Sitting of 5 May 1882

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [May 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [May 4] reported—Military Manœuvres [Compensation]*.
Ordered—Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*.
Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [150].
First Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [151].
Report—Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order* [129].

QUESTIONS.

  SPAIN—DEATH OF A BRITISH SUBJECT.
  MR. HENDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the following melancholy occurrence at Malaga in December last:—
  "On the evening of the 10th December 1881, Thomas Mitchell, third engineer of the Anchor Line S.S. "Tyrian," in company with the second mate, the second engineer, and the chief steward of that vessel, all of them being respectable young men, and perfectly sober, were taking a stroll through the town. In the course of their walk, the locality being quite unknown to them, they approached the public gaol: the night was dark and cold; they heard a man, who was wrapped up in a rug, shout out several times, in a loud voice, but being ignorant of the language, they supposed the man was addressing somebody else, and they walked on, conversing with each other in a friendly way, when a shot was fired at them, which struck and mortally wounded Mitchell in the left groin. It was only then that they became aware that the place was the public prison and that the man in the rug was one of the sentries. Mitchell was carried to the hospital, when he died of his wound the next morning. The deceased was a very promising young man and a great help to his parents, who are not without need;"
  and, whether, under the circumstances, it is the intention of the Spanish Government to make compensation to Mitchell's parents; and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Lord Granville has been informed that the Spanish Government will contribute a moderate sum to a subscription which it is proposed to raise on behalf of Mitchell's family.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE ACT OF EDWARD III.—TREATMENT OF PERSONS REFUSING TO FIND BAIL.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the prisoners who have refused to give bail under the Act of Edward III.

  223
  are not allowed to communicate with each other in the same prison, or with anybody else, except during the fifteen minutes allowed to outside visitors; whether, while they are allowed to write to friends outside the gaol and to prisoners in other gaols, they are not allowed to write to friends in the same prison, nor allowed to speak to them; whether the rule affecting such prisoners expressly states the object of this is "to prevent contamination" and "the defeating of the ends of justice;" whether the Government apprehend "contamination" or the "defeat of the ends of justice" in the case of the persons at present arrested under the Act of Edward III.; if not, whether they can permit a modification of the rule; whether it is the fact that a person reasonably suspected of murder is only kept in solitary confinement for 18 hours out of the 24, and is allowed to have free communication during exercise and recreation with the other suspects; whether it is the fact that the whole of the prisoners detained under the Act of Edward III. have refused to give bail, because they consider that this would be an admission of crime on their part; whether such prisoners who choose imprisonment rather than admit the supposition of crime are placed in a worse position as regards association, recreation, and confinement than persons whom the Government suspect of murder; whether, in view of the inequality of treatment, the Government intend to propose any alteration; and, how many ladies and gentlemen are confined in consequence of the refusal to give bail?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that persons who declined to give security for good behaviour when charged with indictable offences were treated according to the prison discipline provided by the Act of 1877. The Rules framed under that Act had been before Parliament, and they could not be altered by Government, Parliament having placed the power of dealing with them in the hands of the Prison Commissioners only. As to whether the persons alluded to had refused to give bail, because they considered that to do so would be an admission of crime on their part, he could only say that he did not know what motives actuated them in not complying with the magisterial
  224
  orders. The entire number of persons in all Ireland at present committed in default of sureties amounted to 43.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman left six paragraphs of his Question unanswered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would answer them one by one. In the first place, the magistrates derived their jurisdiction partly from their commission and partly from the Act of Edward III. The prisoners were subject to the rules for untried prisoners, which the Government had not power to alter. He was unable to say whether any exception was made in reference to persons committed for trial for murder.
  MR. HEALYasked, if it was not the fact that these persons were kept in solitary confinement for 22 hours out of every 24, whilst persons detained under the Coercion Act on suspicion of murder were only kept in solitary confinement for 18 hours?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that the House had thought fit to make special provisions in regard to persons detained under the Coercion Act, so as to make their position, if not as agreeable as possible, at least as little punitive as possible.
  In reply to a further Question from Mr. SEXTON,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was aware that three ladies were on Wednesday committed to prison in default of entering into security to be of good behaviour; but he did not know what the particular charge against them was. If the committal was illegal, it could be upset in the Queen's Bench.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK M'DOWELL.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Patrick M'Dowell, of Feakle, county Clare, arrested on the 22nd October, is still detained in Clonmel Gaol, while Mr. Michael Hogan, arrested two days previously, on the same charge and from the same place, was released four months ago; and, whether the district is now peaceable,

  225
  and if the case of Mr. M'Dowell can be considered?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, in reply to this and the several other Questions of hon. Members in reference to persons at present in detention under the Protection Act, I am authorized by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to say that he will proceed to Ireland at once, and that it is his intention, at the earliest opportunity, to consider all the cases of persons now detained under that Act.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—BREVET MAJORS.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, To state by what rule of the Service Brevet Majors in the Army drawing brevet pay, under authority of Royal Warrant of the 15th June 1806, and, being appointed Adjutants of the Auxiliary Forces from 1871 to 1877 inclusive, were deprived of such brevet pay, and which was continued to brevet majors holding other staff appointments; and, by what rule or warrant were such Brevet Majors deprived of arrears of pay due to them from date of their respective appointments as Adjutants, under the authority of paragraph 451 of the Royal Warrant of 1880, in view of the fact that the Royal Warrant of 1877 did not forbid such retrospective grant?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Colonel O'Beirne), I have to state that up to 1875 the pay of an Adjutant of Auxiliary Forces was 10 s. a-day, whatever his rank might be. In that year, however, it was raised to a rate equal to that of a captain in the arm of the Service to which the officer belonged, and in 1877 a special Warrant granted to those officers who had brevet rank, brevet pay from that time. If my hon. and gallant Friend claims for these officers a vested interest in what they were entitled to receive before the Warrant of 1875, their pay would be decreased instead of increased, as, whether majors or not, they would only receive 10 s. a-day. As to the last part of the Question, the Warrant of 1877 expressly provided that the additional pay should commence from the 1st of April of last year.

  STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION
  MR. RANKINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the large number of persons in the Metropolis and elsewhere in this Country who are either totally or partially unemployed, he has any intention of bringing in a measure of State-aided emigration?
  MR. COURTNEY: No, Sir.

  JUDICATURE ACT, 1875—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether be can give any assurance that the rules about to be promulgated in relation to trial by jury, pleadings, and appeals will be laid upon the Table of the House soon enough to enable a full discussion to take place upon them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that these rules were made under the Judicature Act of 1875, and would come into operation as soon as they were promulgated. All that was required was that, 30 days after coming into operation, they should be laid upon the Table of the House.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he would, on Tuesday next, move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act in that respect.

  ARMY—COMMUTED ALLOWANCES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can say why the scale for commuted allowance instead of fuel and light has been reduced by the recent Army Circular from 2s. 3d. to 1s. 2d. for Staff and Regimental Officers in the northern and North British districts, thereby greatly diminishing the quantity of fuel and light they can purchase, and why, in these districts, are officers of the rank of Captain and Lieutenant placed in no better position, but in some instances on a lower scale, than warrant officers and non-commissioned officers under Scale I.?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macfarlane), I have to state that formerly the allowances for fuel were the same in all parts of the Kingdom, whereas now they are in each district calculated on the cost of

  227
  the issues in kind to which they are entitled plus 80 per cent. Warrant officers receive a higher rate than regimental captains and lieutenants, because the latter, in addition to the commuted rate, which is personal to the officer, receive on account of their mess issues of fuel and light in kind.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE REV. THOMAS FEEHAN, C.C.
  MR. MARUMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in view of the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to the release of suspects, he will consider the advisability of not further detaining in gaol the Rev. Thomas Feehan, C.C.?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that if this gentleman was detained under the Protection Act, it was covered by the general answer he had already given. If he was not detained under that Act, the circumstances of the case were different, and it could only be dealt with under the ordinary law.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND) —EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE—TRIAL OF THE RIOTERS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that the trial of the accused Skye Crofters has been fixed to take place at Inverness on Wednesday, the 10th instant; whether it is a fact, as alleged by the agent for the accused, that, in consequence of the steamboat arrangements between Skye and Inverness, the selection of that day will involve on witnesses from Skye the necessity of a five days' absence from home, whereas the selection of a day earlier or later would enable them to save two days of that time; and, whether, if this be so, he will order such alteration in the date of the trial as will enable evidence for the accused to be secured without such heavy and avoidable expense?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was glad to say that he had that day received a communication from the Sheriff of Inverness-shire stating that the day of trial had been changed from Wednesday, the 10th instant, to Thursday, the 11th, so
  228
  that the inconvenience referred to would be avoided, the witnesses being able to come to Inverness on Wednesday and return on Thursday.

  COAL MINES—COLLIERY EXPLOSIONS AT BRUNTCLIFFE AND BAXTERLY.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will appoint a legal representative to attend the coroner's inquests at the Victoria Pit, Bruntcliffe, and at the Stratford Pit, Baxterly, where explosions occurred on the 2nd instant, by which several lives were lost, in order that a searching inquiry may be made into the cause of these disasters?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he intended to do what had been suggested.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"LAND LEAGUE HUNTS."
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the 25th of March, a large number of policemen were drafted into South Wicklow to suppress an alleged Land League hunt; and, whether there was no such hunt as was apprehended, at whose instance the police were called in, what the amount of expense was, and by whom this expense will be borne?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, it was not a fact that any police were drafted into Wicklow on the occasion to which the Question referred. The Government received information that Land League hunts were to take place near Kilbride on the 25th March, and a force of Constabulary was sent to the place to prevent them; but, inasmuch as it was made up from the county force, it would involve no extra expense to the County Wicklow.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether eight gentlemen are at present detained in Limerick Gaol who have refused to find bail; whether it is the fact that they are not allowed to speak or smoke during exercise time; and, what the objection is to allowing them to communicate with each other; and, if be will state the length of

  229
  time they are kept in solitary confinement?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the facts are correctly stated in the first two paragraphs of this Question. Speaking is prohibited by Rule 2 of the rules for local prisons. Smoking is prohibited by Act of Parliament, 7 Geo. IV. c. 74, 8. 109, sub-section 12.
  MR. HEALYasked how long the persons were kept in solitary confinement?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I do not remember exactly the length of time; but I believe it is 18 hours out of the 24. I will look into the rules if the hon. Member wishes me to do so.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Whether there have been numerous complaints made from time to time against Mr. Egan, the Governor of the County Limerick Prison, regarding the treatment of untried prisoners under his charge; whether he has been reprimanded on more than one occasion by the prison authorities; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant will continue this officer in so responsible a position?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, complaints have from time to time been made by untried prisoners against the Governor of Limerick Prison. When inquired into, many of them were found to be groundless. On the 18th ultimo I am informed that the Governor was admonished to be more careful in future to see that improper communications were not passed out of the prison; to avoid unnecessary interference with letters, unnecessary delay in delivering books, and unnecessarily stringent rules as to visits of prisoners from one division of the prison to another; and in the infliction of punishments; and, so far as I can learn, this was the only occasion on which he was admonished.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SUNDAY REGULATIONS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that games of chess, &c. are forbidden to the suspects in Naas and other prisons on Sundays; and, whether there is any reason for such amusements
  230
  being stopped on Sunday more than any other day?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Yes, Sir; it has always been customary in all the prisons in Ireland to stop such games on the Sunday.
  MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to modify the rule so as to allow the prisoners to amuse themselves on Sundays as well as any other day?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that was a matter for the Prison Board.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK CLINTON AND MR. JAMES MONAGHAN.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Patrick Clinton, of Castlepollard, in the county of Westmeath, is not still detained in prison as a suspect, although two other persons who were arrested at the same time and place, and on the same alleged grounds of suspicion, have long since been released; and, if so, whether he would not now think it proper to order the release of Mr. Clinton? He would also ask, in reference to the case of Mr. James Monaghan, of Collinstown, county Westmeath, at present a suspect in Kilkenny Prison, whether he will be pleased to order his release, Mr. Monaghan having been in confinement since the 7th of November, his family undergoing great hardships in consequence of his detention, and one of its members being now dangerously ill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he had already given an answer in relation to all the persons in detention under the Protection Act.

  IRELAND—MULLINGAR WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board will take such action as may be advisable and within their power in aid of the sanitary authority of the town of Mullingar, with a view to provide for the people of that town a supply of pure water, the source of such supply and the plans for distributing it having been already approved by that Board, and the

  231
  water at present in use having been proved by analysis to be of bad quality and dangerous to the public health?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that the matter rested entirely with the sanitary authorities of the town of Mullingar. The Local Government Board were perfectly willing to co-operate with the municipal authorities in Mullingar and give the necessary powers as soon as a feasible scheme for a water supply was laid before them and a source of good water found out.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PAY AND ALLOWANCES—EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE THE LATE COMMISSION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is intended to print and publish the evidence given before the late Commissioners of Inquiry into the pay, &c. of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that was a matter in regard to which the Irish Department had been in communication with the Treasury for a long time; but he understood the expense would be considerable.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1870—THE POOR LAW.
  MR. ION HAMILTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he has received any information in regard to the facts alleged in the following paragraph, which appeared in the Irish Correspondence of the "Times" of the 1st instant:—
  "A gentleman in a western county has a demesne and about thirty tenants occupying one electoral division. As they refused to pay their rents he evicted them. Immediately they applied to the hoard of guardians, who voted from £1 to £2 a week for the relief of each family. The effect of this—for the rating in Ireland is by electoral division—is that the whole cost is thrown upon him, involving an expense of from £40 to £50 a-week. But this is not all. They have all lodged claims under the special section of the Land Act of 1870, which provides that where the rent is £15 or under, if the rent of the holding be held to be exorbitant, eviction for non-payment will be looked upon as a disturbance, and the tenant shall be entitled to compensation measured by seven years' rent. They have also made claims for improvements. He has, therefore, sixty
  232
  lawsuits on his hands, and claims against him to the amount of about £10,000;"
  and, whether the Government propose taking any steps to prevent landlords being ruined through the agency of the Poor Laws?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished, before the Question was answered, to know, whether it was a fact that the Irish Members had been years bringing in Bills to abolish electoral division rating, and to substitute Union rating instead; and, whether the Representatives of the landlords and the Tory Party had not opposed this proposal on every occasion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he was not a Member of the House during the time to which the hon. Member referred, therefore he could not answer the Question. He was aware, however, that Union rating in Ireland had for a long time been a matter of public consideration. He was unable to find out the instance which the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) indicated in his Question; but in answer to his inquiry, he had to say that the auditor of the Local Government Board, under the 95th section of the first Poor Law Act, was empowered to disallow all illegal and improper charges that were taken credit for by Guardians, and to reduce those which were extravagant.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"LAND LEAGUE FAIRS."
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on several occasions recently, in the county of Galway and elsewhere, "Land League Fairs" have been prohibited by the authorities; whether, in reply to a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, from Mr. Dermod Fox, praying against the holding of a fair and the collection of tolls by Lord Clancarty, at Ballinasloe, on the 9th instant, the Under Secretary stated that he could not interfere; if so, on what principle the Government have interfered with fairs in other localities, and at whose instance; whether it is the fact that Mr. Fox alleges that Lord Clancarty had neither patent nor authority to hold a fair on the 9th May, and that such fair would be an infringement upon his own rights; and, why, if the Government refuse to inquire

  233
  into the truth of the allegations made against Lord Clancarty, they have interfered to prevent the holding of fairs and the collection of tolls by members of the Land League?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, no Land League fairs in Galway or elsewhere, so far as I can ascertain, have been prohibited by the authorities. It is a fact that Mr. Fox made a representation to the Government relative to an alleged infringement of his rights by the Earl of Clancarty, and was informed that the matter was not one for the interference of the Lord Lieutenant. I am aware that in some cases—one in the last Munster Circuit—an action was successfully brought by the owner of a fair market against the infringement of his right by persons holding what is called a Land League fair. I must add that anyone attempting unlawfully, without the proper patent or authority, to levy toll infringes the Prerogative of the Crown.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether it had not been brought under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's notice that in several towns in Cork the police were given orders to prevent Land League fairs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he apprehended that the hon. Member was referring to the case of Dunmanway.
  MR. HEALY: And Ballineen.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that in these towns the streets were obstructed by the holding of the fairs, and the police were directed to clear them.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF INNKEEPERS—MR. JOHN R. O'GORMAN.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he is aware that John R. O'Gorman had to pay a large amount in damages and costs for refusing to entertain an emergency man at his hotel in Charleville; whether he has been arrested and detained in prison for over six months; and, whether he will give orders for his release?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I believe that some persons who were
  234
  refused admission into Mr. O'Gorman's hotel without lawful excuse brought actions against him, and in one of those actions recovered heavy damages. Whether the plaintiffs in those actions were Emergency men or not I do not know; but their case was that they were guests unlawfully refused accommodation by an innkeeper. The last two paragraphs of this Question are governed by my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

  IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which, though I have not been able to give him private Notice of it, he may now be able to answer. It is, Whether the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was privy to the secret information consequent upon which the Government thought it right to release the "suspects?" That appears to me to be an important point, not cleared up in the debate yesterday. Further, I wish to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the House any further particulars or details as to the character and sources of this information, and, if so, when?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I quite understand that there was no discourtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman in putting this Question without Notice. I know very well that in times like these, suggestions occur with rapidity, and it may be desirable that they be acted upon promptly. Nor have I any difficulty in answering the Question, excepting that I would rather it had been done by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) had he been in the House. As he is not in the House, and as the matter is indefinite, and as it admits of answer without doubt or question, I will say at once that the character of the evidence, the principle and most important part of it, and probably that which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind, was documentary, and that the documents in which it was contained reached me from my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. GIBSON: I beg leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would have any public objections to giving that documentary evidence to the House?

