given time to consider the matter thoroughly, and to take all the measures necessary to cope successfully with the distress. But had it not been for the charitable relief the people would have already died from starvation, and they were met by the fact that no larger sum than £120,000 or £180,000 now remained in the hands of the charitable committees.
  794
  In a few weeks that money would be spent, and they would then have nothing between the most extreme distress and the entirely inadequate and bad provision of the Act of last Session. He had thought it right, under those circumstances, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the result of his inquiries up to the present time, during the short period that he had been in Office, as to the operation of the Act of last Session, was satisfactory? And, further, Whether he thought it would be an adequate provision to enable these distressed and bankrupt Unions to tide over the rest of the year, by simply empowering them to borrow for the purpose of giving out-door relief; or whether, on the contrary, he did not think that some other measures would be necessary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had made the remarks he had, as it was very desirable that some information should be given to the Committee on this subject He could assure the Committee that steps had been taken, and still further steps would be taken, for tarrying out the Act passed in the early part of this year to prevent destitution in Ireland, and to prevent anything like starvation between this time and next harvest. It was quite true that they could not expect that the large weekly contributions from charitable funds should continue. They had been very large, and the hon. Member was perfectly right in expressing his sense of the great generosity of their fellow-countrymen in Australia and Canada, and of their friends in the United States, in coming forward at such a crisis. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that there were very few Unions in which out-door relief was now given to any extent. So far as ho could make out—and ho had given far more attention to this subject than to anything else, as it was his duty to do in the capacity of President of the Local Government Board—he did not think that that was the case. He might say that he should expect to be informed almost daily from the Inspectors in the districts of the action of the Board of Guardians, so that he might know whether they were giving the necessary assistance in relieving the distress that must arise before the harvest, The

  795
  hon. Member stated that many ratepayers in those Unions were themselves in a state of great destitution. Undoubtedly that was the case, and it was the case, unhappily, in those Unions in which there was the greatest call for out-door relief. In many of those Unions many of the ratepayers were very little removed from destitution, and in some instances he feared that the ratepayers were the very persons requiring the relief. Knowing that to be the case, he had issued instructions that the Guardians must give out-door relief where required, and the Inspectors of the Local Government Board had strict orders to direct them to do so, and if necessary, in case of their being unprovided with funds, to give them immediately a loan. The hon. Member would see of what use such a direction as that would be. He trusted that by means of that provision they would insure that the destitution of the next few months would be relieved. Another effect of that measure would, he thought, be this—that it would insure that the heavy rate which the hon. Member feared, and which he said took place in the last Famine, would be avoided. During the last Famine the Guardians had no resource but to collect very heavy rates; but the loan plan which he had prepared would avoid the necessity of their adding at once to the burdens of the ratepayers. He should like to tell the Committee the position in which he found matters, and also what steps had been taken to deal with the evil, although for the exact arrangements made ho did not consider himself responsible. If he might criticize in any way the previous arrangements made for relieving the distress, he should say that the loans to the landlords were offered on rather too advantageous terms. That, however, was a past transaction which had been agreed to by the House, and the Government must abide by it. The hon. Member was rather mistaken in supposing that no great use of these loans had been made. It would have been very surprising if they had not been largely used. A grant of money to the landlord for the improvement of his property for which he had paid nothing for two years, and then merely 1 per cent interest for a long time, was too good an offer not to have been largely made use of. So great was the demand for funds, that it
  796
  would be his duty shortly to bring in a Bill to increase the advance out of the Church Surplus Fund from £750,000 to £1,500,000. The amount applied for by landlords had been £1,201,000. That was a fixed sum, because there was a certain time up to which applications for advances could be made. On the 8th of May, when he was in Dublin, the amount issued was £189,720, and he knew it had been considerably increased since that time. [Mr. PARNELL: To landlords and sanitary authorities.] No, to landlords alone. There had also been an increase in the advances to the sanitary authorities. Wishing to know what the sum actually was, he telegraphed for it yesterday, and he found it was this—the amount presented for at 100 baronial sessions had been £185,000, and the amount sanctioned up to the 15th instant, £86,000. The principle upon which these loans had been dealt with had been this—The Inspector of the Board of Works went down to report whether the works, for which presentments had been made, were of real utility, and the Inspector of the Local Government Board went down to report whether they were works which would give such employment as was really wanted. Whenever these two conditions were complied with, the loan was at once sanctioned; the object in view mainly being to furnish employment between the 1st of June and the beginning of the harvest—the period during which they might expect not only that ordinary employment would fall off, but that the funds of the charitable committees would begin to fail. In some cases—he wished to be quite candid with the Committee—the Inspectors of the Local Government Board had reported that works which the Inspectors of Public Works thought would not be of real utility would be of very considerable advantage as a means of employment. In these cases, the Government had sent the question back to the Inspectors for re-consideration. The Committee, he was sure, would agree with him that really useless works were very little, if any, better than actual grants of money. In view of what actually had been done, he was in hopes that some advantage might, after all, come out of this calamity, and that there would be a considerable increase in the produce of the country through drainage and the various other improvements made. He

  797
  need hardly say that while attending to these works they did not relax their attention for one moment from the condition of the really destitute. Those who were the most destitute were persons who had no able-bodied member of their family who could work. For these unfortunate people he was intensely anxious that they should do what was necessary, and that was also the feeling of the officers of the Local Government Board. It was only due to the permanent officers of the Local Government Board in Ireland, amongst whom he might especially mention the Under Secretary, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Robinson the Vice President of the Local Government Board, to say that they were as anxious in the matter as he was. It was from them the suggestion came that during the next three or four months out-door relief should be accompanied by a loan. No doubt, hon. Members heard of cases of distress, in which it was supposed the Local Government Board had not been doing their duty. Well, he had examined all such Reports carefully, and he must say that hitherto he had not found one case substantiated. It was a miserable accompaniment of a great distress like this that there should be cases of imposition. Great discrimination, he had no doubt, was exercised by the officers of the Duchess of Marlborough's Fund, which would long be remembered by the Irish people as one that was carefully and wisely and charitably administered, and also of the Mansion House Belief Fund; but he believed the relieving officers of the Board of Guardians were better able to detect imposition than inexperienced men; that, at all events, had been his experience in England. At the same time, they had to guard against the tendency to callousness in the hearts of relieving officers which familiarity with distress was apt to produce. They must take care that real cases of suffering were not passed over. That such care would be taken he was very much encouraged to hope by the tone of the Reports of the Inspectors of the suffering districts. They seemed to him to be the Reports of men who thoroughly felt the responsibility which rested upon them. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to say, in conclusion, that although he anticipated a pressure of distress between the present time and the beginning of harvest,
  798
  he was very hopeful as to the more distant future. There seemed to be the prospect of a good crop of potatoes, and altogether a better season than they had had for many years past.
  MR. SYNANcredited the right hon. Gentleman, as he was sure every hon. Member in that House who was acquainted with his character would do, with the best intentions and with the greatest anxiety to effectually cope with the distress in Ireland. He had no fault to find with the statement which had just been made, though he was doubtful even now whether the measures taken were adequate; but with respect to the Bill of last Session which had been referred to in somewhat deprecatory terms, he desired as one who had a hand in amending it to say a word or two. With respect to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that loans were granted upon too favourable terms to landlords, he begged to remind the Committee that by an Amendment of his in that Bill loans were given not for the benefit of the landlord, but for the benefit of the tenants. That Amendment was to the effect that the tenant should, if he was able to fulfil the necessary conditions as to annual payments, obtain the advantage of the loan himself; and the landlord, therefore, was in no respect a gainer, except, perhaps, in the sense that under certain circumstances his rent was more secure. He thought it right that no misapprehension should exist in this matter. As to the Government measures of last year not being adequate, he had said at the time that they were not so, and had endeavoured to amend the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that the Act was inadequate. I said that loans for public works or drainage would not meet all the destitution.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended him. He was not referring to anything the right hon. Gentleman had said, but to the words of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Parnell). He had found fault with the Bill, and he found fault with the Act now. The mode of repaying presentment loans appeared to him to be unfair. The money had to be repaid in 15 instalments, twice a-year. It had, therefore, to be all repaid in seven years,

  799
  whereas the landlords and tenants who had recieved the £750,000 were allowed 35 years to pay. That defect, among others, they had endeavoured to remedy in the Bill, but in vain; and he trusted that the present Government would not enforce the repayment of the presentment loans too severely. He was rather surprised to learn that out of the £750,000 only £189,000 had been actually sanctioned or paid.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Pardon me! £189,000, in response to applications for £1,200,000. The reason is that the money is paid only as it is required. The hon. Member would not wish it to be idle before being used.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the point of his observation was this—only a small proportion of the total fund had yet been lent, and of that money even they did not know the application. Moreover, he understood there were great delays between the applications for loans and the granting of them. Now, they were just entering upon a period of what would probably be acute distress, and it would be important to know how much of the £1,500,000 available from the Church Surplus Fund had been spent up to the present moment; also where and how it had been spent, to be assured that no needless delay in its application would be made. What ho should like to know was the condition of the West of Ireland. Were reproductive works going on there, and, if not, how was it proposed to meet the distress? It would be impossible to meet it by out-door relief, for rates would have to be imposed which the ratepayers would be unable to pay; some of the Unions and electoral divisions of Ireland, in fact, would be made bankrupt. Equally unfortunate results would ensue if recourse was had to any such means of repayment as the labour rate of 1847, which in 14 months amounted to 23s. in the pound. It was, therefore, very important to know where reproductive works existed, and on what terms money was advanced. Unless loans were made at a low percentage, and unless precautions were taken to prevent the pauperization of whole districts, the condition of some of the Western Counties of Ireland in two or three months time would be miserable indeed. He had nothing further to add on the subject of loans, except to impress upon the Government the neces-
  800
  sity of proportioning those loans as far as possible to the distress, of making them at a low rate, and of doing away with delay as much as possible. There was every prospect of a good crop of potatoes, he was happy to say; but he trusted there was no intention of making the ratepayers pay back the loans of seed potatoes. For whose benefit were those loans intended? They were intended for the cottier tenants, the holders of an acre or less; and if the crops of these poor people were confiscated to pay the loans this year they would be ruined. If, again, the Guardians had to pay, they would require to levy a rate which would fall oppressively upon the small tenants, who formed nearly half of the 050,000 tenants in Ireland. What, then, was to be done? He apprehended that the Government must, for a time, hold its hand in respect to these repayments, and not insist upon the Guardians paying, unless they could plainly see their way to doing so. He knew the Government was anxious to do its duty, and he appealed to them to exercise in this matter the generosity which the unusual circumstances of the case demanded.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would confine himself to inquiring how far the Poor Law had been effective in relieving the distress; and in connection with the point he could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member for Cork Mr. Parnell), that out-door relief had, practically, not been given at all. In two Unions he had recently visited ho found that not a shilling of out-door relief had been given, although the rates were only 1s. 4d. and 1s. 1d. in the pound. Boards of Guardians, in fact, had such an objection to giving outdoor relief, that they had thrown the whole burden of meeting the exceptional distress upon the two charitable committees, and those committees were perfectly well aware of the fact. Now, if the right of every man to labour or relief had been asserted, as it was in Lancashire in 1864, Poor Law Guardians and the owners of land would have had the greatest inducement to employ the people and diminish the rates—an inducement which could not exist when the system prevailed of allowing private charity to cope with the distress and of considering the action of the Poor Law as merely supplementary. The Boards

  801
  of Guardians were bodies acquainted with the wants of their localities, and they would know what work should be done; but by putting the matter in the hands of the baronial sessions, the most useful works were thrown out. The reason for that was that the members of the baronial sessions came, perhaps, from distant localities, and knowing that there was no distress in their own districts they would refuse to deal with it where it did exist. As he had said before, he thought that very great evil arose from the want of assimilation between the Poor Laws of England and Ireland. If the Poor Law in Ireland worked as it did in England, he could safely affirm that the distress in Ireland would have been met at once. Two years ago there were signs in the West of Ireland, in Mayo and in Donegal, that very great distress was imminent. The employment in England and Scotland, which annually took some thousands of people away from Ireland, was slack. Most of those people held an acre or more of land, and being excluded from the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland their distress was not taken into account by the Poor Law authorities. Of course, there was no blame to be attached to the Poor Law authorities, for they had no right to take their distress into account. By that means, the signs that a period of great distress was coming on were discredited. No person could read the Circular of the Poor Law Board of last October without being of opinion that adequate means to meet the distress were not made. Had the Poor Law in Ireland been assimilated to that of England, there would have been no difficulty in meeting this distress two years ago. Ho would suggest to the Government that a Continuance Act should be passed, and also that an inquiry should be made as to how far the present Poor Law in Ireland should be assimilated to that of England.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that as he had the honour to be chairman of the Union in his part of the country, he could state that the attendance of the elected Guardians was very much more frequent than that of the ex-officio Guardians. He did not wish to make any reflections upon the ex-officio Guardians, for as the other Guardians were more numerous it was only likely that their attendance would be greater. It
  802
  had also been said that the landlords were very glad to take the money offered them upon very advantageous terms, and that that course was preferred to the administration of out-door relief. He wished to state that the elected Guardians had it in their power to give out-door relief to any extent they liked, duly considering the burdens upon the people they represented. An hon. Member had stated, what undoubtedly might be the case, that where the distress was great the small tenants would be prevented from taking out-door relief. But it should not be thought that there was no mercy to poor people, and that the Guardians were not willing to do their duty by giving out-door relief wherever they could in aid of charity. Boards of Guardians naturally had to consider very carefully the circumstances of each case which came before them. He believed that in their part of the United Kingdom, more than in any other, they were liable to be imposed upon by persons seeking relief. One person found that his neighbour was getting relief, and he did not see why he should not do the same. There was a kind of jealousy of one another which was not found to exist in England. Hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies ought not to wash their dirty linen in the British House of Commons. They were free and independent, and he believed a really conscientious people; but, at the same time, he thought that a great deal more than was necessary had been made of the poverty of the country. At least, he was happy to say that such was the case in that part of Ireland from which he came. Of course, he had not such an extensive knowledge of the South and South-West of Ireland as some hon Members had who had spoken on that question. Still he had some experience of Donegal, having lived in it. In that county there was distress, and he thought there would always be distress, because of the number of small tenants and the nature of the climate. He thought the distress that year had been very much exaggerated, and he could not believe that the distress even in Donegal had been so great as had been represented in many places. He was borne out in that opinion by the testimony of many persons who had lived there. So far as the part of Ireland in which he lived was concerned, he could

  803
  say that that the Guardians were perfectly willing to give out-door relief where they believed that it was required; but they would not go wholesale into the system, but wished to go carefully. In his opinion, no class of persons were more willing than the tenant-farmers, in the districts with which he was acquainted, to give out-door relief. He desired, further, to defend the ex officio Guardians from any wish to make the starving population dependent upon private charity for their support.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, there was some inconvenience in the discussion of this subject upon the particular Vote now before the Committee; but as it was absolutely necessary that at some time or other the discussion should take place, he hoped the Committee would allow him to make a few observations with respect to it. He rose to express his great regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had announced his intention to increase the amount of the loans made to landlords. As he understood, about £i,250,000 had already been applied for by the landlords for carrying out works upon their own property at a uniform rate of 1 per cent interest. He believed that the Government now proposed to grant another £250,000 in similar loans.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government had no discretion in the matter, and were pledged to grant the loans to landowners already sanctioned; but he might add that a considerable portion of the loans were to be made to sanitary authorities.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that that was what he understood. He regretted that more money was to be advanced to the landlords, but he should be glad to see the works under the baronial sessions pushed on. Nothing had been more unsatisfactory in the history of Ireland than the way in which the baronial sessions had been dealt with. In some instances no loans had been applied for, and no presentment had been made by the sessions. In one case, in respect of to which he had been in correspondence with the Local Government Board, and in which he could get no answer to his communications, what had happened was this. In the Union of Clifden they had the special sessions for the baronial presentments; and a large amount of work was brought
  804
  forward, and a certain amount was assented to. Some disturbance, however, took place in court, and the presiding magistrate then declined to go on with the business, and not only refused to go on with the business, but assumed the right to cancel all the presentments that had been passed. He believed that that act was entirely illegal; but the result was that a very large district had been thrown entirely upon private charity. It was stated by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) that £580,000 had been given away in private charity, and that that money came largely from the United States, from Australia, and other British Colonies, and to a certain small extent from England. He wished to express his great regret that England had done so little to help Ireland at this crisis. He might say that England herself had contributed almost nothing to the distress in Ireland; for if it had not been for the exertions of the Mansion House Committee, under the present Lord Mayor of London, he did not think that anything whatever would have been contributed. It was the wish of the Government now to stimulate out-door relief in Ireland. In his opinion, the giving of out-door relief had a most demoralizing effect. He had witnessed with his own eyes, and the same thing had happened in various parts of Ireland, that the recipients of eleemosynary relief were demoralized by the system of giving food and clothing without asking anything in return for it. He would never forgive the Government of the right hon. Gentleman who sat upon the Opposition Benches for its conduct in this respect. The late Government did nothing else than shift the responsibility of the Irish famine from their own shoulders to those of others. They had left behind them a cruel heritage of incapacity on their part for dealing with a great crisis, and they had left behind them seeds of evil in the country which would produce incalcuable injury. They had attempted to meet this crisis by simply depending upon charity, upon the chanty of the whole civilized world, if not of this Kingdom. Would the noble Lord tell him how much of that Charitable Fund of £500,000 came from England? If the amount were £150,000, that was but a small thing in comparison with the whole amount. If the Government decided to continue, as it seemed

  805
  inclined to do, for the remaining three or four months of the distress, the system of relief without work, then, in his opinion, they would only add to the evil that had already been done. The present Government might rise to the crisis, and they had ample time and opportunity for doing so. He should advise them to send down into the most distressed districts persons of practical experience who, instead of inducing the Guardians to give out-door relief in the shape of charity, could refuse to give the Board of Guardians anything except for the purpose of carrying on reproductive works. Let the Government offer to the Board of Guardians loans at 1 per cent, as they had so lavishly offered the landlords. If they would do that, and take care that the money was properly expended, and the works were judiciously designed, it would then enable them to reap some good out of the evil which had occurred. But there was another aspect to this question. It seemed to him that the Board of Works which had the superintendence of the present distress was utterly inadequate to the purpose. More particularly the engineering staff of the Board was exceedingly limited. He believed it was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had within the last fortnight desired the Board of Works to increase its engineering staff; but, even then, further improvement was requisite. If the Government wished to get some works carried out, and to do some good to the country, and to prevent the people from sinking still further into a state of pauperism, the machinery to do it was ready to their hand. If the Government now in power used the opportunity of remedying the acts of its Predecessors— if they would only adopt the view taken by the Government during the time that the former famine prevailed, he thought they would do much to redress the evil which had occurred. Another thing to be considered was what was the magnitude of this crisis, and what had been done to relieve it? It had been said that the loss to the small farmers in Ireland, by reason of the failure of potatoes, amounted to no less than £5,000,000. At all events, that was the result of the Return upon the subject. They also learnt that the landlords had lost in rent no less a sum than £3,000,000. Who could tell the misery that had been
  806
  caused in private families by the loss of that sum of £3,000,000? That loss of £3,000,000 was said to have been again to the tenants; but whether it was or was not, would be seen in the future. At all events, it was no gain to them to lose £5,000,000 in potatoes; and what had been done to meet that loss? The right hon. Gentlemen told them that £1,250,000 had been applied for by the landlords, and that loans had been assented to. The Committee must not suppose it was at all likely that all that money would be spent. All that had been issued at present was the first instalment, amounting to about £198,000. There was no proof that the second and third instalments of that £1,250,000 would ever be applied for, even if they would be granted. It was so easy for people to get the first instalment; it was such an easy matter, that almost anybody could get a loan. In the first instance, the Government refused to acknowledge the existence of the crisis at all. Then they made their terms for borrowing so absurdly high, in asking 6 percent, that the months of October, November, and December, when loans could have been usefully applied, slipped away. Then from having been over anxious to recoup the Exchequer they fell into the opposite extreme, and issued loans to landlords at I per cent. Almost everyone applied for a loan, and most of those loans were santioned; but only about £200,000 had yet been issued. He believed that of the £1,250,000 sanctioned, a very considerable proportion would never bear inspection, and that the Board of Works would not pay the future instalments. As a matter of fact, that money would do very little good in the country; but if the Government even now would sanction loans for works carried out on the recommendation of the baronial sessions, they would do something permanently to recoup the outlay. The subject was too extensive a one to go into fully on that occasion; but he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would consider that it was not his duty simply to tread in the footsteps of his Predecessors, but to do much more to weather this crisis. The system of teaching people to look simply for eleemosynary aid was, in his opinion, destructive to the national character, and would be attended with very serious results. It was necessary for the Government to throw away the idea of

