Sitting of 15 June 1892

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER was in his place, at Twelve o'clock, but a quorum of Members was not made until half-past Twelve.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (by Order).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in the case of the Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211,236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill, to sit and proceed forthwith."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. MACARTNEY: I regret that under the peculiar position in which the opponents to the Bill will be placed I must object to this Motion. The effect of the Motion if carried will be to practically make this an unopposed Bill. The opposition to the Bill arises entirely in Ireland, and it would be absolutely impossible for the opponents of the Bill to bring up their witnesses in time to make good their case before the Committee, because the result of passing the Motion will be that the Committee will meet and proceed forthwith. Now, I observe that with regard to every other Motion which stands on the Paper having reference to Private Bills there is a difference, that it is not proposed to suspend Standing Order No. 236.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): If the hon. Member will turn to page 9 of the Orders of the Day he will see that he is mistaken.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I had not looked at that page. But, at all events, I desire to press my objection to the Motion in this case. The Bill is seriously opposed; but it would be quite impossible for the people who oppose the Bill to make their case before the Committee if the Motion were carried in its present form. I do not
  1154
  know whether it is usual, in the case of a Bill to which strong opposition is given, to make a Motion such as this; but, in any case, I desire to amend the Motion by leaving out the reference to Standing' Order 236. That, at all events, would allow the opponents of the Bill time to prepare their evidence, and bring their witnesses from Ireland. Under the Motion in its present form this would be absolutely impossible. The witnesses are scattered all over the country, and the Bill touches interests over a large area, extending to the western coast. Under the peculiar circumstances of the Session, and the well-known difficulty of getting together another Committee and Chairman to sit on a Railway Bill, the opponents did not anticipate such a Motion as this.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "236."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  Question proposed, "That '236' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SEXTON: This is an attempt, in the interest of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway, the sole opponents of this Bill, to kill it by delay without regard to its merits and after it has passed the House of Lords. The sole opponents of the Bill—the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company, gave evidence against it in the other House, and even secured its re-committal — and had a second opportunity of putting forward their evidence. There is no force in the plea that witnesses must have time to be brought from Ireland. Everybody knows who they are, and that every one of them is within twenty-four hours' call of the House of Commons. The hon. Member says time is required to prepare evidence, but the evidence has been given, and it has failed to convince the Committee of the House of Lords that it affords valid reasons for rejecting the Bill. The promoters of the Bill have prepared and presented such evidence as has convinced the House of Lords of the expediency of proceeding with the undertaking; and now the hon. Gentleman, in the interest of one Railway Company, has the hardi-

  1155
  hood to attempt to take advantage of the peculiar circumstances of the Session to kill the Bill by denying the promoters the opportunity of establishing their case before a Committee of this House. This, as I have said, is in the interest of one company. There was another Petition against the Bill from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; but so satisfied are the company that the project is a good one that they have not only withdrawn all opposition, but are prepared to subscribe £100,000 towards the undertaking. All the Public Bodies having local interest affected by the proposed line are in its favour. The Corporations of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and, in all, twenty-four Public Bodies have declared in its favour. Seeing that the opponents of the Bill will be at no disadvantage, that their evidence is ready, and that the Committee can make arrangements for the attendance of witnesses without any difficulty, that the Bill has the support of public opinion and is sustained by the evidence of experts, I urge the House to accept this proposal without amendment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I join with the hon. Member for West Belfast in urging the House to accept this proposal and allow the Bill to proceed. In the position in which the Bill stands it would be a denial of justice to the promoters to throw the Bill over to another Session. All that has been urged by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) can be submitted to the Committee. If witnesses cannot attend in time—though I do not believe there need be any difficulty on that point, for if they are telegraphed for now they can be in London before the Committee can sit—that can be stated to the Committee. It would be cruel to subject the promoters to the increased expense which would be entailed by the Bill falling through now. Those who travel by way of Westland Row Station must acknowledge the inconvenience that now exists. I more often go West, but travellers to the South, American passengers, and others will have the greatest advantage from this junction, and the Bill, I think, meets an absolute necessity.
  MR. COURTNEY: Of course, it is a grave proceeding to suspend the Standing Orders of the House which govern the proceedings on Private Bills, and under ordinary circumstances a Motion of this kind should not be proceeded with against opposition. But the peculiar circumstances of the present Session drive the promoters into such a position that unless something is done to relieve them their efforts to get their case heard will be abortive. The opponents of the Bill have, as the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has said, had an opportunity of putting their case elsewhere, but I am disposed to think that some little grace might be allowed to them. We are now at Wednesday, and if the Committee were appointed I do not suppose it would sit to-morrow; still, if the proposal were amended so that the Committee were instructed to proceed on "Friday" instead of "forthwith," then I think a sufficient margin would be allowed to secure the attendance of witnesses without extreme inconvenience. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Antrim would be satisfied with that?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Say Monday.
  MR. COURTNEY: No, I think that is a date too distant.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I only desire to secure adequate time. I agree to that and withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made, by leaving out the word "forthwith," and adding the words "on Friday."
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill, to sit and proceed on Friday.

  WEAR VALLEY EXITENSION RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERrose to move—
  "That the Petition of the Cumberland County Council, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Wear Valley Extension Railway Bill [Lords,] be referred to the Committee on the said Bill."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Bill has this day been reported.
  MR. LOWTHER: Under those circumstances I give notice that I shall have to oppose the Bill on the Third Reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 234.)
  MOTION FOR INSTRUOTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd June]—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the National Education (Ireland) Bill that they have power to insert in the Bill Clauses providing for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of sites for schools."—(Hr. Jackson.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. SEXTON: Since this question was last before the House, when I gave notice of an Amendment to the Instruction moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of applying compulsory powers to take land for the purpose of teachers' residences as well as for schools, the right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention to accept my Amendment, and has given effect to his intention in a satisfactory manner by putting down notice of a new clause. Under these circumstances, I need only say that of the 8,000 teachers in Ireland only rather more than 2,000 have been provided with residences, 1,500 from private resources, and 800 by the State. It is obvious, therefore, that the facilities which have existed for sixteen years, and have provided residences at the rate of fifty a year, require strengthening. In England powers of compulsory purchase have existed since the original Education Act of 1870 was passed, and in Scotland the permissive powers in the original Act of 1872 were made compulsory in 1878. We only ask, therefore, for powers similar to those which have been in existence in England for twenty-two and in Scotland for fourteen years. I will only add that, in regard to the clause of
  1158
  which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice, I have not had time to study it, as it only appeared this morning. I take the opportunity to say that in the circumstances of Ireland these powers to be usefully employed should be as simple and inexpensive in application as possible. I am assured, with regard to the compulsory powers exercised by Boards of Guardians, that the mode is so cumbrous and expensive that the Guardians prefer rather to pay sixty years' purchase than to avail themselves of the compulsory powers given by law. I trust, therefore, that the law will be simple and inexpensive. Then in towns power must be given to the authority to take sites, even though built upon. There should also be provision for the simplification of title in order that Public Bodies maybe enabled to give grants in aid.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "and residences for teachers."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I have carefully considered this question with the assistance of those better able to advise me than I am to form an opinion myself, and, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The conditions of Ireland are not quite similar to those of England, because in England we have School Boards, and powers of compulsory purchase are only exercised by those official bodies. In Ireland we have no such bodies, and it would be obviously very important to guard against giving compulsory powers to individuals to take the property of other individuals. I have put down a clause which has been carefully considered, and I hope that point has been protected. I agree that it is desirable to make the process as simple and inexpensive as possible; but it is necessary to see that important principles are not violated. I have endeavoured to safeguard what I may call the giving of power to individuals, by making it necessary first to obtain the sanction of the Education

  1159
  Commissioners, who in Ireland may be taken to be the nearest approach to an official body corresponding with the School Board, and a body that will approach the question with an impartial mind, and deal with it only from the point of view of the public interest. I do not think the hon. Member desires that the power should be used oppressively against individuals, but that it should be used only in cases such as he has indicated. For these reasons I accept the Amendment. I am very anxious to meet the view of the hon. Gentleman—a view which prevails generally throughout Ireland, and is not confined to one particular class or sect. One word on the question of towns. I am advised that "land" would cover property with buildings upon it, but if there be any doubt as to that, of course we will make it clear.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the Amendment will include in the country districts a considerable amount of land. It is very valuable to the teachers to have a garden. I should say that where the land is taken compulsorily an acre should be given, and if the proprietor consents, a teacher may be allowed throe or four acres.
  MR. CONWAY: I would point out to the Chief Secretary that sites should not be allowed to be idle beyond a certain time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the National Education (Ireland) Bill that they have power to insert in the Bill Clauses providing for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of sites for schools and residences for teachers.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. SEXTON: The object of the Amendment I beg to move is to clear the sense, and to make it beyond doubt that the purpose is not to secure the attendance of the children for a number of days at any particular time, but for a number of days in the year.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "days," to insert the words "in the year." — (Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "attendance," to end of line 11, and insert "as are prescribed in the First Schedule to this Act." The Bill proposes that the number of days of attendance, and the number of hours, shall be prescribed for each place by the regulations of the Commissioners. I lay down the general principle that, having regard to the circumstances of Ireland, it is extremely desirable—indeed, it is indispensable—to minimise, and, if possible, to blot out all causes of friction between the Local Body and the Education Department. This proposal would be a cause of friction. If the Commissioners prescribed different standards for different places, the Local Authorities might protest and require the same standard. If the Commissioners prescribed the same standard, the Local Authorities might allege local circumstances in favour of different standards. In these circumstances it is reasonable that the precedent of the English Act should be followed, and that a fair minimum of attendance should be prescribed in the Schedule.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word "attendance," to end of line 11, and insert the words "as are prescribed in the First Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think there is any difference in principle between the hon. Gentleman and us on this side of the House on this question. The reason why the Bill was drawn as it was was in order to give, what I endeavoured to explain on the introduction of the Bill, some elasticity, the object being to provide that when the Bill becomes applicable to the whole of Ireland, where there are different conditions in different counties or in different parts of Ireland, it will then be in the power of the Commissioners of Education, if necessary, to relax in those districts the possible number of attendances. On the other hand, in