  235
  [Cries of "No‡" from the Ministerial Benches.]
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a question of the gravest nature in point of honour and feeling. I would rather not give any opinion on the subject at the present moment. My object has been to leave it in the hands of hon. Gentlemen, wholly without prejudice or fetter of any kind, and especially in the hands of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), to whom, I think, it was justly due to make his own statement, entirely unembarrassed by any proceedings on my part. I have merely described, on my own responsibility, what I take to be the general effect of them. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely appreciates the statement I have made.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I propose to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, having regard to the critical condition of Ireland and the recent statements of Ministers of the Crown, this House is of opinion that it is of paramount importance to the best interests of the country that the whole Irish policy of the Government should be forthwith submitted to the consideration of Parliament."
  I wish also to ask the Prime Minister, whether he will afford me the necessary facilities for bringing on that Resolution?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I perfectly understand the scope of the Motion of which Notice has been given by the right hon. Gentleman; and in perfect consistency, I think, with what I have said as to the absolute necessity of carrying forward the questions as to the Rules of Procedure, I admit that the question brought forward by the right hon. Baronet cannot be carried forward without the Government; and, therefore, I have to say to him that the very first day at our disposal—namely, Monday next—shall be placed at his disposal. Further, Sir, I have to say that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) stated—or I mentioned on behalf of the Government last night, I forget which—that we would to-night appoint some Order for Tuesday at 2 o'clock. With regard to the Notice of the right hon. Baronet, I hope that, in the present state of Public Business, it will not be thought impertinent if I express very respectfully my desire that it shall not
  236
  be discussed upon the same scale of amplitude, relatively to the importance of the subject, on which some comparatively very small matters have been recently discussed. This is of great importance. I can hardly anticipate that it would close on Monday night; but should it not close on Monday night, provided we can make arrangements for placing Tuesday also at the disposal of the right hon. Baronet, we should do our best for that purpose. I shall consequently propose no arrangement to-night for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. Although the issue raised by the right hon. Baronet is of extreme importance, I hope I am not over sanguine in the desire that no further demand need be made on the time of the House for arriving at a conclusion.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, whether, if the hon. Member for Manchester's (Mr. Slagg's) Motion was negatived, the right hon. Gentleman would again set up Supply, to enable the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) to take the sense of the House upon the important question raised in his Resolution?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the Motion is negatived, Supply sets up itself. It does not admit of an answer from me.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it was the case that the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary had been called on to retire, or had been granted a long leave of absence, which would probably lead to his resignation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am not aware of it, Sir.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, on Monday next I will ask the Premier, whether, especially since the 1st of January of the present year, any recommendation, petition, or request has been placed before the Government from any body or public authority of a non-official character in Ireland, whether elected or non-elected, ecclesiastical or civil, Protestant or Catholic, or from any public meeting, or from any Representatives of Irish constituencies, whether belonging to the Liberal, Conservative, or Home Rule Parties, in favour of a continuance of the recent policy of coercion in Ireland; whether it is the case that, outside a certain official class, there has been a general agreement of opinion in

  237
  Ireland, so far as the Government could ascertain, against the continuance of the recent policy of coercion in Ireland; and, whether it is true that the officials who supported the late Chief Secretary's recent demand for a continuance of the policy of coercion are the same officials on whose authority Parliament was assured last year that the authors of outrages were well known, and the Coercion Act would immediately enable the police to arrest them, and prevent the continuance of crime?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, it may meet the convenience of the hon. Member if I endeavour to answer the Question now. By a continuance of the policy of coercion, I imagine the hon. Member evidently means the prolongation or renewal of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, and I answer in the negative. I am not aware of any application made to the Government for the renewal or the continuance of that Act. With regard to the next Question, as to the general state of opinion in Ireland on the subject of coercion, I hope the hon. Gentleman will he content, on this occasion, to treat that matter in debate, because I do not think it would be quite fair, on the part of the Government, to give their impressions upon the state of opinion in that country on a particular subject in answer to a Question, considering that answers to Questions ought to be confined as much as possible to matters of fact, or of a very definite character indeed. Then, as regards the third branch of the Question, my answer is plain and simple. I am not aware that any official persons of any kind have been parties in any matter to the proceedings connected with, and anterior to, the resignation of my right hon. Friend. What the sentiments of those gentlemen may be, I have no means of knowing. It has been altogether a transaction within the Councils of the Government, and upon the responsibility of the Government.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I did not refer at all to the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman. What I asked was, if the officials whose authority was quoted last year on behalf of the introduction of the Coercion Act, on the ground that the authors of outrages were well known to the police, are the same officials who have been quoted as
  238
  in favour of a continuance of the policy of coercion in Ireland, without any reference to the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that, as regards that portion of the Question, perhaps the hon. Member for Dungarvan had better give Notice, because I have not definitely in my mind the persons to whom he refers, or the quotations that have been made.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—TEACHERS IN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Catholic clergy who are managers of schools do not as a rule care to employ teachers from the Government training school, and that scarcely one-third of the principal teachers in Catholic schools have had the benefit of special training; whether he will make suitable provision for Catholic training schools in Ireland; and, whether he will advise the Commissioners of Education, now that the English Code allows an assistant teacher in any school having an average of 60 pupils, to adopt the same rule in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am informed that it is a fact that the Catholic clergy, who are the ecclesiastical managers of schools, do not, as a rule, employ teachers trained in Marlborough Street Schools, although, of course, it is open to them to do so. I cannot state the exact proportion of untrained principal teachers in Catholic schools; but there need not be these untrained teachers if the trained teachers were availed of. The inquiries in the two last paragraphs of this Question are matters of policy, and not of administration suitable for a reply to a Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—OUTRAGES IN KERRY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If the following statement, which appeared in the "Times" of the 1st of May, is correct, viz.:—
  "Outrages still continue, and are principally committed upon persons suspected of having paid their rent. On Thursday night the out-

  239
  houses and a portion of the dwelling-house of Daniel Herlihy, farmer, living near Anniscaul, in the county Kerry, were burnt down, six cows were destroyed, and the inmates of the dwelling house had a narrow escape;"
  and, if so, whether the Government are taking any steps to remedy such a state of outrage and intimidation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am informed that on the night of the 25th ultimo a detached cow-house of Daniel Herlihy, of Ballinahunt, county Kerry, was burnt down, and six cows were destroyed. An attempt appears to have been made to set fire to another cow-house attached to the dwelling-house; but the fire was observed and put out by the neighbours, and steps have been taken to claim compensation under the Grand Jury Act for malicious injury. I am informed that the inmates of the dwelling-house were never in any danger, though they had a narrow escape. One person has been arrested, and the case is to come on for hearing to-morrow. I understand that it is considered the outrage was in no way intended to intimidate Herlihy from paying his rent.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—OPERATION OF THE ACT.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can explain why the case of Mr. James Murphy, of Kilmaine, Ballinrobe, a tenant on the estate of Mr. John W. Cannon, and one of the earliest applicants under the Land Law Act, has not yet been listed for hearing? He wished also to ask, in reference to the delay in the Land Court in deciding the claims from the Ballinrobe district, whether steps would be taken to remedy the grievances complained of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, in reference to the general question, of course, I cannot give any opinion as to what the intention of the Land Commissioners may be; but, having regard to the large number of Sub-Commissioners recently appointed, I imagine that the official strength is now sufficient to cope with the cases remaining for hearing. Indeed, we have every reason for believing that it will be so. In reference to the Question as to why the case of Mr. Murphy, which was one
  240
  of the earliest applications made under the Land Act, has not been sent down for hearing, I shall only state the cases are sent down from the Land Commission in the order in which they are received. Mr. Murphy's application was not received until the 12th November, and before this case was sent in there were 2,400 cases entered, of which 250 were from the Ballinrobe Union, in which Mr. Murphy's farm is situated. All I can say is, there is no hardship, and that, no doubt, Mr. Murphy's case will be taken in its turn.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF MONAGHAN IN "JEBB v. THE EARL OF DARTREY."
  MR. GIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a recent decision of the County Court Judge of Monaghan in the case of Jebb v. Lord Dartrey, being an application to fix the value of the tenant's holding under Clause 1, sub-section 3, of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," whereby the judge fixed the price at £66, notwithstanding that a bonâ fide offer of £120 had been made by a solvent and respectable purchaser; and, whether, if the judge had such power, the Government will immediately have the clause amended, to prevent the recurrence of a similar injustice to other tenants?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he had only seen the Question on the Paper to-day, and had not yet had time to produce a report of it. If the particulars were supplied to him, he would obtain the necessary information.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that he had a Motion on the Paper for to-night, in regard to the Land Act; and if he found an opportunity of bringing it on, he intended to refer to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan).

  STATE OF IRELAND—OUTRAGE NEAR FOXFORD.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a gentleman named M'Gloin was yesterday attacked by an assassin on the high road near Foxford,

  241
  Ireland, who presented a revolver at his breast; and, whether Mr. M'Gloin thereupon shot his assailant dead; and, whether it is also true that two farmers named Dunnan were, because they grazed cattle on a "Boycotted" farm, on their return from Ballaghadrin fair, set upon by a band of men and so savagely beaten that the life of one of them is despaired of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, with reference to the latter part of the Question, I have no information; and, in the absence of that information, I am inclined to think that it is only one of those sensational cases which are often appearing in the newspapers, and in which there is no truth. As to the first part of the Question, I am sorry to say it is true. I have a Report upon the subject, which I will read to the House. It states that whilst Mr. M'Gloin was driving to the Petty Sessions, at Foxford, a discharged soldier, named Patrick Jennings, came up to the cart and raised his arm in a suspicious manner. Mr. M'Gloin saw a revolver in his hand, and heard a click. He then fired four rounds from his rifle, and Jennings was killed by the fourth shot. The revolver was found in the hand of the murdered—["Oh, oh‡"]—well, the dead man. None of the rounds were fired; but one of the caps was indented, indicating that Jennings intended to murder, and had attempted to fire the revolver.

  IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to address a Question to the Premier, arising out of the hostile Notice of Motion that had proceeded from the Front Opposition Bench; he wished to ask, Whether, considering the measures the Government contemplated in regard to Ireland were of two kinds—one remedial and the other coercive, the Premier would consider, bearing in mind the two Notices of Motion which were given on the Liberal side of the House previous to the Notice of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the desirability of dealing with these two subjects separately, in the hope that the remedial measures, if announced early, and carried quickly into execution, might prevent the necessity for further coercive measures?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can hardly suppose, Sir, that my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) has put this Question to me in the expectation of receiving an immediate answer. I can only say now that it involves a matter of very great consequence, and that we are sensible of its importance, and do not make light of it. Probably, either in the course of the debate on Monday, or at a very early period, it will be right for the Government to give the information asked for.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—"BRADLAUGH v. ERSKINE"—SERVICE OF A WRIT ON THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

    PRESENTATION OF PAPERS.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to report to the House that the Sergeant at Arms attending this House has a communication to make to the House.
    Whereupon The SERGEANT came to the Bar, and said: Sir, I have to inform the House that Mr. Erskine, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, has received a copy of a Writ of Summons in an action brought against him by Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, for an assault in removing him from the precincts of the House, on the 3rd of August 1881.
    MR. SPEAKER: Bring it up.
    Then The SERGEANT delivered in the copy of the Writ, and other documents relating thereto, which were read at the Table, as follows:—
    10 and 11, Ely Place, Holborn, London, E.C.
    25th April 1882.
    To Henry D. Erskine, Esqre.
    Deputy Sergeant at Arms,
    House of Commons.
    Sir,—Mr. Bradlaugh is advised that, with a view of testing the legality of your action on the 3rd of August 1881, in preventing him from entering the House of Commons, of which he was then, and is now, a Member, and in removing him from the precincts of the House, and by force placing him in Palace Yard, and preventing him from re-entering Westminster Hall, to commence an action against you for the assault in question.
    We need hardly assure you that it is Mr. Bradlaugh's desire, as well as our own, remembering your position as Deputy Sergeant at Arms, to treat you with every consideration; and if, through the Law Officers of the Crown, you can propose any other mode of obtaining a legal determination of the matter than by the commencement of an Action, we shall most readily fall in with any such suggestion.
    With a view therefore of enabling you to consider the matter, we have taken no action in

    243
    the first instance, and we shall be obliged, after you have had an opportunity of conferring with the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, if you will kindly inform us the determination at which you have arrived.
    We are, Sir,
    Your obedient Servants,
    LEWIS and LEWIS.
    April 25th 1882.
    Sirs,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated this day, and have to inform you that it must be left to Mr. Bradlangh to take such course in the matter you refer to as he may think proper.
    I am, Sirs,
    Your obedient Servant,
    H. D. ERSKINE.
    Messrs. Lewis and Lewis,
    Ely Place, Holborn.
    10 and 11, Ely Place, Holborn, London, E.C.
    26th April 1882.
    Sir,—We have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 25th inst. and shall feel obliged by your kindly referring us to your solicitors.
    We are, Sir,
    Your obedient Servants,
    LEWIS and LEWIS.
    H. D. Erskine, Esq.
    Sergeant at Arms' Room,
    House of Commons, Westminster.
    28th April 1882.
    Sirs,—I beg to inform you that I have no reply to make to your letter of the 26th inst. beyond this acknowledgment of its receipt.
    I am, Sirs,
    Your obedient Servant,
    H. D. ERSKINE.
    Messrs. Lewis and Lewis,
    Ely Place, Holborn.
    10 and 11, Ely Place, Holborn, London, E.C.
    3rd May 1882.
    To H. D. Erskine, Esq.,
    Sergeant at Arms' Room,
    House of Commons.
    Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P. v. Yourself.
    Sir,—We have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th ult., and venture to express our regret that you have not referred us to your Solicitors to accept service of process on your behalf.
    With a view, however, of avoiding the unpleasantness of personal service on yourself of the process of the Court, we beg to enclose a copy of the Writ in the action, and should you desire to Bee the original, the bearer will be pleased to produce it to you. We trust that you will now place us in communication with your Solicitors so that it may be unnecessary on our part in the future to address you personally on the subject.
    For your information we may state that some two years since, we were instructed by an influential body to represent Mr. Bradlaugh as his Solicitors in reference to the Constitutional questions arising on his claim to take his seat
    244
    as Member of Parliament for the Borough of Northampton, and have continuously acted as his Solicitors in the various proceedings arising out of his Elections.
    Much as Mr. Bradlaugh regrets, personally, the necessity of instituting proceedings against you, he is advised that with a view of raising certain legal questions there is no other alternative open to him.
    We have the honour to be, Sir,
    Yours obediently,
    LEWIS and LEWIS.
    1882. B. No. 2,487.
    In the High Court of Justice.
    Queen's Bench Division.
    (Writ of Summons.)
    Between Charles Bradlaugh, Plaintiff, and Henry D. Erskine, Defendant.
    Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, to Henry D. Erskine, of Westminster, in the county of Middlesex. We command you, that within eight days after the service of this Writ on you, inclusive of the day of such service, you cause an appearance to be entered for you in an Action at the suit of Charles Bradlaugh; and take notice, that, in default of your so doing, the Plaintiff may proceed therein, and Judgment may be given in your absence.
    Witness, Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the third day of May, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two.
    N.B.—This Writ is to be served within twelve calendar months from the date thereof, or, if renewed, within six calendar months from the date of the last renewal, including the day of such date, and not afterwards.
    Appearance is to be entered at the Central Office, the Royal Courts of Justice, London.
    The Plaintiff's claim is for damages for assault.
    This Writ was issued by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, of No. 10, Ely Place, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, Solicitors for the said Plaintiff, who resides at 20, Circus Road, Saint John's Wood, in the county of Middlesex.
    The address for service is 10, Ely Place, Holborn, London, aforesaid.
    This Writ was served by me at
    on the Defendant
    on the day of 188.
    Indorsed the day of 188.
    Indorsed Bradlaugh v. Erskine.
    Copy Writ of Summons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Communication now made to the House be taken into Consideration upon Monday next."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to leave out the words

    245
    "upon Monday next," in order to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'upon Monday next,' stand part of the Question."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish, Sir, to ask, if the Government has not placed Monday at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)? Is this Obstruction on the part of the Government? I do not support the proposition of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); but I must say that I think it a most monstrous thing that the Government should try to take away the only night that they have seen their way to place at the disposal of my right hon. Friend for an important discussion.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth did not seem thoroughly cognizant of the elementary rights and powers of the House. He seemed to forget that there were certain questions relating to the proceedings of the House, and the proceedings of its agents, which of absolute necessity took precedence of other matters, however pressing. Such a question was before them now; and, as regarded it, he (Mr. Gladstone) would at once say that his line and that of his Friends near him on that subject had been always the same. They had steadily declined to be parties to forward the Resolutions of the House on that subject to which they had thought it their duty to give a respectful obedience; but with regard to defending the servants of the House—the Executive of the House—in respect of the consequences of acts done on behalf of the House, in pursuance of their duties, they were ready to vie with any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House. It was more disagreeable to him than to the hon. Gentleman that there should be this intervention; but his belief and hope was that that question, when considered, would be found to be a question in which the proceeding before them was perfectly straightforward, and need not be the subject of debate.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am convinced we have no option but to take this communication into consideration on Monday. It would be unseemly to do so at this moment, and the course
    246
    proposed is strictly in accordance with precedent.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask why this matter should not be taken into consideration at a Morning Sitting to-morrow?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Communication to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL COMMUNICATION (ADEN AND EAST AFRICA, &c.)

