Sitting of 17 July 1896

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Paper [presented 16th July] to be printed.—[No. 303.]
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

  LUNACY
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.
  Copy of Fiftieth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor [by Act], to be printed.—[No. 304.]

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILLS.
  Special Report brought up and read; Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 305.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.—[No. 305.]

QUESTIONS.

  METRIC SYSTEM.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce this Session a Bill to deal with the metric system, in order that chambers of commerce and other parties interested may have sufficient time during the Recess to consider the proposals of Her Majesty's Government on this subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)replied that he would be glad to introduce the Bill, but without any intention of proceeding with it this Session.

  SPANCILHILL FAIR (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. J. R. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secre
  26
  tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a patent was ever granted for the holding of a fair at Spancilhill, in the county Clare, on the 23rd and 24th June in each year, and to whom and when it was granted; and whether the patent granted in the reign of James the First for the holding of a fair at Spancilhill, otherwise Muckinish, on the 14th September of each year, can be utilised for the purpose of the fair on the 23rd and 24th June; and, if not, under what authority is the fair of the 23rd and 24th June held?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I believe that the patent mentioned in the hon. Member's Question is for the holding of a fair on the 14th September of each year, and that it was granted to Mr. Valentine Blake in the month of June 1621. A recent judgment of the Vice Chancellor of Ireland has apparently recognised that the fair authorised by this patent may be held on the 23rd and 24th June in each year, inasmuch as he has granted an injunction, after full argument, restraining any interference with the fairs held on those latter dates.

  CAVAN AND LEITRIM LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the necessary preliminaries for the capitalisation of the funds of the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway are yet completed; and, if so, when the cesspayers may expect to derive benefit from the Act passed last year to capitalise the respective shares of Cavan and Leitrim, so as to reduce the poundage levied in these counties at present.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Board of Works have heard nothing further from the Company or the Grand Jury with respect to the commutation of the Treasury liability in respect of this line.

  LIMERICK COUNTY ASYLUM.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that within the past few weeks the

  27
  newly-elected Mayor of Limerick has been, in accordance with custom, appointed a Governor of the Limerick County Asylum; (2) will he explain why, when making out the annual list of Governors for 1896, the present Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint the newly-created Bishop of Ardagh in succession to his predecessor, although until this present year the Bishop of Ardagh has always been appointed a Governor of the Mullingar Asylum; and (3), will the precedent of the Limerick case be now followed in this case?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Mayor of Limerick was recently appointed a member of the Board of Governors of the Limerick Asylum, a vacancy having been created by the death of a former member. As regards the second paragraph I have nothing to add to my replies to the questions addressed to me on the 12th March and 18th June last by the hon. Member, in which I stated that, on the occurrence of a vacancy among the County Longford representatives on the Mullingar Asylum Board, the Lord Lieutenant would be happy to favourably consider the application made on behalf of the most Rev. Dr. Hoare.

  GRAND JURY (COUNTY MONAGHAN.)
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the associated cess-payers at the baronial sessions for the district of Ballyboy voted in January and in May this year the sum of £60 for the concreting of a footpath between M'Manus' Corner and the Commercial Hotel, Ballyboy, and that the Grand Jury of Monaghan refused for the past two assizes to pay the money voted by the cesspayers of Ballyboy; and, (2) whether he will cause this much-needed work in the town of Ballyboy to be carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A presentment was passed on two occasions, though not unanimously, at the Baronial Sessions, in favour of the particular work mentioned, but the presentment was opposed by cesspayers before the Grand Jury, and was rejected on the ground that the existing footpath was in very good order and that the proposed expen-
  28
  diture would cause an unnecessary addition to the county rates. I have no power to entertain the proposal in the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the Secretary to the Grand Jury of the county Monaghan, charges the road contractors of the barony of Cremorne 8d. per tender form; (2) whether this is a legal charge; and (3), whether he can say if it is the money of the cesspayers that pays for the printing of the tender forms sold to road contractors in county Monaghan?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Secretary to the Grand Jury that the fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The Statutory fee for a form of tender is sixpence, and, in explanation of the additional charge of twopence, the Secretary to the Grand Jury assigns reasons similar to those mentioned by me on the 18th June, when I replied to a previous question of the hon. Member on the same subject. As to the last paragraph, I am informed that the sum of sixpence covers the cost of clerical assistance employed in filling the forms of tender with particulars as to specifications, etc., and that the cost of printing the forms is defrayed by the County.