  807
  charity, and to give no more relief except to aged or young persons, who, of course, must be fed; but, with that exception, they should give no more relief except in respect of works. There was no difficulty in the institution of those works, for there were in Ireland several large railway companies who would take the money to make branch lines of railway, if they could get a loan from the Government at a small percentage. Cases had frequently happened, in which he had been in communication with the Government lately in power, of this character; but he need hardly say that they never got the smallest satisfaction from the then Chief Secretary. There were other cases in which the Board of Guardians were perfectly willing, if power were given them, to guarantee the re-payment of the principal money and the interest, but, whenever any communications had taken place with the Government for the purpose of conferring this power upon the Boards of Guardians, they had been unsuccessful. The late Government seemed to be of opinion that nothing should be done that was reproductive and useful, and that their exertions ought to be confined to giving money away by means of charity. He earnestly hoped that the Government would consider this question, and would be of a opinion that a quid pro quo ought to be given for all the money applied in relief of the distress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government had to relieve distress which would almost certainly continue to exist between the present time and the be ginning of the next harvest. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that they did not rely in Ireland upon these charitable funds, but that engineers should be sent over to commence works of a reproductive character for the purpose of giving emplopment to the people; but were the hon. Member in the position which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) occcupied, he believed the hon. Member would never thing of carrying out that project, because no number of engineers who might go down could start the necessary works in time to prevent the people from starving before the end of the period to which he had alluded, and it would be impossible in the time which the Government had at their disposal to get the works in operation, and to rely upon them
  808
  solely for the relief of distress where it was most severely felt. The experience of the last famine in Ireland must also be borne in mind, although he did not wish to compare the distress of the present year with that of the Famine of 1847. At that time the principle upon which the relief began was simply payment for labour upon reproductive works. It was found, however, that the relief afforded in that way did not reach the destitute, and that the works would not be reproductive. It was, therefore, found necessary to change from a system of reproductive works to that of relief. He maintained, what he had stated at an earlier part of the evening, that the Government had chiefly to rely upon out-door relief, with as little pressure as possible on the impoverished Guardians and with as much prevention as possible of imposition. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that the question of reproductive works in Ireland ought not to be lost sight of, and that there were many cases in which a recurrence of distress in future years might be made much less likely by the encouragement of such works. They might expect, in that case, to hear less about the demoralization of the labourer by receiving relief in place of labour; but it must also be borne in mind that there was demoralization in receiving a loan and not repaying it, for which reason the Government would have to be pretty confident that loans advanced for such a purpose would be repaid. He was obliged to add, however, that he dare not rely merely upon reproductive works to relieve the distress of the next three months.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not wish to enter into any full discussion of the measures recommended by the late Government. He agreed that the present was not a convenient time for doing so; but he wished to say, with regard to some of the very severe remarks which had been made upon the conduct of the late Government and the measures introduced by them, that he failed to understand what were the precise points upon which complaint had been made. He had listened to complaints of such an extremely diverse and opposite character that he wondered upon what principle it was felt they had gone wrong, and supposed that it might be upon the general principle that the late Government was respon-

  809
  sible for all the evils that had come upon Ireland during their term of Office. He had heard it stated that it was a very wrong thing to demoralize Ireland by pauperizing the people by giving them relief in a direct form instead of supplying them with labour, and allowing them to earn it for themselves. But that was precisely the principle which the late Government had at the first laid down for themselves. They said, as far as possible we shall endeavonr to meet this distress coming upon the country by means which shall be shorn of those demoralizing gifts to which reference had been made. Then came the question how were they to meet the demands for obtaining labour? It was necessary that some provision should be made; was it to be done by loans for public works, or by loans in some other manner? There were great objections to loans for public works. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had pointed out that this was the right measure, in his opinion, to be adopted; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote) ventured to think it would not be a measure applicable to the great proportion of the distressed districts, and that it would be exposed to very serious inconvenience and danger. The hon. Member had also indicated the kind of works, such as railways, which might be made in various parts of Ireland. That point, too, had been considered by the late Government, who were, of course, anxious to take into consideration the propriety of making railways and other public works. But they had been obliged to ask themselves the question, "What is the use of setting on foot a railway 50 miles distant from that district which you want to relieve?" Again, such works might have the effect of drawing away persons from their other occupations, and they might have had the effect of drawing navvies from England, while they failed to relieve the people in Donegal, Kerry, and other parts of Ireland where the greatest want was experienced. Further, they could not help feeling that if they made advances to a railway company, that company might very naturally say, it is desirable we should get labour on the best terms we can in order to make the best use of the money lent, and in order to make the undertaking pay we must get labour from a distance. He did not say they had formed a right
  810
  judgment, because they might have been misled into making advances to persons or bodies who were themselves interested in the districts where they desired to give labour, and who would have both an interest in seeing that the people were employed and that the labour was profitably made use of. Therefore, they made offers to landlords who, unfortunately, were themselves impoverished at that time, and not in a position to aid freely in carrying out works of improvement. The hon. Member for Galway had just pointed out that the sum of £3,000,000 had been lost to this class by the failure of rents, which exactly corresponded to the case presented to the late Government that the land lords were not in a position to spend freely on the works in question. They, there fore, came forward with a plan to enable landlords to spend money in their own districts by relaxing the terms upon which the grants would be made. The hon. Member for Galway had said that they had at first proposed to give money at 6 percent, and that when they found they could not obtain that they offered advances at 1 per cent. But that was not a correct statement of the case; they had never offered money at 6 per cent interest, but at 3½ per cent, and there was to be a sinking fund for the re-payment of the money. Undoubtedly, when they made that offer, they hoped the landlords would take up the money and give employment; but they found that they were unable or unwilling to do so, so that that mode of attempting to give employment failed. Then they considered it their duty to make a much more liberal offer in order to induce persons to expend money in the employment of labour, and the hon. Gentleman had rather reflected upon them in saying that those terms were too advantageous. Whether it might have been possible to get loans at rates of interest between 3½ and 1 per cent he was unable to say, because he had had no experience in that respect; but time was pressing, and they therefore made the offer on the terms indicated, which had resulted in applications from persons in different parts of the country who were willing to spend money in the employment of labour. But it was necessary that they should look into various points, and to take care that if this were not to be a demoralizing charity the advances, al-

  811
  though made on liberal terms, should be made as loans with the intention of repayment, and, further, that such loans were not abused. Again, they had to consider how far the employment of people upon those works might distract them from the important work of cultivating the land. They knew that if offers were made of a different character, the people might go away and neglect that which they ought to do. Then, they had the experience of 1847. They knew that there had been great abuse at that time, and that people had gone off to the public works and neglected the tillage of the land and that it was owing to that fact that the second year's famine had been worse than the first. Then came the result to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and which was inevitable—that the works altogether failed, and that they had been compelled to resort to a system absolutely necessary, but demoralizing— that of supplying the people with cooked food. Although, in a complicated matter of that kind, it was impossible to say that mistakes had not been committed, or that some other system might not have resulted more beneficially, he ventured to say that the attention and the whole mind of the late Government had been given to that matter, and that every step taken was with the fullest and most ample consideration, and that there was nothing approaching to negligence in dealing with the case; that they endeavoured as far as possible to keep in view those principles which lay at the root of the question of relief. And he might fairly claim that wherever there was a doubt as to the policy of a particular course, they should solve it by giving the readiest possible relief to the sufferers. He utterly repudiated the reflections which had been passed upon the late Government. They regarded public works, although they might in certain circumstances be useful, as a most dangerous mode of relief, and a thing not to be relied upon. This had been shown by the proceedings of the baronial sessions, which in many cases, being anxious to prevent abuse, had refused to make any presentments, because they believed they could not properly be made, and he thought that the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman had supplied showed that their liberal offers to the landlords had produced applications
  812
  which had given a considerable amount of assistance. One statement of the right hon. Gentleman he noticed with great satisfaction, which was the larger area of land that had been sowed with potatoes, and these were of a better quality than had been sown for many years. He maintained that this constituted a point of comparison and contrast between the Famine of 1847 and the pressure and distress of the present year, which, as far as it had gone, had shown that the measures taken by the late Government, and continued by the present Government, contrasted not unfavourably with those adopted in times of former distress.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he did not rise to discuss or formally censure the action of the late Government, especially as they were on the wrong side of the Table. Had they been in occupation of the Treasury Bench, he should very likely have had a good deal to say about them. Those who lived in Ireland, and saw famine impending, had felt it their duty to lay the case prominently before the late Government. In doing so, they did not ask for anything like charity; but from Irish Members of Parliament, from Corporations in Ireland, and from the Catholic Bishops the strongest representations had been made as to the need of employment for the purposes of relief. There was an unanimous cry not for charity, but for some kind of employment for the people. From his own experience he could state that such was the feeling of the people themselves. There was nothing which, looking forward to last winter, they dreaded more than charity of a demoralizing kind. For three months the Government had given no answer whatever. At the very time that the arrangements for public works would necessarily have to be made, why was there such a small sum applied to drainage" purposes? The winter passed when drainage should have been initiated. He believed the late Government, on the whole, and especially the Members of it in that House, had been anxious to do the best they could, and they did do as much as could be expected of Gentlemen who knew nothing at all about Ireland. As long as Ireland was governed from England by Gentlemen who knew nothing about Ireland so long would the Government be throwing away money,

  813
  and doing acts in which they meant well, but which would produce no result for the permanent benefit of Ireland. An answer, however, had been received from the late Government, for the then Prime Minister went to a City banquet and blew the trumpet of English charity. He had not taken a statesman-like view of the impending famine in Ireland, and his Government, although they jumbled about for a few weeks, had acted in an imperfect manner. During the last Parliament Irish Members had gone into all this question of reproductive works and the employment of labour, and had moved Resolutions; but they got very little by doing so. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what ho was going to do for the next three months? If the Government would expend £1,500,000 from the Church Fund, he believed it might be utilized for some great national purpose; but that would not be done. A harbour here, or tramway there, would require a special Act of Parliament; but ho said bring in a Bill over-riding special Acts of Parliament: at any rate, let earth works be made for railways. He knew places where the county would guarantee money, but where the work would not be undertaken if they had to obtain an Act of Parliament. It would seem that there was some want of harmony between the different Boards in Ireland. In a Poor Law Union, of which he was a Guardian, they resolved to do some work of an important character; but the Local Government Board said—"We will not let you do it; you must do it by a sub-contract." The county surveyor, whom the grand jury and the ratepayers were perfectly willing to trust, was not allowed to do the work without a sub-contract, and the Union were now looking at the work and could not move a step, while plenty of people were wanting employment. The Local Government Board had also absolutely told them that they were not to employ any men at more than 7s. 6d. a-week, while every farmer was paying 7s. or 8s. a-week to men near towns, and giving them bounties and places for gardens. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said that that was not his Department, but was in the Department of the Treasury; but the manner in which the Treasury and other Departments played at cross purposes, when work was to be done,
  814
  was most extraordinary. He had been written to last year by a gentleman who was now in the House, asking him if he could make any suggestions, and he had replied that 'if the gentleman would come up with 50"boys,"they would meet in Dublin, go to the Board of Works, and clear it out. They would then sit there for six months with half-a-dozen clerks and some engineers, and there would soon cease to be anything like distress in Ireland. He entreated the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man of business, to go to Ireland, and not to mind Mr. Bourke, or anyone else, who was so swathed in red tape that ho could not move in any direction. Let the Government give the general Bill which he (Mr. Shaw) had suggested for an advance of £600,000 or £700,000, and they might depend on it the distress would be banished from many districts.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he deeply regretted that the matter should have been discussed in a Party spirit. This had been introduced somewhat by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and, if possible, rather more by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). He could not understand why the hon. Member for the County of Cork, who was entitled to be heard with respect, thought it worth while and necessary to introduce his observations by a very strong, and, as it appeared to him (Mr. Gibson), uncalled-for attack upon the measures taken by the late Government. The duty of the Government was not to interfere, either too soon or too late, in matters of this kind. It was necessary, above all things, not to demoralize the people by interfering too soon, and to avoid the terrible responsibility of delaying interference too long. In criticizing the conduct of the late Government in that respect, it should not be forgotten that no single death could be attributed to the recent distress in Ireland, and that in no single workhouse in Ireland had the accommodation been entirely exhausted. These were broad facts which should not be forgotten when this question was under consideration. The hon. Member for the County of Cork, when ho passed away from his Party attack, proceeded to deal with one or two points of practical importance and general interest. The Act of Parliament, the details of which

  815
  the hon. Member had probably forgotten, was passed at the instance of the late Government. If the hon. Member would consider the instructions given by the late Government to the Local Government Board, he would find that such instructions, upon which he had commented with great severity—instructions which compelled the presentment sessions to proceed by contract and upon fixed prices—was based upon broad and obvious questions and grounds of public policy. There was nothing, however, to prevent the present Government from revoking modifying, or altering any of the provisions so made. But, pending such alterations, he ventured to ask every man of common sense whether such restrictions were not perfectly reasonable and prudent?
  MR. PARNELLasked whether a similar restriction was imposed upon the landlords in regard to loans made to them?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he should conduct his argument as his own discretion suggested. His intention was to deal with certain points which had been raised, and the extremely logical mind of the hon. Member for Cork County must show him how wrong it would be to depart from those topics. He thought that the late Government acted wisely and rightly in dealing with the particular subject-matter under discussion in the way they did, and in prescribing that the works authorized by extraordinary presentment sessions should be conducted on a basis of contract. If, however, the present Government thought the restriction ought to be removed, there was nothing to prevent them from making a proposal of the kind, and he should not oppose a hostile or Party comment to any such proposal. Then with regard to the rate of wages paid to men employed on the works presented at these sessions, he could not admit that the Government would have been justified in adopting a rate of payment which would have brought them into conflict with the ordinary employers of labour in any particular locality. The adoption of such a course would not have been to afford any relief to distress, but to squander public money. The late Government decided upon the course which they adopted after carefully considering the responsibility which was placed upon them in the crisis that oc-
  816
  curred; but it was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to alter or modify the plan then adopted, in view of a new consideration of what would be assumed to be new facts. The hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had made remarks even more uncharitable than those of the hon. Member for Cork City, seeing the despondent condition at the present moment of the Party recently in power. Although there were three Funds which had collected large sums for the relief of the existing distress, the hon. Member had expressed a hope that charity would cease. This struck ordinary men as a very strong observation, requiring a very strong defence; yet, after saying this, the hon. Member proceeded to commit himself.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYcomplained that he had been misunderstood. What he really said was that he hoped the distribution of charity would cease, unless it was accompanied by a quid pro quo in the shape of reproductive works.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he saw no difference between his own statement and the hon. Member's explanation, if in future there was to be no distribution of charity unless there was to be a quid pro quo in the shape of reproductive labour. The hon. Member did not condescend to the vulgarity of detail; that was left to the practical common sense of the Member for the County of Cork, who fell back upon his old friends the earth works. He would remind the hon. Member of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman near him (Sir Stafford North-cote) on the subject of great responsibility attaching to the sanctioning of anything in the nature of so-called reproductive works. If such works were to be undertaken, they should be undertaken for the benefit of the persons whom it was desired to relieve; and if employment was to be given, how was it to be decided as to whom the employment should be offered to? If railway works were suggested, as indeed they had been suggested, by the hon. Member for Cork County, how were they to exclude the people who were responsible for the construction of the railways from employing those workmen who knew most about the particular class of work-people who might be drawn from England, or from the Northern or other parts of

  817
  Ireland, who were not greatly distressed? They must remember the vast difficulty met with, but not overcome, in the unfortunate Famine years of 1846 and 1848, when relief works, which were called reproductive, competed with the ordinary works of the country, and drew workmen away from such works. It would, he believed, be found on inquiry that the late Government took the wisest course, and that the soundest justification for such course was to be found in its success. At the same time, he admitted that they would have been censurable if they had not acted in a cautious and tentative manner. They commenced in the first instance with the moderate offers contained in the Circular of the 22nd of November, 1879, and there were Papers before Parliament showing that for months before that time the Local Government Board in Ireland had been in the closest and most immediate communication with the Government in Dublin and London, and had been making a close, anxious, and earnest investigation of the entire position of the country. That Circular of the 22nd of November was availed of to the extent of many thousands of pounds, though not to an extent sufficient to cope with the whole of the distress which existed. Then, oppressed with a keen, earnest, and painful sense of responsibility, the late Government in January last found it necessary to issue a further Circular, the offer contained in which had been also availed of to a very large extent—an extent which he hoped would be sufficient to grapple with a great deal of the existing distress. They had, however, heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he deemed some further measures necessary; and he was sure that all classes of Members in the House would consider such measures, when brought before them, with a most anxious desire to make them as complete as possible, with a view to settling this unfortunate and difficult question of distress in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it was perfectly plain to anyone that, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the chief brunt of the distress in Ireland for the next three or four months must fall upon the out-door relief system. A great deal of money had been advanced already, and a great deal more would have to be
  818
  advanced for the purpose of drainage and for public works; but, notwithstanding all these things, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was on out-door relief that the burden of the next four months must fall; and that the necessities of that period were likely to exceed the period of necessity through which they had passed. What followed from this? They were called upon to spend more money in the next four months, and that money was to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers. This suggested very serious consideration, for he believed it would result in many families who were now beyond the necessity for relief being at no very remote period brought within such necessity by reason of the heavier rates which they would be called upon to pay. He saw no reason why the Boards of Guardians should not be allowed to raise the funds required for this out-door relief by loans.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, in every such case, the Boards of Guardians would have the power referred to by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwould like to know whether, when there was an instruction conveyed to a Board of Guardians to give out-door relief, it would be accompanied by an offer of a loan to enable them to meet it? There were many cases in which out-door relief had been given in large amounts, to which the offer of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply, because such relief had not been given in pursuance of an order from the Local Government Board, but spontaneously. It seemed hard that such Boards of Guardians should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with other Boards which simply carried out orders received from head-quarters. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not be slow to give the orders for the distribution of additional out-door relief, and that measures would be taken to prevent the main burthen of relieving the distress in the next four months from falling on the backs of the ratepayers. He knew three or four parishes in which the occupiers had made no applications for loans to improve their lands, but where the Guardians had felt bound to give exceptional out-door relief, a course which had entailed simple ruin upon the poorer ratepayers in the district, a ruin which

  819
  would extend to ratepayers of a higher grade if the Guardians were not promptly enabled to raise money on loan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the advisability of affording relief to those Guardians of the Poor who had already raised the scale of out-door relief from a sense of duty, and without pressure from the authorities. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been hardly treated in having it imputed to him that he wished to see all charitable relief stopped. As he understood his hon. Friend, all he said was that, in future, the Government would take such steps as might obviate the necessity for such relief by employing the people in the development of the natural resources of the country. Something had been said about the duty of the Imperial Parliament as far as Ireland was concerned, and he, for one, thought that the Parliament owed something more to his country than a loan out of a Fund which was the property of Ireland, to be repaid at a future time. The history of the distresses through which the country had passed showed that their roots lay in the bad laws of the country, under which many thousands of acres of land lay waste which might be turned to profitable account as providing food for the people. The tenants were deterred from improving their holdings because they had not a fair tenure of the land, and in this patent fact lay the root of the distress. The late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was no Horne.Kuler, or even Liberal, but a staunch Conservative, had said, speaking only a few days ago, that it would be the dawning of a better day when ameliorative measures were passed for Ireland. It was indeed in the power of Parliament, by making better laws, to mitigate and ameliorate the existing distress, and to prevent similar visitations in the future. He would ask Her Majesty's Government to do for Ireland what the Governments of other countries wore doing at the present moment. The Congress of the United States was voting a sum of money for the relief of Irish distress; and the Dominion Parliament of Canada was taking a similar course. He could not think that the Imperial Parliament would consent to be behind the Governments of America and Canada in this
  820
  respect, especially in view of the fact that it was directly answerable for the state of things which existed. He was not, in saying this, making any appeal to the Imperial Parliament, but was setting forth what he thought to be simply a just and fair demand; for he could not think it was a justifiable on any grounds that, in this country recourse should be had for the relief of Irish distress to funds which were intended for other and entirely different purposes.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that in the last Session, when the Government expressed readiness to grant facilities for the making of reproductive works, he brought forward the case of the Clare Castle Harbour, which, in his view, might be made into a serviceable harbour, by the expenditure of a moderate sum of money, but had been allowed to sink into disuse, although the harbour at one time produced an income of some £3,000 from dues. As he understood, in July last, there was a readiness to made an advance of £2,000, as representing the surplus income which the Irish Board of Works had derived from the harbour. Well, October came, and nothing further was done. He again called the attention of the Government to the matter and impressed upon them the necessity of advancing a sum of £2,000 or £3,000 to be expended among a very small industrial community, and in a very poor centre of Ireland. The Government expressed its desire to do something, and said the matter should have their anxious consideration. They did the same in January; but, from the first time, they expressed their willingness to do something for Ireland in return for what Ireland had done for them. He believed that no surveyor had ever been sent down, and the promise to do something for Clare Castle Harbour still remained unfulfilled. He pointed out the matter now to the right hon. Gentleman the now Chief Secretary for Ire- land, in the hope that his serious con- sideration would be given to Clare Castle Harbour, and that he would be able to see his way towards giving some prac-tical proof of his sympathy for the people of Ireland by commencing in reality the construction of reproductive works. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), that until Ireland had the complete control of her own