  1161
  districts where such differences could not arise, they would try—using the term without any objectionable meaning—to screw up the standard of attendance so as to improve the position of education generally. I have no objection to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that we should put in a minimum number of attendances, but what occurs to me is that a possible seventy-five for the half-year would be generally acceptable. I think it is quite possible to put in the Schedule a minimum number of attendances. It rather makes the hard and fast rule I had hoped to avoid, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks it is calculated to remove an objection, I will accept the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: I have made many inquiries and received many communications, and the result is generally to lead me to the belief that the half-year standard of seventy-five would be satisfactory.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "for the time being." The Bill provides that the Commissioners from time to time should prescribe the proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic which should entitle a child to be employed under fourteen years of age. It is obvious that this is not so simple a matter as the standard, which will be, of course, invariable, and we have the precedent not only of England, but also of Scotland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "for the time being."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: There is a little more difficulty about this Amendment, and it is on these grounds. As regards the minimum number of attendances I think it possible to prescribe for them, but I would submit that, looking forward a few years, we might reasonably hope that the standard of proficiency which might be satisfactory, or which might be eligible as sufficient to excuse attendance to-day, might in
  1162
  a few years' time, possibly without difficulty, be raised. That is my only objection to putting it in a Schedule, or, if I might say it in other words, there would be no objection to put it in the Schedule if we could have a little elasticity in it. I think it would be better if we could arrange that it should be left to the Education Commissioners to prescribe from time to time the standard of proficiency which ought to excuse non-attendance at school, and to be accepted as such excuse. I venture to think that it would be better not to put this in the Schedule, but if hon. Members opposite think they would rather have it in the Schedule, I would merely submit to them that in the interests of education—I assume and believe that they have at heart just as much as I have the interests of education—it is desirable not to lay down a minimum which might fairly be acceptable to-day, but which hereafter would certainly prove too low, and that we should have some power, in the interests of education, of prescribing, from time to time, a certificate of proficiency which might be acceptable. I think that if the hon. Member is of opinion that it ought to go into the Schedule, we ought to make it elastic by some words so that there should be power to alter it. I wish to make it clear that I have no objection to lay down what is sufficient for the day, but there should be power given whereby the Education Commissioners hereafter, or from time to time, may alter that standard of efficiency if they think it necessary to do so in the interests of education.
  MR. SEXTON: I do think it necessary to have it in the Schedule, but I recognise the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I for my part have no objection to a reasonable elasticity being given in respect to the future. I would suggest that we might well follow the Scottish model where the certificate of the Inspector is governed by the standards prescribed for certain classes from year to year by the Department. If you put it in the Schedule that the proficiency should be governed by any standard laid down by the Education Commissioners, I think that would be enough.
  MR. CONWAY: I am very unwilling to intervene in this Debate, as I am anxious that the Bill should pass; but I would urge that if the right hon. Gentleman should consent to put the matter in the Schedule he ought to have an alternative proposal. Anyone with any experience of examinations knows right well that an examination test is very misleading, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to entertain the alternative that if a child from six to eleven years of age makes four-fifths of the necessary attendances during each of the school years he should be exempt without the ordeal of examination. This is a question which is being debated on this side by Scottish and English schoolmasters, and it would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to consider this alternative.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 1, line 16, leave out from "prescribed," to end of line, and insert "in the second Schedule to this Act."
  MR. SEXTON: I come now to an Amendment which I consider of vital importance. Among the reasonable excuses for the non-attendance of a child is this one: that there is not within two miles of the home any National school, or other efficient school, to which he can go. This introduction of another efficient Schedule is entirely a novelty, there being nothing like it in the English or Scottish systems of primary education. You impose there no arbitrary restrictions, but allow under a Conscience Clause of a reasonable character any school to be used. Taking this conversely, if there be an efficient school—suppose a Christian Brothers' school—within two miles, a parent shall be bound by law to send his child to that school, but you will contribute nothing to the cost of this efficient school to which you order the parent to send the child. First of all, who is to determine whether or not a school is efficient? In England and Scotland it is determined in a reasonable manner by inspection and examination of the school.
  1164
  There is another way in which the efficiency of a school has to be determined. Take the case of a Catholic parent who is summoned for not sending his child to school. There is no Catholic school within two miles of his house to which he can send his child. Let us say that the Magistrates find a school to which there is free admission. What is the Court of Appeal? One Removable Magistrate or two Justices of the Peace. It is suggested that these Magistrates or Justices should have the function confided to them of determining whether or not any school outside the National system is efficient. How can they say whether it is efficient? They will not examine the pupils, and I doubt whether many of them would be competent to do it if they were to attempt it. It would therefore be a purely arbitrary decision, and I submit that the provision that one Removable Magistrate or two Justices of the Peace shall determine whether or not a school is efficient is not only an unreasonable but an absurd provision. Then after the efficiency of the school has been determined by this means, what happens? The parent is ordered to send his child to this efficient school, which is not a National school. Supposing the parent sends the child to a school of the Christian Brothers. But in order to obey the law something more is necessary than that the parent should send the child. What power have you to compel the Christian Brothers to receive the child? They may well say, "If you wish us to receive the child you must pay us for him. We are not here to supply you with free education. We cannot maintain our schools unless we have assistance, and we cannot open them to such children unless there is some equivalent given for it." Therefore what will happen will be this: Although parents may send children to the Christian Brothers' School, the managers will have the undoubted right to refuse to receive them unless they are paid for them. Then, again, the parent may say, "I have a right to choose a school for my children. I obey the law by sending them to school, and if you cannot compel the managers of the Christian Brothers' Schools to receive them, that is no

  1165
  fault of mine." It is, therefore, evident that this system is fore-doomed to failure unless yon admit voluntary and private schools. It must very soon come to a deadlock, for yon cannot fine the parent when he sends his children to school, and you cannot compel the managers of the Christian Brothers' Schools to receive them. If I refer more to the schools of the Christian Brothers than to other schools it is because I am more familiar with them. Hon. Members may think that the Christian Brothers do not work under a Conscience Clause, and that that is the reason why they are excluded. But I am able to state that they do work under a Conscience Clause, and that for fourteen years they have been connected with the Intermediate Education Board. Their Conscience Clause is as follows:—
  "The Board shall not make any payment to the managers of any school unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Board that no pupil attending such school is permitted to remain in attendance during the time of any religious instruction which the parents or guardians of such pupil shall not sanction; and that the time for giving such religious instruction shall be so fixed that no pupil not remaining in attendance is excluded directly or indirectly from the advantages of the secondary education given in such schools."
  Here, then, is an absolutely perfect Conscience Clause, and as the Christian Brothers' Schools have been brought under it, why should they be excluded from the system? They are working under a Conscience Clause which is considered sufficient both for England and Scotland, and which ought therefore to be satisfactory and sufficient in Ireland. It is clear that your system must end in failure and disgrace, because in thirty cities and towns in Ireland the parent has no option in regard to sending the children to the schools of the Christian Brothers. Therefore I shall move the omission of the words "or other efficient schools," both here and wherever they occur in the Bill, unless I receive an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will recommend to the Commissioners to consider the admission of schools working under a Conscience Clause, which is sufficient for England and Scotland. This is a difficulty which, if it is allowed to continue, will operate detrimentally and prejudicially, and, I believe, even fatally
  1166
  to public education in Ireland. I ask, therefore, that some steps should be taken, either by legislation or administration to remove it. If it be done by administration, then, of course, I need not press the matter further.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the word "school," to leave out the words "or other efficient schools."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MACARTNEY: I know it is considered by hon. Members on the other side of the House that the only authority to be considered is the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. SEXTON: No. What is objected to is that the hon. Gentleman should have sneered at me when I said that which was true.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Gentleman is always thinking that people are sneering at him. I did not sneer at him, but I could certainly not help smiling when the hon. Member said he spoke for those who were responsible for Church education in Ireland. I would venture to suggest that when the authorities in Ireland desire to express their views on the question, they will probably choose some other channel than the hon. Member for West Belfast. I venture altogether to traverse the assertion that the Bill as it stands will be a failure in Ireland. I do so on this ground: that those who are best fitted to form an opinion on the subject—both those who are responsible1 for, and those who are engaged in the education of the Irish people—are in favour of the Bill. On this important question the hon. Member does not represent a very large body of opinion, even amongst the laymen of the Church to which he belongs. He is merely the mouthpiece of the Christian Brothers, and I deny altogether that there is a general feeling of opposition to the Billon this particular question. I will further say that the error which the hon. Member thinks he has discovered in the drafting of the clause does not exist. Under Sub section (d) it is laid down that if a child receives a suitable elementary

  1167
  education the clause will not come into operation. The hon. Gentleman has also admitted that this clause deals with other schools besides those which are controlled by the Christian Brothers. I would not suggest that this Bill or this system should be thrown open to the schools of the Christian Brothers unless they are brought under its provisions. They were once under the National system, but for reasons of their own they separated their schools from it. The hon. Member said that parents would have no alternative but to send their children to the schools of the Christian Brothers which were in all the large towns and cities of Ireland. I observe that he modified that statement afterwards by giving the number as thirty.
  MR. SEXTON: That number includes nearly all the large towns.
  MR. MACARTNEY: There are several large towns in Ulster, for instance, to which that statement does not apply. It may be the case in the South and West of Ireland, but I deny that it is the case in Ulster. If I had thought that the clause as drawn would have been injurious to the interests of education, I should certainly have been the last person to support it. I am strongly in favour of developing education for the Catholic population, and would be one of the last persons to oppose any serious attempt to improve primary education, but it would, I think, be at once endangered by this Bill if the Amendment were accepted.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the hon. Member may certainly be allowed to smile again at our argument, but when he says that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) only represents the Christian Brothers on this occasion, I must venture a contradiction. In the West of Ireland the whole population is most anxious for this alteration, and it is natural that they should wish the Christian Brothers to be aided, for as the support of the latter is voluntary it comes mainly out of the pockets of the poor people of the towns in which those schools are established. They consider it unfair that they should be taxed for education in England and in Scotland, and that they themselves should have to educate their children entirely at
  1168
  their own cost. If the Government were to settle this question by announcing their intention to give a proper contribution to the Christian Brothers' schools they would be able, as the Times says of the Irish Estimates, to rush their Bill through. As the Bishop of Limerick said, after the passage of this Bill the Education Commissioners, or their representatives, will get hold of hundreds of children and send them to the Christian Brothers' schools, for there will in many instances be no other schools to send them to. If the children are refused admittance you cannot punish the Christian Brothers; you will have to bring up the unfortunate parents for not sending their children to an "efficient" school, and you will have to punish them for sending them to a school which will not admit them. What are the Magistrates to do? Some indication must be given of what their action is to be. As the Bill is now drawn, I should say that they have to punish the parents. The Bill does not take within its purview the possibility of admittance to the schools of the Christian Brothers being refused. That the Christian Brothers are perfectly willing to accept the Conscience Clause was proved by the hon. Member for West Belfast a moment ago. Consequently, no Protestant child could be injured or shaken in its faith. Why, under the circumstances, you should be so unjust as to keep the Christian Brothers from all share in the benefit of this Act I cannot understand. If the Government would make the offer on the condition that no Protestant child should be taught in a manner differing from the National School teaching, every reasonable objection would be met and a great difficulty relieved.
  MR. RENTOUL: I am bound to say that I recognise the difficulty the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) points out in reference to these words "or other efficient schools." It is quite in the power of the Christian Brothers or other denominational schools to refuse to take these children. In reference to the general remarks from the other side of the House, hon. Members fail to observe the difficulty which environs the Unionist Members from Ulster. The