  HOLYROOD PALACE.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, what is the present condition of the Stuart and other relics in Holyrood Palace; are some portions from time to time carried away by visitors anxious to possess objects of historic interest; with a view to preserving the contents of Holyrood from gradual decay, will the Government appoint experts to report on the historic objects therein contained; and whether some of the most interesting relics could be put in glass cases?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): This is a question which concerns my Department. Many of the relics referred to by my hon. Friend are in a decaying state from age; but they are all taken the greatest care of. Such as can be fittingly preserved

  29
  under glass are so protected; and larger objects, such as bedsteads, are railed off from the public. They are carefully watched, and it is not believed that portions are being carried away by visitors. Some tapestry of no special interest, in one of the rooms, which was placed there about 40 years ago, was being cut; but it has been protected by wirework for the past three years. There does not appear to be any need for an expert report.

  LICENSE DUTIES (DUBLIN).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) what is the annual Crown revenue from pawnbrokers' licences in Dublin; (2) whether there is any similar tax in the British Empire; (3) does the Crown also draw a revenue from the Hackney cars and tramcars of Dublin, and to what annual amount; (4) is there any parallel for this in other cities; and (5) will he provide, in the forthcoming Irish Rating Bill, for the release by the Treasury to the Dublin Corporation of these licence duties, in aid of the local rates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The average annual revenue from pawnbrokers licences in Dublin in the last five financial years has been £4,853. I have no information regarding the second paragraph. As to the third paragraph, the revenue from hackney vehicles, including horse trams, has averaged £3,531 in each of the last five years. A similar revenue, I understand, is derived in London, In reply to the last paragraph, I cannot give an undertaking to deal with the matter in the Bill dealing with the equivalent grant accruing to Ireland in connection with the corresponding grants for Great Britain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government regard the Act under which they extract £4,000 a year from the Dublin pawnbrokers as a public or a private Act?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to that I can only say that I believe the Act dates from pre-Union times.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it possible for the Dublin Corporation to appropriate this by a private Act of their own?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot answer that without notice.

  DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION WORK (IRELAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what rate of annual instalment per cent. (including interest and sinking fund) is charged to tenants in Ireland on loans issued by the Board of Works for works of drainage and reclamation on their holdings?
  MR. HANBURY: Loans to tenants for the drainage and reclamation of their holdings are discharged by payment of £6 10s. 0d. per cent. per annum for 22 years. The charge of £6 10s. 0d. per cent. per annum is paid in half-yearly moieties and includes interest at £3 8s. 3d. per cent.

  ARREST OF BRITISH SEAMEN.
  MR. W. S. ROBSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what report he has received as to the seizure and imprisonment of four British sailors of the steamship Balgownie by the Spanish Authorities at Ponnan on the 31st May last; whether, although no charge whatever was preferred against some of them, while the prisoners were chained together in gaol before trial, two of them (including one of the admittedly innocent men) were violently assaulted and beaten with a loaded stick by an official in the presence of Spanish officers and civil guards; whether he will make further inquiries; and, if the above facts are established, whether he will take steps to obtain compensation for the innocent man thus assaulted, and to insure that the officials in question shall be reprimanded, so as to prevent the repetition of similar assaults on British sailors in Spanish ports?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): A report has been received from Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Carthagena from which it appears that while the boatswain and carpenter of the Balgownie were arrested by the Spanish Authorities at Ponnan for an assault