  821
  local affairs, the House of Commons would find itself unable to deal with a contented and pacified Ireland.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was afraid, from some of the remarks which had been made in the course of the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman viewed the situation very much from the standpoint of the Local Government Board in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had professed a great anxiety to assist the poor by putting in force a system of out-door relief in preference to a system of baronial public works. He was afraid the real reason why outdoor relief was preferred by the official world in Ireland was that they thought they could control the Poor Law Unions more directly and more in accordance with their own will than they could the Boards that would have to pass the baronial works. Now, he thought that if this was intended to indicate a policy of throwing over the baronial public works and of establishing in their place a large system of out-door relief, the carrying into effect of such a policy would create serious and evil results in Ireland. He was ready to allow that the action of the Public Board of Works might really succeed in putting a stop to the carrying out of public works, and, indeed, as far as he was able to make out, the action of the public authority had been successfully exerted in doing this already. But, nevertheless, he was of opinion that it would be a much more difficult task to establish a system of out-door relief. There was a great deal of feeling against out-door relief in Ireland, and he was quite satisfied, from what he knew of the wishes of the people, that the Government would never succeed in establishing such a system. All that they would succeed in doing would be, under the authority of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to stop the public works. They would entirely fail in substituting out-door relief, and the result would inevitably be that—especially in the West of Ireland—there would be great suffering and distress. He thought he would be justified in saying that the Hoard of Works in Ireland and the Local Government Board, between them, had succeeded in stopping the execution of public works in Ireland to a very remarkable extent. From the figures given by the Chief Secretary for Ire-
  822
  land, it seemed that the baronial sessions had passed £185,000 for public works— that was to say, that they had agreed to £185,000 worth of public works being executed. The baronial sessions were not rash people and could not be accused of recklessly spending too much money, or of throwing money away for the sake of relieving those who were in distress. On the contrary, the opposite charge might be preferred against them— namely, that they were far too economical and had an objection against doing more public works than they could help, or, indeed, of studying the general interests of the country. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that although £l85.000had been passed by the baronial sessions for public works, the sum had been cut down to £86,000, and that public works to the extent of £86,000 only had been authorized. Prom all that he (Major Nolan) heard from local sources, he feared the Chief Secretary for Ireland was right, and that a very-large amount of these public works had been cut down, and would not be put into execution. He knew from sources entirely independent of the right hon. Gentleman that the works had been cut down. A barony was, in reality, a large Union, and there was a large barony in the county of Galway, in regard to which he believed that works to the extent of £160 only had been passed by the Dublin Board. The result was that the public works in the locality in question would not keep the poor people of the barony in employment for a week or 10 days. There were several other places from which the same complaint proceeded. He held in his hand a letter which he had received only that evening, in the course of the debate, and some statements contained in it had made considerable impression on his mind. It was a letter that was certainly not meant to be read in the House of Commons, and it was written by the Bishop of Clonfert, than whom no man knew the country better. The writer said—"We are now coming to a crucial month. I find that intense distress exists among the labourers and the small tenants."[Mr. W. E. PORSTER asked what was the locality referred to in the letter?] It was Loughrea; the Bishop dated from Loughkee, and spoke of the locality. Alluding to another place, the writer said there were no works going

  823
  on there of any kind, and the people of the district would be considerably demoralized if the Public Board in Dublin did not change their policy and insist upon public works being established in the district of Loughrea and in various other localities. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told them now that £86,000 of public works had been passed; but he (Major Nolan) did not believe that even works to that amount would be executed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) strongly impressed upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the desirability of having all public works executed by contract. That was, no doubt, a good general principle if they could carry it out; but when they were dealing with a famine, or a period of great scarcity, they would find that it would be impossible to carry it out. He believed the regulations which had been made in regard to contract would have considerable effect in stopping the execution of the £86,000 worth of works which had been authorized. They had already interfered, to his own knowledge, with some of these public works. And the reason was this—a very great many conditions had been imposed by the late Government upon the execution of the works. One was that not more than £300 should be granted for any work, and another was that every work should be finished before a fresh grant was made. It was stipulated that the baronal sessions should not order any portion of work to be done, but must complete and finish it entirely. In many cases it became impossible to fulfil these conditions, and, consequently, the works were not undertaken. Having now passed certain works, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give the assistance required from them, and enable the works already commenced to be completed. The secretary of the grand jury might call an extraordinary meeting of the baronial sessions, and, with the consent of the authorities in Dublin, might allow the works already commenced and not completed to be continued under the directions of the county surveyor. If that were not done there would be great delay. It involved a considerable waste of time to get the baronial sessions together, and unless the course he suggested were adopted a number of the public works
  824
  already passed must inevitably be postponed. And this was not the only difficulty about executing this £86,000 of works. There was another matter in addition to the condition that all the works undertaken must be completely executed—namely, not more than a limited sum should be devoted to any one given work. Many very small contractors had contracted to execute work, men with limited means and resources. One of them told him that he could not execute the work he had undertaken to carry out for the money. Of course, ho (Major Nolan) told the man that it was all his own fault; but he believed there was a certain amout of truth in the assertion that many of these works had been undertaken for less than would be necessary to execute them. He had received both a letter and a telegram informing him that in certain cases contracts had been entered into at too low a rate, because the persons tendering believed that no penalties could be enforced against them if the work was not carried out. The result was, that other and more substantial contractors were driven out of the field and deterred from competing, and there was no remedy against such a state of things. Neither the Government nor the baronial sessions could do anything in the matter, although it was evident that if the work was not done the people would be reduced to a state of semi-starvation. This was one of the difficulties which the Board in Dublin and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had to contend with; it was for them to see that the works were executed, although in many many cases they had been commenced without being completed. The contractors believed that there was no power to compel them to be executed, and the result was that in more than one case the contracts had not been carried out. The remedy he would suggest would be a very simple one, although up to the present time he had no indication of its adoption. It was to require the country surveyor to execute the works where the contractor failed to fulfil his contract. He did not see that any harm would follow from such a course. The baronial sessions would have to pay for it, and in carrying out the contracts the labourers would be employed upon the work who could not be employed in any other way. He was altogether in favour of the system of

  825
  contracts himself; but he knew perfectly well that work of this nature could not be done entirely by contract. He had told the Committee what was taking place at the present moment, and there was every reason to believe that a number of the authorized works would not be executed at all unless some settled power were given in regard to contracts. 80 much for the baronial works. In regard to the money advanced, he confessed that he did not understand the figures which had been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that £183,000 had been advanced, and that altogether £1,200,000 was to be granted to landlords for improvements. The right hon. Gentleman was to bring in a Bill for £1,200,000, or some such sum. Now, he (Major Nolan) believed that all the improvements were to be executed by the month of August; and did the right hon. Gentleman believe that works or improvements to the extent of £1,000,000 would be carried out by the landlords between the present time and the month of August? He believed that one of the conditions of the advance was that the work was to be done by a definite time.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken. The landlords were to have as much time as they pleased. The restrictions as to time related only to the sanitary works.
  MAJOR NOLANbelieved that it would amount very much to the same thing. It appeared that a sum of only £183,000 had been advanced or spent up to the present time by the landlords, and the amount remaining to be spent was £1,000,000. This sum of £1,000,000 either had reference to works of improvements which were supposed to be carried out in the course of the next three months; or if the Chief Secretary for Ireland was conscious that the money for which he was about to bring in a Bill was not to be spent in the next three months, then the work to which it was intended to apply could hardly be called a relief work. It certainly was not a relief work to enable them to tide over the time of harvest. Out of the £1,000,000, he did not believe that more than £200,000 would be spent in the course of the next three months. The state of the country, then, was this. Owing to the great charity of America and Australia, and to a lesser degree to that of
  826
  England, the people of Ireland had been enabled to live through the sowing time. This was to no inconsiderable extent owing to the late Government having taken a precaution for which they were entitled to the fullest credit—namely, to their having allowed the Seeds Bill to pass. In consequence of the passing of that Bill, the people of Ireland had been enabled to sow their land; and now what they wanted to do was to tide over the next three months without becoming demoralized. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see that the baronial works were executed and spread properly over the country, he would materially aid in the good work. At present, in some districts they were doing too much, while in others they were almost doing nothing at all. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that the proper amount of public works was undertaken, and that it was spread evenly over the country. But, above everything, it was their duty to pass the necessary works at once, and see that they were executed. By that means they would be able to tide over the crisis without demoralizing the people. If, on the other hand, they attempted to enforce the system of giving out-door relief in Ireland, he warned the right hon. Gentleman that he would have every man's hand against him. The Boards of Guardians were altogether opposed to the system of out-door relief. The system and its results differed very materially in Ireland from what they were in England. In England the money did not fall upon the parish, but was spread over the whole Union; whereas, in Ireland, the out-door relief was altogether distinct from the in-door relief. The in-door relief was charged to the whole Union, but the out-door relief was paid exclusively by the electoral divisions in which it was administered. The consequence was that the local divisions, where there were the most people and the largest number of small tenants, felt the pressure most heavily. The effect of resorting to a system of out-door relief would be, in the first place, to pauperize the smaller districts, and in the next to make the Boards of Guardians extremely unwilling indeed to administer out-door relief. He believed if the right hon. Gentleman resorted to a system of out-door relief, he would

  827
  have to throw all his energy into it before he would succeed in forcing it upon the Unions. Even if the right hon. Gentleman did succeed in forcing it upon the Unions, he (Major Nolan) believed that it would work exceedingly badly and unsatisfactorily, and that its only result would be to demoralize the people who were supplied with relief under it. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman trusted chiefly to public works, and showed the same energy in extending them and carrying them out that he appeared to have shown in cutting them down, he would secure the satisfactory progress of the good work which he professed to have at heart.
  MR. WARTON(who rose with Mr. W. E. FORSTER) said, he would only interpose for a moment between the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee; indeed, he had only one word to say—he simply wished to remind the Committee that they had now been engaged for two hours and 23 minutes in discussing this Vote, and had not yet passed it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the knowledge and experience he had formed of the work carried on by the Local Government Board in Ireland was altogether opposed to the conclusions arrived at by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). The Board seemed to be very anxious to avoid the granting of out-door relief as much as possible, and they had endeavoured to avoid it by substituting employment in its place. The Inspectors employed by the Board were most anxious to encourage useful public works and works of improvement, and it certainly appeared to him to be a very natural desire. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made two or three suggestions in the course of his remarks; one was that the Government should compel the baronies to make presentments. He thought the Committee would at once see that it was almost impossible to do that. They could not compel people to enter into engagements by which they would be under an obligation to repay money. They must necessarily wait until the baronial sessions made the application themselves.
  MAJOR NOLANwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government took this course in the case of the
  828
  Poor Law Board. They forced the people to ask for money there.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted that the Poor Law Board had a discretionary power, under certain circumstances, of compelling certain things to be done in cases of destitution, and, no doubt, they could compel the Guardians in any district to relieve destitutes. But it was not possible to compel a district to borrow money—which the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member amounted to in this instance—for the performance of work which the district authorities did not deem to be necessary, and which they thought ought not to be undertaken. If the Government were to make such a proposal, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see that there would be such an outcry as neither he nor any other Irish Secretary nor any Government would be able to resist. It was altogether impossible to adopt the principle of forcing people to borrow money for the execution of these works. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be of opinion that every application for advances in connection with public works should be granted. Whenever the Board of Works considered that an application made to them was well founded they conceded it; but in some cases, though to a small extent, there was reason to fear presentments had been made for works which were only undertaken for the benefit of the people who were to be employed in carrying them out. There was, to some extent, a check upon the execution of unnecessary works; but the whole question in its details was one of extreme difficulty. The hon. and gallant Member had made several suggestions which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) wished to consider, and one of great value—namely, that where an application had been made, no practical difficulty or delay should be allowed to prevent the work being proceeded with. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would favour him with a note in writing, showing how that could be done, together with the other points to which he had directed attention, he should feel obliged, and would endeavour to obtain a few hints from the suggestions which had been made. If they were put down in writing, he would be able to see how far they could be carried out in executing these works during the next two or three months. It must not

  829
  be supposed, however, that the works that were sanctioned were the only works that had been applied for. As he had stated earlier in the evening, the Board of Works Inspectors had, in some instances, pointed out that the works proposed to be undertaken were not required, and in such cases the application had been sent back for re-consideration. The application alluded to by the hon. Member opposite was one which the Board had considered since he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Ireland. He had considered most of the applications personally when he was there, and he and the authorities there were struck by the large difference between the amount applied for and the amount sanctioned. He only mentioned the circumstance in order to show that the Local Government Board, for whom ho was responsible, were anxious to get as many of these works commenced as they could.
  Major NOLAN and Mr. BIGGARrose together. The CHAIRMAN called upon Mr. BIGGAR. but
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he only wished to say a word by way of explanation. He had made no charge whatever against the Local Government Board. It was one of the misfortunes of the situation that they did not know who to blame.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Unless the hon. and gallant Member has an explanation to offer, I call upon Mr. Biggar.
  MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that the Committee were entitled to have some more definite information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the loans which it was proposed to grant to the landlords for improving their estates. As he understood the matter, it was proposed to lend a very much larger sum than had been lent hitherto to the landlords for works that they were bound to do. He regarded it as a simple means of supplying out-door relief to a few landlords who chose to undertake the drainage of their land, not for the purpose of improving the cultivation for the tenant, but for improving the grass lands, and thus tend to perpetuate the present vicious system that existed in Ireland. He thought that it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman declined to entertain such an idea at all. If he wished to lend money to the landlords for the improvement of their land, let him do so; but let him take care that any money
  830
  that was lent for the purpose of relief should be used and expended in the course of the next few months. In point of fact, he was disposed to think that the time within which the landlord should be bound to spend the money should be even more rapid than in the case of the sanitary authorities and the presentment sessions, because the work done by the sanitary authorities and the presentment sessions was for the public benefit, while these improvements on the part of the landlords were simply improvements for the benefit of the individual who undertook them, and were of no real advantage to the people except so far as the money paid in wages was concerned. He was not aware how much money the Government proposed to lend to the landlords in Ireland in these improvements at I per cent. He regarded the system of making large advances to the landlords as vicious and preposterous. It was, moreover, thoroughly dishonest, and ought never to have received the sanction of Parliament. Reference had been made by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Major Nolan) to the charity which was involved in the distribution of this money in Ireland. His own opinion was that this system of charity, however well intended, involved a very vicious principle, because there was not the slightest doubt that the money, although distributed in a highly scientific way, was granted to the parties who applied for it by a Central Board in Dublin who had no direct means of obtaining evidence as to the circumstances and requirements of the locality for which the application was made, and were, consequently, unable to say whether the money was really required. At the same time, it was impossible for the authorities who granted the money to know whether the persons who applied for it made their application in honesty and fairness. A few weeks ago he was in the county of Roscommon, and he saw some tenants who had made an application for advances, but had not received them. Their land was surrounded by the land of a pretty large proprietor, whose brother was chairman and agent of the Relief Committee, and these poor people assured him that the agent was in the habit of getting large grants for the tenants of his brother, and of

  831
  granting comparatively small sums only to other people, notwithstanding the fact that they were evidently in a state of the most abject poverty—in point of fact, some of them had to pawn their clothing in order to keep themselves from starvation. That was the way in which the Government advances were administered. He was satisfied, from what he had seen, of the unfairness with which this system of relief had been carried out. The landlord in question granted the money to his tenants, and then received it back again in payment of rent to himself; so that the money might as well, in the first instance, have gone directly into the pockets of the landlords rather than be granted ostensibly for the support and relief of the poor. He fully concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that the administration of out-door relief would be a most inconvenient way of providing relief.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished it to be distinctly understood that it was not in the slightest degree the intention of the Government, nor did they possess the power, to allow further applications to be made by landlords. When he came into Office he found that a certain sum had been granted for the landlords by the late Government, and that applications had been received amounting to £1,200,000. With respect to these applications and to the sums that had been issued, he wished it to be understood that the Government were pledged to carry out the terms of the recent Bill by the action of their Predecessors. But there was no intention of continuing to make those grants and to entertain new applications. In that state of affairs, he perfectly agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member who had stated that they had but a choice of evils before them; they had to consider how little harm they could do in giving relief, bearing in mind the one great duty they had to perform—namely, to see that the people did not die. He believed that the duty he had to perform was a hard one, inasmuch as, while relieving that distress, he had to see that the relief did not take the form of demoralization in the case of out-door relief, or of the demoralization, which was little less objectionable than the other, which resulted from works being badly organized. The policy he had attempted to
  832
  adopt was entirely supported by his Colleagues and by the officials in Dublin. It was, first, to make the distribution of relief as little demoralizing as possible; and next, to push on all the work they were able to do, according to their present powers. That, he was aware, left another question still open; but it was one, which was not of so much importance at the moment, but rather for future consideration and action—namely, how far the resources of the country could be developed with advantage. During the next two or three months he should try to get all the baronial works into play. They had a most interesting, and to him profitable, discussion about the state of Ireland; but it might be useful for them to recollect that they had several other Votes before them to consider.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not intend to detain the Committee any length of time. He thought it would be admitted on all hands that, during the last two or three months, baronial sessions had been held and contracts entered into. Those two or three months had expired, and no works were being carried on. He wished to know if there was any intention whatever to carry them out? He heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland say that the Local Government Board was anxious to carry out works and to give employment. He could tell them that the Board of Guardians of which he was chairman had passed several resolutions, entreating the Local Government Board to institute some works, as their workhouse was quite full. If these works were not carried out, their workhouse would remain quite full. The money which had been forthcoming from charitable sources was well nigh spent. They had the two worst months before them, and little or no employment to offer. He impressed upon the Government the absolute necessity there was that works should be commenced at once, and that the contracts which had been entered into some three months since should be carried out. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) that he had determined to insist that the works should be carried out where the contracts had been entered into. He was well assured that there would be a vast amount of starva-

  833
  tion, were it not for the assistance of charity.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) as to the futility of the loans to landlords for the purpose of giving employment. He was one of the landlords that took up a loan for that purpose, and ho would give the Committee the benefit of his experience on the subject. The loan that he took up enabled him to employ over 200 heads of families, and he had been able to keep them out of the workhouse between two and three months. He had no hesitation in saying that, as far as he was concerned, the facilities given by the Government for borrowing on easy terms were productive of the greatest benefit. He had made it a rule to pay the men at a rate slightly lower than that given by the farmers; for, if he had given them a higher rate, it would have placed the farmers at a disadvantage. Moreover, whenever a farmer required a certain number of men, he only had to point out what men he wished to have, and they were bound immediately to leave the relief works and place themselves in the service of the farmer for as long a time as he required them. He therefore said, unhesitatingly, that the system of loans to landlords was a step in the right direction, and a system which had been of considerable benefit. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Galway that the terms on which these loans were advanced were too easy. It had been laid out principally in reclaiming wasteland, and the money had been obtained for that purpose at the rate of 3½ per cent, including repayment of principal. The land when reclaimed would not be worth more than 10s. per acre per annum, and it cost at that reduced rate of loan to reclaim about £18. Therefore, it was scarcely remunerative even at that low rate; but it answered very well for the purpose of relieving distress, as well as of bringing permanently into cultivation much waste land. With reference to the baronial presentment sessions, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in the course of the debate— namely, that the period of repayment was too short, for it imposed too onerous terms on the ratepayers, requiring them to repay the loans in 15 years, and thus
  834
  imposing an annual charge of 7½ per cent. He was himself the chairman of a Board of Guardians, and was intimately acquainted with the circumstances of the ratepayers, and he knew that in many Unions they would be unable to repay in the time prescribed. He did not believe that they could bear any additional burden on the rates. In his own district they had been unable to collect the rates which had already accrued. He ventured to make these few remarks on the points that had been raised, because he should be sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) should suppose that the loans to landlords produced no good effects in alleviating distress. He begged to assure him that the system was one which had not altogether failed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the remarks and kindly assurances which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There could be no doubt, he feared, that they were approaching the severest period of distress throughout Ireland. He was told that in a leading article of The Freeman's Journal there was a summary containing statements of the ease of the most painful kind. The Mansion House Committee had large and almost unrivalled opportunities for fully sounding the condition of the distress throughout the country. That Committee was the centre of 800 local committees, and had something like 800,000 people on its books in the various localities in the country. At the end of a fortnight from then all the means at its disposal would be exhausted; there would, consequently, be an immense amount of destitution, and those 800,000 people would be thrown upon the resources of another organization, which, indeed, in one respect was political as well as charitable—he referred to the Land League Organization. Hon. Gentlemen might say that the efforts of that League had been of the most feeble nature; but there could be no doubt that, in its charitable aspect, the relief administered by it had been simply indispensable. And he believed that the funds of that League, in consequence of the success with which the sources of charity in America had been tapped, almost entirely through the energetic and patriotic exertions of his distinguished Colleague the hon. Mem-