  1169
  hon. Member for West Belfast suggested as a way out of the difficulty that the grant should be made to the Christian Brothers' schools. We are absolutely unable to move one inch in the direction of meeting him in this matter. We might personally be willing to go very far to meet him, but if there is one matter on which we are specially pledged to represent the views of our constituents it is that we are not to yield a single inch in the direction of endowing denominational education either directly or indirectly. Therefore it is absolutely useless to appeal to us on that point, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not wish us to be false to the pledges we have made. Until the whole question is broadly raised, and on its merits, we must urge upon the Government not to give way in the slightest degree in this matter, and to refuse grant in any shape or form to these schools.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: We have been told that the rest of Ireland must submit to Ulster, and now it also appears that Ulster Members are to prevail over the views of the other Irish Members on this question of education; and the hon. Member (Mr. Rentoul) thinks it a conclusive answer to our demand in connection with this Bill that a few Ulster Members are opposed to it. These pretensions on behalf of a small section of Ulster will be found in this, as in other important matters, to be entirely beyond what they have any right or power to enforce; and I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), to whom he appeals, ventures to justify any opposition to the Amendment on the ground that certain Ulster Members are opposed to it. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) sneered at the hon. Member for West Belfast because he undertook, not merely to speak for the Catholics, but for our Protestant fellow citizens, who have strong views in favour of denominational education. I venture to think the hon. Member for West Belfast did not profess to have a brief for Protestant schools. He said the reasons he put forward applied to one school as well as another; and I should be surprised if these Protestant schools did not take more comfort from
  1170
  the line of my hon. Friend than from that of the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member also undertook to lecture my hon. Friend as to what the Catholics desire. I venture to tell the hon. Member that the hon. Member for West Belfast in bringing this demand forward is not merely speaking the voice of the Catholic people in this matter of the Christian Brothers, but that he has given the views largely supported by Irish Protestants. Agitation on this subject has continued for the past few months, numerous public bodies all over Ireland have expressed their opinions, and we see that the Protestants of these Boards are foremost in moving these resolutions in support of the demand that the Christian Brothers should receive State aid in the same manner as other schools in Ireland. Outside a small section of North-East Ulster I venture to say that in connection with every public body in Ireland which has put this matter forward the Protestants have supported this demand quite as warmly as the Catholics. None of the hon. Members have given any reasons for the views they have assumed on this subject. The hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) did not tell us why a school which in England would receive State aid should, because it happens to be in Ireland, be excluded from that right. He simply says that those he represents having considered the matter are opposed to it, and that he thinks is the reason why the Christian Brothers should not be embraced in this grant. In Cork and elsewhere these schools do an enormous amount of good in connection with the poor class, and they are willing to accept the actual working Conscience Clause framed by this Parliament, and inserted by a Conservative Government in the Intermediate Education Act. But we are told that they are not to receive any State aid, and while you assume that attitude you at the same time practically compel the schools to accept pupils free of charge. In those towns where the schools of the Christian Brothers are the only Catholic schools the position will be this: A child who is kept away from school will be summoned for non-attendance, and the Magistrates will say, "There is no

  1171
  National Catholic school in this town, and how therefore can we punish the child or the parent?" Then the Education Committee formed by the right hon. Gentleman will have to admit that there is no National school which these Catholic children can be called upon to attend, but they will point to the Christian Brothers' school, over which they have no control, and which the State refuses to recognise, and say that the child must be sent there. But the Christian Brothers may refuse to admit the child without payment. In that case I assert that, under the provisions of this Bill, the parent will be bound to pay for the education of his child, or he will be liable to be punished. With great respect I submit that that is unquestionably the construction of the clause as it stands. It is sufficient for the School Committee to show there is an efficient school in the locality; they are not bound to show that that school will receive any particular pupil gratis. This Bill is supposed to give free education in all parts of Ireland, and it is for that reason the principle of compulsion is introduced. But I contend that in those towns in which the Christian Brothers' school is the only Catholic school you are not making education free, because it will be open to these Christian Brothers to say to any parent "Unless you pay for your child we refuse to admit him." I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Madden) to tell me his view of the law in a case of this kind. Supposing the Christian Brothers' school is the only efficient one in the district, and they refuse to receive a child without payment, could a parent be punished for not sending his child to school under such circumstances? I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to intimate that a parent could not be punished in a case of that sort. May I ask him to show what he grounds that opinion upon? The mere existence, I assert, of an efficient school within a district is a sufficient ground under this Act for punishing a parent if he does not send his child to it, irrespective altogether of the question whether he has to pay or not. Now, Mr. Courtney, I appeal to the Government not to persist in the somewhat obstinate
  1172
  and unreasonable attitude they have taken up in regard to these Christian Brothers' schools. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is not present, because within the past twelve months he visited the Christian Brothers' schools in Cork, and I should have liked to hear him tell the House what he saw there. The right hon. Gentleman not merely visited these schools, but he made a speech in one of them, in the course of which he said that the refusal to make the same grant to these schools as was made to other voluntary schools was a state of things which could not be justified or defended. I wish the right hon. Gentleman were here this afternoon to give us the benefit of his vote on this question. The Christian Brothers' schools are regarded with gratitude and admiration by the masses of the Catholic people in Ireland, and they are looked upon with respect by the Protestant community. I venture to say that only a small minority of the Irish Protestants would be opposed to the demand which my hon. Friend has made. I appeal to the Government to act reasonably in this matter, and not to allow themselves to be influenced by any spirit of religious bigotry. If these Christian Brothers' schools existed in England and Scotland they would receive a grant from the State, and it is a shame and a scandal that simply because they exist in Ireland they are excluded from the rights and privileges which they would enjoy if they were situated in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. WOLFF: I do not know a great deal about these Christian Brothers' schools, but I am quite willing to admit that they have done, and are still doing, a considerable amount of good. If this were a Bill to alter the system of national education into one of a denominational kind, by distributing to each sect a certain amount of money, it would be quite right that the Christian Brothers should be the recipients of a grant. Under the present national system, however, denominationalism is not recognised. As far as I can understand, the education is entirely unsectarian, and I do not see why this Bill should alter that system.

  1173
  Personally I am opposed to the Amendment, because I am opposed to any sectarian system whatever in connection with national education. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has said that the Christian Brothers are quite prepared to accept a Conscience Clause; but I would ask him if it would not be better for these Christian Brothers to revert to the national system, under which they commenced, and comply with the Education Commissioners? They would then obtain a grant for every child that attends their schools. It appears to me that that would be the simplest way of solving the question.
  DR. TANNER: With regard to some of the remarks which have fallen from the distinguished foreigner opposite—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: I was about to say that the hon. Member opposite is in complete error with regard to the attitude of Protestants in the South of Ireland towards these Christian Brothers' schools. There were also some remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney), which were of a character to lead the Committee astray, if they were to believe that Protestants in the South of Ireland do not in every sense of the word help to support these Christian Brothers' schools. I can speak upon this matter with a certain amount of confidence, and if hon. Members would only inquire I think they would find that in the City of Cork Protestants have liberally subscribed in aid of these schools. I shall never forget a very large bazaar which took place two years ago when the Protestants of my native city and politicians of all shades of opinion turned out in very large numbers to help on the good work which has been carried on by these Christian Brothers in Cork. During the recent Cork election one of the polling booths was at the school of these Christian Brothers, and I was there with two of my friends, both of whom are Conservatives, and they turned round to me and said, "Was it not a great shame that these Christian Brothers do not receive a grant in order to assist their schools, which are doing so much good in the city?" I
  1174
  should like to ask why these Christian Brothers should be required, if they wish to receive a grant, to take down the common emblems of their faith, when, as was lately pointed out in the course of a debate in this House, the Protestants belonging to the High Church Party are very proud of having the emblem of the Cross hung up in their institutions? I find that this is done in these High Church schools in England. Why, therefore, should not the same thing be allowed in Ireland? Those Christian Brothers are doing a magnificent educational work in the poorest localities, and I think it is very hard that they should be deprived of a Government grant. If the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Wolff) wishes to learn something of this question he should visit these schools. He would then see the good work they are doing, and be in a better position to speak on this matter.
  MR. WOLFF: I fully admit the good work they do. I have never doubted it.
  DR. TANNER: I am very glad to have the admission of the hon. Member, and if the Government could only see its way to make the small concession for which we ask all this controversy would be avoided, and the debate would come to an end.
  MR. WEBB: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to think that we in no way represent Protestant feeling in Ireland, and that we are only fighting for the Christian Brothers. I have heard it constantly said that we are anxious only for Catholic interests, and that we care nothing for Protestant interests. We are interested for both alike, and we are anxious that people who desire a particular kind of education for their children should be able to get it. We are not speaking for the Catholics alone. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) contended that because the National teachers of Ireland have agreed upon a certain course with respect to this Bill, that course should be followed. No party is more anxious to secure the benefit of the National teachers than we are, but I deny that they have any right to