  31
  when slightly the worse for liquor, upon a Spanish Carabinero, who had been placed by the Customs' Authorities on board, two other sailors of the vessel, who had nothing to do with the affair were similarly arrested, but subsequently discharged, no formal complaint having been brought against them. No complaint as to the ill-treatment alleged in the question appears to have been made to the Vice Consul by the men themselves or by the captain on their behalf; nor is there any reference in the Vice Consul's report to the alleged assault. I have, however, called for a further report in order to investigate the matters in dispute.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will suggest to the Land Commission, for the convenience of judicial tenants in Ireland now entitled to have fair rents fixed in respect of the second judicial term, the desirability of publishing lists of the "recorded" applications under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; whether he is aware that in the lists of cases printed for hearing before the Land Commission for some years after the passing of the Act of 1881 the record number was published therein in every recorded case; and whether, considering that a large number of tenants are in doubt as to their eligibility to make application now for the second term, he will advise the publication without delay of the lists of cases where the applications were recorded?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have very little to add to the statement already made by me in reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous question of the 23rd June on this subject. For the first fifteen months after the passing of the Act of 1881 no special reference was made to the recorded cases in the list published of cases set down for hearing. Subsequently for some years the letter "R" was printed opposite the entry of the "recorded" cases for the guidance of the Assistant Commissioners in dealing with such cases. The lists referred to therefore, do not afford sufficient information from which to prepare the lists suggested. If any
  32
  tenant is in doubt whether the application made in 1881 to have a fair rent fixed in respect of this holding was "recorded" or not, he has only to apply to the Land Commission on the subject, and every possible information will be afforded to him.
  MR. MCCARTANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that tenants when applying to the Land Commission for copies of the judicial orders were required to give particulars as to the date and place of hearing and, that they were frequently unable to do this?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not know whether the difficulty which the hon. Member suggested arose, but he had already explained that, even if it were possible to segregate those cases, it would involve an enormous amount of labour out of all proportion to the result.
  MR. McCARTAN: Do I understand that it is on account of the labour it cannot be done?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is one important reason; I do no say that it is the only one.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I shall refer to the matter again.

  CURRAGH CAMP.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain for what purpose and under what terms does a man called Hanley hold possession of the house and premises erected on the land enclosed at the Curragh Camp some years ago for the purposes of a sewage farm; and, whether it is in accordance with the provisions of the Curragh Act that portions of the commonage are enclosed and allowed to be occupied by private persons?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This appears to be a question for the War Department to deal with. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it on Monday and then address it to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for War.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  33
  of Ireland, if he will explain why it is that the average salary paid to national school teachers in Ireland is £90 per annum, whereas teachers in the same position in England receive on an average about £121 per annum; and, whether he will consider the necessity of having the pay of the teachers in England and Ireland calculated on the same basis?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All the information I have on the subject will be found in my reply to a similar question addressed to me on the 12th March last by the hon. Member for North Monaghan.

  CUSTOMS OFFICE (DUBLIN).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to remove the Customs Office from the long room to less convenient premises; whether he is aware that the long room has been used by the merchants for more than a century for the marking-out of entries, payment of duties, reports, and clearances of ships inwards and outwards; whether he has received any intimation of this proposed change; and whether he will give consideration to the views of the merchants and traders affected thereby?
  MR. HANBURY: I assume that this Question alludes to the Dublin, not the London, office. As far as the Board of Customs are informed, the Board of Works in Dublin have it in contemplation to make certain alterations in the building known as the Custom House at that Port, with the object of accommodating, to a greater extent than at present, the public Departments, other than the Customs, which are at present located in that building. These alterations will, it is thought, necessitate the removal of the Customs long room from the first floor to the ground floor, but in the plans, which are still under consideration, every care is being taken to insure that the convenience of merchants and other members of the public who transact business with the Customs shall not be in any way interfered with; and it may be assumed that, so far from the change resulting in inconvenience, it is probable that the removal from the first to the ground floor may in the end prove
  34
  generally acceptable. As the hon. Member's question only appeared on the Paper to-day, I have not had time to obtain any information direct from the Board of Works.
  MR. FIELDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the views of those interested in the matter who had sent in a memorial on the subject?
  MR. HANBURYreplied that he had not received any memorial, but he had no doubt the Board of Works would attend to the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLhoped that in the alterations made, the right hon. Gentleman would take care that the external form of the Custom House was not interfered with.