  835
  ber for Cork (Mr. Parnell), were not likely to run dry as soon as would those of the Mansion House Committee. But his hon. Friend had said that even those funds would probably soon become exhausted, and he could well conceive why that should be, because, with all the sympathy of the Irish in America, still they could not but feel that the evil of the Irish agrarian system was that which was really the cause, and the permanent cause, of agrarian misery. The Irish in America naturally recommended measures being carried which should remove the political evils, and thus destroy the existing social misery. Considering the difficult task which must fall upon the Government he could not but think that it was eminently desirable that they should utilize promptly those means, extensive and extremely well-informed, of the relief organization of the Land League, spread out as they were all over the country. He thought it would be great economy of organization if, before the Relief Committees came to an end, the Government could come forward in some way, and enter into some arrangement, by which that immense system of relief could be utilized, under the general direction and powerful assistance of the responsible Administration. He felt convinced that, considering the severity of the distress that threatened the country, it would be a great loss, not only to the country, but to the Government, if those immense systems of relief which had been initiated privately should collapse simultaneously with the collapse of their resources. It was a question of permanent interest to the country, and required to be taken into the careful consideration of the Government. He was happy to find that, for the purpose of giving encouragement to the development of Irish Fisheries, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland had exerted himself to loosen the strings of the Treasury purse; but it was reported that he had experienced considerable difficulty in overcoming the economic disposition of that Department in dealing with the subject. He believed, however, that it would be universally admitted by the Irish Representatives that in the case of the Irish Fisheries the British Administration of Ireland had been altogether too economical; and the result had been, as generally happened when economy was pushed too far, that administrative
  836
  miserliness had led to a greater outlay of public money and a waste of the public resources in the long run. On many miles of the Irish coast line, where there was now a starving population which would soon engage more completely the attention of the Government, there might have been a comfortable people but for the unstatesman like parsimony of which he complained. The Irish Fisheries were being allowed to tumble in all directions to decay. He did not exactly know whether the Board of Works were the principal delinquents in the matter, although it was, no doubt, the habit in Ireland to lay similar offences to the charge of that body. But while he thought that one branch of British Administration deserved its own share of blame, he was disposed to regard the head-quarters of that Administration, which was the political parent of so many evils, as being still more open to censure. But be that as it might, the Fishery piers in Ireland required wholesale repair, while at least 100 localities stood in need of new piers. As to the policy which had caused the Irish Fisheries to be neglected, no one, he felt sure, would denounce it more strongly than the permanent officials of the Treasury Board. They were well aware that the supervision necessary to enable the fishermen to conduct their business in the most profitable way was entirely wanting, especially on the West and South Coasts of Ireland. He himself, as Member for Dungarvan, had occasion not long ago to complain of the deplorable results to the fishermen in the neighbourhood of that town, which had been occasioned by the state of things to which he had called the attention of the Committee; and the Treasury, upon inquiry, found, to their surprise, that no means of supervision were provided, or of giving effect to the ordinary bye-laws which had been laid down by the Fishery Board. The same story was told by the fishermen of Youghal and Kinsale, and, indeed, he believed by those of every other part of the country. It was all very well, ho might add, to talk about the evils of protection; but there was a great difference, he could not help thinking, between it and that wise encouragement which a patriotic Government owed to those industries, which only required to be fairly aided and protected in order to become great

  837
  industries and sources of wealth and comfort to large populations. He had risen for the purpose of impressing- on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, since his accession to Office, had shown so good a disposition towards Ireland, those two points—the expediency, if possible, of utilizing the enormous business organizations both of the Mansion House Fund Committee and any other Relief Committees which might be disposed to work hand-in-hand with the Government. There was not, he believed, a public body in Ireland who would not cordially respond to any offer which might be made by the Government, provided only that they displayed a due apprehension of what was demanded by the situation. The second point which he wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman was the necessity of bringing the influence which he possessed more and more to bear on the Treasury officials for the purpose of inducing them to extend a liberal and generous encouragement to the Fisheries of Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished, before the Vote was agreed to, to put to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) one or two questions, in the hope of eliciting what were his views on a very important and interesting subject. For his own part, he was very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble which he had taken in explaining to the Committee the position of affairs in Ireland, and the evident anxiety which he had shown to cope, as far as lay in his power, with the very difficult state of things which had been left to him as a damnosa hereditas by his Predecessors in Office. Having heard what was the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, he was prepared to suggest one of his own which would, he thought, perhaps go further in the direction of relieving the distress in Ireland immediately than almost any other which could be proposed, and which had never yet been tried in any attempts which had been made to meet the spread of famine in that country. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly shown that it was useless to expect that the money which was lent to the landlords in Ireland could be applied with sufficient rapidity effectually to relieve the distress which prevailed, and had stated that the only
  838
  means of assistance to which recourse could be had was out-door relief, with the exception of charity. Now, by the Act of last Session, the Guardians of the Poor were empowered to borrow from the Local Government Board sums of money for the purposes of relief at the annual rate of 3½ per cent interest. The money so raised would be used for out-door relief—a most unsatisfactory mode of employing it, as everybody would admit, and if it could possibly be avoided a great object would be gained. What, in the circumstances, he would suggest was that the Government should give power to the Poor Law Boards, when application was made to them for out-door relief by able-bodied labourers who could work, to lend money to the occupiers of land in Ireland, provided that money was expended in giving employment to able-bodied applicants for out-door relief. He did not, of course, pretend to shape the scheme completely, or to indicate too precisely the details of the mode in which it should be carried into effect. But that it could be satisfactorily carried into effect he had very little doubt, and with the result that the money which was now spent on out-door relief would be expended in improving the internal resources of Ireland in a very marked degree, and in away which was very much needed. Nearly every occupier in that country had in his possession bits of land attached to his holding which, for instance, required to be drained, while there was often on his farm an entire absence of necessary buildings. As matters now stood, the landlord had no sufficient inducement to put himself to the trouble of borrowing money for the purpose of making those improvements; but if the money which it was proposed to use for the purpose of out-door relief were advanced to the occupier of land on the same terms as it was lent to the landlord, provided that the occupier consented to repay it to the Boards of Guardians in instalments as they became due, a great amount of good might be done. The instalments, he might add, could be secured on the rates of the whole electoral division; but before a rate was levied on the whole of the district, the Board of Guardians would, if his proposal were adopted, be entitled to obtain in the shape of a rate repayment from the occupier of the land of the money which they had lent to

  839
  him. To such a proposal he could see no valid objection, for the repayment of the loan, instead of being rendered more unlikely, would be more likely than at present, because he money would be used for the purposes of improvement, instead of being, to a great extent, thrown away in providing outdoor relief. The security of the State would not, under the operation of such a scheme, be diminished in the slightest degree, because it would still have the security of the rateable property in the different Unions; while the experiment would, he contended, be productive, in all probability, of great advantage to the occupiers of land in Ireland. It might be urged as an objection to the plan that the whole of the rate ought not to be thrown on the tenant, and on that point his mind was not entirely made up; but, so far as he had been able to examine it, it did not appear to him that there would be any hardship in placing the whole of the rate for the improvement of a tenant's holding by himself upon that tenant; because, under the Land Act of 1870, the very fact of his having borrowed money from the Poor Law Boards to make improvements would be evidence of title to him, and would prevent the landlord from being able to confiscate his property in those improvements at any future time. If the Local Government Board would at once issue an Order giving effect to his suggestion, trusting to Parliament to indemnify them afterwards, the result, in his opinion, would be that a great deal of money which it was now proposed to spend uselessly on out-door relief—in a way which was most humiliating and demoralizing—would be expended in giving useful employment which would be productive of great ultimate advantage to the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was rather difficult for him to give a detailed answer to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Parnell); but he could assure him that the suggestion which he had made should receive from him the most careful consideration. He was, however, afraid 1hat there would be no time to give it effect; for the great pressure of the distress would, he hoped, be over before the experiment could be fairly tried. The 1st of June had all but arrived, and the accounts which he
  840
  received from Ireland led him to hope that there would be not only a good but an unusually early potato harvest. He could not, of course, say what might happen; but, if there should he again a bad harvest, he could honestly assure the hon. Gentleman that he would be prepared thoroughly to consider his suggestion, although he much doubted, taking into account the shortness of the time for carrying it into effect, whether it would be of any great practical value. In reply to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who desired to see the Local Government Board in Ireland make use of the organization of the Mansion House Fund Committee and the other Relief Committees, he had to state that when in Dublin he had received a deputation from the Mansion House Committee, and that, at the suggestion of the officers of the Local Government Board, he had expressed their wish to be on terms of the closest communication with the various committees, and it was especially suggested that relief out of charitable funds should be given to poor tenants who might feel a great reluctance to apply for out-door relief. He mentioned that merely to show that the Local Government Board were really willing and anxious to keep up those committees, and he believed it would continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman had also made some observations with respect to Fishery piers, and it was quite true that some of those piers were out of repair; but for that the counties were responsible, for the piers were handed over to their charge as well as the bridges. The Government were quite aware, however, how great an evil it was not to have those piers repaired, and they would try to provide some practical remedy for the state of things of which the hon. Gentleman complained. In the Bill which would soon be introduced a clause dealing with the subject would be found. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), he might observe that he was exceedingly anxious that all the applications which were sanctioned by the baronial sessions should be proceeded with as soon as possible.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYpointed out that the question relative to the Irish Fishery piers had been considered last Session at a meeting of the Irish

  841
  Party, and had been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Cork, on which occasion occurred a phenomenon with which former Irish Members were by no means unfamiliar. They were thoroughly beaten, and he found that the right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench had voted against them. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I did not.] He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had not voted against them; but he was bound to say that the present occupants of the Treasury Bench almost invariably joined the late Government in opposing the wishes of the Irish Members as to the mode of relieving the distress of Ireland.
  MR. BIGGARurged upon the Government the expediency of providing means by which the money which was advanced to the landlords in Ireland should be spent in a way which would be likely to be permanently beneficial to the country.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to point out an instance which seemed to show the manner in which the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee were invariably set aside. He referred to the case of the Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, besides receiving a salary of £300 a-year in that capacity, as well as his salary as a second-class clerk in the Colonial Office in London, drew a further allowance of £120 a-year on account of the expense to which he was put by being obliged to live in London and Lublin alternately. Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Committee were not yet in a position to report to the House with regard to details of that kind; and it was, therefore, impossible to say whether anything had been done to obviate the objections which had been taken last year to the charges under the Vote.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his Private Secretary had no place in the Colonial Office. He was a gentleman of great experience in the Irish Office.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £1,539, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests, Ireland.
  (4.) £98,3 13, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.
  MR. P. MARTINpointed out that under the Vote a grant was given in aid
  842
  of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in workhouses, and asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he would take into his consideration the expediency of extending similar assistance to the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in industrial schools, who, being deprived of the result fees which were given in every other class of school under the control of the National Board of Education were, he said, miserably underpaid?
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,959, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORunderstood the hon. Member for Galway had said that in December, 1878, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that a sketch for the re-organization of the Board of Works in Ireland was then under the consideration of the Treasury. He wished to ask the present Chief Secretary for Ireland why the scheme had not been carried out?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if he was not mistaken, his hon. Friend opposite the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had been on the point of introducing a Bill on that subject during the last Parliament. He assured the hon. Member that the subject had occupied his attention from the first time of his entering upon Office; but it was perfectly impossible that during the short period that had elapsed the Government could have dealt with the matter in any effectual manner. He hoped they would be shortly able to state their plans with regard to the re-organization of the Office m question.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that in the present state of Ireland the question of facilitating the grant of loans by the Board of Works was of too much importance to admit of delay. If the Department was effectually worked, and the mode of obtaining loans simplified, the distress which unfortunately now so widely prevailed would have been relieved. In many places landowners and others were deterred from availing

  843
  themselves of the powers Parliament intended to vest in the Board in consequence of the great delay and expense incident to their applications. The grievance was one of long standing. So far back as 1871, as the hon. Member for Galway had reminded the House more than once, a Committee had reported against the Irish Board of Works. That Report, however, had been treated with thorough neglect. The late Government had thought fit to appoint a Departmental Commission which, two years ago, reported fully to the House; but no effect had been given to their recommendations or suggestions. More than once complaint had been made by the hon. Member for Galway, who sat as a Member of the Departmental Committee, and more than a year ago, in an elaborate speech, which would be found in Hansard, called the attention of the House to the utter breakdown of the system under which public works were conducted and loans given by the Board. Fair promises were then made; but nothing had been done. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Government would now give something more in the way of explanation than the stereotyped answer that they had not time to take the matter into consideration. This was a grievance which, although it had remained up to the present time unredressed, had been deeply felt in Ireland. He held that if the Board of Works had been in working order a large amount of the distress which now existed would have been obviated. It was a misapprehension to imagine it was alone on the seaboard or West of Ireland that distress prevailed. It had been severely felt throughout the whole of Ireland, and had the Board been in order a great deal of the suffering in the inland counties would have been remedied by the making of loans, and the consequent stimulation of industry. On such an important matter, he did not think that the Irish Members should be contented with a mere statement that the subject was under consideration; and he trusted that they might have some farther intimation, either from the Secretary to the Treasury or from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, explaining the views which the Government entertained upon the subject; otherwise, he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONadmitted that the hon. Member had fairly stated the case with regard to that Department; and he was prepared to say that the late Government would have been seriously to blame if, after the promises made, they had not brought the subject before the House, as they eon-templated doing. But he did not think that the hon. Member was right in saying that the present Government had had time to consider the question, looking at the rerent change which had taken place; and he reminded the Committee that the subject had been, moreover, very seriously complicated by the fact that at the time when the late Government contemplated a re-organization of the Board the question of dealing with the loans under the new Bill came into operation. Under those circumstances, they were unable to disturb the then existing machinery, upon which they had to rely at a time of great emergency. He believed hon. Members would admit that he had intended to submit to the House, if possible, a Bill which would carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee; and he admitted that it would have been a great advantage if the House possessed a more direct contact with the work of the Board of Works, in the shape of someone who could speak for its action. He had merely shadowed forth what was really an additional difficulty in effecting a change of that kind; but even had they been in continuous Office they would have hesitated to disturb the only machinery upon which they could rely for dealing with the questions arising in consequence of the distress in Ireland. He appealed to the Committee to believe that, whatever had been the intentions of the late Government, if the present Government proposed next Session to alter the Board, he should be pleased to do everything he could to assist in carrying out alterations which he believed to be necessary, not as the result of any maladministration, but because the Board had work thrust upon them at a time when their staff was insufficient, and consequently paralyzed their actions.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he thought it desirable that a Return should be presented of all the works passed by the baronial sessions in Galway, both those contracted for, and those in progress, as

  845
  well as those refused to be passed by the Board of Works, in order that they might know what works were being-executed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he fully intended to make a fresh Return as speedily as possible of the condition in which the land, sanitary, and baronial loans were, as well as what had been applied for, and what had been sanctioned. He did not know, however, that he could give, in every case, the grounds on which each application was refused or accepted. As regarded what had been said by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin), he thought the hon. Member would see that it was only an honest reply to say that the Government would consider the matter. The hon. Member had asked for his views upon that difficult subject, and had received them. During the two or three weeks in which they had held Office, the Government had had to consider, almost hourly, the actual measures to be taken for immediate necessities; and, under those circumstances, it would not have been possible to go into the best mode of re-organizing the Office of the Board of Works in Ireland. Their position was that, like many manufacturers, though they possessed machinery which a good many people said ought to be changed, they had also a very heavy order book, and could not find the time to complete the orders before them.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he wished to point out one of the many anomalies which abounded in Ireland in matters under the care of the Board of Works. On page 156 he observed that the architect received a salary of £300 per annum; but in addition to that sum, he found, by a foot-note, that he also received a pension of £300 per annum from the Irish Poor Law Board. He ventured to think that if the officer in question was a pensioner of the Poor Law Board he must be a somewhat worthless fellow; but, at any rate, he thought that if he was pensioned by one body he ought not to be the servant of another. Therefore, he must object to the Vote, unless some satisfactory promise was given that this pensioner should not appear as the architect for the Board of Works next year.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he wished to remind the Committee that this Vote had been discussed for many years, and that the hon. Baronet the Member for
  846
  West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said that the Office ought to be reformed and put into a better condition than it was at present. He had also said that the Office was in a bad state as regarded its machinery. It was, therefore, very painful that this state of things should continue from year to year, and that nothing should be done to remedy it.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, under the circumstances to which he had referred, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,659, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Finigan.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, without being able to speak from, full information, it was his impression that the Poor Law Board had not an architect in their employment, and that the item objected to by the hon. Member was for the pension given to him upon his retirement. There was not the smallest reason for supposing that the gentleman referred to was incompetent.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that after the explanation of the noble Lord he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he found that the Estimates were full of such anomalies as he had already alluded to, and to which he again felt it his duty to call the attention of the Committee. Ho had given way upon the last Vote; but he could not do so in the present instance, unless he received some definite promise that they would be done away with. He found that the salary of the Keeper of State Papers in Ireland was £500 per annum, and, as he perceived by the foot-note, he also received £750 per

  847
  annum as Ulster King of Arms from the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Many of these offices were of an anomalous character in the administration of Irish affairs; and he, therefore, moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3.940, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1831, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."—(Mr. Finigan.)
  DR. LYONSsaid, he believed that the Vote represented a not inadequate remuneration for the valuable services rendered by the officer in charge of the State Papers, which had been placed in the most admirable order, and formed a series of the most important and valuable records of Irish administration. The amount of work involved in the care, examination, and comparison of those Papers in connection with official purposes, as well as for the public use. was very great; and he was quite satisfied that if the hon. Member could visit the office in Dublin he would be surprised to find how large a number of Papers were now classified and made available for public purposes. There was no Department in Ireland which could more thoroughly satisfy the national aspirations and those of all true Irishmen than that important series of Papers, which had been brought into a state of perfect order and arrangement from one of absolute ruin. They were of the greatest value to the future history of Ireland, and to abolish the office would be an act which the hon. Member would himself deeply regret. He did not think it necessary to impress further upon the Committee the importance of this office, and would do no more than express a hope that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he had some knowledge of the office in question, and could quite confirm all the hon. Member (Dr. Lyons) had said with regard to the condition and importance of the State Papers, which he regarded as an invaluable record of national history, and ho only wished that every other Department in the Government of Ireland was
  848
  in the same satisfactory condition. But when he considered this Vote he saw that there was also a Deputy Keeper who received £800 per annum, as well as an Assistant Deputy Keeper with a salary of £584. Again, there was the Ulster King of Arms and other relics of feudalism, for which he objected to pay. He did not know what was meant by the King of Arms, although he was aware that if he went to Ireland he would not be allowed to bear arms at all. However, he thought that the sooner they got rid of all that paraphernalia, and all the other devices for imposing upon the credulity of the unfortunate people, the better it would be for Ireland and for this country.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought it was all very well to cut down salaries where there was any real grievance to be redressed; but, in the present instance, that was not the case, and if the hon. Member went to a division he should feel it is duty to vote against the Amendment.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that Sir Bernard Burke held a patent office, to which he had been appointed in 1857, and that if it were abolished he must receive compensation. Under the present arrangement he had abandoned the fees, and that transaction was very profitable to the Exchequer. He believed that the office would be abolished at the next vacancy.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that although he could not admit that the apology offered by the Government was any justification of the anomalies to which he had referred he would ask permission to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if he was right in understanding the noble Lord to say that on the occasion of the next vacancy the office of Ulster King of Arms would be abolished.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that he had been rightly understood by the noble Lord.
  Original Question put, and agreed, to.
  7.; £11,968, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
  (8.) £1(5,927, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

  CLASS III. LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (9.) £54,469, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to continue the question annually raised by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and now to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury as to what progress the Treasury had made in reforming the Legal Department? The noble Lord had very justly called attention to the fact that, in 1873, a Select Committee entered upon an inquiry into the whole subject; and he (Sir George Balfour) should very much like to know what steps had been taken to act upon their recommendations? That Committee had strongly recommended a thorough reform in the Legal Departments of the country, and the noble Lord had all along advocated the reform as one likely to benefit the country, not only with regard to the business of the country, but also in effecting considerable economies in these Departments. He might also mention that only so far back as 1877 Class III. of the Estimates, containing the Law Charges, had advanced from under £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. No doubt, a portion of the increase could be accounted for; but he could not fail to observe that a very considerable increase had taken place in the actual outlay of Departments which could not be reconciled. He, therefore, had to ask whether any progress had been made during the present year, or during the Recess, towards carrying forward the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, which the late Secretary to the Treasury had promised should be brought in? He would suggest that the Report of the Departmental Committee, which the Treasury had assembled to inquire into the Public Legal Departments, with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1873, should be laid before the House for consideration. As regarded the general expenditure of the Departments under Class III., it was infinitely worse managed than either that of the Army or the Navy. In fact, it was prominent among all the badly managed Departments of the Public Service for wasteful, uncontrolled extravagance.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Gen-
  850
  tleman would refer to Vote 5 of that Class he would find that the basis of a most valuable reform had been laid last year. Under the operation of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, all the various Legal Departments of the Government were amalgamated. He believed that no less than nine different offices were brought into one, the result of which would be seen in Vote 5. The reduction made up to the present time, of course, was not large, because the officers who were transferred to the new central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature had to continue at the old rate of salary; and, therefore, the economies and improvements which would take place, as vested interests died out, could not at once be enforced. He thought that the question was one which had better be discussed when they came to Vote 5, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see that the basis of a very important improvement had been laid.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that he had a question, and a very simple question, to ask of the Law Officers of the Crown. He noticed that the hon. and learned Attorney General received for non-contentious business £7,000. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, in regard to business of a similar kind, received £6,000. The Law Officer who advised the Foreign Office was put down at a salary of £2,000. He wished the Committee to note that the Law Officers of the Crown were also paid by fees for contentious business according to the usual way. Now, it appeared to him that that was a new method of putting the matter. He should like to know what the non-contentious duties were, for the sum which was put down was a very large one.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would take so long to tell the hon Member what the non-contentious business was, that he was afraid he should fail in the attempt to do so; but he could tell him that it was enough to keep any one individual engaged for all his time without attending to any contentious business at all. First, the Attorney General had to attend to all the charities of the country, and all the patents of the country; to the legal matters connected with all the Departments of the country; to advise the Foreign