  1175
  dictate as to what class of education should be given. They are the servants of the country, and of the system, and it by no means follows because they are engaged in giving education that they are the best judges of the kind of education that should be given. But the hon. Member went on to say that the feeling which is embodied in this Amendment is only partial, and does not include the great mass of the people. There could not be a greater mistake, and the hon. Member cannot have mixed with Catholics, nor can he have felt the pulse of the centre and South of Ireland. Since I came into this House no question has been pressed upon me by my constituents with such force as the desirability that the Christian Brothers should have a grant to enable them to carry on their work. It is the universal feeling of the Catholics, who have a very natural desire that their children should receive a Catholic education. The hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) made a very strong declaration that they never would consent to a grant.
  MR. RENTOUL: What I said was that a grant could not be made in this way. If the question were raised broadly we could discuss it, but we could not consent to a grant on a Bill of this kind to a denominational school.
  MR. WEBB: Practically the schools are denominational over a great part of the country, and it is very disingenuous for the hon. Member to take up a position of that kind. If I were to take a Catholic parent into some of those schools in the North of Ireland and let him see the tone and temper of those schools that Catholic parent would do anything rather than his children should enter that school. And it is the same with the Protestants. I have visited a large number of schools since last Autumn, when we knew that this Bill was coming on, and I have seen many National schools to which a Protestant would not send his child. The spirit of the schools is Catholic, and in those parts of the country where this is the case it is the wish of the people that the schools should be Catholic. I cannot help thinking that the Protestants are making a great
  1176
  mistake in this matter, and are doing themselves more harm than good. The large National schools in the Catholic districts are virtually Catholic schools, and why these vexatious restrictions are kept up passes my comprehension. In England large grants are made to schools precisely similar to those of the Christian Brothers and having the same emblems, and I hope we shall hear no more in this House about not bating a jot or tittle of the opposition to a grant to the Christian Brothers. It is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, and I really do not see why the Government should refuse to make some compromise in this matter. Take the case of the town of Enniscorthy. The only education for Catholic boys there is in the Christian Brothers' school, which is full to overflowing, and as the means are small there is no possibility of any more children being admitted. Suppose the people were compelled to send their children, the Christian Brothers could not take them without a grant, and there is no other place, for the National School is purely Protestant. The teachers are Protestant, and the education is Protestant. I have no doubt there are thirty or forty towns in Ireland where the same state of things prevails. It is impossible that too much can be said in praise of these Christian Brothers' schools, and I hope the Government will agree to some compromise. No one would suffer by it, and the education of the country would be greatly improved.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I have visited a large number of these schools, and am practically conversant with the good educational system they promote, and the great educational advantages which they confer on the people, and I think it is a pity that a good Bill like this—a Bill which I freely recognise will be a great advantage to my country—should not have embodied in it a provision which would give to the Christian Brothers' Schools that which we desire. I think it is admitted by all Members of this House, and especially by those Members who claim to represent the Unionists in the North of Ireland, that the Christian Brothers' system of educa-

  1177
  tion is sound. The Christian Brothers are a body who work without fee or reward, save merely the pittance they exist upon, and it would be a pity if through any little idea that we are going to benefit one system of religion or another that these gentlemen should be prevented from carrying on their good work. I should be very reluctant to in any way endanger the passage of this Bill; but I would urge the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General to do all they can to meet us in this matter, and let the Christian Brothers have their proper share in the grant which is to be made for education in Ireland.
  MR. JACKSON: The question raised is no doubt a question of some importance, but I venture to submit that there seems to be a little confusion as to what the effect of the words "or other efficient school" is as regards this clause. As a matter of fact, this clause provides that certain reasons for non-attendance shall be reasonable excuses, and if I accepted the Amendment which is proposed the effect would be this: It would be accepted as a reasonable excuse that there was not, within two miles, measured according to the nearest road and the residence of the child, any National school. That would be a distinct limitation.
  COLONEL NOLAN: And a proper one.
  MR. JACKSON: And would not, in point of fact, afford the relief which ought properly to be afforded to a child attending any other efficient school. The very case which has been quoted, the Christian Brothers' schools, or the Church Education schools, might be efficient schools, might be within two miles of a child's residence, and the child might be attending one or other of those schools, and yet that would not be, if these words were omitted, a reasonable excuse.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Look at the first clause.
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly, that is the object with which these words were inserted—in order to make it appear that a child attending any other efficient school than a National school, that that should be accepted as a reasonable excuse, and that the child
  1178
  should not be compelled to attend a National school. Therefore the effect of my accepting this Amendment would, I think, really be rather to make the clause stronger than to afford any relaxation. There have been several questions raised in the debate. The Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) gave great credit to the Christian Brothers' schools for the efficiency of their education. On the other hand, the Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) certainly took up a position, if I may venture to say so, which seemed to be much more extreme than anything I have heard in this House during the Debate. I do not suppose the hon. Member meant to convey the impression that his words might produce. But if we carry our minds back it will be in the recollection of the Committee that both on the introduction of this Bill, and also on the Second Reading, it was distinctly stated by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) and by several other Members that what had been objected to was that the Christian Brothers' schools had refused to make compliance with the rules of the Commissioners of Education for religious instruction. In fact, if I remember rightly, the Member for South Tyrone said in express terms that he recognised the quality of the education given by the Christian Brothers and made no complaint about it, and, therefore, I do not think we can take a stand on the position that they are Christian Brothers' schools. What we have to consider is whether they comply with the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners. The hon. Member also referred to the statement that these schools if in England would be in receipt of grants, and when challenged he distinctly said that he thought that would not be the case. They would have to comply with the Conscience Clause and with the rules and regulations of the Education Department. I merely mention that now to make it clear that, so far as I have boon able to gather, there have boon no adverse criticisms passed upon the educational advantages of the Christian Brothers' schools, and that the reason why they have been excluded, or have excluded themselves, has been because they have not complied, or

  1179
  did not feel it within their power to comply, with the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners. Any Minister who is charged with the responsibility of caring for education in Ireland would, of course, be only too glad if some plan could be found by which the whole elementary education would be brought into line, and there should be no question of denomination or of the separation of schools. I think it is quite clear that it is impossible to make exceptions. What is desirable is that everything should be done in order to afford the greatest opportunities and facilities for education, so far as that can be done consistently with the rules and regulations laid down, or which the Commissioners may think it necessary to lay down. Now, Sir, I should like just to say a word or two with reference to the Resident Magistrates, to which the hon. Member for West Belfast referred. I do not read the Bill in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, that there would be power on the part of any magistrate to compel attendance unless there was a school which the child could attend. I think probably that in view of the change which is about to be made when the Bill comes into operation, freeing the schools in Ireland, it must be obvious that no magistrate before whom a parent was brought could do otherwise than accept as reasonable the excuse that there was no school at which the child could attend free.
  MR. SEXTON: What is to become of the child?
  MR. JACKSON: That is quite another question. I admit that with the concessions that have been made in debate—I mean concessions which would lead to the freeing of a very large proportion of education in Ireland—there should be a reasonably restricted clause and provisions in order to avoid violating the parent's religious scruples, and that there should be as much freedom and elasticity as possible, so that it could not be in the power of an Attendance Committee or magistrate to compel a parent to send a child to a school to which he has conscientious objections. The reasonable excuses which are prescribed as being sufficient to excuse attendance, or, at any rate, to excuse the enforcement by the magis-
  1180
  trates of the penalties in the Bill, are very considerable. The corollary of that is this, that these reasonable excuses, being so wide and so many, unless the Act were worked with the general concurrence of public opinion in Ireland, it could not succeed as it ought to succeed. I do not agree that there is a power to compel a child to attend a school to which the parent objects.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I did not say that.
  MR. JACKSON: If the Christian Brothers' schools or the Church Education schools refused to admit a child without payment that would be a reasonable excuse, which would prevent a magistrate ordering that a child should attend or pay. The Bill says—
  "If the School Attendance Committee have reason to believe that an attendance order has not been complied with, and that there is not any reasonable excuse within the meaning of this Act for non-compliance there with, they may make a further complaint to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and thereupon, if the parent does not satisfy the Court that the order has been complied with, or that he has used all reasonable efforts to comply therewith,"
  the penalties should be imposed. If admission were refused, the parent could say he had used all reasonable efforts.
  MR. HEALY: I do not say if a parent is unable to pay that would not be a reasonable excuse, but I say that where he is able to pay he may be compelled to pay, or send the child to a school to which he objects.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member pointed out several ways, one of which was that the Christian Brothers might not admit the child; then there would be no power to compel attendance. In the other cases, I think the parent would be exempt under the reasonable excuses provided in the Bill. Just a word about the Resident Magistrates. They are put in as a sort of protection to meet a possible case of this kind. It might be urged that in some districts, where religious feeling might run high and differences be very acute, there might be two magistrates who belonged to the same creed, and were of the same political opinions, and I can quite conceive that if they took action against a child of a different creed it

  1181
  might be said that they had been influenced by that fact. The Resident Magistrates are put in as a protection in such a case. Now, Sir, with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. No doubt, as I have said, the conditions which will be created by this Bill will be different to anything we have had before. By this Bill we are going to free the schools from the payment of school pence, and to offer to the parents of children in Ireland opportunities of obtaining the advantages of free education. We expect that will largely improve the average attendance, and will tend very greatly to benefit all education in Ireland. I have said that I have not heard, as regards these, schools, any complaint as to their educational status. I think it must be recognised that these conditions resulting from the Bill are creating a condition of things which never existed before. It is a fact, no doubt, that in some towns in Ireland there are no schools other than those of the Christian Brothers for boys. I do not think the number is so large as that stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. SEXTON: I put it this way: that there are sixty towns in which the Christian Brothers are the principal educators of the boys, and in thirty towns there are schools not open to other than Protestant children.
  MR. JACKSON: According to the information supplied to me, I think there are about fifteen towns where that would apply. No doubt, in these towns the difficulty will be very considerable in carrying out the Act, and I think we are bound to look at, it in a reasonable spirit, and, if possible, to find some solution. I believe everybody is agreed that if the Christian Brothers were able to see their way to bring themselves within the rules of the Education Commissioners, no one would object to their being brought under the system of National education and receiving grants. I do not believe there is a single Member of the House who would say, because they are Christian Brothers, they should be excluded from the benefits derived by schools closely parallel with them.
  1182
  There are the French Christian Brothers, who, I presume, carry on education practically in the same way and with the same objects. There are monastery and convent schools, which are attended by 70,000 children, and they receive from the Education Department their share of the grant for educational purposes. I say we are face to face with a new set of circumstances, and, so far as I know, we are face to face with a new position in this respect. It has been made clear to-day by the hon. Member for West Belfast that whatever doubt there may have been there is none now, as to whether these schools were willing to bring themselves under the full control of a Conscience Clause, so that there could be no question of danger to the conscience of any child whose religion was different. Of course, it would be a great advantage to education in Ireland if these schools could be made practically National schools under the Board, and available to all for the purposes of education in the towns in which they are placed. As I understand it, the hon. Member for West Belfast, in view of the altered conditions, said distinctly that these schools are quite willing to accept a Conscience Clause and bring themselves within the rules, and so make it quite clear that there is no question of religious instruction, other than that to which the parents agree, within the period of secular instruction. He puts the question to me whether under these altered conditions the time has not arrived when the Education Commissioners might consider whether a clause, such as he intimated as existing in the Intermediate Education Act, should not be embodied in the rules of the Department, so as to enable those schools to participate in the grant. I feel that we should try if we can to find some plan, not of making an exception of the Christian Brothers, but of bringing all elementary schools into line, and I feel that I am unable to resist the appeal that the question shall be considered by the Commissioners. It seems to me to be reasonable that the Education Commissioners should be asked to consider whether by the adoption of some such clause these schools might not be brought into line, be-