  IRISH AND AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an opportunity will be given to the Mails Committee and the Council of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to have a conference with the postal authorities previous to the arrangement of the time table regarding the Irish and American mails; and whether any provision has been made for third-class accommodation?
  MR. HANBURY: Under the new arrangement of the mail service between London and Kingstown in connection with the proposed acceleration, the down night mail will leave Euston at 8.45 p.m. instead of 8.20 p.m., and arrive at Kingstown at 6.7 a.m., instead of 6.42 a.m.; and the up night mail will leave Kingstown at 8.20 p.m. instead of 7.50 p.m., and reach Euston at 5.50 a.m. instead of 6.15 a.m. As regards the day mail, it is intended that the dispatch from Euston shall continue to be made at 7.15 a.m., the arrival at Kingstown taking place at 5.5 p.m. instead of 5.35 p.m. In the other direction, the dispatch from Kingstown will continue to be made at 7.20 a.m., the arrival at Euston taking place at 5.15 p.m. instead of 5.45 p.m. If, however, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce desire it, an opportunity for conferring with the Department will be given to them. No provision has been made for the conveyance of third-class passengers by the Irish mail trains.
  MR. FIELDasked what amount of time would be saved to the London and North Western Company by that arrangement?
  MR. HANBURY: If the hon. Gentleman will put the Question on the Paper, I shall see.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the representative of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and other public bodies in the south of Ireland would be allowed at the proposed conference?
  MR. HANBURY: That I cannot say; but I gather from the information supplied me that everything will be done to meet the convenience of all those interested.

  LAND TAX.
  Mr. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss to the Imperial Treasury of the operation of Clause 31 of the Finance Bill reducing the Land Tax to one shilling in the pound; how much of that loss will arise in England and Scotland respectively; whether, following the precedent of the Scotch Agricultural Rating Bill, abolishing the Burgh Land Tax out of money allocated to Scotland, he will meet any loss to the Imperial Treasury, in the case of Scotland out of Scotch money or a tax levied in Scotland, and in the case of England out of English money or a tax levied in England; and, whether, if the loss is to be borne by the Imperial Treasury, he will arrange for Scotland and Ireland receiving their proper equivalent grant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The loss is estimated at from £90,000 to £100,000, but no very accurate estimate can be given. It will arise almost entirely in England, and mainly in the south and east of England. I am not prepared to admit that where the remission of any tax affects one portion of the United Kingdom more than another the portions less affected are to be compensated.

  DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL HALL (COUNTY DOWN).
  Mr. D. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for
  36
  North Louth (Mr. T. M. HEALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an Orange party, after the recent celebrations, set fire to the Sheepbridge (County Down) National Hall, and that the hall has been totally destroyed; and whether the Government intend taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the Sheepbridge National Hall consists of a small thatched cabin, which is rented for the sum of £2 a year, and that on the morning of the 14th instant the thatch was destroyed by fire. An Orange demonstration was held near Newry, about three-and-a-half miles distant from the scene, on the day preceding the fire, but I have no proof before me that the burning was perpetrated by Orangemen. The owner of the cabin intends to lodge a claim for £60 compensation for the injury to the cabin. The police are using every endeavour to trace the perpetrator of the burning.
  Mr. MACALEESE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it any mitigation of the outrage that the hall was of little value?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT BESSBROOK.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenent of Ireland whether he has received a Report from the Constabulary at Cam-lough or Newry, or from any other source, to the effect that on Sunday the 12th July instant certain Orangemen cursed the Pope at the Roman Catholic Church in Bessbrook, and used offensive language to females who were there; also that three Orangemen on Monday the 13th July instant, fired shots at a Roman Catholic name O'Hanlon; and, have any arrests been made in connection with these outrages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that on the 12th July one Orangeman, who had arrived in Bess-brook on that date from Glasgow, suffering from the effects of drink, did indulge in offensive language both towards the Pope and to women who were there. He was taken away by