  851
  Office upon every matter of importance that came before it; and to draw up all the Orders in Council that came before the Privy Council. His hon. Friend would, perhaps, excuse him continuing the list; and he could assure him that if he would assist the Attorney General in performing the non-contentious business of the country the Attorney General would be most grateful to him for it.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, with reference to the Attorney General's duties in connection with the Patent Office, that at one time he used to be paid by fees drawn from the receipts of the Patent Office, and he was very glad to find these fees done away with, and the whole salary fixed, irrespective of fees for contentious business. If it would take too long to explain what was the non-contentious business, they, at all events, could be informed of the amount paid to the Attorney General and the other Law Officers of the Crown for contentious business. An estimate of the probable amount to be paid to each of them should be laid before Parliament, drawn from the records of actual expenditure of former years, and they ought to have the same full information given with regard to all the small men in the Government employ connected with law affairs whose estimated receipts were more fully detailed because they had not the power of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. In other branches of the Revenue Department they found all payments recorded, even down to £10, £20, and £30. He should like to see the same thing done with regard to the fees paid to so many persons connected with the Law Department of England, and not only England, but of Scotland and of Ireland.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he did not wish to be supposed to make any promise that that information should be absolutely forthcoming, and for the reason that he did not quite see how they were to obtain it. He did not know what his hon. and learned Friends near him would have to do in the way of contentious business. The sum would depend entirely upon the amount of business done, and the rate at which the briefs were marked.
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, that he had to ask, with reference to the sum of £2,000 for Legal Advice to the Foreign Office, Whether the noble Lord was
  852
  aware that there was already an Assistant Legal Under Secretary to the Foreign Office; and, if so, what were the reasons for asking for this Vote of £2.000?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that some years ago there was an office at the Foreign Office which was called that of the Queen's Advocate. When that office was abolished it was thought necessary that there should be a permanent legal officer attached to the Foreign Office, and the learned gentleman who had hitherto occupied that office had done so for a number of years, and, he might say, very much to the benefit of the Public Service.
  MR. J. HINDE PALMERsaid, that it appeared to him to be impossible to make a Return as to the contentious business; and, therefore, it was useless to ask for further explanation. He thought he might say that one of the best alterations which had been made in the relations of the Law Officers to the Crown was that which remunerated the Attorney General and the Solicitor General by salary instead of fees, because, whenever any great reforms were suggested in the Patent Office, the large emoluments which were payable to the Law Officers were always obstacles in the way of such reforms. He did not consider the remuneration of the Law Officers as being by any means too large.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that as one who was no lawyer he considered that whatever officers of the Crown were overpaid they were certainly not the Law Officers. They had a very serious work to do in watching to prevent the House of Commons from making mistakes in its Acts of Parliament; and for himself he would sooner cut down the salaries of any of the officers of the Crown than that of those who, by their legal talent and ability alone, had raised themselves to that position on whichever side of the House they sat.
  MR. NORTHCOTEasked whether they were to understand, as regarded the item of £2,000 for Counsel to the Foreign Office, that that item would cease as soon as the present holder of the office ceased to occupy it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that these Estimates were prepared by the late Government; but he might say that when the gentleman who at the present filled the post in question ceased to occupy it new ar-

  853
  rangements would be made in respect to it.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that on these occasions it was customary to make remarks upon smaller gentlemen than the Law Officers of the Crown; but he wished to point out that though the Law Officers had a great deal of responsibility, and did their work exceedingly well, the Judges said very different things about the work of the House. They said that the House did its work exceedingly badly. Now, though the present Law Officers, as well as the late Law Officers, were very able men, nevertheless £7,000 for non-contentious business was a very large sum. The Prime Minister only got £5,000, and the principal Secretaries of State only got £5,000, and yet they filled very responsible Offices, and had a great deal of work to perform. Now, the Law Officers were constantly at business from morning to night. He found they were constantly engaged in the Courts of Law, which must occupy their time very much. He thought it would be quite as well if their salary were reduced in the same way as every thing else.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he should like to know what were the exact functions of the Law Officers with regard to framing Acts of Parliament?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that his contention was that if the Secretary to the Treasury could not say exactly what sums would be paid to the Law Officers for contentious business during the course of this year, still he might be able to give an approximate estimate of the sum from the known expenditure of past years. He maintained that if they could not have these details with the Estimates, they ought to have an exact statement made in the audit of the Expenditure of the country, and taken from the vouchers signed by the Law Officers, specifying the services for which the moneys were paid. Not a fraction could be paid away without the knowledge of the Auditor General, and there would be every facility then for ascertaining this amount. He hoped that in a few years they would have all that done, and that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would be the person to initiate these great improvements.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not help thinking they were engaged in a
  854
  somewhat unworthy discussion. The matter they had really to consider was how the Crown could best be served, and how the highest legal ability could be obtained. That could not be done without adequate pay. When the arrangements for obtaining these services were made the remuneration had to be considered not only with regard to the office itself, but also with regard to those who filled it; and when the commutation was made of the fees that were ordinarily paid, he believed that the Government had not only made a good bargain for themselves, but had also dealt very fairly by the officers who were concerned.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that it was not the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to go into the construction of every Act of Parliament that was passed by the House. He could assure the Committee that if any more duty was cast upon the Law Officers of the Crown than existed at present it would be impossible to per for in these duties with benefit to the Public Service.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £3,050, to complete the sum for the Public Prosecutor's Office.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDinquired where the Public Prosecutor was now lodged; because, unless he was incorrectly informed, that official had been lodged in such an unhealthy office that he had been laid up with typhoid fever, as well as one of his assistants?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he did not think the case was quite so bad as it had been represented by the hon. Baronet; but still there were sanitary defects in the Office, and another more suitable place had been provided.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £150,187, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriff's Expenses, &c.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the increase in this Estimate was chiefly caused by the repayments to Sheriffs of Sheriffs' expenses, in consequence of four Assizes being held every year in the Assize counties. He should like to know whether it was the intention of the Government to continue the practice of holding four Assizes instead of three, as for-

  855
  merly? He held that the experiment had not been very successful, and certainly in many of the counties the burden thrown upon jurors who had to attend the Assize town four times a-year for the sake of a single prisoner, who otherwise would have had to stay a month longer in prison, was very great indeed. He should be glad to know if there was any intention to re-consider the question of reducing the number of Assizes?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the change was made by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department; and, so far as the present intentions of the Government went, they did not propose to interfere with the arrangement. In course of time it might be found not to work well, and the Government might then possibly be willing to re-consider the question.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he was very sorry to hear the answer given by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. In some cases these small Assizes were wholly unnecessary. In the county which he had the honour to represent, the Judges and the juries concurred in the representation to that effect to the authorities; but they had not heard any result of it. Anyone who would take the trouble to look into the matter would find by the Returns that at some Assizes on the Midland Circuit there were too few Judges, while there were hardly any to per for in the judicial duties in London. All this judicial strength was sent away to the country, for the purpose of trying two or three cases which might have been tried at the Sessions, and he thought the matter demanded the very serious attention of the Government. He was very disappointed to hear the answer given by the Government, and he hoped that it would be re-considered. He wished also to call attention to the ridiculous custom of putting so much expense upon the Sheriffs. It seemed to him to be questionable whether Sheriffs in these clays were required at all, or whether they were not an anomaly and a mere relic of past times. The duty of the Sheriff was now reduced almost entirely to putting on a Court dress, and driving to a railway station, and there waiting about to receive the Judges. It was by no means a right thing to compel country gentlemen
  856
  to make themselves ridiculous in this manner, and also to put them to the expense attendant upon it. In consequence of the number of these Assizes having been increased, the office of Sheriff could not now be performed without an expense very often of over £700. He did not think it was right to call upon gentlemen to perform duties which involved such an unreasonable expense as this. By the last Prisons Act the duties of sheriffs in prisons were abolished with one exception, and that was, that the superintendence of executions was still in their hands. He thought that that one duty of the Sheriff might now very well be left to the Chief Constable of the county, or the head gaoler, or some other officer of the Government. He trusted that the Government would take this matter into consideration, for the office of Sheriff was now extremely unpopular, and it was a very undignified thing to see a respectable country gentleman in thin silk stockings standing about for hours at a railway station wailing for Judges who very frequently treated him with but scant courtesy. He sincerely hoped that the Government would see their way to the abolition of this obsolete office.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that there were very great inconveniences arising under the present system; and if the office of Sheriff was to be preserved some modification of the duties which he had to perform should be made. He rose for the purpose of stating that his light hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, who first initiated the system of four Assizes in the year, did so at the almost unanimous request of the House of Commons. The attention of the House was called, in several cases, to the system by which prisoners were frequently kept in prison waiting for trial for long periods, and it was the general and unanimous wish of the House that such a thing should not be allowed to occur again, and for that reason four Assizes were instituted. No doubt, many inconveniences had been caused by these four Assizes in the strain placed upon the juries in counties and by the demand upon judicial time. But he thought that further consideration on the subject might lead to the institution of some method by which prisoners should be tried without the present in-

  857
  conveniences—perhaps the Judges might sit at the Quarter Sessions occasionally to hear Assize cases. At all events, this matter might be considered, and he would wish to remind the Committee that the Winter Assize Act was passed at the nearly unanimous desire of the House for the purpose of preventing prisoners remaining in prison for a long period.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that in the last Parliament he had moved for a Return showing the number of prisoners tried at the Autumn and Winter Assizes in 1879–80. That Return had only recently been placed in their hands, and they had not yet had time to consider it fully. He might say, however, that it included not only the two Winter Assizes, but also the Quarter Sessions in the winter. There were 1.G00 prisoners to be tried at Quarter Sessions, and they required the presence of 2,000 jurymen to try them. Out of that number, 700 prisoners came from five divisions. That left 53divisions in which there were only 900 prisoners, who thus required as many as 1,600 or 1,700 jurymen to try them. He hoped that the Committee would agree with him that it was a great hardship that jurymen should be brought at an inclement season of the year to try prisoners when their presence was really not necessary. The fact was produced by holding the present large number of Assizes. It appeared that at the Autumn Assizes there were 28 counties in England, not taking Wales into the calculation, in which there were less than 10 prisoners to be tried. The natural conclusion was that it was a serious waste of the time of the Judges, and of all connected with the administration of justice, that in so many cases special Assizes should be held for the purposes of trying 2, 3, 4, 5, or 9 prisoners. There was also an injustice on the jury, and especially on the Grand Jurymen. The Grand Jury of the county of Cambridge made a presentment to the Judges, in which was set forth the great hardship they were put to, and the waste of time that took place in consequence of their being called together to try cases, many of which might have been taken at the Quarter Sessions.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he fully agreed with the observation that it was at the almost unanimous wish of the
  858
  House that the late Government provided for the holding of four Assizes, and he considered they were perfectly justified in what they did. It was felt to be a hardship that some prisoners should be kept in prison for a length of time without an opportunity of trial; while, in many cases, the persons who were so detained in prison were after trial discharged. That was a state of things which led to a desire on the part of Parliament to find a remedy. In finding a remedy, however, they had, perhaps, gone a little too far. They had tried to meet what was a hardship, and they might possibly have given rise to inconveniences and expenses and other disadvantages which it was desirable to avoid; but they could hardly form a correct opinion until experience had been gained of the working of the additional Assizes. He hoped Her Majesty's present Advisers would promise to take these matters into consideration, and to strike out some means whereby prisoners should not be detained an undue length of time without trial, and, at the same time, that too many Assizes should not be held. He agreed in hoping most sincerely that Her Majesty's Government would take into its consideration the question of the High Sheriff. He entertained a strong opinion that it was extremely undesirable to have an office which from the progress of time had become ridiculous, and was inconsistent with the present state of society. It was well known that Gentlemen were extremely anxious to avoid taking this office, for they knew that it was a mere farce, and an expensive one to them. In some cases it led to their being insulted by the Judges, who imposed penalties upon respectable country gentlemen because they did not act towards them as they wished. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would prevent gentlemen from being treated by irascible Judges in the way which now frequently happened. In his opinion, the time had come to seriously consider this question.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the question of these frequent Assizes seemed to have been overlooked by the Law Officers of the Crown, although very decided opinions were expressed about them in different parts of the Committee. He did not intend to discuss the question how far Parliament was justified in going the length that it did in ordering four

  859
  Assizes for the purpose of trying a few hundred prisoners. They knew very well that the chances of acquittal of the prisoner were not more than two in five, and it was considered that of those acquitted hardly one in nine was really innocent. But, however that might be, there was a wave of sentiment which came over the country and took everything before it. Everyone, even the Government, yielded to that wave of sentiment, and everyone—Judges, juries, and all concerned in the administration of justice—were sacrificed to that wave of sentiment. Now they had to deal with the result. The condition of the Sheriff was bad enough; but it was not merely the inconveniences of the Judges — though their sufferings were bad enough—but it was that the state of business should be so impeded in London as it was at the present time. The combined effect of this wave of sentiment and of the action of the Judicature Acts had been such that at the last Sitting in January 625 cases were waiting for trial, and the Judges were dispersed about the country with only 65 cases to try. Now the state of things was found to be worse, for Her Majesty's Judges were being withdrawn from their ordinary work for the purpose of trying Election Petitions. He thought it was a matter for serious consideration whether the Judges, when most required in London, ought to be sent off for about six weeks to try a very small number of cases in the country.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that on two or three occasions during the last Parliament cases had occurred in which Englishmen had been kept in foreign countries waiting for trial for long periods. When remonstrances were addressed to the foreign authorities the answers invariably were that it was the consequence of the peculiar arrangement of the municipal law of those countries, which would not admit of a more speedy trial. But when attention was thus called to the hardship of keeping men waiting a long time in prison without trial, our own municipal law came under consideration. It was found that in this country a man might lie in gaol many weeks and even months without trial. There was something in that which spoke to the conscience; and the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, to
  860
  whom all honour was due, instituted the four Assizes. It seemed to him (Mr. Hopwood) that some plan might be devised by which prisoners might be brought to a speedy trial, and inconvenience be avoided. It was possible to enlarge the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions; but there was no confidence on the part of the public in those Courts, by reason of their not being presided over by trained lawyers. That had been a matter that had always been resisted, and until it was agreed upon he could not see how the House could ever extend the jurisdiction of the Sessions. And yet until it was done it would be almost impossible to reduce the number of prisoners which would remain to be tried by the Judges at the Assizes. Probably, some day or other, the House would have to settle this question; but if they ever did extend the jurisdiction of the Sessions, it would be absolutely necessary to place upon the Sessions responsible officers. It was impossible to trust Sessions with greater cases than at present, until their duties were carried out by trained lawyers. He hoped that the present short discussion might draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to this subject, as well as to the general question of Sheriffs. Some hon. Members had called attention to the present state of the duties of the office, and had suggested its abolition. In his opinion, the Sheriff was undoubtedly a necessary officer, and he should not agree with the observations which had been made with regard to the office having become obsolete. Doubtless, some inconvenience was entailed upon gentlemen by having to accept this office; but, as it was an office which was necessary to the well-being of the State, he thought that some sacrifice might fairly be asked on its account.
  COLONEL BARNEsaid, he hoped that the Government might see their way to abolish the office of Sheriff. At present, having to take the office was a great hardship to country gentlemen, and very heavy expenses were entailed upon them, and those expenses had become heavier in proportion to their income. The only duty now left to the Sheriff was that, in the last resource, if they could get no one else to hang the prisoners, they were obliged to do it themselves. If the office of Sheriff were to be abolished, it would be necessary to

  861
  find some other person to charge with that duty. He should have thought that there would be no difficulty in finding some person to charge with that duty; and he should suggest, in default of anyone better, that it should devolve on the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that, in his opinion, Her Majesty's Government should hesitate long before it abolished the office of Sheriff. It was a very old office, for it took its rise in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. He had been Sheriff himself. If he had had to pay only £500 or £600, as the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had stated, he should have considered that very cheap for the honour that he derived from the office. In London he found that there was great competition for this office, for it was a dignified thing to represent Her Majesty in a Court of Law. He did not think that when they had so much business to do in town Her Majesty's Judges ought to be sent to the country to try two or three prisoners. It seemed to him that judicial power could be very much more economized than it was at present; prisoners might be gathered together, and things might be done in a very much better way. He hoped there would be no interference with the office of Sheriff after things had been allowed to go on as they did at present for the last 500 years—in fact, from the time of Nebuchad nezzar.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that he wished to urge upon Her Majesty's Government, as worthy of consideration the question whether the two offices of the Circuit Court of Assize, and Clerk of the Crown, could not be assimilated.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that there had been a proposal to combine those offices as much as possible, by sending down to the Assize assistance from the Associates Office in London. There was, however, some difficulty in carrying out the matter, because it was usual that there should bo two Courts sitting together, the Criminal and the Civil, and a responsible officer was required in each.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £122,916, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
  862
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would now report Progress. There was a point upon this Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee, and it might lead to a considerable discussion. Under those circumstances, he thought that Progress should be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Rylands.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, under those circumstances, he had no objection to Progress being reported.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress, to sit again upon Wednesday.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).

    PROPOSED ADDITION TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,in rising to move—
    "That the Committee on Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) do consist of Twenty-seven Members:—That Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. Otway, Lord Elcho, and Mr. Shaw be added to the Committee."
    said, that the reason which had led to his putting this Notice on the Paper was fresh in the recollection of the House. It would be necessary for him, however, to refer briefly to the proceedings on last Friday week. The Prime Minister then stated that if he had had his own way there would have been no occasion to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath. Evidently, the House was not of that opinion, and his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) moved a Resolution which led to considerable discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, seeing what

    863
    course the discussion was taking, at the last moment raised a very important question. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the whole question of the Oath should be referred to a Committee, and gave the words of his Resolution which was to guide the decisions of that Committee. Then there came another discussion, and it was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wise to postpone the consideration of the question to another day. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the adjournment of the debate. On Saturday morning there appeared on the Notice Paper an Amendment in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James). This gave rather a wider scope to that which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed, which confined the Committee to the narrowest issue possible, and which rendered it almost impossible for the Committee to come to any conclusion other than the one evidently indicated by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made. ["No, no!"] At all events, that was his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) opinion, and the opinion of a large number of the Members of the House. When they came to discuss the question again his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Watkin Williams) pointed out some great omissions in these Resolutions. The hon. and learned Gentleman showed that that House could have dealt better than any Committee with the grave question before it. The House came, however, after due deliberation, to the decision that a Committee should be appointed, and that it should take the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvonshire as amended and sanctioned by the Prime Minister. Now, there was a very different question before the Committee, and one on which they would be able to give a far different opinion than they could have given on the narrow and restricted issues raised by the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It was necessary that a Committee of that sort should be essentially a representative Committee; and he would appeal to anyone as to whether the Committee, as originally struck, was a representative Committee. At first, it was proposed that it should consist of 19 Members, and the number
    864
    was afterwards increased to 23. Even with 23 Members, it was shown by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and by many others on both sides of the House, that the Committee did not represent the general feelings and views of the House. This was a most grave question, and the Committee to which it was referred ought to have such a representative character that their Report would guide the House both as to the legal aspect of the case and also the aspect of the case at issue between the House and the hon. Member for Northampton. He did not himself vote for the adjournment of the debate, and he afterwards thought the best course to pursue would be to increase the numbers of the Committee from 23 to 27. Accordingly, he took the four best names he could find to represent the different views of the different sections of the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had urged especially that the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General should be on the Committee. Therefore, he ventured to propose his name. Next he went to the other side of the House. Ho saw an hon. Friend of his who had been in the Ministry and had shown himself to be an independent Member of the House. He referred to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), whom he should propose to place on the Committee. He would also propose the name of a Home Ruler, his hon. Friend the Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), who represented the largest Roman Catholic constituency in Ireland, and whose honesty and integrity no man in that House would dispute. Lastly, he took his noble Friend who represented that Scotch opinion which was so controverted as being absolutely unrepresented (Lord Elcho). This very grave question ought to be approached most calmly and deliberately. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that a Committee should be judicial, calm, quiet, and conciliatory; and he believed it would be found that the Gentlemen he had named would add much to the weight and intelligence of the Committee. The wider the Committee was the better it would represent the views of the House, and the more likely the House would be to agree to its judgment. The hon. and gallant Baronet concluded by formally