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SLAGG, in rising to call attention to the African Mail Contracts, their relation to the Slave Trade, and to the commerce of the United Kingdom with the East Coast of Africa and Zanzibar; and to move—
    "That it is important to the commerce of the United Kingdom, and for the supplanting of the Slave Trade, that steps be taken by the Government to maintain and extend the existing postal facilities between Aden and East Africa, and also to secure similar communication with the Red Sea ports,"
    said, he had no doubt that such an austere economist as the Postmaster General would have a great deal to say on the subject of pure political economy and unrestricted competition, and would, therefore, no doubt, have occasion to point out that if they continued the subsidies hitherto granted in the African mail contracts, they would discourage other systems; and he would, no doubt, argue that if they subsidized one line of packets, they would thereby prevent other lines from adopting the same route. He (Mr. Slagg) hoped, however, to be able to show that this was more than a question of political economy; and, further, that the subsidy, which was now, he believed, about to be abandoned, was not instituted purely from a postal point of view, but for other considerations very much more important. He thought he should be able to show that the object for which this grant was made had been, in a large degree, attained, and that it would be, to a very

    247
    large extent, the undoing of their past efforts for the destruction of the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa if they now discontinued the grant. The subsidy chiefly in question was one of £10,000, granted to postal service between Aden and Zanzibar; and when it was given in 1872 it was expressly stated that the object of the Government was partly to discourage the Slave Trade by opening out commercial relations, and thus extending our influence in a country in which the Slave Trade predominated. The commercial object had certainly been, to a large extent, attained, for the trade in that region had now become very important. The imports into Zanzibar in 1859 amounted only to £549,000; in 1879 it was £709,000; but the most remarkable feature of that trade was that it was almost entirely British. Through the influence, to a very large extent, of the line of steamers subsidized by the British Government, they had been able to beat all competitors in that large market, and were in a fair way of possessing it nearly entirely for their own traders. Zanzibar was on the direct route to South Africa, and was on the line of communication with India and Australia, and so, as a postal station, its importance could not be over-rated. When this line of steamers commenced the total postage receipts only amounted to £5, whereas more than £2,000 was now received in postage by this line alone. It might be said that a large portion of the sum went to India; but that was surely a matter which was not of much consequence. With regard to the Slave Trade, he felt thoroughly justified in saying that the enormous reduction which had lately taken place in the slave traffic on the East Coast of Africa was almost entirely due to the steam service to which he was alluding. That reduction had been coincident with an enormous increase in the legitimate trade on that coast. There was no greater enemy to the Slave Trade in any part of the world than the introduction of commerce and the growth and stimulus of trading enterprize. If we withdrew this steam service we might assure ourselves that all the enormous expenditure that we now lavished upon men-of-war upon the East Coast of Africa would be comparatively useless, if not supplemented by the information which travellers and passengers gave on the subject of the Slave Trade. The details which they
    248
    brought under the notice of the public, with regard to that traffic, did more for the suppression of it than all the men-of-war we could employ in such service. If we abandoned this Postal Service some other line of steamers would possibly take its place; but he was sure the work would not be performed as regularly and as efficiently as it was now. The trade was of too delicate a nature at the present moment, and in too early a stage of development, to admit of any tampering with it, and the mere chance of another steamship line taking it up was a feeble hope to rely on. The work would probably devolve on a French line of steamers, and one point to which he gave special prominence was the danger that the trade would fall into alien hands. If the French got it they might be sure they would take every possible means to keep the trade to themselves. Articles of merchandize and exchange had been brought down to the coast to be shipped in these steamers, and this had increased the wealth of the inhabitants, and given them a further desire and appetite for legitimate luxuries, and a stimulus to commercial ambition. Our French neighbours sought, with relentless zeal, to extend their commercial and their political influence in any part of the world. He thought it would be a very great misfortune if our political influence on the East Coast of Africa were taken from us. It was important, not only commercially, but also with reference to the suppression of the Slave Trade. The French were by no means such advocates of the suppression of the Slave Trade as the British people. He believed it would not be much beyond the mark if he said that we expended £500,000 every year in our efforts to suppress the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa. Without the goodwill of Sultan of Zanzibar that expenditure would effect little. In 1876 the Sultan of Zanzibar was, with much difficulty, induced to use his endeavours to stop the export of slaves. It was a great personal loss of revenue to him; but it was pointed out that efforts would be made to develop his commerce. Those efforts had proved eminently successful, and the revenue of the Sultan had been more than doubled by the new commerce introduced into his territory. The Sultan had done that for the suppression of the Slave Trade which no Naval Force could possibly do,

    249
    and at the risk of loss to himself. What was the alternative if this subsidy was abolished, and the line of steamers ceased to run? He was told it was intended to provide a yacht, or despatch boat, to be used by our Agent in visiting the various ports in relation to the Slave Trade; and he wished to compare the cost of this with the £10,000 we were paying to the line of steamers which carried the mails. We could not get a vessel for less than £5,000 to £7,000, and could not run it efficiently for less than £7,000 or £8,000 a-year. Then it would not be as regular in its visits as the present steam packets; and he saw no other alternative but an increase in our Squadron on that station to deal with the Slave Trade, and with no great prospect that it would be successful in its object. As an instance of the success which had been attained by a subsidy of this kind, he might refer to the line of steamers running in the Persian Gulf. Before that line was established piracy and slavery were rife, and there was no commerce worthy of the name. The rich natural advantages of the district were almost entirely unused; and although it was a region which might have been made enormously conducive to British commerce, it was almost an unknown land until 1860. Then the total tonnage on the Gulf was 10,000 tons, and now 15,000 tons of steam shipping alone annually visited one port on the Gulf, whilst the trade was of immense value, and had a great future before it. No one could dispute the fact that it had been created and fostered by the maintenance of the steam traffic. No one would quarrel with the Treasury if it were a little in advance of public opinion in the matter of economy, so long as it did not economize in the wrong place. A small sum given for such useful and obviously advantageous purposes as he had indicated was the worst specimen of economical work the Treasury could produce; and he hoped to induce the Government to abandon the idea of saving the small sum now given to this line of steamers. We could not in this country afford to lose markets. There was an enormous production from our industries, and manufacturers were sometimes at their wits' end where to send their produce; and it would be a most ill-advised step on the part of the Go-
    250
    vernment to endanger, in the slightest degree, the markets to which he had alluded. He spoke not only for Manchester, but for every industry throughout the country, which were all concerned in finding a market for their products, and in receiving something in return. But he spoke also in the name of humanity in asking for the continuance of a subsidy, which had been successfully expended in largely reducing so shameful a traffic as the Slave Trade. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in seconding the Resolution, remarked that he and his hon. Friend together represented by far the largest commercial community gathered in one centre in the Kingdom; and he himself had had some observation of the trade routes referred to. In general terms, the Resolution was one in favour of the extension of British freedom and British commerce, and it was on those grounds that he supported it. It was unnecessary for him to disclaim any leaning in the direction of Protection; but he would point out that in France subsidies were given, not only for shipbuilding, but for navigation. While not advocating such a practice in this country, he thought that the maintenance and extension of postal facilities in those distant regions was a proper object for a subsidy. The peculiar value of a Postal Service was that it was regular, and traders could rely upon it; and there was a very important difference between a postal subsidy and one given in the shape of bounty upon navigation. A postal subsidy should never be given where independent vessels were or were likely to be engaged in the same trade. He would never say a word in that House in favour of giving a postal subsidy where a regular line of packet communication would be carried on independently. Upon the subject of slavery it was important to notice that the French Marine, which claimed full power of repression and interference, had a fitful character about it. Her Majesty's Service had lately lost a brave and zealous officer—Captain Brownrigg, whose death was due to punctilious observance of the rights of the French flag, which led to his not carrying arms on that occasion. The French did not maintain a sufficiently strong force to support their claims; therefore it was

    251
    not right that they should require the commanders of British ships to forego the search of vessels carrying the French flag. He placed great value on the regularity of the Postal Service; and he was satisfied, from personal observation, that it was the most efficient means of promoting commerce in remote regions of the world. The district of Zanzibar, to which his hon. Friend had alluded, was, at no distant time, a part of the Dominions of the Sultan of Muscat; and that important centre of British trade, Aden, was now, as it had long been, the great place for the interchange of the traffic coming from Central Asia, and passing partly down the Coast of Africa, and partly through the Suez Canal. It was a fact that the commerce of a country generally followed the nationality of the ships engaged in the trade. There was a French proposal on foot for a French line of steamships to be started on the East Coast of Africa, and to be largely subsidized by the Sultan of Zanzibar. The Sultan might be induced to take that course from various motives; and he hoped that the diplomacy of the Foreign Office would be exercised to preserve our influence, at least in a position of ascendency, in the Dominion of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The French Mercantile Marine, aided by its bounty system, had lately established, not a regular, but a fitful service of vessels in the Persian Gulf; and a Frenchman who had been long resident in Teheran had obtained from the Shah of Persia a concession for the exclusive navigation of the only river in Persia which was navigable. Neither his hon. Friend nor himself asked for any favour; but they had a very strong objection to anything like exclusive concessions. The Postmaster General was aware that in consequence of the withdrawal of the postal subsidy the Union Steamship Company had lately abandoned their service from the Cape to Delagoa Bay. That might or might not be a matter of importance; but it was essential, in regard to these questions of subsidy, to ascertain whether the Service would or would not be abandoned if the subsidy were withdrawn. He was strongly of opinion that the interests of this country had been largely, and were at present very greatly, promoted by the assistance which was given by the Post Office. As an illustration of the
    252
    possible development of trade he might mention that in 1880 grain to the value of £86,000 was actually imported into a Persian port, whilst in a Persian province not very far distant, to which, however, there was no means of communication, wheat was plentiful; and Major Napier, son of Lord Napier of Magdala, who was travelling there in 1876, estimated the supply of surplus wheat alone, within easy distance of the port above referred to, at 80,000 tons, and he stated in his Report to the Government of Bombay that it was being disposed of at 15 s. per ton. Only the other week Persian wheat of inferior quality was being sold in the London market at no less than £8 5s. per ton. He mentioned this to show how extremely important it was, in the interests of this country, that by regular service of ships we should develop intercommunication and the exchange of food products between other countries and ourselves. Navigation had already so much progressed in the Persian Gulf that within the 10 years since the opening of the Suez Canal the steam traffic had increased from 3,000 tons to 80,000 tons, and was capable of still further development.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is important to the commerce of the United Kingdom, and for the supplanting of the Slave Trade, that steps be taken by the Government to maintain and extend the existing postal facilities between Aden and East Africa, and also to secure similar communication with the Red Sea ports,"—(Mr. Slagg,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, he considered the tone of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) one of great moderation, and he had put the case very clearly and very well. At the same time, he had only dealt with one part of the question. The African Mail Contract was really divided into two portions. One portion was that which provided for the carrying of mails between Aden and Zanzibar, while the other portion provided for carrying the mails between the Cape and Zanzibar. He would remind his hon. Friend that this question was discussed at great

    253
    length in the year 1873, and it became the subject of investigation by a Select Committee. At that time he doubted very much if the House of Commons would ever have sanctioned the two contracts that were entered into, if it had not been, to some extent, that the Government of the day had already made certain arrangements. It was within the recollection of the House that in 1873 the proposal was to give a subsidy to that service which was now under discussion—namely, to the British India Steam Navigation Company for conveying the mails from Zanzibar to Aden. The other portion of the contract, for conveying mails from Zanzibar to the Cape, had been arranged for by what was given to the Union Steamship Company. If the House assented to this Resolution, it could not, in his opinion, withhold renewing the subsidy with the Union Steamship Company, which expired in February, 1881. In 1873, when this question was discussed, the policy of the Government was to establish those steamships all along the coast for the purpose of putting down the Slave Trade. The whole coast was regarded as being in the same condition. The distance from Zanzibar to Aden was 1,700 miles, and to the Cape 2,500 miles. The two Companies between them agreed that the services were alike, and that the one should receive £10,000 and the other £15,000. As he had said, evidence was taken at the time before a Committee in order to prove what he had asserted—namely, that the Northern portion—that was, from Zanzibar to Aden—was quite as profitable, and was looked upon as being quite as valuable. He asked the House to go with him back to the position in which they were in with relation to the contract which had expired—namely, that with relation to the Union Steamship Company, which expired in 1881. When it expired that Company asked it to be renewed. The Government could find no reason for the renewal of that contract, and upon these grounds—the one was that a rivalry had arisen which had given a very good and substantial trade between the Cape and Natal, at all events, if not so far as Zanzibar, and the other reason was that at the first, when the subsidy was given, it was mainly for the purpose of maintaining a communication from port to port by steamships; but in 1873, from the exigencies arising
    254
    owing to the war in Zululand, telegraphic communication was established, and telegraphic communication was, of course, more speedy than ordinary steamships could possibly be. The result, of course, was that there was no case whatever for continuing that subsidy, and it came to an end. No complaint had been made. On what ground, then, could his hon. Friend for a moment expect that the Government was to give or continue a subsidy of £10,000 a-year from Zanzibar to Aden, more especially when they found that trade had developed, as his hon. Friend had said, to such an extent that they might now fairly expect, not only rivals from our own country, but from foreign countries? Sir John Kirk, British Consul at Zanzibar, was in favour of subsidies generally; but he had expressed the opinion that steam communication between these ports would not cease in the absence of subsidies. The position in which matters stood now was that this subsidy came to an end at the end of this year, and if they were to agree that that subsidy should be continued, the Government could not see why they should not also re-establish the subsidy which ended in 1881. For these reasons he trusted the House would not consent to the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERpointed out that we had at the present time no line of steam communication between the Cape and the Red Sea. He had not a word to say against the French taking up the traffic, except that the French did not look upon the Slave Trade in the same way as we did. It was, therefore, worth while to consider whether we could not make a small pecuniary sacrifice in order to put down that traffic. He was glad to observe a great diminution in it during the last few years, the number of slaves having fallen from 12,000 to 4,000, thereby raising the condition of the slave and making his labour more valuable. It was the duty of the Government to endeavour to discourage the practice of slavery as much as possible; and the presence of steamers running up and down the coast would enable them to give information to cruisers on the look-out for slave ships.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, there was no subject more interesting to the House than the great Slave Question; and he supported the Resolution before

    255
    the House on the ground that a regular communication of postal steamers was one of the most civilizing influences to which a country could be subjected. The development of civilization in Africa was a matter of the highest moment to this country, whose manufactures would rapidly find their way into the country as soon as any progress in civilization was made. The way to put an end to the Slave Trade was to convince the Rulers of the interior of Africa that they could do better with their subjects than by selling them; as soon as you convinced them of that, the trade would cease. He supposed that he was the only Member of the House left who voted for the extinction of the Slave Trade in 1834, and the only Member who had been on board slave ships and seen the living slaves side by side with the dead. If hon. Members could only have seen the horrible sights that had met his view on those vessels they would be as anxious for a vigorous effort to be made for the extinction of the abominable traffic. It was due to the Christian character of our country that we should extinguish slavery; and he trusted the Government would use their best efforts in that direction. He was also one of those who lamented that some notice was not taken of this question of the Slave Trade at the Congress of Berlin, as he believed that a very great deal might have been done by the concurrence of the Representatives of the various Powers upon that occasion.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYwas extremely glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) as to the great impulse which had been given to trade along the East Coast of Africa. That trade would prove a most important means in killing the traffic which had been carried on there. He had been a Member of the Commission which sat in 1871 for the purpose of investigating the subject. The late Mr. Russell Gurney was Chairman. At that time there was no postal communication with Zanzibar at all; and one of their recommendations was that a small subsidy should be given for a small steamer to run periodically between Seychelles and Zanzibar, as it was quite impossible that trade could be maintained and extended without means of communication. A great improvement had taken place since then in that mat-
    256
    ter; and though it might be true that the steamers were self-supporting, they could not be sure that, in the absence of a subsidy, it would not be necessary to withdraw them, in which case we should lose the advantage we at present possessed. If, however, it could be proved that there was no danger of the steamer ceasing to run, even if the subsidy were discontinued, he saw no reason why it should not cease.
    MR. ARTHUR PEASEsaid, there were cases in which it was impossible for private individuals to establish lines of communication between points of business. If, therefore, it were found that the steamers could not be maintained, he advocated the granting of a subsidy for that purpose. It was quite possible that, in estimating the probability of the continuance of these steamers, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the subsidy, agreements made between this country and Egypt had been taken into account. Now, those agreements had not been faithfully carried out. The Convention which Egypt had entered into with this country in 1877 with regard to the Slave Trade had not been faithfully carried out by the Egyptian Government, and now the Slave Trade was flourishing up the Nile. Avarice and covetousness were the leading incentives to that trade in human beings; and he might multiply evidence to show that, in spite of the Convention with Egypt, a very large Slave Trade was being carried on, and that a large proportion of the slaves were carried across the Red Sea into Arabia and the adjacent parts. A great preventive of the Slave Trade would, he believed, be found in the passing of information and bringing the matter before public opinion. He was glad, therefore, that our Government had arranged to place a Consul at Khartoum, and that before long another would be stationed at Massowah. Where the Slave Trade was engaged in, other trade would not flourish, and it should be a great object to substitute for it legitimate commerce. The trade of the Sultan of Zanzibar had doubled, the people were now more happy, and those who previously carried on slave-hunting raids had settled down to the production of india-rubber and other articles of commerce. The trade from Zanzibar in india-rubber alone amounted to £200,000 a-year. Under these circumstances, what ought

    257
    to be the policy of the Government? It was unwise to economize in matters which would tend to foster our trade while promoting the cause of humanity. He hoped that the Government would take up afresh the question of the Slave Trade in Egypt, and would impress on that country the duty of carrying out the Convention on the subject. They ought to take every opportunity of obtaining certain information as to what was passing in the regions where that nefarious traffic prevailed, and to use every effort in their power to put an end to a scourge which had too long existed, to the degradation of Africa and the humiliation of mankind.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he believed that no movement for the suppression of the Slave Trade could be wisely and patiently conducted without laying the foundations of future commerce for this country; and he expressed the great pleasure with which he, in common with other hon. Members, had heard the few remarks of the venerable and highly respected Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney). There were cases in which expenditure, while small in amount, was of an extremely important character, and this was an instance of that description. In this matter they could not separate commercial from philanthropic interests, because it was impossible to open out trade in countries like East Africa without, at the same time, promoting the interests of civilization, Christianity, and humanity; and, on the other hand, efforts to suppress the Slave Trade laid the foundations of commerce tending to enrich this country. He believed we could not drop any part of our remaining means of postal communication along the Coast of Africa without lessening the possibility of suppressing the Slave Trade; and he feared we had already gone too far in withdrawing the small subsidies which insured regular communications that were highly valuable in enabling us to keep a watch upon the Slave Trade, and to extend our commercial intercourse. He, therefore, ventured to hope that the Government would see their way to continue that very small postal subsidy. It was never more necessary than now to endeavour to increase the demand for the products of British industry in parts of the world which were not civilized, and which were
    258
    not themselves likely to manufacture. He trusted, therefore, that they would see a distinct forward movement in the opening out of markets on various parts of the Coast of Africa, and in the interior of that Continent, and that the Government would extend its aid by granting and maintaining such small postal subsidies as might be necessary. In advocating that course, he felt he was acting consistently with the interests even of the most needy of our working population, the insuring of whose continued employment was a matter of vital moment.
    SIR DONALD CURRIEsaid, that the non-fulfilment by the Khedive of Egypt of the Convention in respect to the Slave Trade had nothing to do with the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. He sympathized with the other hon. Members in the desire to take every measure possible for the suppression of the Slave Trade; but, from a practical point of view, all they had to look at now was whether the means proposed to be adopted could serve the end in view. The hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Arthur Pease) had just stated that there was a large increase in the traffic in slaves between North-Eastern Africa and Egypt, over the Red Sea, and with Arabia. The hon. Member said the traffic passed the Red Sea; but that traffic had nothing whatever to do with the Aden and Zanzibar route. If the hon. Member meant that there should be a subsidy given to the steamers touching at the ports on the Coasts of the Red Sea, in order to prevent the transport of slaves from one part of the Sea to the other, he begged to give it as his opinion that no such subsidy should be allowed, for the simple reason that there were hundreds of steamers regularly passing up and down the Red Sea, and calling at these ports, serving the commercial purposes which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) desired should be stimulated; and to subsidize one line and not the other lines would be unfair. The hon. Member for Whitby could not mean that the slaves pass the mouth of the Red Sea to Aden; but Arab dhows did leave the North-East of Africa for the Persian Gulf, just as there had been a large traffic in the Mozambique Channel. A subsidy given to the Aden and Zanzibar line would not be sufficient for