  37
  three other Protestants who are willing to give evidence of his misconduct, and he will be summoned to the next Petty Sessions for being drunk and disorderly. It is not a fact that three Orangemen fired shots at a man named O'Hanlon on the 13th instant. It appears, however, that two shots were fired by one Brown, though O'Hanlon cannot say whether they were fired at him. Brown is not licensed to carry firearms, and the question of proceeding against him for carrying unlicensed arms is now under consideration.

  CRETAN DISTRESS FUND.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a letter which appeared in The Times newspaper on Tuesday last, purporting to be written by direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and addressed to the Secretary of the Committee of the Cretan Distress Fund, in which it is alleged that Mr. Biliotti, Her Majesty's Consul in Crete, had made arrangements, by order of Her Majesty's Government, and with the consent of the Turkish Vali, himself to distribute relief to those who have suffered during recent events in the island, but that objection had been taken by the Powers; and that, in consequence, Lord Salisbury had ordered Mr. Biliotti to postpone his visit to the affected districts; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can hold out any hope that the difficulties raised by the Powers will be overcome, and the distribution of relief proceeded with without delay?
  MR. CURZON: The letter to which the hon. Member refers was addressed to the Secretary of the Committee of the Cretan Distress Fund by direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Her Majesty's Government have not as yet heard that the representatives at Constantinople of the other great Powers have withdrawn their objections to relief being distributed to the Cretans by Her Majesty's Consul. The Committee of the Distress Fund have intimated that they hope to be able to dispatch an agent of their own to Canea for the purpose.
  MR. MORTONasked whether Her Majesty's Government were taking steps to induce the Powers to withdraw their objections?
  MR CURZON: No, Sir. The objections of the Powers were clearly stated. They think that the position of Her Majesty's Consul would be liable to misinterpretation if he visited those districts, and I am not aware that any steps on our part would remove that impression.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Government would in future either concert with or take the instructions of the Powers before issuing such directions to their Consuls?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I must ask for an answer to that Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: It does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I give notice that I will ask it on Monday.

  SOUDAN (COST OF MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any information has been received from the Egyptian Government as to the expenditure already incurred in connection with the military operations in the Soudan; whether this expenditure is still being defrayed out of the ordinary revenue of Egypt; and, whether it is anticipated that any proportion of the cost of the expedition, beyond the extraordinary expenses of the Indian garrison at Suakin, will have to be charged to the British Exchequer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No information has been received from the Egyptian Government with regard to the expenditure already incurred in connection with the military operations in the Valley of the Nile. It is presumed that this expenditure is being defrayed out of the various moneys at the disposal of the Egyptian Government, including the advance of £500,000 made by the Caisse de la Dette Publique. The question as to whether any proportion of the cost of the expedition, beyond what I have already stated to the House,

  39
  will be borne by the British Exchequer is reserved for future consideration and adjustment between the British and Egyptian Governments.