    865
    proposing the Motion of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee on Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) do consist of Twenty-seven Members."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not at all sorry that the House should have had time given it to consider the point raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet; but the result of that consideration is that the Government remain of the opinion which they entertained on Friday last, and that they cannot agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet. Ill the first place, we should not agree, if we were disposed to a further increase of the Committee, to the selection of the names which the hon. and gallant Baronet proposes. He states that it is eminently and above all things requisite that this should be a representative Committee. Well, Sir, in a representative Committee, it is, I apprehend, usually the rule and practice of this House that the Committee shall have some regard, in the distribution of its Members, to the distribution of political opinion in the House. ["Hear, hear!"and "No, no!"] If I understand that some hon. Member or hon. Members question that statement, I can only suppose that they are among the very numerous new Members. If any hon. Member who has sat in this House before this Session remains ignorant of the fact that there are rules with regard to the ordinary selection of Members upon Select Committees according to which they have reference in a considerable degree to the distribution of political opinion in the House, I can only say that I thought the proposition incapable of being disputed. Perhaps I may be told that this is not a Party question; but when the Government, exercising a very usual function, proposed to refer the question to a Committee, a Motion was made to refuse them leave so to refer it, and that Motion was supported by the whole of the Opposition in this House. I am afraid, therefore, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the question excites a considerable degree of feeling—I will not say Party feeling, but such as corresponds within the limits in which it prevails to Party feeling. I will not follow the hon. and gallant
    866
    Baronet through the narrative part of his subject, because it did not appear to me that the narrative could have any effect except that of reviving past discussions. I, at the same time, respectfully demur to the accuracy of the narrative which he has given. I observe that the proposition which the hon. and gallant Baronet makes is as follows: — As it now stands, there are upon the Committee 11 Gentlemen who are supporters of the Government, 11 Gentlemen belonging to the Opposition, and one Gentleman connected with what is called the Irish Party. The hon. and gallant Baronet proposes to raise the number of the supporters of the Government, who, I believe, are the majority in this House, to 12; the numbers of the Opposition, who are, I believe, in the minority in this House, to 13; and he also proposes two Members of the Irish Party, of which proposal I make no complaint whatever. This he calls a representative Committee. But I could not agree to the names proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet, even were we prepared to agree to an increase in the numbers of the Committee. I have, however, these two reasons against agreeing to increase the numbers. In the first place, I am compelled rather reluctantly to state that this list as it stands was the result of communications between the two sides of the House— communications proposed from the opposite Bench, and carried through in the usual and regular manner between the right hon. and very highly respected Baronet who represents the Opposition in such matters (Sir William Hart Dyke) and my noble Friend near me (Lord Richard Grosvenor); and an arrangement was made, according to which the list as it now stands, and without the name of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), was strictly and formally drawn up. The list is the result of an agreement from which I should not, without re-opening the whole matter, feel myself at liberty to depart. Perhaps those who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on Friday may say that that speech was hardly consistent with the statement I am now making. That, however, is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to explain rather than for me. The statement is strictly cor-

    867
    rect in point of fact, and will not be questioned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke). But, beyond that, I see in the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet who proposes this Motion this disposition. He complains of the decision of the House that this question should be referred to a Select Committee; and he says as it has been referred to a Committee that it should be a very unusually largo one, so as, in fact, to bring the question back as much as possible to the nature of an inquiry and judgment by the House. Now, in my opinion and that of the Government, the original number of the Committee when it was first created was a proper number and wisely chosen, and its complete impartiality was established by the verdict which it gave. At any rate, it could not be supposed that the Government had a sinister object in proposing the re-appointment of the Committee, because the verdict which it gave was adverse to the view of our constituted legal authorities—namely, the Law Officers of the Crown. Notwithstanding, however, the communications from the opposite side of the House which I have described, Her Majesty's Government, in deference to the hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite, whom they believed to be representative of those among whom they sat, agreed, reluctantly, but still with the view which they have had all along, to secure a general concurrence of the House to an increase of the number of the Committee to 23. It is now proposed to carry the number to 27. But even to increase it to 23 is not to improve the Committee, viewing the nature of its task, and to increase the number to 27 would tend still further to deteriorate it, and make it still less specially fit to perform the peculiar functions intrusted to it. The Committee is not a Committee simply to represent the instincts and feelings or general opinions, or constitutional opinions or religious tendencies of Members of this House. It is, in our opinion, a Committee which, before all things, is to examine very nice, delicate, and important questions arising upon the construction of a Statute. It is not the question in our opinion— although I believe it is the question in the opinion of a portion of those who sit opposite, and far be it from me to
    868
    deny their right to take whatever view they think fit of this case—but in our view it is not the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh is a fit person to sit in this House. That is not the question. It is a question which may come under discussion; but there is a prior question to be decided, and that is the jurisdiction of this House. Has the House this jurisdiction by law? If it has not this jurisdiction by law, has it this jurisdiction by its own nature, considering the relation in which it stands to its own Members? If it has this jurisdiction in either of these ways, or in any other way, has it ever exercised that jurisdiction? And if it has not exercised it— about which I apprehend there is no doubt—is it, on the whole, prudent and politic for the House to assume the exercise of that jurisdiction? If it does assume the exercise of it, upon what ground and within what limits will it assert the propriety of that exercise? Now, I am giving crude and unauthoritative sketches; but these are some portions of the very nice matters that will have to be considered before this Committee, and it is obvious that these are matters entirely distinct from the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh, either by his opinions or by the mode in which ho has declared those opinions and thrust them in our eyes, is, or is not, disqualified. These, I think, are the general grounds on which we have spoken of the inquiry before this Committee as a judicial one, requiring the utmost calmness and impartiality, and a coolness of temper which, I think, however favourably we may view our own discussions, we can hardly assert without qualification has prevailed in the debates we have had on the Parliamentary Oath. For the reason, then, that this Committee has been the result of a compact framed in the usual manner, and from an objection to the mode in which the hon. and gallant Baronet proposes to set about the business of enlarging the Committee, I must ask the House to decline to accede to this Motion, and to allow the Committee, which has now been appointed after due consideration of the names of those who should serve upon it, to proceed to its work. One word I must add about the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), that what I said on a former occasion was strictly and entirely accurate, and that

    869
    there was no proposal made that in the Committee of 23 Members that hon. and learned Gentleman's name should be included.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I must say that I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister should think it necessary in a matter of this importance to introduce so very much passion into the discussion.[Cries "Oh!"and "Withdraw!"] I am perfectly ready to withdraw. I regret that the Prime Minister should have spoken in the tone which he has adopted. But the matter is one which is really of very great importance as a question of the privilege and of the duty of this House; and I earnestly hope that the House will consider the question before it in a temper suitable to its importance. Now, the Prime Minister has said—perhaps, I am going a little in mediasres —that the Committee was originally agreed upon, and placed upon the Paper, after communication between the two sides of the House in the usual manner. That is a statement which I dispute. In the beginning of these proceedings, when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh)first appeared at the Table and requested to be allowed to take an Affirmation instead of the usual Oath, a question was raised by you, Sir, as to whether you were authorized to admit him to make such an Affirmation. You stated that you were in doubt as to the power to grant that authority. You referred (he question to the House, and the House referred it to a Committee which was appointed for the strict and sole purpose of construing an Act of Parliament. Well, on the appointment of such a Committee as that, it was natural that there should be a very large proportion of Members of the Legal Profession. I remember that at the time when I seconded that Motion I made the remark that I thought it a pity that the appointment of the Committee should have been proceeded with so immediately, because the Law Officers of the Crown would not be present when it was nominated. That Committee was, however, nominated; and, subsequently, the Law Officers of the Crown—who were not at the time of its nomination Members of the House— were added to its number. That Committee was appointed to consider a particular question? of the construction of a Statute, and it came to a decision which
    870
    prevented the Affirmation from being taken by the hon. Member for Northampton. Thereupon a wholly new question arose; because the hon. Member for Northampton, who had, in the first instance, claimed the right to make an Affirmation, and had thereby, by implication, refused to take the Oath, or, at all events, by very clear implication informed the House that the Oath was not binding on him, came again and proposed to take the usual Oath. Upon that, objection was taken—not by the Government, by the way—but taken by an individual Member of the Opposition. A question was raised, and thereupon the Government moved as a sort of Motion in bar that it be referred to a Committee to consider whether the House had the power to refuse a Member proposing to take the Oath under those circumstances. On that proposal a very serious question arose. It was not a mere question of the construction of a Statute; but, according to the Resolution which was carried, it was a question as to the Privileges of the House of Commons, and not only, let me say, as to the Privileges of the House of Commons, but as to various other matters of a higher and very grave character. The terms of the Resolution were that the Committee should report its opinion whether the House has a right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution, to prevent a Member taking the Oath; and, if they are of opinion it has the right of preventing, to report whether it is competent to the House, under the above circumstances, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath. And then there were various questions raised on that, and ultimately the Resolution was altered, and the whole matter was raised in a form which asked the Committee to consider the question as to the right and jurisdiction of this House, and to report the opinion which the Committee may form. Weil, it is perfectly obvious by this second Reference very much larger and more important questions are raised than those which were raised by the first Reference. The first question referred to a narrow technical issue—the construction of an Act of Parliament. The second question is one which goes into matters of a very important character touching the Privileges of this House. When, contrary to the opinion of those who sit on this side

    871
    and contrary, I believe, to the opinion of many on the other side, it was decided that the matter was one which should not be decided by the House as a body, but should be referred to a Committee, it appeared to me and, I think, to many others, that the natural course would be very carefully to consider the selection of the Committee who should be appointed to consider this very grave question, and I had expected that what is called the usual course would have been followed— that there would have been communications between those who usually act in these matters as to the selection of the Members to be submitted to the consideration of the House. But there was no communication whatever, I believe, with this side of the House. The names of 15 or 19 Gentlemen were put on the Paper, who were to decide a technical point. When I saw that I was very much struck with the remarkable character of that proceeding, and I immediately took steps for communicating to the Government that it was not a satisfactory method of proceeding. Well, of course it was open to us to object to some of the names, and to propose the substitution of other names. But I could not but feel that when a number of eminent names are placed upon the Table of the House it is extremely disagreeable and invidious to propose that some of them should be taken off. I, therefore, thought the simpler way would be to add a certain number of names. Considering the nature of the question, a larger Committee might very fairly be appointed. I communicated privately to the Government my wish that three names should be added from our side of the House; and I named my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launces-ton (Sir Hardinge Giffard), all of whom were well qualified to take part in such an inquiry, and with regard to which they hud taken a very important part. Well, after that, further communications went on; and it was undoubtedly understood that it was I who had put these names into the hands of my right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke). At the same time, I stated to my right hon. Friend that if it was possible I wished to have all the three names added — that the
    872
    names of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin were those that I particularly wished to be added. On the last occasion I said I wished to have them all three added. Well, on the next morning it appeared that four names were proposed to be added, and that of those two were added from our side. I was not particularly surprised that he should have thought it impossible that more than four names should be added to the Committee; but when a remark was made the other night upon the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston, the Prime Minister got up and said—"That is only from Lis own side withdrawing him." We never withdrew him at all. Our wish was, and is, that my hon. and learned Friend should be upon the Committee; and I think if any hon. Gentleman will consider what effect such a statement has he will see how very unfair it is to my hon. and learned Friend, that it really gives the impression that his Friends on his own side have not any confidence in him. On the contrary, we have great confidence in him, and we desire especially that his services should be given to the Committee. I make no charge whatever of any breach of faith upon the selection of these names. On the other hand, I wish distinctly to say we do regret very much the absence of my hon, and learned Friend from this Committee; and, as far as we are concerned, we will do what we can to place him upon it. That is really our position. If we had been able to take the usual course of consulting and considering what the composition of this Committee should be, I do not believe there would have been any dispute. I think that upon such a question it will be a great advantage that the Committee should be a large one. I do not look upon the question as being one simply of a technical or merely of a legal character. I think it is a question which will have to come under the review of the House, and I think it is a proper matter for the consideration of the House to determine that there should be as many men of eminence as possible upon the Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend behind me has taken a course which is highly proper. It is one which I myself intimated the other night I should recommend;

    873
    and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote for it.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he rose merely with the view of remarking upon some of the observations that had fallen from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this Committee had been framed in accordance with the distribution of public opinion as represented in that House. In that case, he wished to know how it was that the Nonconformist element was not represented upon the Committee except by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who bad contented himself the other day with delivering a speech in favour of the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh into that House? He could not understand how it was that the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), or the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). who were distinguished members of the Nonconformist parly, had not been placed upon the Committee. He had observed the other day that it was stated at a meeting of the Nonconformists that the present Government had the support of 100 Nonconformists, and therefore it was strange that the Government had not thought fit to place more representatives of the Nonconformist Body on the Committee. The statement that the Committee was struck according to the political opinions of the House was not correct.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he objected to the Committee as it then stood because it did not sufficiently represent the independent element in that House, it being almost entirely composed of official, ex-official, and legal Members of the House. Only one of the Members of the Committee was neither official nor learned—he meant the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr.Tre-velyan). The question under discussion was one affecting the Government, on account of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) in interfering with the election of the country. Not that the action of the right hon. Member entirely changed the elections of the country, for the telegraphic homily of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) had something to do with it. But, as the right hon. Member's action had had considerable influence, the Government naturally felt, to a certain extent, bound
    874
    to enable Mr. Bradlnngh to take his seat in the House. He(Sir Rainald Knightley) denied that the Committee was a fair and impartial one; and he thought that Irish Catholicism and Scotch Presbyterianism should be more fully represented. Constituted as the Committee was proposed to be, it would be impossible for it to arrive at a fair or unbiassed opinion. The Party lines on which the Committee was drawn were altogether too distinctly defined, and the Report of a Committee so framed could not be satisfactory to the House.
    MR. RICHARD: I am deeply touched—touched almost to tears—by the affectionate solicitude displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as respects the Nonconformists in connection with this matter. And what renders it more affecting to our feelings is, that it comes upon us with the force of a surprise, denoting, as it does, a change as sudden as it is delightful. In the last Parliament the Nonconformists were so ill thought of that the Government deemed it their duty to bring in a Bill, which was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) in a speech bristling with warlike and menacing images, and the object of which was to deprive the Nonconformists of all share in the administration of the educational endowments of the country. And, then, they were considered so common and unclean that the very idea of admitting them to the churchyards to per for in any religious service was resented as tending to contaminate and profane those churchyards for ever. It is very pleasant to observe the change that has come over the spirit of hon. Gentlemen opposite. No doubt, it is to the same effusion of brotherly love that we owe the constant references, breathing such a spirit of Christian charity, that are made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley). I do not know what his offence has been, for I never saw the telegram so often alluded to. But I do know this—that for 40 years my hon. Friend has led a noble life of practical Christian philanthropy before, and that, probably, ho will be able to survive the charitable comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The only thing that disturbs our complacency at the changed tone adopted towards us is the doubt which sometimes crosses our minds whether it arises so

    875
    much from love of the Nonconformists as from hatred of the Government. I feel honoured, of course, that my name has been mentioned as worthy to be placed on this important Committee. But I have no desire to he used merely as a missile to he hurled at the head of the Prime Minister. I believe the Nonconformists are satisfied with the constitution of the Committee as it stands. They are content to he represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, who will take care that their principles and feelings are adequately represented on the Committee.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was very Sony to have heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down Mr. Richard). He would remind the House that the only limits to the subjects of debate in that House were assigned by the Oaths taken by Members. All the Members of the House had taken the Oath of Allegiance, which included the lawful Succession to the Throne, and therefore to the Throne itself, to the Monarchical form of government which had long existed in this country. It was contrary to the Oaths of Members to propose any Motion or Question in the House which implied or proposed a change of the Monarchy or the Succession to the Throne. ["Oh. oh !"J If any hon. Member doubted that, he could test the truth of what he (Mr. Newdegate) had stated by impugning the Sovereignty in that House, or the Succession to the Throne, and whoever did so would find himself stopped by the Speaker, because he would be proposing or suggesting that which was inconsistent with the Oaths of Members. Since the admission of Jews to that House the truth of the Christian religion had become an open question, and might be debated. It was otherwise with the existence of a God. The Oath of Allegiance taken by all the Members of the House, and of the other House of Parliament, marked the difference between a Parliament and a Convention. The Rump Parliament in Cromwell's time constituted itself a Convention, and decreed the trial of the Sovereign, who was executed; it was a Convention, not a Parliament, which effected the Restoration. It was a Convention in 1688 which decreed the deposition of James II., and changed the Succession to the Throne; such were not the func-
    876
    tions of a Parliament. The Affirmation taken by Quakers and Moravians in lieu of an Oath was equivalent to the Oath, and a Select Committee of this House had recently reported that Mr. Brad-laugh, the Member for Northampton, was not entitled to Affirm. The second Committee, which was now being appointed, ought to inquire whether Mr. Bradlaugh had sought to Affirm, instead of taking the Oath of Allegiance, because he sought to evade pronouncing the words "So help me God" at the conclusion of the Oath of Allegiance, words which he had declared in a published loiter to be to him meaningless. If the House permitted any evasion of those words, or any subsequent allegation that they were not pronounced bond fide and on their merits, the hon. Member might, by means of such an evasion, seek to raise an atheistical debate in the House. It was for the Committee to inquire and report, whether by implication or directly, the existence of a God could be made, the subject of debate in the House of Commons in consequence of Mr. Bradlaugh's proceedings.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 148; Noes 267: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 12.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (GRAIN CARGOES) BILL— [BILL 168.]
  (Mr, Anderson, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Mac lver, Mr. Gourley.)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (GRAIN CARGOES) BILL— [BILL 168.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he understood the Government would consent to the Motion on condition of its being referred to the Select Committee on the Merchant Seamen Bill. With that understanding he was perfectly content, and therefore it was unnecessary that he should make any observations to the House on the subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, perhaps, before the Bill was read a second time,

    877
    the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would be good enough to tell the House exactly on what conditions the Government had assented to the second reading of a Bill on this important matter, which excited some controversy in the last Parliament?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINunderstood that his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Mr. Anderson), in proposing that the Bill should be read a second time, was quite willing that afterwards it should be referred to the Committee which had been instructed to inquire into the losses of ships laden with grain and other heavy cargoes in bulk. There the details of the question would be carefully considered, and he hoped the recommendations of the Committee would approve themselves to the House.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, this was a matter of very serious consideration. He had taken some interest in the question in the previous Parliament. The House had not yet heard one reason why the Bill should be passed. The hon. Gentleman in charge of it merely rose and said it was to be referred to a Select Committee. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what was the use of asking the House to pass the second reading of this Bill, if it was to be referred to a Committee? There were very serious and grave considerations involved in the matter, and if the Bill was to be so referred he was perfectly willing that it should be; but he could not see any object in passing the second reading before it came before the Committee. [Several hon. MEMBERS: It must.] Well, if it was a rule of the House that the Bill must be read a second time before it went before the Committee, of course he was perfectly willing; but, at the same time, he would ask some Member of the Government to state whether they agreed to the Bill as it stood, or whether they would propose, when it came before the Committee, that any clause of it should be dropped, or whether they considered that some better Bill might not be framed in order to meet the exigencies of the case?
    MR. GORSTwished to say a word before the Bill was read a second time, because to him the reference of a Merchant Shipping Bill to a Select Committee had a very ominous sound. He had heard a great deal of Bills which
    878
    had been referred to Select Committees, and had never got any further; and ho only hoped this Bill might not be one of the many Bills stifled in that way. It was a very simple measure, and might, ho thought, almost be passed by the House without referring it, inasmuch as it simply filled a blank in the Merchant Shipping Act which was passed by the last Parliament. However, he did not oppose the proposed reference; but simply rose for the purpose of making an inquiry respecting the constitution of the Select Committee, because, an hour ago, the Prime Minister threw out some very ominous hints as to the mode in which those Select Committees were henceforth to be constituted. He would, therefore, like to know whether the Select Committee to which this Bill was to be referred would be formed according to the ancient usage and practice of the House, or whether it would be formed upon that new system shadowed forth by the Premier? Because, if the latter was to be the case, he thought it very probable that the labours of the Committee would lead to very little utility, for it would certainly not be regarded with confidence by hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Ho would be unwilling to sit on any Committee which was not fairly and properly constituted. Therefore, he hoped this Committee would not be selected by the Prime Minister as the one upon which the new method was first to be tried, because this was really no Party question. It was a question which affected the saving of life, and upon which both sides of the House were equally zealous; and he hoped that on this occasion they might have a Committee appointed in the usual form.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, the Bill was exceedingly important, but it should be borne in mind that it contained a clause which provided that the suggested legislation should only remain in force 12 months. Now, if the Bill was to bo referred to a Select Committee, no matter how it was constituted, ho could not help thinking that, at this period of the Session, there was a strong probability that no such measure could this year become law. The subject-matter of the Bill ought to bo fully and fairly debated in the House. His name was on the back of it, and he gave his hearty support to the general principle

    879
    of the measure. It pointed, at all events, to the direction which legislation ought to take, although several of the clauses would require considerable modification. That was just the feeling which made him think that the whole subject ought to be fully considered, which it could not be at this period of the sitting, and therefore he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. BARINGseconded the Motion, and remarked, that if the House passed the second reading it would be understood to assent to the principles of the Bill, and would be instrumental in handing our trade over to foreign countries. If it were proved that the shipment of grain in bulk was the cause of those terrible losses this Bill would only apply to British ships, and he maintained that it would be wrong for the House, without hearing any arguments from the Mover of the second reading, to assent in a few moments to a Bill which, practically, would work not in favour of, but against, this country. He supported the adjournment of the debate because they had heard no reason why foreigners should be preferred to ourselves, although he confessed that, if it were proved that these accidents to ships occurred from loading in bulk, he should feel that he had a question to decide between his feelings of humanity and his preference for the interests of this country. That was a matter which they could not discuss that night, and therefore he supported the adjournment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that it was a little significant that the adjournment of the debate was moved and supported upon totally different grounds. It was moved by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), as he had said, with the view to hasten the time when the Bill might be carried into law; but the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring) supported the adjournment, because he said he was totally opposed to the measure. The principle of the measure was that greater security should be given in the case of grain cargoes carried in bulk, in order to prevent the present undue loss of life. In passing the second reading of the Bill the House was only affirming that prin-
    880
    ciple, and not the particular form by which the Bill proposed to carry it into effect. Under those circumstances, it seemed to him that the proper place for taking a discussion upon the matter was before a Select Committee, where the matters relating to the construction of ships and the peculiarities of different vessels would be properly considered, and where evidence would be taken. When that Committee had reported, as he hoped it would in time for legislation during the present Session, it would be possible to carry a Bill which would put the principle in operation. He should like to make one observation with reference to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He said something about a new principle being imported into the nomination of this Committee. He (Mr. Chamberlain) believed that the names of the Committee would appear on the Paper on Tuesday next, and the Committee would be nominated on Thursday. It would then be found that the nomination had been made on the principle of taking Members from both sides of the House, the majority being furnished by the supporters of the Government, and the minority from those who did not come within that category. He hoped that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would consent to withdraw his Motion, in order to permit the progress of the measure, which was of such importance in its effect upon the preservation of human life.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not press his Motion for an adjournment, as it might lead to a misconception. The Bill related to a matter of very great interest, but, at the same time, a matter of very considerable difficulty. They had before them the task of making a proper provision for the safety of ships, and, at the same time, of avoiding injury to the trade of the country; and he thought that they would do well to remit the question to the consideration of a Select Committee. In that manner, the matter would receive a careful and elaborate consideration, and they would be in the best position to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He hoped that the Motion for adjournment would be withdrawn.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, that he begged to withdraw his Motion for the adjourn-

    881
    ment, as he was satisfied with the information which had been given by the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Board of Trade.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, that, as his was one of the names upon the Bill, he wished to make a few remarks. He had presented a Petition from the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping against the Bill in its present shape. It was felt in Hull that the Bill ought not to interfere with the British trade, but only with the American trade in the winter months. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who was in charge of the Bill, had departed from the original intention, and had extended it so as to include the English trade, and that had created a considerable amount of opposition to the measure. If limited to the American grain-carrying vessels, which carried on their trade during the winter months, there would be no opposition to it. It was well known that a large loss of life was caused in that trade; many steamers carrying grain from America had been lost, as was thought by many, from the fact of their carrying grain in bulk. The question was a most important one, and the shipping trade generally of the United Kingdom was strongly in favour of some measure of that kind with regard to the American trade. It appeared to him that at that period of the year there ought to be an inquiry which would occupy as short a time as possible. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into it, independently of the large Committee which was charged with the inquiry into the general question of loss of life at sea. He begged to propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and not to the general Committee on Loss of Merchant Shipping.
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, that he hoped that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) would not persevere in his Motion. He thought that the Committee on Merchant Shipping was very properly charged with this question. Doubtless, the question of insurance would take them a long time; but the inquiry as to grain cargoes would be taken in hand by the Committee at once.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping.