    259
    the prevention of slavery on the Eastern side of Africa. They must extend the subsidy to the service of steamers between Zanzibar, Mozambique, Delagoa Bay, and Natal—such a service as was established in 1873, at the same time as the Government gave the contract to the British India Company for the line between Aden and Zanzibar. Now that that service between Natal and Zanzibar had ceased—the Government having withdrawn the subsidy—the subsidy to the Northern portion of the East African Service ought to be witdrawn also, or else the Government should subsidize the lines on the Northern and the Southern Coasts of East Africa. But the question was, would this put down the Slave Trade, or assist in putting down that trade? He ventured to think that a steamer calling once a month at Mozambique or Quillimane, where some slave operations had been carried on, could not have any real effect in terminating the Slave Trade in those quarters. The only argument in favour of the service was that the service had a postal object, or stimulated commerce. From a postal point of view, then, what had been the expense to the country? The Postal Service between Natal and Zanzibar and Aden had cost the country £260,000 since 1873; and the whole revenue which the Post Office had derived for the whole of that period did not exceed £5,000. There was, therefore, no argument, from a postal point of view, in favour of the continuance of such a subsidized service. What was the advantage which a Steamboat Company had in carrying on commercial intercourse, except the development of commerce along the East Coast of Africa? The commercial aspect of the question had been touched upon, and might be estimated in this way. Up to last year the Zanzibar traffic was divided between the Union Company, carrying it South round the Cape to England, and the British India Company, carrying it North to Zanzibar via Aden, the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal; and those two trades, as was expected when the contracts were taken, had largely increased, and there was sufficient encouragement for private steamers to run in these regions. When those two Companies divided the contract between them by a private bargain, and when the Government of the day failed to put
    260
    the contracts up to public competition, as they should have done, the House of Commons appointed a Committee of Investigation. That Committee condemned the contracts which had been extended by the noble Lord, now in the Upper House, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The original amount of the contract was £25,000, and that was increased to £6,000 a-year for eight years to one of those Companies, making up for the disappointment they had sustained in not getting the monopoly of the mail contract. But as the Union Company lost their mail contract from Zanzibar to Natal last year, the British India Company now enjoyed a monopoly of the Zanzibar traffic via Aden and the Red Sea, and this should be more than equal to the subsidy they had lost. But he repeated that if the Government were to continue the service between Aden and Zanzibar, either for trade purposes, or for the suppression of the Slave Trade, or for postal facilities, then he must insist that the contracts must be for a line or lines girdling the whole East African Coast from Natal as far North as to Zanzibar. But, in his view, it was not necessary to go to that extent, and therefore he could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester.
    MR. BUXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would, to some extent, meet the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg). No doubt, there was a growing British trade in the Red Sea and along the East Coast of Africa, and some indication of the probability of this was furnished by the fact that the revenue of the Sultan of Zanzibar had doubled since he abolished the Slave Trade. Considering what the useful products of the region were, our trade was sure to be increased by additional postal facilities, and still more by the suppression of the Slave Trade; because wherever that was carried on there existed a hatred of the British flag, which was fatal to the development of our commerce. If the Government could not accede to the Resolution as it stood on the Paper, he hoped they would give some assurance that the subsidy would not be entirely dropped, unless they had good grounds for believing that the mail service would be continued.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, observations had been made by hon. Members on both

    261
    sides in reference to the Slave Trade, and he need hardly say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) were received with universal sympathy on both sides of the House. The Government would yield to no one in their desire that nothing should be done to increase the Slave Trade; but the House would expect him to discuss the Motion simply from a purely postal point of view. Regarding this simply as a Post Office question, it was impossible to justify the continuance of the subsidy at the present amount. The whole amount of the postage between Aden and Zanzibar was not more than £500 a-year, and we received only £200 towards a subsidy of £10,000, the Indian Government taking £300 towards the expenses to which they were subjected. It would be obvious to anyone that the trustee of a branch of Public Revenue could not be justified on economical or other grounds in an expenditure of £10,000 for a yield of only £200. Sometimes it was said there was a great deal of money at the Post Office; but there were a great many improvements to be carried out, and he could show many desirable improvements which would be of great public advantage that could not be carried out for want of money. If the Post Office went on the plan of spending £10,000 for £200, the want of money would rapidly increase. It was said, however, that the expenditure in question was to be regarded, not as Post Office expenditure, but as outlay for the encouragement of trade and the suppression of slavery. If that were so, the House ought to come to a distinct understanding on the subject, and Post Office revenue should not be used for one purpose when it was meant to be used for another. If we were to spend money for the promotion of commerce or the suppression of the Slave Trade, the Foreign Office or some other Department ought to be responsible for the expenditure, and it ought not to be put down obscurely as a postal subsidy. A postal subsidy was only justified when without it it was not possible to obtain a regular postal service, and when it did not involve a larger expenditure than was justified in the circumstances of the case. Every sixpence that went beyond this launched us on a boundless sea of expenditure in the encouragement of trade by public money. If we
    262
    accepted the idea that it was desirable to spend postal revenue in opening markets when there was a glut of goods in England, where were we to stop? We might spend public money in this way in every quarter of the world; but in doing that we should be following the steps of those countries which had adopted the unfortunate course of promoting the enterprize of their citizens by the fatal gift of State aid. It would be asked—"Have you grounds for believing that if this subsidy were discontinued, there would be a sufficiently regular and a sufficiently good postal service between Zanzibar and India?" The whole subject turned upon that. When the case was submitted to him, it seemed to him that the grounds were very strong for arriving at the conclusion that without the subsidy there would be a regular and a sufficiently good mail service. In this night's debate, however, men of greater commercial experience than he could claim for himself had positively asserted that without some subsidy it was vain to hope for the establishment of a regular postal service; and, therefore, in deference to these assertions, but without pledging himself to a change of opinion, he was willing to give the subject his renewed and candid consideration. He should be very glad to have evidence and information laid before him by his hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Salford, and Preston, or by others who had gone into the question. If they succeeded in convincing him that it would be impossible to look for the maintenance of a regular postal service to those countries without a subsidy, although he should not feel justified in recommending such a large sum as that which was now demanded, he would recommend to the Treasury that, opening the contract to free competition, a smaller subsidy should be granted if it would secure a regular service. He hoped that assurance would be satisfactory to the House. In conclusion, he wished to express his belief that postal subsidies did not in reality encourage trade. In certain exceptional circumstances they might be inevitable, but at best they were painful and unpleasant necessities; while the consequence of granting them unnecessarily was that public money was used to defeat competition. On behalf of the Government he could not accept the Amendment; but he repeated, that there might

    263
    be no mistake, that the subject should have his careful attention.
    MR. SLAGG, in reply, observed, that his only object in asking for a subsidy was to insure that the postal service to the places mentioned in his Amendment should be regular, and not intermittent, and he should be glad to see this effected in the most economical way possible. He had every reason to believe that a subsidy was necessary; but he accepted the assurances by the Postmaster General to the effect that the matter should have his future careful consideration, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD RATES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. J. R. YORKE, who had the following Resolution on the Paper:—
    "That, having regard to the unfairness of the incidence of School Board rates, and the continual increase in their amount, some change in the system under which they are at present levied is urgently required,"
    said, he regretted that, owing to the Forms of the House, he should be unable to move his Resolution. He would, however, remind the House that just before the beginning of the Session an influential deputation, representing the various Chambers of Agriculture, had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had laid before him the grievances from which they conceived themselves to be suffering. With respect to this particular question of rates, the right hon. Gentleman had assured them that—
    "The subject was receiving the careful and laborious attention of the Government;"
    and had added that—
    "Of course, the time was near at hand when it would be the duty of the Government in a practical manner to submit their views to Parliament."
    Encouraged by those words, the representatives of the ratepayers had confidently looked forward to the time when the long-promised, but long-withheld measures of relief should be introduced; but the right hon. Gentleman
    264
    had said in his speech on the Budget that the consideration of them was postponed. What were the views of the framers of the Act of 1870 with regard to the rate that would be laid on the ratepayers? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that practically the Bill provided for a rate not exceeding 3d. in the pound, and that that rate would be rarely exceeded. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government mentioned 3d. as the maximum. But the strongest expression of the impolicy of laying on heavy rates for the purpose of education was made by the Home Secretary, who concluded by saying that if failure should result from the odium that would be excited by the pressure of local taxation, he should have the satisfaction of feeling that he was not responsible for that failure, as he had striven to exclude from the Bill a principle which would make it unworkable. He trusted, therefore, that he should have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support in affirming the Resolution he had to lay before the House. "Fas est et ab hoste doceri;" and so he might quote the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard), who, in a lecture the other day, although he applied the very strongest words to what might be called the "local taxation party," admitted that in the particular matter now under discussion they had a very substantial grievance. He had quoted the opinions of the framers of the Act of 1870 to the effect that a rate of 3d. in the pound would be the maximum, and would rarely be exceeded. Well, in 1878 there were 102 parishes outside boroughs which paid 1s. in the pound, and in 1879 there were 136. In 1878 there were 658 which paid 6d. and upwards, and in 1879, 739. The 3d. limit had been exceeded in 85 per cent of the parishes in which the rate was levied; so that there was a sufficient contrast between the anticipations of the framers of the Act and the result. The 250,000 farmers of England who inhabited school board parishes did not pay, like other people, on their houses only, but on the rateable value of their farms—that was to say, on a sum enormously exceeding the value of their incomes. These unfortunate men paid not only on the value of their houses, but upon the rateable

    265
    value of their land—that was, their machinery. The present system was working in country places, he might say, tyrannically and oppressively. The working classes had the absolute power of disposing of the money of the other classes in the parish, while they themselves contributed a very small amount. But if this were to be done, let the education be confined to elementary education; let them not call upon the ratepayers to pay for providing educational luxuries. He did not think the public generally were aware of the proportions in which the education expenses were now borne by the three different sources—namely, school fees, grants, and the rates. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. P. Phipps), who was absent through an unfortunate accident, had calculated that the proportions were as follow:—Out of 100 parts, 20 per cent came from the Imperial Revenue, 14 from children's fees, 2 per cent from endowments and other small sources, the remaining 64 being levied from the rates. The widest dissatisfaction prevailed as to the system now in vogue, and it was not to be supposed that grievances of this magnitude would long remain un-discussed. One suggestion was that a county area should be selected, something on the model of his right hon. Friend's Bill relating to Roads. Another suggestion was that it should be laid on Imperial taxation. That was, he thought, a favourite remedy; but he did not think the present moment was a very favourable one for endeavouring to introduce this change. There was a cry of dissatisfaction at the amount of the grants which had been made from the Imperial taxation in aid of Education. It was, perhaps, the most lively branch of expenditure that existed in the Civil Service Estimates. He found that the Education grant had grown from £840,000 in 1870 to £1,566,000 in 1875, to £2,128,000 in 1877, and to £2,979,000 in 1881. They might call it £3,000,000. Then there was the further objection to this proposal that it would be the deathblow of the voluntary system—a system which he did not wish to see destroyed. He then came to this suggestion—could they not let inhabited houses pay the education rate? It was proposed that for the future the same description of building should be chargeable with the education rate that was now liable for
    266
    the house tax, except that houses under £20 would not be exempt. This, of course would exempt offices, business premises, farm lands, and so forth. The principle which he advocated was that those who benefited should pay—in other words, that the area of benefit should be coterminous with the area of burden. The farmer paid more than formerly for the education of children, and, in addition, he lost their services. Consequently, he was greatly damnified. It might be said that the farmer, after all, was a citizen, and that he benefited by the gradual improvement in the mental and bodily characteristics of the population which was the result of extended education. In the character of citizen he, no doubt, benefited, but in the character of farmer he suffered; therefore, he should pay in his capacity of householder, and not pay upon his land. A three-fourths exemption from the school board rate ought, at least, to be allowed in the case of land. There were precedents for this. There was an exemption of three-fourths in the case of land from the general district rate in urban districts, and land was exempted to the extent of two-thirds under the Libraries Act. By the system which he supported a larger rate would be levied in the country on the mansions of the gentry. The squire of a parish would be the greatest sufferer, because he would pay on his own house and on his cottage property as well. The tenant farmer would be a gainer, because he would pay on his house, instead of on his land, and the clergyman of the parish would also be a gainer. If the new rate should prove insufficient, it might be supplemented in case of need by the old one. It might be said in objection to his views that in a parish where there was a school board, there might be a large manufactory, a large mine, or something of that kind, but that the employer of the people who worked in such an establishment might live in the next parish where there was no school board, and would thus escape from a heavy contribution to the rates. In the Forest of Dean there was a large number of parishes of that kind. That was a difficulty he admitted; but how long was the school board likely to remain within the parochial area? That was an anomaly that was created by the Act of 1870. It was evident that there was

    267
    only one unit which could be adopted by the Government, and that was the Union. Therefore, that objection, although it might have some immediate value, had no permanent force whatever. The moment was opportune for such a change as he urged, because an election of school boards would take place next autumn, and we would not have to wait until 1885 before the reform he advocated was put in force. In conclusion, he would say to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council—
    "Si quid novisti rectius istis,
    "Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PELLsaid, that, while disclaiming any intention of saying anything that would have the effect of discouraging the good work of education, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the fact that the country people did consider that they were called upon to bear an undue proportion of school board rates.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PELLsaid, that his hon. Friend's Motion was wholesome and sound in principle, and, therefore, he should be glad to see the House accede to it. He did not go so far, however, as his hon. Friend in the desire to see the land exonerated. He thought the owners of "naked land," with no buildings on it, ought to contribute to the funds for education; but this was a different thing from charging the occupiers of land in the same manner as the occupiers of houses. Nothing had grown so rapidly as the school rate in its dimensions, and it had been accompanied by a still more startling increase in loans.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PELL, on resuming, said, the school rate had increased six times in amount between 1874 and 1880. The loans in respect of the School Board had risen from a little over £1,000,000 to close upon £13,000,000. Yet the School Board fees, which in 1876 produced
    268
    £122,000, had only risen to £335,000 in 1880, in spite of the increase of the population. He believed that any measure which brought the charge for education nearer home to those who benefited by it would be an honest and a sound measure. It was a well-known fact that in certain districts the proper incidence of the charge had been avoided by a bye-law setting forth that the district was too poor to pay the ordinary rate; and he himself knew of cases where the same child, whose fee had on account of poverty been reduced to 1d., had paid to the savings-bank officers from 10 s. to £1 at a time. Were not such proceedings as that calculated to demoralize the parents? He felt sure that the question raised by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire was one of considerable importance, and one which deserved the serious attention of the House.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, in his opinion there were two objects in bringing the Motion before the House—one was that it should act as a little bait, thrown out in order to obtain the farmer's support; and the other as a little relief, to be given to the poor landlords. If it was intended to give any benefit to the farmers, he congratulated that class on the service which the opposite side had given them, because the few hon. Gentlemen sitting in that part of the House had made a tremendous effort to get to the door before the Speaker could count them. Scarcely a single borough Member on the other side had remained in the House to defend the educational establishments of their constituents. The great merit of the speech of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) was its simplicity and frankness. He owned that the object of his Motion was to throw the whole of the educational rate on those who were least able to meet the demand and his great argument—and he seemed to think it perfectly unanswerable—was that those who received the benefit from the education rate should be the people, and the only people, who should be called upon to pay it. He (Mr. Broadhurst) would ask the House whether the benefits of education were confined alone to those who received that education? He did not for a moment hesitate to say that not only were manufacturers engaged in our vast industries benefited by the education of their workpeople,

    269
    but so were the farmers. [Mr. WARTON: No.] An educated farm labourer must be far more valuable than an ignorant farm labourer. [Mr. WARTON: No.] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport assumed the right to speak for the agricultural labourer; but he (Mr. Broadhurst) ventured to say that any person who had studied the labour question, and who had had the least knowledge of the condition of labour in this country, would unhesitatingly be of opinion that the better the workman was educated the better workman was he, and the more profitable to his employer. The Motion proposed not only to relieve the farmer, but to interfere with the incidence of taxation in the great centres of industry by relieving factories and workshops of their due share of the cost of the education of their neighbours. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire had said, he (Mr. Broadhurst) ventured to say that there were not a dozen owners of workshops, whether Liberals or Conservatives, who desired anything of the kind. If the hon. Member had had some experience in manufacturing industries, he would have learnt that he also was interested in the education of those whom he employed. The landowners, and the squires, and the farmers did not altogether lose the money that they paid for education. It had been the habit of country gentlemen to pay the rates necessary for the maintenance of prisons and workhouses without question and without grumbling. ["No, no‡"] Well, they had always grumbled when they had anything to pay, no matter what they paid. He was perfectly willing to accept the correction, and ought not to have fallen into the error. It was better for them to pay for education than for prisons and workhouses, and they had to pay in some way or other. They must know that if these children were not educated, they would probably become, later on, a burden on either the prison or workhouse rates, and they must, therefore, much prefer to pay the rate levied for educational purposes. The adoption of such a proposal, which he could not separate from a Bill that had been before the House for some time, would strike at the very root of the educational system of the country, destroying and rendering such a system impossible in the future. He hoped the House
    270
    would guard the Education Acts which had been passed, and not allow their value to be frittered away by a Motion suddenly sprung upon the House on a Friday evening. Speaking for himself, one-fifteenth of his rates went for education, and there was no part of his rates paid more cheerfully than the 20 s. in this respect; and he only regretted that the Forms of the House would not allow of a division, in order that the constituencies might see the insidious attempt to undermine a system which had made education one of the birthrights of Englishmen, and, at the same time, to know who were its enemies. He hoped they would defend it as long as they possessed any political power.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) assumed too much when he said that there was a feeling against education in this country on the part of the wealthier classes; and he (Mr. Gregory) ventured to remind the hon. Member of the sums given voluntarily to education. He did not think it could be said that those who had the means gave grudgingly. He thought it was reasonable to inquire whether the taxation was fairly applied, and whether it could be mitigated or relieved. He considered the school board system an extravagant one. The cost under it per child was £3 10 s. a-year, whereas the cost under the voluntary system was £1 15 s. [Mr. MUNDELLA: NO; that is a mistake.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman could give the correct figures; but it would hardly be denied that the system of voluntary contributions for the purpose of the education of children was cheaper and more satisfactory in its results than the system of rates under the school board system. They had a right to inquire how that difference arose. He would remind the House that, even under the present system, something like £750,000 was raised annually for the purpose of education by voluntary aid. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the system of voluntary aid had proved most advantageous to the country. Again, as regarded the expenses of management, he thought the voluntary system was infinitely preferable to that adopted under the school board, where the rates which could be levied were well-nigh inexhaustible. A person in a voluntary school knew where his contributions would end; but