  1183
  cause it is obvious that, as regards elementary education, there would be a great advantage in the working of the Act if we could get everybody to do their best to try and give full effect to an Act which I believe will confer a greater benefit on Ireland than any Act which has been passed.
  MR. NOLAN: I have no desire to prolong the discussion, for I am anxious to see the Bill pass into law as soon as possible. I wish to be considered as endorsing the principle of compulsion, but I must say that I am not in favour of its being applied in many parts of Ireland. It would be very hard indeed to enforce school attendance when such compulsion might mean the infliction of very great hardship; but with regard to the measure, as a whole, I believe it will serve the interests of the country, and consequently I shall be very glad to see it become law with certain modifications, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could see his way to make those modifications, I believe that it would take a comparatively short time to pass the Bill through the House. I listened with very great attention to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just now achieved, and I feel that I am echoing the views of my colleagues here, and all who listened to him, when I say that nothing could be better than the tone and temper of that speech. I am sure that with regard to the Christian Brothers' schools, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he sees the perfect absurdity of keeping them outside the benefits of the Education Act, and that he is not one who is in favour of the absurd rules and regulations of the National Board of Education, which keeps the Christian Brothers' schools outside the scope of this Act. I was pleased to observe also that hon. Members from Ulster had got nothing to say against these schools, and nothing to say in favour of the rules to which I have referred. I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Down that as far as he himself is concerned, personally, he could see no objection to the Christian Brothers' schools being endowed by the Government, but that he feels his hands are tied by the ignorance of the circumstances of a certain
  1184
  section of his constituency, and that if he were left to himself, and if the other gentlemen who represent Unionist constituencies in Ulster were left to themselves, they would raise no objection to these Christian Brothers' schools being included. The Chief Secretary might shorten this discussion very much if he were to give way upon this particular point, for although I recognise the courtesy and the tone and temper and feeling of his speech, I am very much afraid he has not brought us any further in the matter, for the simple reason that he throws the Christian Brothers back again upon the tender mercies of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland and their precious rules and regulations. Everyone knows that the thing which has brought the Christian Brothers into conflict with the National Board is the use of certain religious emblems, and the use of certain books in the religious education given in the schools. I think it has been pointed out pretty clearly and conclusively by other speakers that the objections to the use of these emblems in the schools is absurd. I venture to say that no objection at all would be made to a manager or teacher of an elementary school in Ireland displaying the emblems of the Buddhist religion or Mahommedan religion, or almost any other religion, but here in a Christian country, the moment the teachers of a school in Ireland display any emblem of the Christian religion they are immediately objected to by the Board. And then with regard to the books, I am afraid that the Christian Brothers will not be able to see their way to adopt the books of the National Board of Education, and I most certainly sympathise with them in this course. The Commissioners of National Education shut their eyes to the fact that in this country in State-aided schools any kind of class books may be used, but in Ireland a hard and fast rule is laid down that only the set of books approved by the National Board should be used; and I think the ingenuity of man could hardly devise a drier and more repulsive set of class books for young children than those used in the National schools of Ireland. Some little improvement, I admit, has been made in recent years but even now

  1185
  everyone must sympathise with the Christian Brothers in objecting to being tied down to these particular books. The object of the right hon. Gentleman and of others is to prevent anything in the shape of proselytising or interference with the faith of the children who attend a State-aided school, but in the case of the Christian Brothers there is not the slightest danger of anything of the kind taking place, because no Protestant child attends, or is likely to attend, any of their schools. As far as the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman are concerned, I am afraid it will be found, when we come down to the hard and fast case, that the Christian Brothers will not be able to attain the object they have in view; and I hope that in order to expedite the passage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to making a definite announcement in favour of giving State aid to any schools, whether Protestant or Catholic, where the secular instruction is up to the required standard. That is all that the State has a right to expect in the matter of education.
  MR. CONWAY: Like my hon. Friend I must bear testimony to the very sympathetic speech of the Chief Secretary, but to my mind certain difficulties are presented. The Christian Brothers, who engage in primary instruction in competition with the National teachers of Ireland, at this moment take advantage of the Intermediate Education Act, and, out of the £10,000 per annum spent on behalf of intermediate education in Ireland, are able to earn no less than £4,000. Now, this will seriously endanger the position of the National teachers of Ireland. The Christian Brothers being able to earn this £4,000 besides the primary grants will, of course, afford the spectacle to Irish parents of apparently being superior teachers. But the Brothers are not superior teachers in the sense of being trained or certificated teachers. We ask two things in this matter, and I trust the Chief Secretary will remember them. The first is that the National teachers of Ireland are to be on an equality with the Christian Brothers as regards a share in the intermediate education grant. If it be
  1186
  good for the Chief Secretary to recognise the Christian Brothers as being equal to the National teachers, then the converse holds good. The second point is that these teachers of the Christian Brothers are bound to have a bigger field for their labours, and that they will enter into competition with the National teachers. The Christian Brothers being untrained, so far as the Education Department is concerned, if they be recognised by the Government they will earn a grant of ten shillings. I hold that the Chief Secretary ought certainly to advise the Commissioners that in future the Christian Brothers in opening schools should have trained certificated teachers at the head of such schools, and that the second masters should be trained and certificated. I believe, if that were done, the National teachers in Ireland would have nothing to complain of. I commend the Chief Secretary right heartily for the sympathetic tone of his speech. Everyone admits the work of the Christian Brothers, and everyone regrets that they have not been able to take advantage of the public grants for education. We hope that in future they will be able to do this, but not to the disadvantage of the National teachers. I think we may fairly look forward to this Bill being passed within the next hour or two, and after the concession made to the hon. Member for West Belfast, I hope the other Amendments will be discussed briefly.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member who preceded him seem to differ as to the value of the concession that has been made. With regard to the proposal that the teachers of the Christian Brothers should be trained, I have to point out that convent teachers are not trained.
  MR. CONWAY: I distinctly said that future teachers should be trained.
  MR. SEXTON: I would point out that two-thirds of the National school teachers are not trained, and that therefore that does not constitute a demand that the Christian Brothers' teachers shall be trained. The question now to be disposed of is—shall we accept the concession that has been made? I differ I from some hon. Gentlemen as to the