GLEBE LOANS ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 181.]
(Mr. Errington, Mr. Denis O'Conor.)
GLEBE LOANS ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 181.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. ERRINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he would not trouble the House with many observations upon this measure; he would only say that it had met with approval on all hands in Ireland. It was not opposed by Her Majesty's Government, and it was very important that the Bill should be passed so soon as possible, as the present Act expired within two months. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

FRAUDULENT DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 185.]
(Dr. Cameron, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Middleton, Mr. Mark Stewart.)
FRAUDULENT DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 185.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. CAMERON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill was, with one modification, a Bill which had last Session been introduced by the late Lord Advocate. It referred to a subject on which legislation was urgently required, and he had, therefore, entered into communication with Lord Watson to prevent the subject being dropped; and now, with his full sanction and concurrence, introduced this Bill. The measure had also obtained the qualified approval of his right hon. and learned Friend the present Lord Advocate. The question with which it dealt was one of very great importance in Scotland. He begged to propose the second reading of the Bill in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee, where the matters of detail which it dealt with could be discussed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he should like to know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was in Order in moving the second reading of a Bill as to which he had himself given Notice of Motion that it should be referred to a Select Committee?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Notice which the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) had given—namety, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, was not a Notice of Opposition of such a character as would prevent a Bill being taken after half-past 12 o'clock.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FLEETWOOD, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Fleetwood, the borough of Kingston upon Hull, and the Improvement Act District of Ramsgate, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HERBERT and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 199.]

  AGRICULTURAL TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir THOMAS ACLAND, Bill to secure Compensation to Agricultural Tenants, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS ACLAND, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Lord MORETON, and Mr. DUCKHAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 198.]

  PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEITH) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the Improvement of Unhealthy Areas in the Parliamentary Burgh of Leith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 200.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading —Public Works Loans* (74).
Second Reading —Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballinasloe, &c.)*(70); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Rosstrevor)*(71).

REPORTING.
The Evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to the Members of the Committee, until further Order. (No. 66.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—SECONDARY INSTRUCTION.—RESOLUTION.
LORD NORTON LORD NORTON rose to move—
"That the present introduction of secondary instruction in the publicly aided elementary schools requires consideration; and that the Code of Regulations of the Committee of Council on Education be referred to a Select Committee for revision and simplification."
The noble Lord said, the subject would not brook delay. When he first gave the Notice the recent elections of school boards had led to a general discussion, which was enough to show the necessity for some Parliamentary inquiry on the subject. Since then, the Report of the Education Department had disclosed internal misgivings which, following on previous criticism on the part of the Inspectors themselves, called for a decision as to changes going on. Above all, a Petition from the London School Board now raised the fundamental question as to the age of children up to which education should be publicly provided, whether 18 or 14— that was, whether to the end of the second period of education or only the

743
first. He might add that the change of Ministry, as a point of new departure, made the consideration still more opportune. He did not wish to cast the slightest blame on the school boards of the country. He thought the country was much indebted to them for vigorous, unpaid services, which had wrought wonderful progress. He asked for no alteration of the Education Acts. He rather called in question a departure from them. He did not now ask for any consideration of the expenditure, though that was a very serious matter, and one much in the dark. The charge on the rates was rapidly increasing without the slightest control, except that of re-election, and they might elect the very stingiest man in private life—he became extravagant when dealing with public money. When a sum of £2,000,000 a-year was stated to be spent on National Education there had to be added a nearly equal sum in the way of voluntary contributions, and the fees amounted to more than £500,000. There was also omitted the expenditure on reformatory and industrial schools, pauper schools, Fine Arts, and schools in other departments which ought all to be gathered under one Department of Public Instruction. What he complained of was not the amount, but one particular appropriation of this expenditure. To remonstrances about the amount, the London School Board always replied that they were adding thousands of children to their schools; but this reply left two main questions open—First, Were the children those suited and intended for these schools? Secondly, Was the schooling given suited to the intention? He would show what had from the first been, and still was, the avowed intention of Parliament; then how they were departing from it; then he would ask consideration whether they should adopt that departure, and, if so, whether it should not be in a very different way? National Education was begun in this country nearly a century ago by private societies — the National, and British and Foreign. Their work was taken up by Parliament about half a century ago. The Reference to the first Committee of the House of Commons on the subject was—
"Better provision of education for the poorer classes, the present being limited in extent and defective in quality."
In 1816, Lord Brougham obtained a Select Committee on "the education of the lower orders,' who reported that" a large number of poor children were without means of instruction." In 1833, Lord Althorp obtained a Parliamentary grant of £20,0C0, described in the Treasury Minute as
"In aid of private subscriptions for educating children of the poorer classes, and to he kept strictly to that purpose."
In 1838, Mr. Slaney's Committee was "on the education of the poorer classes," and reported that
"There were worthless day and dame schools, and the education of the working class was lamentable, and strenuous efforts on the part of Government were urgently needed."
In 1846, the well-known Minutes of that year referred expressly to
"Schools for the poor, in which reading, writing, and the first four rules of arithmetic and elements of geography were to he taught, and sewing to the girls."
But the debate in 1870 on the present ruling Act was the latest expression of the intention of Parliament. Its author, Mr. Forster, to whom the country was greatly indebted, stated that his object "was a primary popular education, affecting not only the intellectual, but the moral training of a vast proportion of the population." "But," said he, "who is to pay? Some are for giving up school fees, now amounting to £420,000 a-year, and soon likely to be trebled; and this for elementary education only." He added, the middle classes will soon step in, and say, "There must be education found for us also. America will be quoted again." [See 3 Hansard, cxcix. 438–454.] In the debate on the amending Act of 1876, Lord Sandon, as Minister, gave it as his idea that
"No child should he allowed to enter life's struggle without having those simple tools needed by present civilization,"
and Mr. Bright, in a debate raised by Mr. Dixon, said what was wanted was the "three R's," not teaching too many things, but to put the child's foot on the ladder by which he might rise. The intention is clearly elementary teaching of children of the working class.
He would now show how they were departing from that intention, So far back

745
as 1860, the Commissioners on Popular Education reported that
"The children were not, in fact, receiving the kind of education they required; the instruction was too ambitious and too superficial in its character, and too exclusively adapted to the elder scholars to the neglect of the younger."
In one of the debates of 1876, Lord Sandon said the present plan "deprives a child of the tools he wants by giving him wrong ones." Mr. Bright said "the education given was not worth the price paid for its purpose." In a debate raised by Mr. Yorke last year, Lord George Hamilton, as Minister, said—
"They had drifted from a position in which the grant was given to promote local voluntary effort in extending education among the working classes to a position were any person could send his child to an elementary school, in which, provided the fees charged were not more than 9c?. per week, a portion of the cost of that education would be defrayed by the State."— [3 Hansard, ccxlvi. 1643.]
But what said Mr. Matthew Arnold, senior Inspector of the Department, in the Report of last year? He prayed for more simplicity in teaching children from 4 to 14, and observed that none were intended to stay to 14 unless they could not get a certificate to leave sooner. He said—
"The system becomes ambitious and complicated, attracting the attention of a number of ingenious and active-minded men. Some knowledge, I allow, may be given in the most elementary practice of reading and a faculty for reading given; but children of that age are not subjects for mathematics, German, mechanics, animal physiology, and physical geography."
Such were the "specific subjects" of secular instruction now introduced in what was called the 4th Schedule. He saw that the Liverpool and Birmingham School Boards had appointed an officer called a Demonstrator, at a salary of £250, to see to these studies being systematically carried out, with the addition, for pupil-teachers, of acoustics, light and heat, magnetism, and electricity. No one grudged these children the very best education they could get in school up to the early time when their education took the form of industry, nor the means of rising to higher schools, or of obtaining for themselves further knowledge after. He was giving proof of that himself at this moment, attempting to prepare better reading books than those in use. But cramming bits of incipient science into the course
746
of primary instruction was not the best education, though the earliest practice of reading might enlist interest and thought in its process by taking subjects of consecutive study. The Commissioners of 1868 well laid down the axiom
"That it is useless beginning to teach children who cannot remain at school beyond the age of 14 such subjects as require a longer time for their proper study."
Elementary schools should give the faculty and taste for intelligent reading, not a swallow of fragments of knowledge which could not be followed up, nor digested, nor even retained. The fact was, when the State took up what private societies had started so well that they could not keep pace with their own work, the work inevitably assumed a more ambitious aspect. When such men as Lords Brougham and Russell were its advocates in Parliament, and Sir Kaye - Shuttleworth and Bishop Temple out; and wranglers and first-class men were made Inspectors and wrote essays for Reports; when special Colleges trained ideal teachers, and Sir Henry Cole brought Royal patronage down to elementary drawing, no wonder an advance beyond first intention. What specially needed observation was that the advance had not been made by Parliament, but by the Executive Department. For a striking instance of this, the Act of 1876 authorized the franking from fees of a child who at the age of 11 could get a certificate of proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic, subject to the regulations of the Department; upon which the Department immediately made a regulation adding their specific subjects to the "three R's," so entirely altering the legislative provision; and now that the Code proposed to restrict the specific subjects to the higher standards, this alteration took from the reach of the poorest children the franking from fees specially intended for them. It was thus they had been led out of their first intention, without Parliamentary consideration or more than formal sanction; and, therefore, without method; subsidizing secondary under cover of Votes for primary education, in a way confessed by the very administrators to be equally injurious to both. The elementary education had incurred neglect and confusion; and, as Mr. Forster predicted in

747
1880, the middle class had stepped in, saying —"There must be education found for us," and America is quoted. The American example is wholly misapprehended. Every State requires each township to levy a school tax on all property, personal as well as real, by which three grades of school are provided — the primary or infant and intermediate, making up the elementary grade, the grammar school grade, and the classical grade; to which are added dependent schools, answering to our industrial. The triple division of schools corresponds with the triple periods of education. The first takes children to the age of 14; the second to 18; the third is complete scholastic training. The whole system furnishes every class with the schooling it wants, at a charge corresponding. It is called free, as being without payment of fees; but it is paid for by taxation, which falls practically in proportion to its use. The working man whose child attends only the first is the least payer of the tax; the tradesman who keeps his child on through the second school pays more in taxes; the richer class, who use all the schools, are by their wealth the largest contributors to the school tax. What we are doing is very different. We are using a school tax—by-the-bye, of very unequal incidence—in thrusting bits of secondary instruction injuriously into our primary schools. Three kinds of mischief follow our present confusion—First, public aid being given to results in examination, a show of the higher results must be the master's chief aim, to the neglect of elementary grounding. The proof of this appears in the Departmental Return, showing a large percentage of failures in one of the "three R's," by those going up for examination in higher subjects. There was no security found in the condition that none should be presented unless 75 per cent of the school had passed the lower standards. The new Code would restrict the higher subjects to the 5th and 6th Standards; but he feared the sciences would still be badly spelt. The second mischief is that higher instruction so forestalled is worthless, desultory, and superficial; asquickly lost as acquired, and a bad exchange for ordinary practice of intelligent and useful reading and good writing. Mr. Blackiston, in his Report of last year, complained of the blank look of the children
748
when asked to give the meaning of the simplest term in the science they were cramming, and of ordinary writing lessons having become obsolete. He would like to see the whole 4th Schedule of special subjects expunged. He thought a mere smattering of general knowledge of less educational value than a thorough drilling in any one of its 10 subjects; but such a drilling could not be given in an elementary school without neglect of thoroughness in more essential things. The third mischief in the present system is that it acts as a Government bounty, artificially disturbing the course of social life. The first intention of saving children of the working class from neglect of elementary instruction was changed to giving a bonus to raise them forcibly out of the working class—a sort of protective duty to develop a cheap service of clerks from the manual labour market. Plough-boys trained in early skill were getting scarce, and plain needlework was not to be had as formerly. It was said—"You cannot give too good an education," which would be a reason for training all for the Universities. But a double misconception lay at the bottom. First, that all education was in book-learning, and none in industry; and secondly, that manual labour was discreditable.
He asked, then, for consideration whether Parliament really meant to undertake public secondary education; and, if so, how to avoid the present confusion of it with the primary, and on what termsthe secondary education should be offered? The Royal Commissioners of 1861 were of opinion that in a country situated politically and socially as England, Government should not interfere with education more than was necessary for those who could not otherwise get any. He had just had a letter from a good authority at Boston, saying that in the United States there was a growing feeling that the public schools did too much at the public expense. It was significantly added that, as the whole system of government depended on the education of the voter, the disposition was to do everything possible towards that end. At all events, any such secondary education should be distinct from elementary. The best authorities in England maintained that the subjects of the 4th Schedule should not be begun in the elementary course. The latest American Reports laid the greatest stress upon the

749
importance of keeping the elementary grade independent—the "sundering" of the primary from the grammar schools, to avoid sacrifice of the former. The reason was still stronger with us, as our public elementary schools would always be chiefly used by the working class not going on to higher education. The newly Revised Code, now in suspense, took that view in all its proposed changes. A higher school had been set up at Bradford and at Barrow-in-Furness. But there the elementary schools still attempted the higher subjects, and the higher schools commenced with the elements, only at a higher fee. The distinction, therefore, was of class, not subject; and the confusion of education was only duplicated, not got rid of. The two recipients of public education were aptly designated as the "ninepenny respectables" and "twopenny slums." There was already too much of this unsound principle running through our system, that a public subsidy was offered to much of the same education at different prices, according to the supposed ability of the recipient to pay. He knew of schools where the "ninepennies" and "twopennies" were taught in separate rooms adjoining, and the distinction was kept up in the playground. This might be a temporary makeshift, but could not be on any permanent principle. He would not wait to show the waste of teaching power and cost incident to this sort of separate treatment. In Sheffield they had a higher school, which was managed on more correct principles, into which a child was not allowed to go until it had passed the 4th Standard in the elementary school. It was supposed to carry on studies for two or three years after passing the highest elementary standard. Here there was less educational confusion. But then came Mr. Forster's other question—"Who should pay for this separate higher schooling?" The 9d. fee charged at Sheffield Higher School was calculated to cover the cost together with the Treasury grant—-that was, so as to save the rates. But was not the local tax the right one to retain, if any? Or should not the fee paid by the richer class using the higher school cover the whole expense, excepting for such free exhibitions as it would be wise to provide for boys rising to the higher from the elementary schools? The fee of 9d
750
had been taken as a limit of supposed capacity to pay for elementary instruction by the working classes. There was no reason for taking it as the tariff of payment in a higher school. The draft Code suspended on the Table proposed a much better limit to public aid to elementary schools than the arbitrary fee of 9d.— namely, that aid should cease at the age of 14, which is the extreme age at which such schooling ends; and he hardly thought that Parliament would adopt this 9d. tariff for the State to offer upon its payment all the middle class of England the education of their children from general taxation. Even if the country was willing to commit middle class education to Government undertaking and influence, surely there must be some different bodies constituted than the school boards to manage it? But the recommendations of the Endowed Schools Commission of 1868 remained still unattempted, which suggested a provision of higher schools by a better utilization of many wasted grammar school trusts throughout the Kingdom, which secondary education had increased claim to, now that public provision was made for elementary, and which the board schools were wasting rates in trying to supersede, and in carrying off the prizes meant for them. London was volunteering grandly in the way of technical instruction. It was not, therefore, necessary to throw this on public charge and management. The proprietary schoolmasters had also justice in the loud outcry they were making against the Public Treasury competing with them. All this required the consideration which he asked at a moment when, by the confession of all, we had got into an untenable transition state. The revision of the Code of Departmental Regulations would be the best process. He first reduced a previous chaos of Minutes into a Code in 1858. It had been altered and added to every year since. It was high time to rearrange such complications, if only to render the Code intelligible, and save the Office about a third of its correspondence in explanation of it. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.
Moved to resolve, That the present introduction of secondary instruction in the publicly aided elementary schools requires consideration; and that the Code of Regulations of the Com-

751
mittee of Council on Education be referred to a Select Committee for revision and simplification. —(The Lord Norton.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, as for the past six years he had had some part in directing the work of education, he desired to say a few words. His noble Friend who had just spoken seemed to ignore the Lord President as head of the Education Department; but he must remind his noble Friend and the House that though, According to his experience, the Vice President had always worked in harmony with his Chief, the Lord President of the Council was the head of the Education Department in this country. He could not allow it to be supposed that the Vice President filled the latter position. His noble Friend went back a long time in his review of this question. He spoke of the chaos which existed in 1858, and of the manner in which, by his wonderful powers of administration, he had reduced confusion to order. His noble Friend held, however, that anyone who investigated the subject would find that all that trouble had been thrown away, and that in the matter of education they had been getting from bad to worse, until again all was confusion; and his noble Friend, in support of that proposition, quoted the opinion of a clergyman. He ventured, however, to doubt whether either that clergyman or his noble Friend had given the last Code very much consideration. His noble Friend had assumed a great many things, and he had argued upon those assumptions. He should take issue with him on those assumptions; and though there were many points on which he was disposed to agree with his noble Friend, there were still many more on which ho could not agree with him. His noble Friend had said that there had been a great expenditure on education in the country; but that had been the result of Acts of Parliament, and he believed that the children of the poorer classes had been much benefited by the measures on this subject which the Legislature had passed. His noble Friend said that the intention of Parliament was to educate the working classes, but that the Education Department, not content with confining itself to the "three R's," had gradually raised the standard, until it was giving the children of those classes quite a different sort of education, and
752
one which was not necessary for persons in the station which they were to fill hereafter; and yet his noble Friend seemed to approve the limit of age being fixed at 14. He hardly thought his noble Friend would argue that, however quick and intelligent children might show themselves to be, they ought to be kept at the "three R's" up to the age of 14, and that after they had acquired those no further education should be given them during the rest of their time at school. It was very true that for a time after the Act of 1870 came into operation the education of the children was of a very much lower standard. But why was that? It was because at that time so many of the children of this country had never been to school at all; they were incapable of anything beyond the merest elementary routine; but as time passed on the children progressed and became more fitted to receive a higher standard of education; and some time in 1876 his noble Friend Lord Sandon, in the other House of Parliament, defended the course taken by the Education Department in extending the education given under various standards in the Code. He was rather surprised to hear his noble Friend treat the question as if the whole action in respect of Codes was taken by the Department, and not by Parliament. But that was a great error; because, after the Department drew up a Code, it must be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and until it had laid on those Tables for 30 days it could not be carried into effect. If it were condemned by Parliament it could not be put into operation. But his noble Friend's answer to that was that nobody read the Codes when they were laid before Parliament. If that were so, the Department could not be blamed for it; but, having regard to the debates which had occurred in Parliament, he could not think it was. Then his noble Friend, as showing the evil done by raising the standards, told their Lordships that presenting children for examination in the higher branches led to their neglecting the "three R's," and he referred to Reports in support of that assertion. If his noble Friend read the Appendix to those Reports he would find that was not the case. In 1879 the percentage of the 1st Standard which passed in the three subjects was 82; that of the 2nd,