    271
    the manager of a school board knew that he had only to levy a further rate. Whatever expenses he incurred must be paid by the ratepayers. He had been very much struck with what had occurred under his own cognizance. Some years ago notice was given by the London School Board to a landowner for whom he acted of a portion of his land in a populous district being required for the purposes of a school. On going to look at the site selected, he found that another school had also been erected by the Board at the other end of the street; but he was told that this was in a different district, and, consequently, another must be put up. But this was not all. A short time afterwards he received notice that further land was required for the purpose of a playground for the two schools; and, consequently, the land was bought, the houses pulled down, and compensation paid to owners, lessees, and occupiers, besides all the costs of the transaction, by the Board.
    MR. MUNDELLA: When?
    MR. GREGORY: Five or six years ago.
    MR. MUNDELLA.: And where?
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he would furnish all the necessary particulars to the right hon. Gentleman if he required them. Another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was that the Standards in Board schools were now raised exceedingly and unnecessarily high. Indeed, it was a question whether the education provided by the Statute was not beyond the necessities of the case, and that, as a consequence, large numbers of the middle classes were availing themselves of the advantages of gratuitously educating their children by the means thus afforded. There could be no doubt that tradesmen, clerks, and agents of various descriptions were largely taking advantage of the present system to the detriment of the ratepayers. The question of what remedy could be applied was a very serious one. He did not know whether this concerned the Education Department or not; but, however that might be, he thought the question was one which was entitled to the consideration of the House. It required most careful watching, and a close investigation of the causes which led to the present results. Above all, it was necessary we should see that the persons who had
    272
    been invested with large powers of taxation should apply those powers with due consideration for the benefit of those whose interests were at stake. He thought that the proposal of his hon. Friend would check the disposition to incur unnecessary outlay on the part of school boards, and throw, to a certain extent, the burden on the shoulders of the classes to whom he had referred.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that had the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. R. Yorke) who had brought forward this Motion gone to a division, he (Mr. Firth) should have voted in favour of it. In supporting the Motion, however, he was scarcely able to do it on the grounds advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Firth) represented a borough constituency of considerable size, and it was found that the incidence of the school rate was exceedingly hard and unjust. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire laid down the true principle when he said that those who benefited by education should pay for it. But the question to consider in that relation was—who were those who benefited? Those who benefited were very well indicated by a well-known American statesman. Speaking in the State of New York, when describing a measure for the education of the people in that State, he said he did not consider that a community would be worth living in in which the children were not well educated, and that it was the interest of everyone possessing a large stake in the country that there should be that security which could only effectually result from the education of its citizens. The hardship on farmers was hardly more than that on shopkeepers in the towns, and the shopkeepers would hardly have any relief from the proposal of the hon. Member. He thought that the present rate asked by the London School Board was a very moderate one, being at the rate of 6d. in the pound, producing £700,000, and representing an outlay of 3s. 6d. per head; but he would remind the House that in Massachusetts the same rate would be six times that sum, reaching, as it did, £1 per head. The education in Boston was proportionately higher, and with 63,000 children at school, 52,000 were in the public schools, and only 5,000 in voluntary schools. He had been told by a gentleman in America that the system prevailing in Boston was to ask every inhabit-

    273
    ant to say how much he was worth after he had paid all his debts. The various estimates were added together, and the rate put on the top of the estimates. If the House accepted the principle that those who had the greatest stake in the country were most benefited by education, there could be no objection to that system of rating. But it might be said, "What guarantee have you that correct estimates will be sent in?" Of course, they had none; but the estimates were published every year, and he had been told that so many persons were desirous of appearing to have more than they really had, that in the end the matter squared itself. That system, though grossly inquisitorial, would be perfectly fair—affecting rich and poor equally—and while he did not recommend it, he mentioned it because it seemed to him that somewhere between that system and the one at present adopted in this country must be found the solution of the problem raised by the Motion. It would relieve the shopkeeper who had a high rent to pay, and who had little profit left after meeting debts, and would reach the man who had no shop and no business, and did nothing but live on his income. On the other hand, our own system was exceedingly unfair. Take the case of the bootmaker, compelled to take a shop in a leading thoroughfare, and a gentleman with £20,000 in Consols, both of whom occupied houses rated at £100 a-year. In the one case the bootmaker, who worked hard all day at his trade, might be worth £2,000, and the other, say, £20,000. Surely, it could not be fair that the one should pay as much as the other. In Boston such a man had to pay 10 times more than a tradesman; whereas, in this country, he paid the same. A just system would lie in some intermediate adjustment. He admitted the difficulty which surrounded the subject, yet he hoped some solution might be found which would relieve the cases of hardship. During the time that he was a member of the School Board of London, he had attended the meetings of the Statistical Committee of the Board, and they were always most careful to deal fairly with the interests of property. The machinery of the London School Board had been set working by gentlemen who had devoted many hours of their valuable time for that purpose. The machinery only required oiling to
    274
    remain in order, and he trusted that so much personal devotion to a great work would not be thrown away.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad the Motion had been brought forward and discussed, though in a conversational debate. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) as to the substantial character of his grievance, but differed from him in regard to the remedies. At the same time, he must congratulate him upon his receiving the support, somewhat unexpected, of the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). But the case of those whom his hon. Friend represented differed materially from that of the shopkeeper of whom the hon. and learned Member spoke. In the one case the shopkeeper was rated upon the house he occupied, and to him the rule could fairly be applied—"As a man's house is, so is his ability to pay." There might be many objections to that system, but none so grave as in the farmer's case. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward the Motion in its present form, for it was impossible for any hon. Member to hope to carry a Bill through the House involving a transfer of the burden of taxation. There could be no doubt as to the substantial character of the grievance complained of; and had the Education Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) come fully into operation, and the system of school boards been adopted as universally as had been desired by the promoters of them, this question must long since have come before the House, for the burden to the occupiers of land arising from defects in the incidence of the rating must have long since been found to be intolerable. The tendency to throw heavier burdens upon the rates had become more and more marked as time proceeded. He would instance two cases—the sanitary rate and the education rate. A theory was propounded that a certain area—the area of the parish—must be considered as giving the inhabitants a common interest in a common object. This interest of the parish was regarded as affording the best means of securing the health of the population; and a few years later the same area was taken for the purposes of education. But the effect was, in both cases, to work a great injustice to the occupiers of land, because no

    275
    means was provided for opening up the contract between the landlord and the tenant, and giving the occupier an opportunity of varying his rent in proportion to the new burden thrown on the occupation. That injustice was remedied, to some extent, in regard to the sanitary rate—namely by the mitigation of the charge on land, as compared with the charge on house property. The remedy which his hon. Friend desired to apply to the education rate was, he thought, much more easily applicable to the case of the sanitary rate. When his hon. Friend said that the house tax was the more fair way of assessing the education rate, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should rather say that that was the mode by which the pressure of the sanitary rates in rural districts might most justly and properly be mitigated. If they examined closely the case of the rural districts, he thought it would be found that a house tax, although it would mitigate some portion of the injustice to which his hon. Friend drew attention, would create injustice of another sort and promote jealousy of another kind. In the rural districts, in the event of the establishment of a school board, the immediate effect was to transfer the cost of the education of the parish from the wealthier classes, who had hitherto presumably defrayed it by their subscriptions, to the shoulders of the farmers, whose means of discharging it was in the inverse ratio of their ratability. The Education Act was deficient in this important particular, that it provided no means, under the school board system, for opening the contract between the landlord and the tenant and requiring that, until a new contract was entered into, the rate should be divided between them. It was a flagrant injustice of the school board system that no such arrangement was made. It was the habit of this country to go on with legislation very imperfect theoretically, provided that it worked practically in a manner more or less satisfactorily; and the reason why the Education Act had gone on belong without provoking more noisy and violent explosions of disgust and alarm was that the Act had been found to work with considerable fairness in the urban districts where the great masses of the people were concentrated and where education had, on the whole, been satisfactorily provided by means of
    276
    the system which it constituted. Up to this moment, in the agricultural districts, generally speaking, the school board system had not been introduced. That system must, however, be regarded as looming in the distance for all of them, and the time would come when it would spread all over the country, and then that flagrant injustice would have to be dealt with. He could quote instances in his own immediate neighborhood in which large parishes, purely agricultural, had been obliged to come under the school board system from accidental circumstances, such as the failure of subscriptions to meet the requirements of the Education Department, or through some quarrel arising among the inhabitants. He did not himself offer a complete remedy. It was difficult to interfere with the power on which the educational system now rested—namely, the power of borrowing money at easy rates of interest, constructing buildings, establishing school boards, and providing that the inhabitants of the district should be represented and should manage their own affairs. He submitted, however, that it was the bounden duty of the Government and of that Department of the State which had most to do with the supervision of local taxation to keep in mind the questions connected with the unfair incidence of rating. The grievance and the difficulty to which his hon. Friend had called attention were not yet fully upon them. The question was a growing one; and as time went on he felt satisfied that it would be found that no Government could afford to ignore the necessity of facing it.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he inferred that the speech of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had been prepared for another occasion. No doubt, when the Education Act was passed there were individual speculations as to what the rate might amount to; but what his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said was that he hoped a rate of 3d. would be rarely exceeded. There was, however, an expectation that it might be, because the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) raised the question whether, when it did exceed 3d., one-half of it should not be borne by the State; but that proposal was negatived. It was very delusive to

    277
    group together the boards whose rates amounted to 6d. or 1s., and to exclude the larger number whose rates were lower. The majority of the boards whose rates were high were those of small rural parishes, and, no doubt, in scattered districts the rate fell heavily on a few farmers who were the principal ratepayers; but, taking the country generally, the hon. Member who introduced the subject had given an incorrect idea of the cost of education. He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) believed, however, that the extension of the area from which school boards were elected would be a very substantial remedy. The great burden upon small school boards arose from the expense of the elections and the salaries of officials, and the proper remedy for that would be the more frequent exercise on the part of the Department of the power it had of consolidating the townships where they existed in close contiguity, thus reducing the cost of elections and of clerks' services. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that it would not be desirable to increase the contribution of the State and decrease the local contribution. There was great danger in taking that step that local control over the work would be unduly diminished; whereas, in the work of education, it was of paramount importance to interest the particular localities. He thought there was a danger, which was increasing every year, of centralization in the question of education. We did not want in this country the French system of centralization, where the Education Department nominated and removed all the teachers. He looked upon the main proposal of the hon. Member as most pernicious, destructive, and mischievous to education, because, if it were carried out, there was not a railway, or ironworks, or system of docks, or a factory that would pay a penny to the education rate. Was it reasonable, for example, that the colliery of a Durham village, which brought the population there, and created the demand for the education rate, should not pay one farthing to the cost? Let them imagine what the effect of that would be in large manufacturing towns such as Ashton, Barrow, and Middles borough. In the great manufacturing towns of Lancashire, which consisted of whole streets of cottages, the employers often living outside the borough,
    278
    nearly the whole burden of the education rate would be thrown upon the parents whose children were educated at the board schools. Perhaps the hon. Member would be very glad of that; but it was not the principle upon which legislation had been based of late years. It seemed to him that the hon. Member's speech was not characterized by any very great love of education, especially that part of it in which he compared the educational system of the country to a system of Poor Law relief. He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) could only say that if the hon. Member thought the business of the State was to dole out the means of education, his views were so completely at variance with the policy adopted by the country in recent years that no political Party would agree with him. The necessities of life in the present day required something more than a mere dole of education, and made it impossible to teach the "three R's" without going further. According to the proposal of the hon. Member who had introduced the subject, the farmer, the landlord, the manufacturer, nearly everyone, in short, would be relieved of the greater part of his present burden, till no one would be left to be rated but the poorer class of householders. It seemed to him that the proposal of the hon. Member started from an entirely wrong supposition; whereas the Education Act took it for granted that the training of children was a matter of national importance, the cost of which must be borne, to a great extent, locally. He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) did not mean to say that something was not required to be done on the question of rating; but to say that it was expedient to re-adjust the incidence of the rates, for the single matter of education, seemed to him an utterly idle proposition to bring forward. Inequalities, perhaps, existed which might need to be remedied, and contributions might be made proportionate rather to a man's ability to pay than to the extent of his visible property; but he held, on the whole, that the proposal that had been made to the House would not satisfactorily meet the difficulties of the case. In conclusion, he must say, with reference to the complaint of the burden on small rural parishes, that he could not understand the feeling of English ratepayers in objecting to the payment of 1d. extra for such a useful object as education.

    279
    Let them look at Scotland, where school boards were universal throughout the country, and in the rural districts the rate was infinitely higher than in England. In some of the Highland parishes the school board rate went up to 3s., 4s. and 5s. in the pound; and yet he had seen with what liberality and energy the people of those Highland parishes had built admirable school houses, and had provided the means to bring schoolmasters within the reach of very small handfuls of children. But the fact was, that in Scotland the people had been longer accustomed to education than they were in England, and they valued it more; and, although the pinch had come more upon the Scotch than it had upon the English people, they did not make such complaints about it. He admitted there was a grievance; but he considered that it was a sham and a delusion to imagine that a proposal of this kind was going to remedy it. The fact was that they in England needed to appreciate education more, and they would not then be so sensitive on this point.
    MR. STORERsaid, it was untrue to Bay, as had been said in the course of the debate, that the inhabitants of rural parishes and the owners of land had a great objection to education. They had not the slightest objection to it; what they objected to was that a great part of the burden should be thrown upon land which benefited so little from the education for which they paid, and that the occupiers of land had to bear a disproportionate share of the burden when compared with the dwellers in towns. Allusion had been made to the original estimate for the school board rate that 3d. in the pound would be sufficient. But it appeared from a Paper which had been presented to the House, that in the rural parts of England hardly any of the school board parishes paid less than 1s. in the pound, while some paid as high as 2s. 6d., which was equal to an income tax of 5s. in the pound. What urban district paid anything like that? Every agriculturist knew well that, in that education rate, he paid not for what was an advantage to him, but for his own damage and disaster, because education took the hands away from agriculture permanently, and, therefore, increased the price of labor. The difficulty and disaster from that cause were
    280
    now so great that the land was going out of cultivation, because farmers could not find the money to provide the additional labor or children to do the work which they formerly did. In short, the farmers would be driven to distraction by the burdens which were laid upon them. They were told by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) that this was not a question for the occupier, because if he did not pay in rates, he should have to pay in rent. But everybody knew now that rents could not be increased, and landowners considered themselves well off if they got any rent for their land at all. He (Mr. Storer) did not think the substitution of the Union area for the parochial area would meet the view of the people in the rural districts.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that he could not help remarking as to the wide scope the discussion had taken. Only yesterday the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had a Bill on the Paper against which there was an Amendment, and there was very slight chance of that Bill being discussed. Very adroitly, however, he managed some time last night to discharge the Bill, and to put down on the Paper a Resolution which contained the substance of that measure. Upon that Resolution the whole question of Education, the Code, and even sewing had been discussed, though the subject before them had only to do with the incidence of the Education rate, a matter which had reference to the Local Government Board rather than to his own Department. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Prime Minister had promised to deal with this question. When the deputation representing the agricultural interest waited upon his right hon. Friend, it was quite possible that the education rate was mentioned, and that the Prime Minister promised that the whole question should be considered in dealing with local government and county taxation; but there was no promise that this question should be considered separately by the Government, or even that it should be included in the other rates proposed to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman stated that when the Education Act was launched by his (Mr. Mundella's) right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that right hon. Gentleman ex-

    281
    pressed an opinion that a rate of 3d. in the pound would rarely be exceeded. He (Mr. Mundella) was afraid there were very few estimates made to the House, either as to local or general taxation, which did not come, in the course of years, to exceed the original estimate. But, as great stress had been laid upon this question of rates, it was right that he should deal with it more particularly, and tell the House what it was, and where it fell in reality. From a Return for the year 1879–80—the last that was made—the total of the education rate for England was £1,477,919, or less than £1,500,000. Of that sum London bore £585,000, and the boroughs of England £451,000, while the rural parishes of England paid only £440,000. Those parishes were not by any means rural, but many of them were urban and manufacturing districts. The total amount paid by the rural parishes, therefore, was very small, though he admitted that in some of them it was very burdensome. The cause of that was that the parish had been originally taken as the unit of the school board system, and some of them being very small, the rate fell heavily upon them. The reason why the rates of the small school boards were high was that they had to bear the cost of election contests and of clerks' salaries, just as much as the larger boards. He hoped some day they should be able to find a means of diminishing these expenses for school boards and other local authorities in the small parishes. He did not think that it was necessary that the principal attorney in a country parish, or, where there was none, one from the neighboring town, should derive an annual emolument from the administration of a solitary school of 150 children; and it was monstrous that we had not found a means, not only in respect to schools, but to other administrations, of getting rid of those gentlemen who were attached to all local institutions. He had had to cut down the charges made in some cases, and he had been able to reduce them by as much as 50 per cent. The question, what had been the average of the school board rates? was easily ascertained by reference to the statistics. In the year 1879 it was 5 7·10 d.; in boroughs, 4 1·10 d.; and in parishes, 5 6·10 d.—so that although there were many parishes under 3d., there were
    282
    some—and a considerable number probably—in which 3d. had been exceeded. But he believed that, on the whole, the education rate had been exceptionally well spent, and the administration of the Act had been conducted, on the whole, with great economy. He was very much surprised at some of the statistics of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire, as to the proportion of school incomes from different sources; he could not tell whence these ridiculous figures had been obtained. They might, however, be tested and corrected by a table given in the last Report which covered a period of 10 years. In that time it appeared that the total income, apart from the Government grant, was £20,933,000, of which £9,827,000 was from school rates, and the Government grant was £11,783,000.
    MR. PELL, interrupting, remarked that the proportions had been given by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R.Yorke) for Board schools alone.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that might be so; but the Education Act dealt with the elementary education of the whole country, and he therefore quoted figures embracing all the schools. He admitted that, in some instances, the burdens of the school board rate were too heavy; but he would ask how was it we did not hear any complaint from Scotland? Scotland had a school board in every parish, and the rates were much higher than in England, and yet he was almost in disgrace because he did not raise the Standard for Scotland. The schools were attended by farmers' sons and the children of the middle classes, and their parents did not consider themselves pauperized by accepting the Government grant. Scotland obtained 2s. a-year for every child more than was paid in England. The reason why Scotland bore its rates patiently was that education was admitted to be an important factor in promoting the prosperity and welfare of the country; while, in England, they had gentlemen declaring that education was a bad thing for the agricultural interest, that it took men away from the farms, disqualified them for the plough, and sent them in search of other employments. In England there were 8,000 rural parishes in which children were free to labor on passing the Fourth Standard, which every child ought to pass