  DONINGTON EDUCATION SCHEME.
  MR. HARRY POLLOCK: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners—(1) whether, as the result of the Amendment carried in this House to the Donington Education scheme, the new trustees (appointed under that part of the scheme which was not rejected) will in due course come into office; (2) whether it will be competent for a majority of such trustees to apply for a new scheme; and (3) whether it will be competent for the trustees and the Charity Commissioners in that event to provide under such new scheme that the grammar school, which has been in existence for 170 years, shall not be destroyed, and also to provide that the funds bequeathed under the will of John Cowley for the endowment of the said school may be prudently expended in the interests of education at Donington?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The answer to the first two paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. To the third paragraph the answer is that it will be competent for the Charity Commissioners, acting, as usual, after consultation with the trustees to make a new scheme, either resuscitating the grammar school, or prudently expending in other ways the endowments in the interests of education at Donington.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. W. THORBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission to inquire into Light Railways will hold their sittings, in cases in Scotland, in the localities where light railways are desired to be constructed?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Light Railway Commissioners will hold local inquiries, and will, no doubt, select the place most convenient to all who are parties to the application.

  TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREasked whether the First Lord of the Treasury would be good enough to put the terms of his Motion in reference to the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule on the Paper early, so that Amendments could be put down to it tonight if anyone so desired.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not got the terms of the Motion ready. My intention was to announce it at the adjournment of the House, when I am afraid it would be too late to put down Amendments, but I will try to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether the terms of his Motion are the same as the terms of the Motion for the year 1894?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I would not like to commit myself to that, but I will let the right hon. Gentleman know, or any other hon. Gentleman that desires the information, what the terms are as early as possible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (EIGHTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    £26,991, to complete the sum for Chief Secretary for Ireland,—Offices.
    MR. JOHN DILLON,in rising to move a reduction of £2,000 in respect of the salary of the Chief Secretary, said that, if the Chief Secretary did all the work that he was expected to do, he would deserve a very much larger salary than he received. The Chief Secretary was expected to do the work

    41
    of at least four or five men. But the complaint against the present occupant of the office was in reference, not so much to what he had done, as to what he had not done. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be in the Cabinet. The custom of including the Chief Secretary in the Cabinet had become almost a fixed tradition; and in departing from that custom the present Government had made a great mistake. There was in the House of Commons only one Minister who was in any way responsible for the Government of Ireland, and it might be expected that he would be in the Cabinet; because the task of governing Ireland was neither easy nor simple, and it was very little understood by the other Members of the Government. It was preposterous to suppose that the Chief Secretary could adequately convey his views and desires to the Cabinet unless he was present at the meeting. The result of the present arrangement was manifest in the conduct of Irish business. A system had been introduced into Irish affairs, against which he must protest, and that was the "take it or leave it" system. There had been two important Irish Measures introduced this Session, as well as several minor measures, and these had been introduced after 12 o'clock, with the warning that they must not be discussed, or, as in the case of the Land Bill, with the warning that even reasonable discussion would cause the Bill to be withdrawn. This plan was not fair to the Irish people nor to the House; and the protests against the policy were not confined to Nationalists. The supporters of the Government in Ireland had used even stronger language.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think the conduct of business can be discussed on this occasion. It is the Acts of the Minister which are under consideration.
    MR. DILLONsaid that for a long time Irishmen had had cause to complain of the policy of the Government in proposing no remedial measures to meet Irish grievances, until those grievances had become burning. The Dublin Daily Express, one of the chief supporters of the Government, condemned this policy. Then as to the relations of the Irish Government towards primary education. It was now four years ago since the Irish
    42
    Government, when the right hon. Member for North Leeds was Chief Secretary, addressed a communication to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, directing their attention to the fact that there were certain schools which were efficiently discharging the duties of primary education, and which were excluded from all participation in Government aids and grants. It was a remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds laid it down in the Debate in the House of Commons that one essential condition of extending Government assistance to Voluntary religious schools in Ireland was that they should accept a conscience clause. The Commissioners of National Education agreed to accept a conscience clause, and they framed or altered rules to meet the views of the Irish Government. Then a long correspondence took place between the Chief Secretary of the succeeding Liberal Government, who adhered to the policy of his predecessor—namely, that a conscience clause was a necessary condition precedent to assistance being given. Then after three or four years another Irish Secretary appeared on the scene, and he repudiated the policy of his two predecessors and said that, in the event of a grant being given, it was to be given without a conscience clause. That was an instance of vacillation which was calculated to destroy all confidence of the people in the machinery of Irish Government. The Government had succeeded in bringing in a Bill relating to education which every human being condemned, and then they withdrew it. This was the result of the efforts of a strong Unionist Government which was to hold the balance even between all parties in Ireland. Having successfully drafted a Bill which satisfied nobody, they proceeded to throw it over. The action of the Government was an infringement of all the principles they had laid down when they were wooing English and Scotch constituencies of giving to Ireland a strong and impartial Government. Government such as theirs was no Government at all; it was chaos. Their policy was a policy of doing nothing until a question became so burning that they were forced to act. A more mischievous policy could not be conceived than that which was announced by the