753
87; that of the 3rd, 85; that of the 4th, 85; that of the 5th, 85; and that of the 6th—the highest standard of all—90. His noble Friend seemed to agree with the provision introduced in the Code which he laid on the Table before the Dissolution, that there should be no public grant for children beyond the age of 14, and that in no school should the children paying 9d. a-week exceed 10 per cent of the whole. The Department permitted that in a few schools children of the better class should be admitted to receive education. That was where there were no other schools near, and the number of them was so few that they would not change the character of the schools as a whole. His noble Friend spoke in ridicule of what was reported of some schools, and quoted Mr. Matthew Arnold as being in favour of simplicity; but if his noble Friend read on he would find that Mr. Arnold was in favour of Latin and French being taught to some children. He believed the Act of Parliament had not been departed from; and he hoped his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council would not give up his functions to a Select Committee. He thought that boys remained at school till they were 13 or 14 years of age; and when boys had at an early age mastered the subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic—as it was found by experience they could do, at 10 or 11—it would be very hard to keep them at school from 12 to 14 without teaching them any more knowledge. He could not admit that the Education Department had done what his noble Friend alleged—namely, departed in a blindfold manner from what was the intention of Parliament when the Act of 1870 was passed. He believed, on the contrary, that since the passing of that Act the Government with which he had been connected had carried out the intentions of Parliament as religiously, scrupulously, and completely, as Mr. Forster himself could have done had he been at the Department the whole of that time. He said, without fear of contradiction, that from the year 1870 to 1880 the intention of the Legislature had been carried out in the working of that Act, and that it had not been departed from in the blindfold manner which his noble Friend described. When his noble Friend talked of elementary
754
education, he said all that was desired was to put the child's foot on the bottom of the ladder.
LORD NORTONsaid, he had quoted Mr. Bright's words.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, his noble Friend for once identified himself with Mr. Bright, and said that was his view of elementary education. It was very hard to those children to put their feet on the lowest step of the ladder and to say that they should not mount higher, if they were able to do so. He had been anxious to make these few remarks, because down to this time he had been responsible for what had been done in the Education Department. He was glad his noble Friend opposite (Earl Spencer), in issuing their Report, appeared to be satisfied that the lines drawn in it were such as should be adopted, and he hoped that his noble Friend opposite would continue to act in that way. He trusted that his noble Friend opposite would not agree to refer the Education Code to a Select Committee. If his noble Friend opposite was going to inaugurate his career as Lord President by giving up all the functions which he was entitled to exercise, and to throw on their Lordships' House the duty of revising the Code, he should be very much astonished indeed. But, knowing, as he did, his noble Friend's character, he thought he would be the last person to throw upon Parliament what it was the proper and legitimate duty of the Education Department to undertake.
VISCOUNT SHERBROOKE: I think no one will accuse my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he was at the head of the Education Department, of not having framed a Code which was very simple and easily understood by everyone. That Code was framed on this principle—that it was necessary the poor children of the country should be taught certain rudimentary elements of education. We fixed upon reading, writing, and ciphering; and we gave grants to schools just in proportion as they taught these things, with a distinct and definite object in view. We considered how hard it was to take the poor man's child from him longer than was necessary for the purposes of schooling; but we were most anxious to give him the

755
essentials of education. That was on principle. I do not mean to say that it does not admit of improvement; but it was clear and intelligible, and it was acted upon, as I understand, up to last year, when a totally new principle was introduced. The question for your Lordships is, whether or not you give your approbation to that new principle? I will take the liberty of stating to your Lordships simply what the difference between the two principles is. Whereas there were formerly only three subjects for which grants were made—reading, writing, and ciphering — schools are now entitled to grants if their pupils can satisfy the Examinersin Literature, which means learning by heart a certain quantity of English verse—say, 100 to 200 lines of Cowpez-'s "Task;" and that is to entitle the school to 4s. Next conies mathematics, Latin, French, German, mechanics, animal physiology, physical geography, botany, and last—and much the best of all—domestic economy. It is for the House to consider whether it is desirable that this immense and extraordinary change should be made in the whole system of our elementary schools. I do not think myself that the question should be referred to a Select Committee. That would be unfair to my noble Friend (Earl Spencer), who has only just entered upon Office and taken charge of the Department, and I could not possibly vote for such a proceeding. But it is most desirable that the House should have clearly before it what the question really is. I confess to a very strong dislike to the whole of these additions. I cannot pretend to say that I see any advantage in them at all. I am entirely sceptical on the subject. The great advantage of giving grants for reading, writing, and ciphering is that the child's knowledge can easily be tested. They are things which cannot possibly be got by "crams." They are arts, so to speak, which people either do or do not know; and which you can test by means with which cram can have nothing to do. There is no possibility of any trickery. Either a child can read or he cannot; either he can write or he cannot; either he can cipher or he cannot. But the moment you get to such subjects as animal physiology, physical geography, mechanics, and the like, there are certain phrases which can be got by heart—and learned, perhaps, not very accuratey—
756
but which will convey to the Examiners the idea that a pupil possesses knowledge which he does not in the least possess, simply by the use of catchwords. If the boy does not use those phrases or catchwords aright it is a failure, and that is all. If he happens to use them aright there is 4s. for the school. That, therefore, is a system infinitely inferior to the present system, because it does not admit of being tested in the same manner. An Inspector cannot always be varying his questions; and teachers may soon get to know what sort of questions will be put. The consequence will be that it will be forced upon the schools to have a system of cramming the boys, by which they will be enabled to answer the questions that are likely to be asked. I am entirely sceptical as to the advantage of examining children in that way in things which they are really unable to grasp. It will not only not do good, but it will do positive harm, and will tend to introduce a system which cannot be sufficiently deprecated. I have myself been Chairman of a Committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into a case where a great deal of money was paid for the ostensible education of boys who were crammed in the most shameful and scandalous manner; and yet such was the esprit de corps among the officials of that school that they defended those who had been guilty of such fraudulent practices. I say, let what is honestly taught and really learnt be properly paid for; but do not let us encourage with public money a system of cramming poor children with phrases and catchwords which they cannot possibly understand. It is most essential we should adhere as closely as possible to something that admits of absolute verification; and we assume most falsely if we suppose that we are in a condition to go into these altitudes towards education in our elementary schools. I put it to the House whether it is not better that reading should be improved, than that we should be spending our money in teaching animal physiology, and matters of that kind? I cannot doubt it for a moment, and I can give evidence of my own on the subject. My habit has been, for a great many years, to employ a boy to read to me, in consequence of nearness of sight, and I have always taken him from the 6th Standard, ret I have

757
never, on a single occasion, had a boy who could read properly. I have never had a boy whom I could trust with words of more than three syllables. That is nothing very wonderful, because I am told that the boys give up reading when they get to the 4th Standard. They then are to devote their time to poetry, mathematics, and other things, and lose the power of reading properly. I think we do not estimate properly the relative value of the three It's. If the House will consider the matter for a moment, it will see that reading is everything. Without reading nothing is done, and nothing can be done. With reading, even supposing writing to be neglected, the means are put into the child's hands of acquiring the art of writing. Everything depends on the power of being able to read easily and fluently, and where it is a trouble to read people will not read, and the little they have got will be lost. If a boy can read easily and is intelligent he can easily teach himself to cipher. Therefore, as to writing and ciphering, I look upon them as perfectly subordinate to reading. It is an error to put them on an equality. I think that two-thirds of the payments should be given for success in reading, and the other third be given for success in writing and ciphering. These are the observations which I wish to make to your Lordships, and I have to apologize for the imperfect manner in which they have been delivered, caused, I have no doubt, by this being my first speech in such an Assembly as this.
LORD ABERDAREsaid, he had the practical management of schools attended by upwards of 2,000 children; he had closely watched the operation of the system of teaching in those schools, and on no one occasion during 20 years had he been absent from the examination. He claimed, therefore, to have some personal experience on this matter. He must say that he was astonished to hear the speeches of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) and the noble Viscount near him (Viscount Sherbrooke), as it seemed that they would revert to the Code of 1864. There had been many alterations since that time, in consequence of the pressure put upon the Government to include in the Code a large variety of subjects which should be taught according to the age at which the children were kept at school. Now,
758
his two noble Friends would confine education to reading, writing, and ciphering. His noble Friend near him (Viscount Sherbrooke) asserted that reading was not well taught, and that by the introduction of these higher subjects the minds of the children had been diverted, and that, in consequence, they did not read as well as they ought. He would undertake to say that the reading of children in primary schools during the last 20 years had vastly improved, both in respect to fluency and intelligence. What they really wanted was a more correct intonation, and he had always impressed them with the importance of a good intonation, adding as it did so greatly to the pleasure of reading. He could further say that the introduction of the higher subjects had produced no prejudicial effect whatever on the "three It's." It had been the duty and practice of Inspectors to demand a higher standard of excellence in the "three It's" since the higher subjects were introduced; and he could not understand the noble Viscount when he said that he could not find a boy of the 6th Standard who could read correctly. He had heard hundreds of boys who, though they laboured under the disadvantage of hearing Welsh spoken at their homes, read with the greatest intelligibility a newspaper put into their hands, or some book produced by the Inspector which they had never seen before. In regard to these new subjects, he could not believe that anyone would object to them if education was to be continued up to the age of 14 years. The whole of the argument of his noble Friend was against the introduction of these new subjects. But it should be clearly understood what the country was paying for in regard to them—it was for proficiency in them. The Education Vote was £2,000,000 in round figures, and only £20,000 of that went for this proficiency; and was that, he would ask, a large sum? If boys were to profit by education so that they could proceed to middle-class schools they should be allowed to prepare themselves for it. The remarks their Lordships had heard about physiology and acoustics tended very much to divert them from the real nature of the case, as those subjects were rarely taught, and only in the larger schools. The great majority of the children must re-

759
main under the elementary teaching for which alone they were fitted; but if there were a few of them who were capable of a higher education it was to the public interest that they should have it, and only fair to them. He rejoiced to hear that there was no intention of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and that the further consideration of the matter was to be left in the hands of the President of the Council.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought that the main difficulty which had arisen in reference to this educational question was the result of the over-centralization and bureaucratic tendencies of the two successive Governments which had held Office during the last 12 years. The Schools Inquiry Commission appointed to consider this question had referred to the want of third grade schools throughout the country. It was unfortunate that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had been compelled to deal with endowed schools not in groups or in districts, but piecemeal, and had thus been forced to yield to the strong desire of the Governing Bodies of such schools that there should be a preponderating proportion of first and second over third class schools established. The consequence was that great injustice had been done to artizans and the lower middle classes, as they required something better for their children than could be taught in the elementary schools. It had been said that children should be kept at school until 14 years of age; but the amount and the importance of the labour which lads between 10 and 14 years of age could perform should not be ignored. Since the present educational system had come into operation the weeds had very much multiplied in Norfolk, which was once regarded as quite the garden of England, weeding being peculiarly the work of children, whose labour was cheap, whose sight keen, bodies flexible, and fingers nimble. He entirely agreed, however, that facilities ought to be given for exceptional cases—for industrious boys of the wage classes who desired to pursue education; but it was not necessary to raise the standard of education generally and throughout the country for that purpose, as a very small percentage of boys would have to take advantage of it. The whole system had
760
been a sort of hot-house system. They had been trying in the course of a few years to repair the neglect of centuries, and the result was the usual one, that they had produced a great deal which was sappy, and weak, and unsound. The Training College system had again been unduly extended to meet a temporary and spasmodic demand, on account of the intense eagerness with which the opening of new schools throughout the country had been pressed. The result was that there was now a block of promotion, and they had more teachers on their hands than they knew how to employ. As regarded the wages class, they had been already driven, and the middle were being rapidly bribed, into tax-and-rate-subsidized education, and that was a matter for grave consideration. It was in his view inevitable that to provide free education for the children of the middle classes would be to sap the independence of such classes in the same way that the independence of the wage-earning class had been sapped to a certain extent by the system already pursued. He could not conceal from himself that the tide of public opinion had, to some extent, turned against a self-supporting system of education. But the general public opinion in England was slow to express itself; but, when formed, was a resolute one, and would support those who wore anxious to return to the old English habit of self-help, and who thought that a certain amount of higher education might be too dearly bought at the cost of a spirit of independence and self-reliance.
EARL SPENCERdesired, in the first place, to thank his noble Friend opposite (LordNorton) for the courtesy he showed in consulting him as to the time when he should bring this subject forward. Their Lordships might, he thought, be congratulated on the tone which had been evinced throughout the debate. There had been a complete absence, as there ought to be, of Party spirit and Party differences in discussing a very grave subject, and that was a matter as to which their Lordships must feel satisfaction. A great many subjects had been touched upon, as to some of which he would not follow the noble Lords who introduced them. He would not go into a comparison of the American system of education with that of this country, nor would he enter on the subject

761
of Training Colleges, or on that of the influence of the education of children on agriculture and the increase of weeds. He should, instead, try to bring together the arguments used on the Motion, and refer to each of them as concisely as was in his power. He thanked the noble Duke his Predecessor in Office (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) for having so clearly stated the views of the late Government on this subject. With most of those views he was happy to think he concurred. Noble Lords had attacked the existing system of education on several grounds. First, they said that the Department had been gradually drifting out of the position in which it was placed by Parliament; that it had exceeded the power that Government gave it, and had left the ground it was told to take up with respect to education. Further than that, they were told that the system had sacrificed elementary education in order to give a higher education than was necessary to children attending the primary schools; and, lastly, that the Education Department had been, if he might use the word, poaching on the ground which ought to be occupied by the Endowed Schools Commission. He did not think that they differed materially as to what was the intention of Parliament with regard to the education to be given in the primary schools. What was the definition of a primary school? The definition as to payments for school fees not exceeding 9d. per week was not laid down by the Code; but that amount was laid down in the statute passed in 1870, and that was one of the guides which the Department had in giving the Parliamentary grant. But there was another guide, which was acted upon by the noble Duke in the Code he laid on the Table of both Houses, and that was the limit of age. There was no higher authority on the subject than the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and it said—
"The education of classes living by manual labour is limited by the early ago at which they leave school to earn their bread, and thus their primary education terminates at the age of 12 or 13, or earlier."
That, he believed, was perfectly true, and that the alteration which his noble Friend the noble Duke proposed in the Code which expired with the late Parliament, and which the present Government had
762
now to consider, was, in the main, perfectly right. It said that the Parliamentary grant was not to be given in respect of any child beyond the age of 14 years; and, further, that it should not be given in any schools where more than 10 per cent of those attending the school paid more than 9d. per week. With some qualification, he thought that that appeared to be a sound principle. He would make one qualification, because they would now have immediately to consider the proposed Code and lay it on the Table of the two Houses. The point he wished to bring out was that compulsory education had not yet been brought fully into play; it had hardly been brought into operation in some parts of the country; and it was very desirable that in such places, where the children were backward in education and had attained the age of 14 years without having passed even the lowest standards, they should be allowed to remain in the school so as to be afforded the chance of doing so. With that qualification, Her Majesty's Government would be very much disposed to adopt the alteration in the Code which the noble Duke had proposed. While on the subject of the Code, he wished to say that after consultation with the Vice President they were of opinion that this year it was desirable that they should not introduce into the Code any matter which might cause grave controversy; but that they should merely introduce such small alterations as might be considered necessary for its proper working. With respect to the question of age, he had quoted the Report of the Public Schools Inquiry Commission, and he would also quote the very high authority of a country where education— certainly primary education—had been conducted with great success; he alluded to Prussia, where primary education was carried out on the principle of age limit, and the limit was defined by the words "under the age of 14 years." So far he had discussed what the Department had been seeking to do in carrying out the intentions of Parliament. For his part, he was at a loss to know how noble Lords could maintain that the Department had encroached on the ground which should be occupied by the secondary schools. He was young in Office, and further experience might show him that he was wrong, and the

763
noble Lords who so held were right; but, as far as he knew at present, the Department had not either encroached on the secondary schools or done anything to sap the independence of the middle classes. What was considered to be primary education? Were they to confine the course of the education to be given in primary schools to the "three R's"? That was quite impossible, and they were obliged to add to those important subjects others in which instruction was required by the working classes of this country. Would the working men of England and Wales be able to compete with the working men of Scotland if the primary education given in schools was confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic? Scotland had already gone to great lengths, and a much higher education was given in the ordinary schools than was given in the schools of this country. Scotland was not the only country with which the working men of England and Wales had to compete. They had to compete with those of Switzerland, all parts of Germany, Austria—countries in which education exceeded anything that we attempted; and it was absolutely necessary that our workmen should be taught as much as would enable them to enter into this competition. He must guard himself against being supposed to urge that the most important rudimentary subjects should be sacrificed and neglected in order that subjects not at all adapted to meet the needs of working men should be taught in the schools; and he maintained that this had not been done at all. It was most important that children should not only read mechanically, but that they should with reading improve their intelligence in respect of many of the matters which were designated by high-sounding names, but which on analysis proved to be but the simplest rudiments of information on subjects about which it would be admitted they ought to be informed. Nothing could be more important to all than some knowledge of animal physiology, and the subject could be made interesting by the teacher, as it was in a little manual on the subject just drawn up by Professor Huxley. He attached as much importance as any to good reading, and he certainly thought we should have a better chance of getting it if intelligence were developed up to the point of interest in the
764
subjects that were read about. Was it to be said that in no case a child who remained at school should advance to any higher subject? Children were obliged to attend up to a certain age, unless they had passed a certain standard; and, if the parents desired them to remain longer, it would be exceedingly hard to say they should learn nothing more that would develop their intelligence and increase their usefulness in life. But the fact was that very few, indeed, got into these higher subjects; and he would say distinctly that if he thought they were taught with the object of cram, or that in consequence of their being taught reading, writing, and arithmetic were neglected, he should be the first to say that they should at once be withdrawn. His impression was that nothing of the sort took place; and no answer had been given to the argument based on the figures which showed that the greatest efficiency in elementary subjects went along with the teaching of the special subjects. His noble Friend (Viscount Sherbrooke) had spoken of a boy who came up to him from the 6th Standard who could not read. But he wondered whether that boy was perfectly at his ease in the presence of his noble Friend. He wondered what boy from any great Public School in England would not have done exactly the same thing. He was quite sure that when he was at Harrow he could not have done it. It must be remembered that before any payment could be made for specific subjects, 75 per cent of the passes attainable in elementary subjects must have been scored, and that no payment could be made unless it were shown that a certain proportion of time had been allotted to each specific subject throughout the year. These were checks upon cramming. There might be schools in which the scholars failed to pass in one of the elementary subjects; but those who had the most experience of school board schools in London and the country said that those scholars who could read best were those who passed in the higher subjects. As to the graded schools of Bradford, Sheffield, and Barrow-in-Furness, nothing was done by them in contravention of the conditions of the Parliamentary grant. It was found that by grading they could attain at once both efficiency and economy

765
in the teaching of higher subjects by qualified teachers to those who had passed one of the higher standards, and by separately instructing younger and less educated children by efficient teachers not so highly paid as those required for the advanced subjects. There was in the arrangement a double benefit. There was the achievement of economy by organization, and there was an increase of efficiency in both the advanced and the elementary school. The plan had hardly come into operation yet, and the schemes before the Department would receive the best possible attention. If they accorded those towns the privilege asked for it would be because they did not believe that by doing so they would be encouraging middle-class education in elementary schools, or in any way interfering with the grammar schools. No doubt, the Code was complicated; but that was because those most experienced in education had found it necessary, from time to time, to adapt it to the needs of the country and to counteract abuses. Having so recently taken Office, he could not at once promise any alteration in the Code; but he would say that the subject should receive full and careful consideration; and if it were found possible, without injury to primary education, to simplify the Code, the effort should be made in the interests of education itself. He would have the advantage of the valuable assistance of the Vice President, who for many years had taken the deepest interest in the primary education of the country; he would have the advantage of a large staff of most able and zealous Inspectors who had studied the subject fully; he would have the advantage of gentlemen in the Education Department of the highest knowledge and experience; he would also have the advantage of the experience gathered since the Act of 1870 by the school boards throughout the country. He, therefore, would undertake to do this — he would carefully consider all that had been said to-night and all he might hear from different parts of the country in reference to this subject; and he would hope to be able either with or without an Act of Parliament, to simplify this matter without altering in any way the standard of education in the country. He most distinctly and emphatically declined to entertain for
766
one moment the proposal made to their Lordships. He need not dilate upon it; other noble Lords had stated all that was necessary in much better terms than he could employ. He sincerely trusted their Lordships would not remove from his shoulders and those of the Department the duty of dealing with this matter.
LORD NORTONsaid, he was satisfied, for the present, with the discussion which he had raised, and he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.