    283
    at 10 years of age. [An hon. MEMBER: But they do not.] The reason for that was that the law was not put in force early enough; it was only when a child came to the 10th year and could not pass, that pressure was put on. When the farmer came to know his interests better, he would apply the pressure earlier so as to be able to have the labor of the child when it reached the age. The effect of Scotch pre-eminence in this matter was that, in all parts of the world, Scotchmen took leading positions out of all proportion to their numbers. One reason for the satisfaction which prevailed in Scotland was that the farmer paid only half the rate and the landlord paid the other half, because the rate was divided between the owner and the occupier. He had no doubt the hon. Member opposite would look with favor upon that division, and he (Mr. Mundella) should be glad if the local taxation reformers in the country would propose a similar division; but in that debate he had not heard anyone urge that the landlord should pay half the school board rate. That would go a great way towards the solution of the question. He should be glad to see the areas of rural boards extended, and the Union made the unit, and the rate paid equally by landlord and tenant. That would be a good solution, and he wished hon. Members opposite could give him a cheer for this suggestion. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire complained of the present system, because it enabled the working classes to spend rates to which they did not contribute. He made a great mistake in that respect. Since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1867, the electors in Sheffield, for instance, had increased in number from 9,000 odd to 40,000 odd, and the 30,000 odd brought in did contribute to the rate in proportion to their means as much as the upper and middle classes. The hon. Member suggested the putting of the whole burden of the school board rate upon inhabited houses. He said the children came from the houses, and that, therefore, the cost of their education should be defrayed by rates upon the houses—in other words, that it should be borne by the poor occupants. He (Mr. Mundella) could not conceive, unless the hon. Member really desired to make education odious and unpopular, a worse suggestion than that. If it were carried out, lands, mines, railways,
    284
    factories, canals, gas-works, and, indeed, everything but inhabited houses, would escape the burden of the rate. The result of that he could illustrate by his own personal experience. He had been a large employer of labor in towns in which there were mills employing thousands of workpeople. He did not live in either of the towns; and if the mills had not been rated, he would have escaped altogether any contribution towards the cost of educating the workpeople, on whose intelligence so much depended. In Sheffield there were two large joint-stock companies producing armour-plate; each paid, perhaps, £5,000 a-year in rates; each employed 4,000 or 5,000 workmen, representing two or three times as many children; and if the proposition of the hon. Member were carried out, these large works—many of whose shareholders lived outside the town—would be relieved from every farthing of school board taxation. The proposal of the hon. Member would also exclude railway companies. Whenever railway companies came into a district, they always brought a large number of servants with them. Yet these undertakings would be entirely exempt from taxation. The practical effect of it would be to relieve the burdens of the rich, because they could live where they pleased, and to place them upon the shoulders of the poor. Under a system such as that proposed, there would be rich men's parishes and poor men's parishes. The rich man would pay nothing, and the poor man, in respect of his cottage, would be required to pay all. In many instances that would be the practical result. The hon. Member had mentioned the Public Libraries Act; but he must remember that that Act could only be put into operation in boroughs where the population exceeded 5,000, and then only under certain restrictions. No complaint, therefore, could be founded on that enactment. Complaints, however, had been made that the school rate had been increased six times during the last seven years—since 1874—and that the loans had been increased from £1,000,000 to £13,000,000. He had already pointed out that the loans had grown mainly in the great boroughs and not in the rural districts; and the reason of this growth was owing to the fact that, until recent years, the education of the children of London, for instance, had been shame-

    285
    fully neglected. It had been said that there was a school at the end of every street; but those who said so forgot, at the same time, to mention the slums which were in the immediate neighborhood of each school. It would be found that even now the school accommodation was not adequate for the requirements of many districts, particularly in Lambent, where alone there was a deficiency of 7,000 places. Whenever a new school was begun, which was never done without the consent of the Education Department, applications were frequently made to builders to know when it could be finished, in order that children might be sent there. As regarded education in rural districts, he had the authority of Mr. Clare Read for saying that want of education was one of the causes which made American competition so formidable to us; and if we would hope to contend successfully against that competition, we must give our children much higher and better education than we had hitherto done. He could confirm a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) with respect to the education rate in America. In Massachusetts 17 s. per head of the population was the amount of the rate paid, against 2s. per head in the boroughs, or 3s. 6d. per head in London. Since William Penn founded Pennsylvania, every State in the Union had reserved a large portion of its land for education; but, unfortunately, they had no such resource in this country. With respect to the loans which had been contracted, there had been no extravagance. Most of the debts had been contracted during the six years in which the late Government was in power, and he would say that, in his opinion, the utmost discretion had been observed in making them. The utmost regard to economy had distinguished the late Government in this matter, and he did not believe that any money had ever been laid out better. The effect of it was that, by an expenditure of from £13,000,000 to £14,000,000, the country had got schools which would last them for the next century. He believed it would confer great and growing benefits for many years to come. He thought that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell) was indebted to Members on the Ministerial side for keeping a House, for, in the course of half-an-hour, there
    286
    were no less than three attempts to count out the House; and whenever he (Mr. Mundella) hurried back from the Lobby he found the champions of local taxation rushing out of the House. He could not for one moment assent to the principle laid down by his hon. Friend. To his proposal that there should be quinquennial elections and school boards, he was not sure that he would not assent; but he was not prepared to say at this moment that this was the best solution of the question. With reference to school board elections, whenever the question was dealt with it should not be dealt with piecemeal, but on the responsibility of the Government. He must leave any other question to be dealt with by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
    EARL PERCYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had admitted that there was much to be said in favor of some of the points urged by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke), and he (Earl Percy) certainly hoped that what had passed would not be without fruit. But it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had confused two very distinct questions—namely, the operations of the Education Act in the rural parts of the country, and its effects in the boroughs and large towns. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt entirely with the case of large manufacturing towns and the persons employed in collieries, and upon railways and other industries. He (Earl Percy) would confess, for his own part, that he thought there was a great deal in what was said as to the inapplicability of the Resolution to large manufacturing towns, as there was no doubt that the manufacturing classes derived far greater benefit from the advantages of education than did the agricultural classes. He agreed with the opinion that such proposals as that now before the House only touched the fringe of the subject. It would, however, really have the effect of dividing the burden of the cost of education between the landlords and the occupiers, and that, he thought, was desirable. His own impression was that the question of local taxation would not be satisfactorily settled until they had discovered a new unit of taxation, which should not be either the parish or the

    287
    Union. But if they were to wait until the question could be dealt with as a whole, he feared that the burden which was complained of would have to be borne for a very long time. He disputed the allegation that the Motion was at variance with the feelings of the country; while with regard to the one asserting that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House did not appreciate the benefits of education, he thought it was an amusing statement to make when they looked round and saw the very vague manner in which hon. Members opposite talked about education. He believed the Conservatives represented the feelings of the rural population of the country on that question fully as well, and even to a greater extent, than hon. Members on the other side who represented boroughs. It was a subject who affected the rural districts more than the boroughs, yet, at one period of the debate, not a single Member representing those districts was present on the other side of the House. None of the arguments that had been adduced on the Ministerial side of the House had dealt with the rural aspect of this question. He thought, from the accounts received daily and hourly, that it might be doubted whether the new system of education had much improved the condition of the people morally; and he thought that it was highly probable that the institution of board schools had deteriorated the religious condition of the people. Speaking generally, his impression was that in rural districts the occupiers should in some way be relieved of some of the great burden of local taxation which pressed upon them. He, therefore, asked the House to consent to the proposition that the rural districts suffered from the present system, for a distinction should be drawn between the towns and the rural districts; and he hoped something would be done to remedy the grievances that existed.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid he must call attention to the fact that laborers did not pay the rates on their cottages, and, therefore, it was not correct to say that the burden of the rate fell on the laboring classes. If the alterations in question were carried out, the burden would not fall upon the working classes, but upon those who were the occupiers of their farms. He had heard with regret
    288
    the despondent way in which the noble Earl who had just spoken (Earl Percy) had referred to the progress and effect of education. He (Mr. Duckham) regarded education as a great national question, and one to the cost of which the general wealth of the nation should contribute a great deal more than it did. He was surprised to hear the noble Earl state that education had not improved the morals of the people of the country. He believed that the tendency of the present system of education was to improve the morals of the people, and make them better members of society; but, at the same time, it was wrong to place such heavy burdens upon the occupiers of the soil as those they now suffered under. He thought that a re-adjustment of the rate was necessary; and, in his opinion, a fair apportionment of it would be to levy one-fourth on the land, and the remaining three-fourths on the houses. This was only a portion of a great national question; and if there had been less obstruction, there was no doubt it would have been dealt with during the present Session, as promised by the Government. MR R. H. PAGET said, he thought there should be some alteration in the present system, for the simple reason that the cost to the rates of the maintenance of elementary schools would be intolerable if the voluntary schools should disappear. It was the maintenance of those schools by the wealthier classes that enabled the rural ratepayers to bear the burdens that were cast upon them. He hoped and believed the voluntary schools were not doomed to early extinction. There was great vitality in them, for two reasons—first, the conviction prevailed in the rural districts that religion could only be taught in its entirety and integrity in voluntary schools; and, secondly, those schools were infinitely more economical than Board schools. Wherever school boards did exist in rural districts, the burden was very irksome. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council did not deny that, and admitted that there was an injustice. That injustice was annually increasing, and hon. Members on that side of the House would always complain of it until an efficient remedy was provided. This question would not be allowed to remain long in its present state. The Government of the day was prepared to concede largely

    289
    the demands made upon them by those who were not always the most loyal of Her Majesty's subjects; and when reasonable demands were made by loyal subjects they ought, at least, to receive a similar amount of attention. If there was any class in the country who appreciated the necessity of education it was the farmers; and the reform in educational matters which would be most beneficial to them and to the country would be the promotion and improvement of secondary education. He acknowledged the conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had spoken, and hoped it was an indication that Her Majesty's Government would endeavor speedily to remedy the grievance, the serious character of which was generally admitted. As regards halving the rate, however, there were many simple and obvious objections to such a course if it were the only remedy proposed. He thought that the discussion they had had that night was of a very important character. He believed that the Resolution was one to which the House might well have agreed, for no one could deny that some change in the present system was desirable. He must express his regret that the distinct promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the whole subject of local taxation would not be realized during the present Session; and though until that was done he feared that there would be no attempt to deal with this part of the question, yet he considered it would be well to place on record the Resolution now before the House, if only as a protest against the continuance of an injustice, which had been admitted by nearly every hon. Member who had taken part in this debate.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. H. Paget), and he agreed with him that the Motion before the House was one of great importance. He was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman allege that no class in England more appreciated the advantages of education than the farmers of the country. He was glad to find that the farmers of England had arrived at that feeling, and that a hon. Gentleman who knew so much of them was ready to declare that they were directing their attention to obtain higher education for
    290
    the agricultural children. He believed that their attention to that subject would do much to raise the standard of education in England generally; and he knew of no class which would be benefited more by that standard being raised than the farmers of England. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Percy) said he concurred in the belief that education in Scotland was more highly appreciated than it was in England. He (Mr. Ramsay) believed that that was admitted on all hands; but in what class of society was it most appreciated? He knew of none by whom it was appreciated more highly than by the Scotch farmers. The noble Earl said that the middle classes did not take advantage of the schools for which they were made to pay a large proportion of the expense. He thought it would be of great advantage to the people of England if the distinctions between various classes of society were much less taken notice of than they were in the education of the young. He saw no reason why the sons of the Peer and of the peasant should not sit on the same bench in the parish schools. He thought it would be for the advantage of both classes if the distinctions which now existed were done away with. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject (Mr. J. R. Yorke) referred to the case of Scotland; and allusion had been made to the fact that, under certain sanitary Acts, the land was exempted from the same payments as the houses. But the cases of sanitary improvement in a district and the education of the children were essentially different; and the only result of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that they should increase the tax by placing it upon houses only in the rural districts, would be to render it impossible to collect the rate without inflicting great hardship upon the individuals who paid it. He thought that those who professed to speak in the interests of education should shrink before they did anything that would tend to bring about such a state of affairs. He gathered, however, that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject had not in view the interests of education as he (Mr. Ramsay) understood them, because he said that if they were to provide for education out of the rates, they should provide only for mere elementary education. The hon. Gentleman would like

    291
    the children of the working classes to get that elementary education and nothing more. He (Mr. Ramsay) was afraid, from the expressions which had fallen from the opposite Benches, that hon. Members were under the impression that the education of the poor was not for the advantage of the rich, and that if a greater proportion of the rates were devoted to educational purposes no very large amount of good would be done to the people employed. Now, the rich, even although they paid the larger portion of the rates, got quite as much advantage from the higher education of the poor they employed as the poor themselves. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. R. H. Paget) referred to the question of dividing the rates between the owner and the occupier, which was the practice in Scotland, and the hon. Member complained that it would do nothing for the yeoman, because the yeoman was the owner of his own house and land, and must necessarily pay the rates both for ownership and occupancy. That, however, was no argument against the propriety of adopting the system; and he thought the landowners of England, and those who administered the county rates in England, would do well to consider that the very fact of the rates being so charged, and by requiring the owner and the occupier to bear an equal share of the rates, would do much to do away with the discontent which now prevailed in regard to the distribution of the rates. He was of opinion that the county administration in England should be the same as that in Scotland; and when the question came to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government he hoped that that principle would be the one adopted. At present there existed a wide distinction as to the mode in which the rates were levied. The occupier in England was made to pay the whole of the rates, whereas in Scotland they were equally borne by the owner and the occupier. He thought it was equally to the interest of the owner and the occupier that a change in this respect should be brought about at an early day, so that the incidence of the rates might be rendered equal in both countries. He was aware that it was said to be demonstrable that the rate paid by the occupier fell ultimately on the proprietor. Although that was quite true in theory, in practice it made an
    292
    Essential difference whether the owner only paid the rates, or whether the owner and occupier had to pay alike, because there was no argument that reached the understanding more quickly than the argument that affected the pocket. He thought if the Government could see their way to the passing of a short Act to provide that rates of all descriptions in England should be levied equally from the owner and occupier, it would be of great service to the interests of education as well as to the interests of the poor, and that it would tend to allay the feeling of bitterness which now prevailed in the minds of many of the occupying tenants. He had no wish to take up the time of the House; but he had thought it right that he should make some reference to the remarks which had been made, and he thanked the House for having listened to him.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid that a hon. Friend who sat below him had spoken of Union areas, but was opposed altogether to the application in any way of the Union area for school board purposes, as distinguished from parishes. Personally, he (Viscount Emlyn) thought, although he admitted that the subject was a difficult one that something should be done in the direction of the creation of more equal districts for school board purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) alluded to a certain extent, to the same point. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the smallness of the parishes in the school board districts as an evil, in so far as they increased in such localities the proportionate cost of the work of education. But that was one of the evils that had always existed since the passing of the Act of 1870. He (Viscount Emlyn) admitted the difficulty, but could not see how, under the present system, it was to be avoided. They saw now, in the same locality, one parish with a low rate able value, in which it was necessary to employ all the paraphernalia of a school board, side by side with a large school district, which included five or six parishes. Certainly the evil was one of considerable magnitude, and one that to many persons appeared quite absurd; and he should therefore be very glad, if it were possible, to see an equalization of these charges—not spreading them, perhaps, absolutely over Union areas, but, at all

    293
    events, extending them over larger areas than those of parishes. It seemed to be thought that an extension of area might diminish the interest taken in the affairs of the district. Now, he did not think the Guardians of the poor paid less attention to the affairs of their own localities because their duties were extended to the whole Union, or that they would be better performed if they were confined to the parishes. To his mind, where the area was extended, the public obtained better service, and, on the whole, there was a better administration of the affairs of the locality. The question now before the House seemed to him to raise the whole question of the incidence of taxation. He did not think it possible to go into the question and restrict their observations solely to the subject of education. When they discussed the incidence of taxation it became necessary to refer not to education only, but to the question of local taxation generally. Therefore, if he wandered away from the question of education, it would not be because he did so intentionally, but simply because of the way in which the Resolution had been put before the House. As far as he was able to gather, the general tendency of those who had considered the subject of late had been to proceed exactly in an opposite direction to that now suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke). There had been no tendency, so far as he had seen hitherto, to restrict and contract the areas of local taxation; but it had been the wish of everyone with whom he had been brought in contact to enlarge those areas, and more especially in regard to education. The question of education was so wide and so Imperial a subject that the incidence of the taxation affecting it ought to be spread over a wider area than at present. What would be the result if the intention of his hon. Friend were carried out? In regard to that intention, he (Viscount Emlyn) took note only of the absolute wording of the Resolution, and it seemed to him that it might mean anything or nothing. He was, therefore, bound to couple with it the matter contained in the speech of his hon. Friend; and, as far as he was able to understand what his hon. Friend intended, it was, in rural and other parishes, to exempt the land entirely from taxation so far as education was con-
    294
    cerned. His noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) seemed to think that, as far as the rural districts were affected, the case was entirely different from that of the localities referred to as borough districts; but how would the rural districts be affected? In some of these rural districts they found, not unnaturally, a considerable outcry in regard to the heavy rate that was collected for educational purposes. He did not propose to enter into the question of whose fault that was. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would cut out all the land, and put the charge upon the houses only; but did he think, if that were done, that the rate would be less heavily felt? It might be imposed upon fewer people; but the amount of money to be paid would be just the same, and some individuals would have to pay two or three times as much as they did now. Now, that would be moving in exactly the contrary direction to that which he thought they ought to proceed. He did not think that a larger amount of Imperial taxation should be devoted in aid of educational purposes. There were many reasons why that should not be done; but, to his mind, there was great room for the curtailment of the expenditure, not by the Imperial Government, but by the local authorities themselves, and he should be very much disinclined to lessen their responsibilities in the matter. He believed that the more the responsibility was placed on the local authorities the better. He thought there were good grounds for pressing to the front the argument that, education being an Imperial need, the cost of it should be borne, to a great extent, by the Imperial funds; but the more hon. Gentlemen studied the question the more they would satisfy themselves that the charge was borne, to a considerable extent, by Imperial funds at the present time. He thought anyone who had had any experience in the country would see that there was great carelessness in checking expenditure; and one great cure for it, and one which he would be very sorry to abolish, was that the burden should be felt in those districts in which the local authorities were the most lax in the matter of extravagance of expenditure. A question which had been raised by one or two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the question had reference to the propriety of dividing