  1187
  value of the concession. I deny that a new state of affairs will be created which will require that a new arrangement shall be made. In many districts of Ireland the Christian Brothers' schools are the only schools to be used, and unless they are included in the Bill free and compulsory education will never come into operation in Ireland. Therefore, the maintenance of the present system is incompatible with the working of this Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: I could not accept the statement in that form.
  MR. SEXTON: But the parents cannot be fined if they send their children to the Christian Brothers' schools without payment, and the managers of those schools cannot be compelled to receive them. However, in the interests of education I accept the concession offered. It is of capital importance that some such arrangement should be made, because then all doubt of the schools being under the Bill will be set at rest. I beg, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I desire to say a few words on the subject. While there is no desire on the part of myself and of hon. Members who represent the Northern Divisions in Ireland to depart from the arrangement that has been made, we reserve to ourselves perfect freedom of action with regard to this proposal at any future stage of the Bill.
  MR. NOLAN: I would point out that that has been no bar to the admission of the Christian Brothers' schools except the question of books and emblems.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn? ("Yes.")
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: My next Amendment is a somewhat trifling one. It is in page 1, line 22, to leave out "or any such school," and insert "and."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: This is in the nature of a consequential Amend-
  1188
  ment, and I am not quite sure that it would not restrict or limit the scope which it is intended to give to the Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: Surely not. It is not so intended.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I now move, in page 1, line 23, leave out "religious." I never heard of a "conscientious religious" ground of objection to send a child to school. The word "conscientious" would surely cover the meaning without adding "religious." What I fear is this—that if you allow the word "religious" to remain, the Re-movable Magistrate or the two Justices of the Peace may say there can be no religious objection on the part of the parent to send his child to any National school, because it is so arranged that religious instruction is given in it at certain times, and the child may then be absent. But it is notorious that there is an objection in Ireland to sending children to the 4,400 National schools, because the teachers in them are all of one creed. Therefore it is that I propose to omit the word "religious."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the word "religious."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'religious' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Member in this matter. I do not think any such difficulty is likely to arise as that which he suggests in connection with this clause. I do not see that a parent can object to send his child to a particular school on account of the religious instruction given in it.
  MR. SEXTON: National school.
  MR. JACKSON: Very well, National school. I think, however, that it is somewhat cumbrous to speak of a "conscientious religious" objecion, and I would be willing to give up the word "conscientious." I would retain the word "religious," so as to indicate that it must be something more than a conscientious objection on the part of the parent. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, and allow the omission of the word "conscientious" to be moved instead.
  MR. SEXTON: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will accept his suggestion, and withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. JACKSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 1, line 23, leave out "conscientious."
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, after "sickness," insert "poverty." It is obvious that with regard to a country like Ireland an Amendment of this nature is required. Poverty is so keen there that it is often the case that children have not clothes to wear nor food to eat when they should be sent to school, and the Magistrates ought to accept such excuses. I have observed a curious difference between this Bill and the English and Scotch Acts in this respect. The English Act says that if children are engaged in necessary household occupations it shall constitute an excuse for their absence from school, and in the Scotch Act "the giving of assistance in the fisheries" is also to be taken as an excuse. Now we also have fisheries in Ireland, and I suggest that the insertion of the words "poverty" in this Amendment, and of "domestic necessity" in the next, would not weaken the power of the Act, but would strengthen the hands of the Magistrates.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, after the word "sickness," to insert the word "poverty."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'sickness' be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member must see that if the parent is so poor that he cannot clothe and send his children to school the Magistrate could not refuse to accept such an excuse.
  MR. SEXTON: Then as to the question of want of food.
  MR. JACKSON: I am not sure whether the same answer would apply as to food. I am of opinion, however, that if such a case existed it should be brought under the notice of some authority, and some remedy might then be provided. Poverty is bad
  1190
  enough, but poverty allied with ignorance is infinitely worse and more dangerous. If the hon. Member would not press this Amendment with regard to "poverty" I would agree to the next, and to insert "domestic necessity." As regards the third Amendment to insert—
  "Or by reason of being engaged in necessary operations of husbandry, and the ingathering of crops, or giving assistance in the fisheries, or other work requiring to be done at a particular time or season,"
  I think these are reasons which would also constitute a reasonable excuse.
  MR. SEXTON: The only way of dealing with that subject will be to accept the suggestions of the Bishops to provide for the establishment of daily industrial schools where the children could receive food. For the present I withdraw my Amendment regarding poverty, the other being accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 1, line 25, after "sickness," insert "or by reason of being engaged in necessary operations of husbandry and the ingathering of crops, or giving assistance in the fisheries or other work requiring to be done at a particular time or season."
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to the Amendment "or reasonable"?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member presses it, but I do not think the words are necessary.
  MR. SEXTON: The Court will be the judge.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes.
  MR. SEXTON: I move "or reasonable."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, after "unavoidable," to insert the words "or reasonable."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the Chief Secretary should add some words here to the same effect as the words proposed by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). Under Clause 2 the employer might be prosecuted. If the words are put in he will know exactly what he is doing.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after "child," insert "except for setting or planting of potatoes, haymaking, or harvesting."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: I have no objection in principle, but I really think the case would be met by the number of attendances. In fact, the number of attendances should be so fixed as to practically afford six weeks at one part of the year and six weeks in the other, during which children could take part in farming operations. I do not really think the words are necessary, because I believe, in the first place, no penalty would attach to the employment if the number of attendances were given. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need not press the Amendment, which is not necessary.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I must say I think the words are very necessary, because an employer will not be able to study the attendances of the children. He will go in for an additional hayraker or extra machines. I do not think you ought to give an advantage to machines over manual labour, and I do not want the employer to be subjected to a disagreeable penalty.
  MR. JACKSON: I will agree.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 2, line 10, leave out "for the time being"; line 10, leave out "by the Commissioners," and insert "in the Second Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. SEXTON: The words to which my Amendment refer provide for the recognition of the half-time system. In many instances in the North of Ireland, Catholic children who are half-timers are obliged to attend non-Catholic schools. The consequence is that the preparations for Sacrament are entirely neglected. That state of affairs should not be continued. I am informed, too, that in County Down and other places in Ulster the practice is for an employer to start a school, and in other instances to compel his Catholic half-time employees to attend a mixed school under a Protestant teacher on pain of losing their employment. I ask the
  1192
  right hon. Gentleman to say that it should constitute an offence under the Act for an employer to insist upon the attendance of a child in respect of any school, except that chosen by the parent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, after the word "Commissioners," leave out to end of subsection (2).—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am strongly opposed to the Amendment. The question is one recently dealt with by the House in another measure. It has been over and over again demonstrated that the condition of health of the half-time children is quite as good as, if not better than, that of any other class of children. And in regard to their educational attainments, so far as the Protestant half-timers in the industrial districts of the North of Ireland are concerned, they are quite equal to those of any other class of children. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, who has raised a subsidiary question regarding the religious education of the children. But so far as the religious education given under the compulsory system to half-timers in the North of Ireland is concerned, the advantages and disadvantages to all denominations are equal. I am not aware of any of the schools to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
  MR. SEXTON: What I am aware of is that there are mill schools in the North of Ireland where employers compel Roman Catholic children to attend a school, taught by a Protestant teacher, on pain of losing their employment, although there is a Catholic school in the place. I assert the right of conscience in this matter, and to secure that I will propose to move at the end of the sub-section the words—"No employer should compel a child to attend a school not chosen by the parents."
  MR. BARTON: I think the hon. Member ought to give some further evidence for the statement he makes, and until he does give some further information, I object to

  1193
  this Amendment as casting an undeserved slur on the employers of the North of Ireland, who cannot, and do not, exercise compulsion in such matters.
  MR. SEXTON: How anxious the hon. Member is for evidence when it is to secure the religious equality of Roman Catholic children! I assert that what I have stated is done, and, even supposing there is no conclusive evidence, it may be done. Surely protection against sending a Roman Catholic child to a school taught by a Protestant on pain of losing employment is as necessary as in the case of the Protestant minority in the North of Ireland. I have read a letter from a gentleman who was at one time President of the National Teachers' Association, who tells me that in the North of Ireland Catholic children are obliged to attend non-Catholic schools, and that in consequence their preparations for the Sacrament is delayed.
  MR. BARTON: I certainly cannot support the Amendment. I think the hon. Member ought not to have made such a statement without citing particular instances and places. I venture, from my own knowledge of Ulster, to say that no compulsion is exercised.
  MR. KNOX: I cannot say from my personal knowledge that I have seen these Catholic children in Protestant schools, but I do know that two or three years ago little children had to strike in order to be allowed to go to the school of their denomination, and I say that it is a scandal that they should be put to that necessity. I do not know that the object of the employer was solely due to religious bigotry; it may have been that the school he preferred was nearer at hand and consequently more convenient, but I do know that they had to go to this extremity in order to secure religious equality. With reference to the request that we should bring evidence, I would point out that we cannot bring evidence before this Committee as we could before a Committee upstairs; and I have no doubt that the statements could be proved by evidence on oath under the later conditions.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not understand that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) desires to press
  1194
  very seriously the Amendment which he has moved. It would exempt a large district from the half-time system, which has been proved to be beneficial. I can speak for Yorkshire, and I think I may say there is a strong feeling, especially among the working classes, in favour of the half-time system. I have never heard any complaint as regards the school attendance and education.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The right hon. Gentleman says that the people in Yorkshire are decidedly in favour of retaining the half-time system. I am bound to say, as Chairman of the Commission now inquiring into this question, that there was a great deal of evidence from Yorkshire against the half-time system by the working class; but, at the same time, I do not think the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) can very well insist on his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: I have only raised this question for the purpose of bringing it to the notice of the House. I will, however, move the other Amendment to which I have referred.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think we can deal with this question in the Bill now before the House. It seems to me hardly possible to suppose that an employer would send a child to any school to which its parent objected. If such a thing were attempted, and it were brought before the notice of the Education Commissioners, I certainly think it would not be permitted.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: What objection can there be to add the words which the hon. Member proposes?
  MR. SEXTON: The words I propose to add are, "That no employer shall compel a child to attend a school not chosen by the parent."
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: That is in favour of all religions. There is nothing in that which strikes me as being in the slightest degree derogatory to the employers, or to Protestants or Catholics. It admits the half-time principle, and it simply says that no child shall go to a school of which its parents disapprove. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Belfast will alter the wording of his Amendment so as to

  1195
  make it read "to which the parent has religious objections," instead of "not chosen by the parent."
  MR. SEXTON: I am willing to agree to that alteration.
  MR. MACARTNEY: This is rather a serious matter for the employers, and I shall certainly oppose the insertion of any such words as are proposed unless time is allowed for further consideration, so that I may find out what the position of the employers will be if the Amendment is passed. I would suggest that the hon. Member might leave the matter over till the Report stage.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the hon. Member wish to maintain a system by which an employer can compel a child to go to a school to which the parent objects?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I have no knowledge of the existence of any such case, although the hon. Member may be right in asserting that it can be done. He has alluded to one instance of the kind, but we do not know the circumstances connected with it, and I am opposed to any words being introduced off-hand into this Bill which would affect the half-time system as it now exists in the industrial centre of Ireland. If the hon. Member would defer the question until the Report stage I might be able then to accept the spirit of his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: As the clause stands the insertion of the words could do no harm if the system does not exist, and if it does exist I should like to know what hon. Members opposite are prepared to maintain it.
  MR. BARTON: The argument of the hon. Member could be used in support of any absurd or offensive provision in any Bill. No such penal clause exists in the English Education Act. I have yet to learn why it is required in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment now being discussed is not at present before the Committee. Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member for West Belfast that the Amendment imposes no penalty on what it proposes to forbid, and it is not relevant to the present clause.
  MR. SEXTON: You will observe, Sir, that the next sub-section imposes
  1196
  a penalty if this sub-section is disobeyed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2.
  MR. SEXTON: I will now move that the following words be added at the end of the sub-section:—
  "No employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which its parent objects on religious grounds."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 13, after "1891" to insert the words "But no employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which its parent objects on religious grounds."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: I have already expressed my views on this matter, and I have endeavoured to make peace. But I quite recognise the right of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney) to object to these or any other words, and I am sure he would not raise an objection unless he felt there were grounds for doing so. I might point out, however, that it would be quite possible to move to strike out the words on Report, if in the meantime he discovered any strong reasons for doing so. I have already said that I think the insertion of such words are hardly necessary, but I am not prepared to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to point out that my Amendment cannot be regarded as offensive, because it will apply to all classes. I shall be just as glad to see a Catholic employer fined for compelling a Protestant child to go to a Catholic school as I shall to see a Protestant employer fined for compelling a Catholic child to go to a Protestant school.
  MR. BARTON: This is a penal provision, directed against Irish employers—both Protestant and Roman Catholic. On behalf of all employers in Ireland I object to it.
  Question put.
  (4.20) The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 10.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
  COLONEL NOLAN: Before I submit the next Amendment I suppose I may congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) on having secured four gen-

  1197
  tlemen to vote in the "No" Lobby by mistake.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  COLONEL NOLAN: My present Amendment is in page 2, line 15, to leave out "forty," and insert "ten." The penalty as it stands is rather excessive. I think ten shillings would meet the case. Forty shillings is too high, unless the offence has been persistent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "forty," and insert the word "ten."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'forty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I have no particular fancy for forty shillings penalty, but I should like to point out that under these circumstances there can be no sympathy with the employer, and I have no particular desire to further protect him. At the same time, I think the object of the hon. Member is secured by the fact that the penalty is not exceeding forty shillings, and that leaves a large discretionary power to the magistrate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. SEXTON: I see that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) has given notice of another clause instead of this one, and there can be no object in moving our Amendments to this clause. I would suggest that this clause should be omitted now, and we can discuss the new clause when it is brought up.
  MR. JACKSON: I agree.
  Clause omitted.
  Clause 4.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move an Amendment in line 31 with the object of increasing the discretionary power of the School Attendance Committees. The power which I seek to include is given in the English Act of 1876, chapter 79, and in the 56th section of the Scotch Act in almost the very same words. I submit that it is desirable that there should be uniformity in this matter.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 31, after the word "jurisdiction," to insert the words "unless they think that it is inexpedient to take such proceedings."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: It seems to me that these words are unnecessary. If I understand these powers, the School Attendance Committees may take proceedings.
  MR. SEXTON: Shall.
  MR. JACKSON: Very well.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 2, line 38, after "and," insert "subject to the provisions of Section 1 of this Act."
  Lines 39 and 40, leave out "every time the school is open, or."
  Line 40, after "such," leave out "other."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 17, after "attend," insert "subject to the provisions of Section 1 of this Act."
  MR. SEXTON: The next Amendment is an attempt to secure that, in considering whether employment is justified, regard shall be had to the attendances of the child during the current year. Suppose in July a person employed a child which had made one hundred out of one hundred and fifty attendances, it would be reasonable to suppose that the remainder would be made up.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, after the word "open," to insert the words 'or by reason of the attendance of the child at school within the year."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JACKSON: I have considered these words, and I am not sure that they are necessary. Of course, this would be a matter for the Magistrates to decide.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  MR. JACKSON: That would, of course, be taken into consideration by

  1199
  the Magistrate, and I agree that it should be accepted as a good reason. But I do not think the words are necessary, and there might be some cases in which the attendance of the child was really no excuse. It might be that a child was employed in March and the parents said they intended that it should make the full number of attendances during the subsequent nine months.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the words would be useful, but I do not press them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not think it is very probable that an offence of the kind contemplated here would be committed maliciously, and I think it is desirable to protect workmen from malicious prosecution.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after the word "of," to insert the word "wilfully."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'wilfully' be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I do not think the hon. Member need trouble to insert those words. The offence must be wilful.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is it not a fact that under Clause 2 an offence may be committed whether an employer knows it or not?
  MR. MADDEN: That is so. If the hon. Member will agree to insert these words in line 26 I will accept them.
  MR. SEXTON: I agree.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and the words inserted in line 26.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I move here an Amendment, of which I gave notice in Clause 4, after the word "shillings," to insert "for a false and forged certificate, or five shillings for false representations." I think some difference ought to be made in the class of offences.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the word "shillings," to insert the words "for a false or forged certificate, or five shillings for false representations."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MADDEN: I think the elasticity given to the clause by the words "not exceeding" will enable the Magistrates to discriminate between different classes of cases. They will be able to consider, where the offence is not of a serious character, whether they should not mitigate the penalty.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not want to break up the harmony.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I object to what I call local jurisdiction. It is quite an absurdity, and gives rise to great inconvenience. If you are to have one Resident Magistrate you might as well have one Local Magistrate.
  Clause 7.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 12, to leave out the words "or of one resident magistrate with or without other justices."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said that the Resident Magistrate was put in as a sort of protection.
  MR. SEXTON: I should be very sorry that important questions under the Bill should be decided by one magistrate, and there is no reason why the Resident Magistrate should be singled out for distinction and allowed to sit by himself.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am sure in Galway and Mayo the people would prefer the ordinary Justices.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: You are constructing a novel system in Ireland, and it is possible that you might have two Justices sitting not learned in this law, who would have to determine very important questions—whether schools are efficient, whether excuses are reasonable, and also have to deal with the academical question of religious objection on the part of the parent. It would conduce to the smooth working of the Act if there were a power of appeal from the crude and possibly ignorant decisions of the Justices on these points. That is the object of my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, at end, insert "every judgment of such Court imposing a penalty shall be subject to appeal."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MADDEN: It is, of course, desirable that these questions should be decided authoritatively, but I would point out that there is an appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Act whenever the penalty is over £1.
  MR. SEXTON: That would bring in the case of an employer, or person committing forgery under the Bill, but would not allow of appeal on the points of reasonable excuse and religious objection.
  MR. MADDEN: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, and though there may be some inconvenience in allowing an appeal in small cases, I will accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: My next Amendment is not contentious.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, after line 24, insert,—(4.) A certificate, purporting to be under the hand of the dispensary medical officer of any district, stating that a child is ill, or that there is illness in the family of the child, or where the child resides, shall be conclusive evidence of the facts."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: You have agreed that in case of illness the certificate of the doctor shall be sufficient evidence; this Amendment is to make the certificate of the clergyman sufficient evidence of religious objection. I am anxious to avoid wrangling or excitement, and it would not be conducive to peace if the parent is to be cross-examined in Court as to the grounds of his religious objection. It might be inconvenient for the parent to attend at the Court, and as there may be many illiterate parents I desire to provide that the certificate of the clergyman shall be sufficient evidence.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, after line 24, insert,—"(5.) A certificate, purporting to be under the hand of the principal or other clergyman of the congregation to which a child belongs, stating that the parent of the child objects, on con-
  1202
  scientious grounds, to send the child to any particular school, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MADDEN: I do not think there is any need for the Amendment. The parent would attend the Court and say, "I object on religious grounds," and that would be sufficient.
  MR. SEXTON: But he might be cross-examined.
  MR. MADDEN: I cannot think for a moment that cross-examination on that point would be allowed. All he would have to say is, "I object on religious grounds," and there could be no cross-examination on that.
  MR. SEXTON: Would you compel the parent to attend to say that?
  MR. MADDEN: If he could not be present the case would be adjourned to enable him to attend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I move the omission of these words, as I think the proof of the age of a child should be made by the School Attendance Committee, and not by the parent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from the word "when," to the word "age," in line 28.—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MADDEN: I think it would be perfectly impossible to work the Bill unless you have something like primâ facie evidence of the age of the child, and the parent is the proper person to give that. That is the ordinary course of procedure as to proof of age.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  MR. SEXTON: I move my Amendment, Sir. But in face of the new clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, this clause is unnecessary. The new clause proposes that half the School Attendance Committee shall be appointed by the Local Authority and half by the Education Department. There would always be enough of the

  1203
  Department nominees to forma quorum and conduct the business, and there would be no fear of default in the way of omission. It is also hardly likely that there would be any fault of commission with the Committee so constituted, as the Department's nominees would always be able to prevent anything of which the Department might disapprove. Under these circumstances I hope Clause 10 will be withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 8, leave out from the word "after," to the word "that," in line 10, and insert "reasonable notice to a school attendance committee, and after a public inquiry, at which such committee shall be entitled to appear, give evidence, and be heard by counsel or otherwise."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I admit that the alterations of the portion of the Committee to be appointed by the Education Commissioners does make a considerable difference as regards control and the power to enforce the carrying out of the Act. I am not sure that we can agree to this proposal altogether, though I think it desirable that the Committee should have an opportunity of justifying themselves before any inquiry which may be held. I admit that the new clause gives the Education Commissioners much greater power, and renders less necessary the power of supersession. I should be prepared to accept the Amendment as to notice to the Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: My Amendments are no longer applicable to the clause, because they were framed in accordance with the state of affairs which existed before the introduction of the new clause, by which one-half of the School Attendance Committee will be appointed by the Education Commissioners, and the other half by the locality. There is no use in proceeding with these Amendments in view of the new clause, and I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to omit this clause now.
  MR. JACKSON: I shall propose a further Amendment later on, and then I will consider the matter between this and the Report stage. I accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member desire to move any further Amendment?
  MR. SEXTON: No, Sir. It would be grotesque to do so under the circumstances. I would really urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider this clause no longer applicable to the scheme of the Bill. On my part, I shall be prepared to assent to any fair provision which can be shown to be reasonably necessary to enforce the carrying out of the Act.
  MR. JACKSON: I think there is a great deal in what the hon. Member says. I admit that the new clause will make a difference with regard to the control of the Commissioners and their power to enforce the carrying out of the Act. I shall consider the matter between this and the Report stage.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think a statement should be put in that the Government should pay half the expenses. That is really an important proposal.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  MR. SEXTON: Upon this clause a question of principle arises which, under other circumstances, I should be compelled to argue. I protest against the application of the provisions of this scheme to Ireland without the extension of the franchise which has been given to England and Scotland. You did not enact compulsion for England and Scotland without having the Corporations elected on a popular franchise. I am not disposed to move my Amendments to this clause; but I shall ask for the omission of the second sub-section. This Bill was linked with the Local Government Bill, and they were intended to go together. If you had been able to carry the Local Government Bill into law, I should not make any objection to this sub-section; but the Local Government Bill has been dropped. The question of the Local Government Bill is a speculative question, which may or may not be considered in the immediate future. I say the better course to adopt is this—whenever a Local Government Bill for Ireland is brought in, that will be the time to consider the circumstances under which the County Councils in Ireland

  1205
  should apply a system of compulsory education. It may be found that the provisions introduced into the Bill as regards towns would not suit the conditions of the Irish counties, either with respect to the reasonable excuse of parents or any other matter. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will omit this sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: It is true, as the hon. Member says, that we have not been able to carry the Local Government Bill for Ireland, but still we may be able to carry it next Session. To use the argument of the hon. Member a short time ago, it can do no harm for this provision to be left in the Bill. It will be optional on the part of the County Councils to adopt it or not. I think, on the whole, the hon. Member will see that it would be better not to press his objection.
  MR. SEXTON: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Government have agreed to accept this Amendment to Clause 13. It is merely to enable a suburb of a town or county to be added to the town or county for the purposes of this Act, if the Commissioners of National Education desire it. The right hon. Gentleman has read the Amendment and approves of it, and I simply move it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 4, to add as a new sub-section—
  "Where as regards any suburb or other area outside the boundaries of, but immediately adjoining, any municipal borough or any town or township under commissioners, the Commissioners of National Education consider that, haying regard to the character and local situation of such suburb or area, the provisions of this Act should apply to the same, the Commissioners may, after such local inquiry as they think fit, by order so declare, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply to such suburb or area, and the local authority and school attendance committee of the borough, town, or township to which the said suburb or area adjoins shall carry out the provisions of this Act in the same in like manner as if the said suburb or area were within the boundaries of the said borough, town, or township: Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless
  1206
  the consent of the local authority concerned has been first obtained: Provided further, that no such order shall remain in force after the provisions of this Act have been duly applied to such suburb or area by resolution of a county council."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14.
  MR. SEXTON: I had intended to move the omission of this clause, but considering the magnitude of the change it is likely that some time will be required for the appointment of a School Attendance Committee, and for the framing of regulations. But I beg to move that the date on which the provisions of this Act shall come into operation shall be the 1st of January, 1894, instead of the 1st of January 1893.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 17, to leave out the words "ninety-three," and insert the words "ninety-four."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'ninety-three' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I do not press very much for the date mentioned in the Bill. It may be necessary to provide additional schools and so on to give effect to the provisions of the Act. Of course, if the date fixed be the 1st January, 1894, a School Attendance Committee may be appointed in any district immediately after the passing of the Act, although the compulsory powers cannot be exercised. Does the hon. Member attach great importance to the date?
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  MR. JACKSON: Then I have no objection.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words "ninety-four" inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not move the first Amendment I had intended to move on this clause, because I am convinced now that the regulations of the Commissioners will be made to include all elementary schools in Ireland. But I beg to move the second Amendment—