    295
    the expense between the landlord and the tenant; and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), who had just addressed the House, alluded principally to that point. But it certainly appeared to him (Viscount Emlyn) that that was merely a question of the representation of those who paid the taxes. If they were going to make the landlord pay one-half and the tenant the other half, they must each have equal representation. No doubt much might be said in favour of making each pay half of the taxes, and giving each representation on the board, and forcing both to the front, compelling them to take part in the local management. Another question brought forward by his noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland was that of over-education. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear‡] The hon. and learned Member near him (Mr. Warton) cheered that sentiment. As far as he (Viscount Emlyn) was able to gather, the only possible occasion on which they could object to over-education was where they prevented poor persons, or the children of poor persons, from earning their living by over-educating them, and compelling them to go to school. A strict limit should be placed as to how far they were to resort to absolute compulsion in the way of education. He did not say that compulsion had gone too far at present; but he had been glad to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council in regard to the absolute necessity of using compulsion for children at an early age. He (Viscount Emlyn) himself, in his experience, had seen many and many a cruel case, in which the school boards had been obliged to step in at a time when the child should have been earning a certain amount of wages. And why was that? Simply because the school boards had not stepped in sooner. If the school boards had got the children into the schools at an earlier age, and if, at the first moment when it was considered necessary that a child should be at school, they had insisted upon its going there, the House would never have heard one word upon this question of compulsion, because the children would have passed all the necessary standards by the time they were old enough to earn anything worth mentioning. What should be done was to compel the attendance of the children at school at the
    296
    earliest age the Act allowed compulsion to be used at all. If that were done, a great step would be made towards the removal and sweeping away of the objections that were heard now, that (owing not to the action of the Imperial Government, but owing to the laxity of the local authorities), the Education Act was constantly stepping in between the poor parents and the bread or wages which their children could earn. They heard much in regard to the expenses of the school boards. He thought they would employ their time better if they urged the local authorities in their own districts to diminish the expense of their own school boards. In some districts the local authorities took every pains, and used every means in their power, to diminish the expenditure and give to the children the best education possible; but, unfortunately, in other districts the authorities acted in a very different manner. Therefore, he hoped that whatever steps were taken in the direction of relief to local taxation, care would be taken to insure that there was co-operation on the part of the local authorities in diminishing the expenses of the school boards in their own districts. He had been very sorry to hear his noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) speak of the education which the school boards gave to children throughout the country as having an effect in the wrong direction upon the morality of the people. He could not conceive that his noble Friend had had experience in the matter. To judge of the justice of his remarks in this respect it was only necessary to call to mind many districts in which, before the passing of the Act of 1870, no education whatever was provided for a large percentage of the children of the poor, and to compare their condition then with their condition now, when efficient board schools were at work within them. No doubt, it would be said—"It is all very well for you to give this education to the children; but do you give them any religious or moral education?" But that was a question which had to be answered by the ratepayers in each district; and if these, as regarded the children who attended the elementary schools, could not be trusted to see that they received moral and religious education up to a certain point, then he despaired of the effect of any kind of local self-govern-

    297
    ment in relation to those subjects. He was obliged to confess to a doubt as to whether his noble Friend was right, and whether he could bring before that House, or before any body of persons acquainted with the subject, any figures whatever to show that since the commencement of the operation of the Education Acts the morality of the lower classes, especially amongst the younger members of them, had deteriorated. For his own part, he (Viscount Emlyn) did not believe that that was the case; and he could not but feel that the eloquence which charged these deficiencies on the school boards would be better employed in appealing to the ratepayers of the country to insist, by their votes and influence, that moral and religious education should be given in the board schools of every district.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), that it would have been better if the Resolution on the Paper could have been put to the test of a division, because it seemed to him that it was so vaguely drawn that it might mean anything or nothing. To say that, having regard to the unfairness of the incidence of school board rates, and the continual increase in their amount, some change in the system under which they were at present levied was urgently required, was simply an abstract Resolution, and one which did not even point out to the House the direction in which the injustice complained of took place, and which, if it were passed, would bind the House to nothing whatever. Therefore, although the discussion which had taken place was of a useful character, he saw no cause for regret that the House was not in a position to go to a division on the subject. With reference to the system of rating shadowed forth by the noble Viscount the Member for Carmarthen (Viscount Evelyn), he (Mr. T. Collins) believed it would be a monstrous act to make the area of rating union and not parochial. It would, in his opinion, be most unjust to call upon places that had established schools of their own to provide schools for other places where this duty had been neglected. He lived in a district where there were some 30 parishes or townships included in the Union, and in the whole of those 30 parishes there was
    298
    only one in which there was a school board; and he asked whether it would not be a monstrous thing that the 29 townships in which the squire and the parson had provided schools should be called on to relieve the remaining solitary township of the burden very properly cast upon it? He protested against such a doctrine in every way, and sincerely hoped that nothing more would be heard of the proposal to make the area of rating non-parochial. He could not agree with the noble Earl the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) that there was any failure on the part of the board schools to teach religion and morality; on the contrary, he believed that, on the whole, these subjects were satisfactorily treated in the education given in the bulk of the schools in England and Wales. A great deal was to be said on the question as to whether the rate ought to be divided, as suggested by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). He (Mr. T. Collins) did not feel especially enamoured of legislation on this subject by hon. Members who came from beyond the Tweed; but this question was a small one indeed, because everyone knew that the incidence of taxation, so far as land was concerned, eventually fell upon the owner; and if they were to alter the present system by making the rate a primary charge upon the owner, the tenant would have to pay more rent. To deal fairly with that, they ought to give the owner the right of voting, so that half the members of the school board should be elected by them, and half by the occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had hinted that, at a future day, some such tax as the house tax should be appropriated to local government purposes. It had always struck him (Mr. T. Collins), as an Income Tax Commissioner, that the burden of the house tax fell very heavily upon the trading classes, and, indeed, very unfairly upon them, because the large tradesman undoubtedly paid more than the country squire; and therefore he thought that if that tax, instead of remaining an Imperial tax, were given in aid of local taxation, it would greatly relieve the local burdens of the country. They often received promises from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which were not

    299
    fulfilled; but this of the right hon. Gentlemen he trusted would be carried into effect by the Prime Minister handing over the house tax at no distant day for the benefit of the local taxpayers. With regard to the question as to whether or not taxation for the purpose of education should be placed on the same footing as the sanitary tax, he believed that the occupier of purely agricultural land paid one-twelfth of that rate; and that, as a rule, in his own district, had always given satisfaction to the ratepayers. He was a member of the Sanitary Committee in his district, and he had never heard any person complain that the large agricultural tracts therein did not pay the same rate as dwelling-houses. Therefore, looking at the matter in the abstract, he believed, if the whole question were to be dealt with de novo, it would be a fair proposal, and one which would meet with general approval if a half, or some smaller proportion of the rate levied on the houses in the district, were charged upon agricultural land. As he had already pointed out, the Resolution before them might mean anything or nothing. He could not support it, because he did not consider it advisable to pledge the House to abstract Resolutions, especially when they did not point to some definite remedy. And, therefore, he should be prepared to vote for going into Committee of Supply.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE FREE SALE CLAUSE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a remarkable legal decision given by a County Court Judge in Ulster under the Land Act. As there was some intention on the part of the Government to amend the Act, he brought the case before the House for the purpose of illustrating the manner in which it was now working. The Land Act provided that a tenant might sell his tenancy for the best price he could obtain for it; but, unfortunately, there was a condition that the landlord had the right of preemption, and that where there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the Court might interfere and fix the rent and price of the holding. The case he referred to came before the
    300
    County Court in Monaghan, and was between the Earl of Dartrey and a tenant named Jebb, who desired to sell the value of his holding for £120. The new tenant entered into possession; but no sooner did that take place than the Earl of Dartrey served a notice upon him, to the effect that he was not his tenant, because he, the landlord, had not received notice as prescribed by the Land Act. The prescribed notice of the intention of the original tenant to sell was, therefore, served upon the Earl of Dartrey; whereupon, although the sale was practically made in open market, the noble Earl served notice upon the tenant who had entered into possession, bought seed, and ploughed the land, that he did not agree to the sale, and that he should apply to the Court to have the true value of the tenancy fixed. The noble Earl accordingly took the tenant before the County Court Judge, who, it would seem, was an official of peculiar ideas, for, not very long ago, he had sentenced a man to be hanged for stealing a goat. The Judge was Mr. Newell Barron. The House would bear in mind that the transaction by which £120 had passed for the farm had taken place. Nevertheless, Mr. Barron said to the new tenant—" You shall not pay £120 for the farm; "and to the old tenant—"You shall not have £ 120 for the farm. I fix the true value of the tenancy at £66, and you must lose £54." If that was free sale, the principle that a tenant might sell his tenancy for the best price he could get was illusory. So far as this clause was concerned, he (Mr. Healy) himself was entirely free from any difficulty, for he had never given it any confidence whatever. He was almost the only Member of his Party who had voted against it; and he opposed it, followed by the hon. Member for Cavan and one or two other Members, because, as a whole, instead of being any benefit to the tenant, it took away from them something which they already possessed. If a man had fixity of tenure and a fair rent, free sale followed as a natural consequence without any legislative enactment whatever; for if he had a farm at £100 a-year, and had the right to stop in it as long as he liked, it followed, without any legislative enactment, that he could part with that farm, and sell it in the open market. Therefore, he contended that the 1st clause

    301
    of this Act was actually useless and prejudicial to the tenant, because, as anyone who looked into the Act would see, the conditions which a tenant had to fulfil when he sold his farm were very onerous. The tenant must give a prescribed notice, and on the receipt of such notice the landlord had a right of preemption, and might object to the sale of a tenancy to some other person. He should scarcely have objected if this extraordinary proceeding on the part of Judge Barron had occurred in the case of a statutory tenant who had taken advantage of the Act and invoked its benefits; but this was not the case of a statutory tenant, and that made it all the more grievous. He had put down an Amendment which would have excluded tenants other than statutory tenants from the benefits of the Free Sale Clause, because why should a man who was not obliged have these alleged benefits thrust down his throat? No one was compelled to go into Court to get a fair rent, and why should this clause be forced on a man? Until tenants applied for statutory conditions, this Free Sale Clause ought not to be imposed upon them. If a tenant went into Court and invoked the protection of the Act, he must take it, good or bad; and in the case of a statutory tenant the same grievance did not exist, because he had invoked the benefits of the Act, and he must take the bad conditions with the good. Under the ancient Ulster tenant right a tenant had a right of free sale without the intervention of Judge Barron, or anybody else; and what had now been done was wrong. If a tenant was a statutory tenant, he would know that he must be subject to the accidents of judicial decisions, and so on; and, therefore, it was all the harder that statutory conditions—and especially this 1st clause—should be imposed on the people who had not applied for them. Above all, there was an exceptional grievance in the case of the Ulster tenants. They had at all times, where the custom prevailed, had a right of free sale; but what had now been done? He did not profess to speak with great authority, because this Act was so voluminous and extraordinary that a man could not keep it in his head; but the Ulster tenant had a right to sell his tenancy subject to the custom or usage, but he was now compelled to
    302
    apply for a statutory term. He would like to know from the Government whether an Ulster tenant who enjoyed the Ulster tenant right, and was told that he might sell his tenancy under his own usage, or under the usage prescribed by this Act, was to be compelled to accept the decision of a man like Judge Barron? Was a landlord to have the power of saying—"Although you might have sold your right under the Ulster Custom, I should, under this Act, compel you to come in and sell in the Court?" Articles had been written in several Ulster papers upon this matter; and he was very happy to see that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), to whom he had spoken upon the subject, had put a Notice on the Paper, in the form of a Question upon the matter. The hon. Member was now present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was in possession of the facts of the case; and he should, therefore, like to know what the view of the Government was? He would show the House the spirit in which the County Court Judges dealt with the Act. When this claim came before the Court, in order to prove that there was no collusion between the seller and the assignee, the vendor called in the auctioneer—a Mr. John Treanon. He was examined, and proved that he sold the farm in question. There was a good competion, but Mr. Caldwell was declared the purchaser. Witness received the purchase money, and handed it over subsequently to Henry Jebb. Then the Judge—and to this he invited the attention of the House, and especially of the right hon. and learned Attorney General, who, he believed, exercised some jurisdiction over the County Court Judge—asked—
    "Do you undertake to give legal advice?
    "Mr. Treanon: I do not, my Lord. I considered myself justified in telling the people that freedom of sale existed now; but I do not think that legal advice.
    "His Lordship: You should not be proclaiming dangerous doctrines."
    That was to say that, under the Act of 1881, in the first lines of which the Prime Minister said the tenant might sell his tenancy for the best price he could get, nevertheless Her Majesty's County Court Judge said that was preaching a dangerous doctrine. Was that

    303
    the view of the right hon. and learned Attorney General; and, if not, what notice was to be taken of this extraordinary decision by Judge Barron? Then mark the animus all through that statement. Mr. Treanon went on to say—
    "It cannot be a very dangerous doctrine to tell the farmers that they have free sale under the new Land Act.
    "His Lordship: Well, stick to your auctions, and leave the law alone."
    He (Mr. Healy) should think that man would be strongly inclined to let the law alone, if it involved a loss of nearly £60, and when the Court came in and acted as auctioneer, and cut down the market value of the tenancy from £120 to £66. It could not be said that the Government were not fairly warned of what would happen when this clause was under consideration. He (Mr. Healy) had endeavoured to minimize it as much as possible, and put down an Amendment, declaring that the landlord, where he reserved the right of preemption, should give as high a price as anyone else. What was the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland? That it would expose the landlords to the action of the "puffers"—or, as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) called them, the "sweeteners"—who would put up the price. He therefore withdrew the Amendment, and proposed that the words "market value" should be inserted; but the Government refused to agree to that, and adopted the words "true value." Twelve months after that, what was declared in the open market to be worth £120 was declared by the County Court Judge to be worth only £66. That was a very extraordinary decision, and was certain to cause a considerable amount of dissatisfaction; and, as the Government had now in view some amendment of the Act, he trusted they would include some amendment of this clause, even if they did not repeal it. He objected to it as delusive and illusory. He was sorry to find that his prediction had been too well verified; while the Government had not been justified in their prophecies, on the strength of which they had refused the reasonable Amendments which were proposed from his side of the House.
    MR. GIVANsaid, the effect of this decision had been to rob a respect-
    304
    able farmer of nearly £60, and that had created widespread dissatisfaction throughout the North of Ireland. The importance of the matter could not be exaggerated. They must bear in mind, when they came to consider the conduct of the County Court Judge in this case, what the County Court Judges did, under the Act of 1870, in assessing the value of tenant right. A tenant proved that a certain sum had been offered by a certain purchaser; and, notwithstanding evidence that the offer was bonâ fide, and the purchaser could not reasonably be objected to, the County Court Judges rarely in such cases gave the out-going tenants anything for their improvements. That conduct induced many hon. Members last year to object most strenuously to throwing the tenants under the new Act into the hands of the County Court Judges, and to insist on the establishment of a separate Court for the administration of the law between landlord and tenant. But now the County Court Judges had commenced the same operation as under the Act of 1870; and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had omitted to mention one circumstance which, more than any other, had deprived tenants of the benefit of the Act of 1870, and to prevent the perpetuation of which several Amendments were proposed by hon. Members opposite last year—namely, the introduction of usage. The County Court Judges had declared that usage under the Act of 1870 included the local usages set up by agents in the management of their estates. In the case of one estate, he had heard the agent admit that he was aware much larger sums were given sub rosa, yet he could only obtain in the Court the £10 per acre under the office rule, which was the maximum amount the out-going tenant could get. He thought it was important that the House should take notice of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had properly drawn attention, and that the Law Officers of the Crown should express in the House their condemnation of a proceeding which was utterly unjust and unjustifiable, and without any foundation whatsoever. That the sale was bonâ fide was not questioned; there was no objection to the purchaser, and no reason was assigned for this act of gross injustice.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he had not intended to take part in this discussion; but he rose to express a feeling which he hoped was shared by many hon. Members of the House. Hardly an opportunity ever arose in the House to call attention to any matter connected with Irish administration, but it was taken advantage of by Irish Members to bring forward accusations of the most offensive character against some gentleman or other behind his back. The Judge complained of had no notice that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) intended to bring these accusations against him which had now been heard; and his (Mr. Bulwer's) feelings revolted against that gentleman's name being introduced into the House of Commons for the purpose of holding him up to ridicule and contempt, without any notice being given him, and probably without any person being in the House who knew anything about the case and able to stand up and defend him. The decision complained of might be right or it might be wrong. If right, it afforded fair ground for argument that the Act which permitted it should be amended. If wrong, it would be set right on appeal. But whether right or wrong, what justification, was there for making an abusive personal attack upon the Judge? In all probability that decision had been appealed against. [Several Irish MEMBERS: No.] Then he presumed the man had acquiesced in the decision; for if he had not, he did not believe that the Court could give an unjust decision without there being some means of remedying it. Then the hon. Member had told them that this County Court Judge had sentenced a man to be hung for having stolen a goat, and this simply in order to bring the Judge into contempt before the House, and before those amongst whom he administered justice. And what authority, he should like to know, was there for saying that any such occurrence ever took place? He had followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford as closely as he could, and noticed this observation—that a tenant who wanted to sell his tenant right ought to be allowed to get any sum he could for it. That, in the tenant's case, the hon. Member called free sale. He (Mr. Bulwer) believed that no hon. Member had listened with greater weariness than himself to the
    306
    interminable contention by hon. Members below the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that while a tenant should be allowed to get the best price he could by a sale of his interest, even to the prejudice of the landlord, the landlord, on the other hand, was not to be allowed to get the best price he could for his interest. There was to be freedom for the tenant, but chains for the landlord. However, he had risen now for the purpose of entering his protest against a practice which seemed to prevail in the House—namely, of bringing forward Motions, and, under cover of them, attacking gentlemen who had no opportunity of defending themselves.
    MR. SEXTONthought the House would have lost very little if the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) had not interposed between the hon. Members for Wexford and Monaghan and the Law Officer of the Crown, who was about to reply to them. Such hon. Members might have a knowledge of England; but they had not, nor could they be expected to have, a knowledge of Ireland and the provocation that was given in that country for charges of this kind. It was as painful to the Irish Members to lay under the necessity of having continually to call attention to the conduct of officials in Ireland, as it was for the hon. and learned Member to have to listen to these complaints. The best proof of the utility and effectiveness of these repeated complaints was to be found in the admission laid on the Table of the House by the First Minister of the Crown, in answer to the hon. Member for Longford County; and until the ranks of officialism in Ireland were cleared of such men as Judge Barron, no advance could be made there in the cause of good government. When an hon. Member made such a complaint as that they had heard from the hon. Member for Wexford, he should be protected against such attacks as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Wexford had availed himself of his right as a Member of that Supreme Legislature, and had done nothing more than his duty, and nothing more than was done by every newspaper in the country. When a public official, who was public property, gave a judgment in open Court, why should a Member of