  1207
  Page 6, line 34, to leave out all after "of" to "no" in line 36, and insert "the capitation grant payable in respect of such school."
  The Bill provides that, unless the fees received in a school were in excess of six shillings a year for each child of the number of children in average attendance at the school, no school fees should be charged in future. Now the average school fees paid by each child in a school is about 4s. a year, and the capitation grant is about 4s. 4d., so that, generally speaking, the capitation grant would pay the teachers for the abolition of the fees; but the fees vary very much, and if the arbitrary provision with regard to 6s. be retained the teachers will suffer very considerably. The teachers and the Bishops and priests in Ireland are in favour of this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment it will have the effect of greatly recommending his scheme to an important body in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 34, to leave out all after "of," to "no," in line 36, and insert the words "the capitation grant payable in respect of such school."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The capitation grant, which must be taken as a whole, represents about 8s. per head, and it is equivalent to what was given in England in lieu of the abolition of school fees. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider before Report what is the view of the teachers on this matter. I shall not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I would now suggest that the new clauses should stand over, and not be put in the Bill till Report.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; I agree, and that the Schedules be put in.
  MR. SEXTON: Very well.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 420.]
  MR. SEXTON: Will it be the first Order to-morrow?
  MR. JACKSON: The third Order.
  MR. SEXTON: What Bills would have precedence?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We propose to take first the Superannuation Bill, which has passed its Second Reading, and upon which I think no serious discussion will arise; then the Burgh Police Bill, which stands at Report stage, and to which the same observation applies; and then this Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider this arrangement, and take the Scotch Bill first; the Irish Bill second; and the Superannuation Bill third.
  MR. BALFOUR: My object is to give the best position to the Bill most in arrear, and so I propose to take first the Bill which has yet to pass through Committee—that seems to me to be a natural and proper method.
  MR. MACARTNEY: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) is not here to-day, he being, I think, under the impression that there was an arrangement by which the Irish Bill would not be taken until the latter end of the week. In Committee to-day important suggestions have been made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, which are in the nature of compromises, and which are of vital importance; and I should like to have the opportunity of communicating with my friends in Ireland to ascertain their views. It is obvious that we shall be placed in a position of great embarrassment if the Bill has the position proposed in to-morrow's Business. Will it not be possible to defer the Report stage until Monday?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to that. I do not know what there is of special public importance that should make it impossible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh to be in his place to-morrow. I hope that at

  1209
  this period of the Session we shall lose no time in proceeding with this Bill.
  MR. BALFOUR: I am extremely anxious to meet the views of Members on either side of the House in the arrangement of Business. I certainly have no recollection of any arrangement such as that to which my hon. Friend has alluded. We have not much choice now; it is necessary to proceed with all despatch with the Business left to finish, and I recognise the assistance from Members on both sides of the House which has enabled the Government to make good progress. I do not think it is possible to defer the Report stage of this Bill to Monday.
  MR. MACARTNEYrose—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no Question before the House.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.
  Resolutions [14th June] reported. [See page 1059–76]
  Resolutions 1 to 8 agreed to.
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1893, for expenditure connected with the Colonisation of certain Crofters and Cottars of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  DR. CLARK: I am not going to take a Division, but I desire, with my colleagues who represent Highland constituencies, to make a final protest against the allocation of this sum to such a purpose. This is a new policy adopted by the Government and sprung upon us yesterday, and we emphatically protest against it. We wish to point out that there is no natural congestion of population in the Highlands. You have in your towns the working classes crowding together in a manner to engender disease and cause premature death; but in the Highlands there should be no congestion at all, and there is actually less population in the districts affected by this grant than there was fifty years ago. Such congestion as there is is caused artificially; it does not naturally arise out of growth of population—it is caused by clearing away the people from
  1210
  thousands of acres of land to make room for deer forests. The only way to remove the difficulty is to restore the people to the land from which they were ousted to make room for deer. When the Crofter Commission reported three millions of acres of land had been so converted into deer forests, and since then, in ten years, another half million acres have been added. What we want, and what the people want, is home colonisation, that they may go back to the land from which they and their forefathers were driven. Against this system of sending the people to Manitoba, to British Columbia, and other places, I, as representing the people, protest; and, as a Member of this House, I object to public money being used for such a purpose. There may be some reason for clearing your large towns and sending away people so that they may have a chance of comfortable life elsewhere; but with millions of acres of splendid land going back to a state of nature, and where formerly crofters found support, I protest against employing public money to send away these people, whom we want at home.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's observations to pass without a word in reply. The hon. Member is entirely wrong in his facts as to the extension of deer forests in recent years. No crofter has been turned out of his holding for the extension of deer forests; the hon. Member opposes the Vote under an entire misapprehension of the facts.
  DR. MCDONALD: I join in the protest of my hon. Friend. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that crofters have not been turned out of their holdings in recent years; but they have been turned out in the past, and now we want to turn them in again; to give them back the deer forests from which they were evicted in the past. Lewis is a congested district — that I acknowledge; but half of the land of Lewis is under deer forests, and we demand that the people shall be allowed to return to this good land now relapsed into a state of nature, but which they and their fathers brought into a state of cultivation. In this matter we shall

  1211
  continue to raise our protest. I see there is a Land Company going to give land to the crofters in Vancouver Island or elsewhere. We shall narrowly watch the project. I hope it may not turn out that emigrants will be exploited in the manner of which we have had experience by being compelled to pay eight times the value of the land received. I quite agree with my hon. Friend a wrong and stupid policy is being pursued. We who know the people and the land assert without fear of contradiction that the money would be ten times more usefully spent in re-settling the crofters on the land which has been turned into deer forests.
  Resolution agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Resolution 10 agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS—CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Resolution [14th June] reported—
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, the sum of £44,094,083 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

  UGANDA.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given notice, and which, perhaps, he can answer—if accounts have been received from Uganda of a date subsequent to the alleged massacre of the Catholics; if either of the captains on leave from their regiments have addressed any communication to any Government Department, or if the contents of any letter sent by them have been communicated to any Government Department, and when will such communication be published or placed upon the Table; and whether the Foreign Office exercises any control over the East Africa Company; also I would like to ask when does the right hon. Gentleman expect a message from Captain Williams under the altered circumstances, he being on the south side of the Lake?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I will reply to the question as it appears on the Paper—that is the
  1212
  most convenient form. No official accounts have been received. The following telegram from Zanzibar was received on Monday:—
  "Letters from a spot near south end of Lake Victoria, near Muanza, bearing date March 31, inform me that Captain Williams reached it seven days previously. He reports that the fighting in Uganda is ended, and he hopes to arrange terms with Mwanga's party. The English missionaries are reported all well in Uganda, and French missionaries, numbering nineteen, are now in the district of Bukoba."
  No communication has been received by any Government Department from either officer later than that which is contained in the Uganda Blue Book, recently laid. The Secretary of State does exercise control over the East Africa Company, the nature and extent of which is clearly defined in the Charter of the Company, which will be found at page 6 of the Blue Book referred to. In reply to the subsidiary question the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, it would be rash on my part to prognosticate any date when we may hear from Captain Williams, but I think Muanza is distant between two and three months' journey from the coast; then it would be about another month before despatches could reach England, and therefore we may possibly expect information during the course of next month.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and that Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Gorst do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented, and read first time.

  EAST INDIA OFFICERS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of the salaries and expenses of certain officers, who may be permitted to leave India under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to certain officers in India, and the payment of salary and emoluments to any person who may be appointed to fill any temporary vacancy."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I thought it was understood

  1213
  that this Bill was not to be proceeded with? It must lead to a great deal of discussion, and I venture to suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that he should put it down at the bottom of the list, and go on with Bills to which there is no opposition.
  MR. MACLEAN: I join in the appeal to the First Lord to drop the Bill at once. It is a highly contentious measure. Many Members who take an interest in the subject are obliged to leave Westminster and go elsewhere where they are very much wanted, and they will probably not appear in their places again this Session. I hope the Bill will not be proceeded with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider before to-morrow what is the character of the opposition the Bill is likely to meet with. Meantime I will put it at the bottom of the list, and I will answer the question to-morrow.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is but the preliminary Resolution—the Bill follows.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Let the Resolution be deferred till to-morrow.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move to report Progress. This, I think, would be a good opportunity for getting rid of a charge upon the Imperial Revenue for a purely local purpose in London. If we postpone the clause we may amend it, and confer jurisdiction upon the County Council so far as inspection is concerned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in his Motion. He suggests a large question; and in the principle I am disposed to agree with him, but I do not think it can be raised now.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [INVERNESS] BILL.—(No 403.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.—(No. 350.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment;
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 272.]
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 421.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 346.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (RE-ARRANGEMENT OF ROOMS).
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on House of Commons (Re-arrangement of Rooms) have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Plunket.)
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords.].—(No. 411.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.—(No. 407.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 416.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. (No. 417.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.—(No. 418.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  MARRIED WOMEN BILL.—(No. 81.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  TRUST INVESTMENT ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 207.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 129.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time," read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  DECK CARGOES BILL.—(No. 104.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 156.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 341.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL. (No. 375.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Twelfth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report, with Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (IRELAND) [GRANT].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an increased grant for the purposes of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in Ireland."
  Resolution agree to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 422.]

  MAURITIUS LOAN GUARANTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee, on the security of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the payment of the principal, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, of a loan of £600,000, to be raised by the Government of Mauritius for meeting the damage caused by the hurricane.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

EDUCATION.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): It may be for the convenience of the House that I should now give notice that, in pursuance of the promise I gave a few days ago, I propose to make a statement upon educational matters upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to-morrow.
It being Six of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till To-morrow.