    307
    the House of Commons, of all Bodies in the world, be debarred from criticizing it? Every newspaper in the country was at liberty to criticize it. It was absurd to suppose, moreover, that before the conduct of public officials was called in question, notice of such intention should be given to those officials, in order that they might prepare replies—replies which, in all probability, would not compare favourably with the charges made. He (Mr. Sexton) claimed the right in that House of calling in question the conduct and language of any public functionary, without going to the trouble of giving the individual complained of notice of his intention. He acquitted the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bulwer) of the charge of bad taste, partly because of his ignorance of Ireland, and partly because of the tenderness of his nature, which induced him to hasten to the assistance of people who were attacked; but, at the same time, he must say that the hon. and learned Member had imposed on the House an interlude which might have been well spared. Tenants who did not enjoy the advantages of the Act should not be put under its disadvantages. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be able to tell them that the 1st clause of the Land Act was not a delusion and a snare; that the tenant was entitled to what the Land Act declared to be his right; and that no County Court Judge should interpose between him and that right.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was sure the hon. Member who had brought forward the subject (Mr. Healy) had only suggested that the Act should be amended by way of a joke; and as for the stern observations he had used they were hardly called for. No one denied that it was not the right of an hon. Member to call attention to the conduct of a public official; but it was always desirable that an opportunity should be given to the individual complained of to make an explanation, especially when the complaint made was calculated to throw discredit upon an important body of gentlemen. He himself (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not always quite so free from joke as, perhaps, he ought to be; and it was probably natural for others to be the same. But,
    308
    getting over this point as they best could—for it was entirely beside the question—he would point out that the County Court Judge was not by any means one of the official administrators of the Act; neither was he—so much the better, of course, for him—subject to the jurisdiction which the Attorney General for Ireland exercised over some officials, and sometimes, he was afraid, with a little severity. He could not admit that any official statement had been made by the Prime Minister which should lead to the conclusion that, as the hon. Member had said—"Nothing in the shape of good government could be done until officialism has cleared of such people as Judge Barron." But, to come to the question before the House, what he understood the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) to do was to take as his text a case which had appeared in the newspapers. Assuming for the purposes of that discussion that that case was correctly reported, it was not to be expected that a tenant, especially if he was a stern and sturdy tenant from the black North, would sit quiet under the grievance of losing what, for practical purposes, might be said to be half the value of his property. It must be remembered that though the decision of the County Court Judge in these matters was not subject to appeal to the Judges of Assize, it was subject to appeal to the Land Commission, which was a Court peculiarly capable of dealing with this subject, which formed a special and distinct branch of what he might call jurisprudence. No one could express too strongly the view that every tenant in Ireland, whether in Ulster or out of it, under the Act of 1881 possessed in the most ample degree the absolute power of free sale—of selling his tenancy for the best price he could get for it. The Ulster Custom might—and did in some cases—subject the tenant to a great many fetters. There were the office rules, and other things which had grown up, to regulate the value of the Ulster tenant's interest in his holding; therefore, there was a section securing to the tenant his rights under this custom. But as there were other parts where the custom did not prevail, there was a section inserted giving the tenant the utmost amount which could be realized by him as fair purchase money of his interest. The tenant had the option of selling under

    309
    the Ulster Custom, or under the Free Sale Clause, which conferred a full right upon every tenant in Ireland. He did not think it would be possible to express this in language clearer than that contained in the Act, or that it would be possible to amend the section by any words with which he, at any rate, was acquainted, to confer more distinctly on the tenant the legal right which the Statute intended to give him. That section, which everyone knew by this time was the 1st section, commenced with the declaration that the tenant of any holding not especially exempted might sell his tenancy for the best price he could obtain for it. [Mr. HEALY: Read the 3rd sub-section.] He was coming to that. The regulations by which the tenant was controlled followed afterwards, and the intermediate sub-section was inserted because it was considered right—he did not think the matter went to a division—that the landlord should have the power to go into the market, in the same way as if he were an ordinary purchaser, and exercise the right of pre-emption if the tenant was not prejudiced thereby. The Land Commission was, for this reason, authorized to make rules requiring that the landlord should have a fortnight's notice of the intention of the tenant to sell. Accordingly, when a tenant wanted to sell, he had to serve a fortnight's notice on the landlord, on a simple form prescribed. In the case pointed out this had not been done; but the tenant sold in the open market for £120, and he had been informed—and had no doubt it was true—that the sale was a bonâ fide one. The tenant, it was said, had been offered £115 by another purchaser; therefore, it was not a fancy price that a person was about to give. He was told—and, for the sake of argument, he would assume it was a fact—that the purchaser was described thus—"A respectable man; he was industrious; his character was exemplary; and he was in religion"—and this, he presumed, would be esteemed a qualification in that part of the country—"a Protestant." The man was considered an exceptionally good purchaser; but the landlord had his right to pre-emption, and to sell without giving him notice was an injustice to him.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the tenant had a right to sell under the Ulster Custom,
    310
    under which it was not necessary to give the landlord notice of intended sale.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that in this case the tenant was unable to sell without notice, owing to the office rules to which notice had been drawn. The 3rd sub-section provided that—
    "On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum as may be agreed on, or, in the event of disagreement, may be ascertained by the Court to be the true value thereof."
    Now, he apprehended that it would be impossible to express in the English language, or any language he was acquainted with, or in any words he was acquainted with, more clearly the real measure of price which ought to be given by the landlord to a tenant. The price was not to be an inflated one; and in a case of this kind, where no notice of sale was given to the landlord, the price given might have been a fancy one, and therefore an unfair one, and to fix the landlord to that might have been an injustice. He understood that to be the true price which was as much opposed to an inflated price on the one hand as it was to a depreciated price on the other. He could not understand how any reasonable person—it did not, in his opinion, require a Judge to fix it—could hesitate for one moment in giving what was a fair price, when he had to decide as between vendor and purchaser. Therefore, he could imagine that it was necessary to amend the Act, and he repeated that probably the hon. Member was joking when he suggested that that course should be adopted. Even supposing that the decision in question was an incorrect one, it was, at any rate, an isolated one; and surely an isolated decision could not call for amendment of the Act any more than that one swallow would make a summer. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) had observed, the decisions of all Judges were subject to an appeal; and the Act, in order to prevent any injustice being done, provided, in the 47th section, in the plainest terms, that anyone who felt aggrieved by a decision of a Civil Bill Court might appeal to the Land Commissioners, who were invested with most ample powers, not only to affirm or

    311
    reverse, but to modify that decision. Therefore, he apprehended that if a decision had been given by which the true value—"real" value it had been proposed to insert in the Bill, but it was thought that no more correct description than "true" value could be found—was not awarded, but reduced from £120 to £66, the decision ought to be appealed against; and he had no doubt it would be appealed against, if the tenant's legal adviser thought he had any chance of getting his costs in the case. The auctioneer in this case differed from the Judge; but the auctioneer had an interest in the case. It was said—and, no doubt, it was the fact—that the auctioneer was paid a percentage, and that his fee, which, otherwise, would have been £6, was cut down, by the reduction of the price of the tenant's right, to £3. No doubt, the auctioneer, like all professional gentlemen, wished to get his price as honestly as he could. He was one of an industrious class, who were a credit to the country; but a little law was always a dangerous thing. It would be very hard for the House to visit with censure a Judge who had given a very fair interpretation of the Act. It was not possible for any reasonable man on the Bench or off it, in this House or out of it, to doubt what the Statute conferred on every tenant. It conferred on every tenant in Ireland the right to sell his holding or his estate for the best price—not an inflated one, on the one hand, nor a depreciated one, on the other. It left to the tenant the option of getting the price by the Ulster Custom, if he thought he could secure a better price that way, or under the Statute. Surely they could not do more for the tenants of Ireland than give them this option. No doubt, if a grievance had been suffered, he who was aggrieved, if he thought he could get his costs, would appeal; and if he was successful, no doubt the triumph he would achieve would amply compensate him for any inconvenience or loss of time he might have suffered.
    MR. LEAsaid, he wished to make just one observation before the matter dropped. When the Land Bill was before the House last year, they had several Amendments on the Paper to make this portion of it as clear and as plain
    312
    as possible. He had had an Amendment down bearing on this very point. He had moved that the words "fair market value" should be inserted in the measure, in order that they might avoid any mistake, such as that which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). Unfortunately, hon. Members would not accept the opinion of Irish Members, and followed the Government into the Lobby; but he would undertake to say that if his words had been inserted, the County Court Judge who had been alluded to would not have made the error complained of. He hoped they would shortly have before them a Bill to amend the Land Act, and that the Government would take care that the language of the measure was as plain as possible. He trusted also that in that future legislation the Government would not be too proud to accept Amendments, moved by their supporters, to avoid mistakes of this kind, which not only damaged their legislation very much, but created distrust and want of confidence on the part of the tenantry in Ireland.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he only wished to make one short observation. He had listened, as he always did, with pleasure to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; but, at the same time, he did not think that any statement that could have been made could have been more decidedly against the County Court Judge. The thing should have been dealt with as a plain matter of law.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for the County of Donegal (Mr. Lea) that the mistake which, if the statement was correct, the County Court Judge had, in his opinion, committed, was, in great measure, occasioned by the clumsy drafting of the clause contained in the Act. Like many other sections, the 1st section of the Land Act was most inartistically worded, and likely to create confusion or perplexity on construction. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had pointed out that the right the tenant was entitled to under the Act was the right he was entitled to at Common Law—namely, to obtain the best price for his holding that could be secured by sale. The Act accordingly used the words "best price;" but in the 3rd section the words

    313
    "true value" occurred, which apparently showed that the Legislature contemplated something entirely different from that they had in their mind when framing the preceding part of the scheme. In another part of the Act "true value" and "fair value" were used, showing clearly that there were different interpretations put upon the value. Under the circumstances, as it was determined that they were to have an amendment of the Land Act this year, and as the Prime Minister had said that the subject should shortly be brought under the notice of the House, he did think he was entitled to point out that it was a matter of paramount importance to the tenantry in Ireland that what was so obscure in the clauses of the Act of Parliament should be made clear. The principle of the Act was right; but let not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland imagine for one instant that this which had been pointed out was the solitary instance of the difficulty, in regard to the construction to be placed on the words of the section. Unless there had been some confusion as to the meaning of the words, he did not see how the Judge could have come to the decision at which he was stated to have arrived. The decision had inflicted on the tenant a loss—and a most serious loss it would be to a man in his position—of some £60. He might remind the House, not in this section merely, but throughout the Act, most serious difficulties in ascertaining the true meaning of the Legislature had been felt, especially in a matter most material—namely, setting a specified value on the tenancy under the Act. Many of the gentlemen acting as Land Commissioners had pointed to the difficulty they experienced in attaching a true legal meaning to those words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had treated the matter very lightly. It would be well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make up his mind to apply himself, when the new Bill was presented to the House, to getting rid of the difficulties and obscurities which, unfortunately, existed in this Act of Parliament.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  SETTLED LAND BILL [Lords]— [BILL 120.]
  (Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  SETTLED LAND BILL [Lords]— [BILL 120.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid he should have to put the second reading off until Tuesday.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that in three successive Sessions he had given a Notice of opposition, which was, practically, a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. Whenever the second reading was moved, he should be prepared to state the reasons which had led him to take that course. He was not moved by a desire to hinder the discussion of that important measure; but, on the contrary, he joined with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) in the desire that an opportunity, somewhat earlier than half-an-hour after midnight, should be obtained for the discussion of the policy of a Bill which had come to this House from a most distinguished and learned Lord, who was held in high respect on both sides of the House.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am very glad to hear that I am to have, at all events, the qualified support of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). I do hope he will give us an opportunity, some time or other, for the discussion of the measure. If the block remains against it, I am afraid there is little chance of its coming on. I will put it down for Tuesday—I do not wish to press it unduly; but I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General wishes that some means may be found for discussing it, and I, therefore, trust he will assist me in securing an opportunity for bringing it before the House.
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
    Resolutions [May 4] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAY-FAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir ARTHUR HAYTER.
MOTION.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Eyemouth, Greenock, and Rothesay, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Select Committee—Stolen Goods* (64), nominated.
THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BRAYErose to call attention to the fact that no Ordnance Survey has been made of a large portion of the British Isles since the reign of William IV., when the map was published on the one-inch scale only; and to inquire if the Government would accelerate the 25-inch survey now progressing, by restricting the work of the ordnance surveyors to the British Isles, or by taking any other steps conducive to the completion of the first extended map of this country? At present it was next to impossible to ascertain the exact area of many fields in the Midland counties, and this uncertainty led to arbitrations which were often disputed. Some fields were 85 or 90 or 95 acres in extent; and as there existed no private or public survey of them, difficulties arose in determining their value. Again, the boundaries of counties were in some instances vague and undefined, an evil which would be best remedied by a carefully prepared map.
  EARL STANHOPEdesired to point out that, according to the Report of the Survey of last year, most of the river basins had not yet been surveyed. In the interests of the ratepayers it was important that the work should be pushed on, more especially as the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill had already passed a second reading in the other House, and he hoped would soon become law. No doubt, since the last Survey was prepared, great changes had occurred in the roads and railways of this country; but the present Survey was progressing very slowly, and 24,774 square miles were still unsurveyed in England and Wales. To his mind it was a great disgrace to us that, whereas in France and Germany effective Surveys had been made in recent years, such large portions of this country had not been surveyed for the last 40 or 50 years. He urged that the Survey should be pressed
  220
  forward, so as to terminate, not in 1890, as proposed, but in two or three years' time. The Parliamentary Report, however, stated—
  "That the progress of the survey is exactly proportioned to the amount of the money voted by Parliament for its prosecution."
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, in reply to the noble Lord, he was glad to be able to inform him that steps had been taken for greatly accelerating the Ordnance Survey. The Government came to the conclusion in 1880 that, in view of facilitating the transfer of land, it was most important that there should be a good cadastral map at an early date. Arrangements were at once made to obtain a larger Vote from Parliament, and to train a large number of skilled men with the view of doubling the staff, Great difficulty was experienced in so largely increasing the number of men employed, especially those engaged in carrying on the supervision and checks, for which special qualities and great experience were necessary; but these difficulties had been successfully met and overcome. In carrying out the Survey preference had been given to mineral districts, Metropolitan counties, and parts required for military purposes. There were nine centres from which the Survey was carried on, and they were so arranged as to give the greatest facility for conducting the work with economy and efficiency. In England and Wales, out of 59,470 square miles, about 37,000 square miles had been surveyed. Last year the amount surveyed was 2,388 square miles. It was now confidently hoped that the whole Survey would be completed in 1890, instead of 1900, which was formerly contemplated. The noble Lord was afraid that scientific and interesting expeditions to Syria and Palestine would interfere with the progress of the Survey. He could assure him that would not be the case, and at present there were no special Surveys being carried out. As regards the Palestine Survey, it was a mistake to imagine that it interfered with the Home Survey. The men employed were not wanted at home, and the money expended came from private sources. The real reason that had kept back the Survey so long had been the simple fact that up to 1880 only £100,000 had been voted by Parliament annually, and the progress had been exactly in proportion to the amount

  221 223
  so voted. The Vote now asked in the Estimates was £215,000. There had been considerable delay in publishing the maps, and it was undoubtedly true that the 6-inch map had been much behind the 25-inch scale map, for the simple reason that with the 6-inch map, after being reduced by photography from the large scale, it was necessary to transfer it to copper and then to engrave on the plate. This process was most tedious and costly, and thus delayed the 6-inch maps, while with the 25-inch large scale a photozincograph could be made direct, and the maps were thus completed at once. He was glad to be able to inform the noble Lord that during the last two months the Director General had discovered a plan by which this process of photozincography could be used also for the 6-inch maps. Not only would this effect a great saving of time, but it would also effect a saving of about £100,000. If the noble Lord wished to see in detail the exact dates when the Survey would be completed in each county, he would find the whole question most carefully worked out and shown on a map in a Return presented to Parliament last August, and which gave a great deal of information on the subject.

  STOLEN GOODS BILL [H.L.]
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Brodrick.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Rosebery.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Aberdare.

  V. Sherbrooke.

  L. Bramwell.

  L. Thurlow.

  The Committee to meet on Wednesday next at Two o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.