    43
    Chief Secretary when he said that he would not have touched the education question if it had not been for resistance to the law as it stood on the part of certain towns in Ireland. That was to say, he would not have introduced a Bill because of the merits or justice of the question, but because he found insuperable obstacles in the ordinary administration of the existing law. A policy such as that, where great principles were concerned, deserved and would earn for itself the condemnation and contempt of the country.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the individuality of the present Chief Secretary was such that it disarmed anything like hostile personal criticism, and, accordingly, he thought this was the proper time to lay before the House of Commons the anomalous position of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a matter of serious observation that, although the present Cabinet consisted of 19 Members, the Chief Secretary was not one of them, yet that exclusion was as nothing when contrasted with the anomalous character of the office itself. He would draw attention to one thing which the right hon. Gentleman did not know in reference to his own salary. The salary of the Chief Secretary was formerly £4,000 and now it was £4,425. The advance came about thus. There was a sum which used to appear in the Votes of £425 for coals for the Chief Secretary's Lodge, although the Chief Secretary used to reside at the Lodge only about 10 days in the year. Some curious questioner did not see how £425 could be expended on coals in passing 10 days in summer at Dublin unless the Chief Secretary was entertaining the whole of Dublin, and the Government, being generous, thought it would not be well to give rise to these inquiries, and accordingly the Chief Secretary was allowed an additional £425. When he tried, however, to get a hundred or two for the starving peasants in Donegal he was opposed by all the officials in Dublin Castle. Nothing was more remarkable in the office of Chief Secretary than its power and position when contrasted with its lowly state of administrative efficiency. The Irish Members had to address their questions to the "Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant," which was its
    44
    proper designation, because the right hon. Gentleman was in reality a private Secretary to the Viceroy. That arrangement prevailed before the Union, but gradually the post increased in power and responsibility. The Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary in Ireland managed in the English interest the Irish administration. The Chief Secretary was a subordinate official in the English Parliament, but he went over to Ireland with the Lord Lieutenant and immediately obtained a seat in the Irish Parliament for one of the rotten boroughs, and his province was simply to direct a mere system of corruption. Then the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant "communicated" with the Home Secretary, and much of the correspondence was preserved. He did not know in any memoirs more ghastly confessions of corruption, falsehood, and fraud. After the Union it was still a subordinate post, and the Duke of Wellington at one time commanded in the Peninsular War while drawing the salary as Chief Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I fail to see exactly the appropriateness of the historical resumé of the hon. Member.
    MR. MACNEILL: I want to show the historical position of the Chief Secretary and to complain of his not being a Member of the Cabinet.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It does not rest with the Chief Secretary whether he is a Member of the Cabinet or not. I do not see how the question is germane.
    MR. MACNEILL: It is germane, because he is not worth £4,425 a year unless he is a Member of the Cabinet. The Irish people wanted a Minister who was not more or less in a subordinate position, but a Cabinet Minister representing the Irish Administration, whom they could meet face to face in the House and interrogate.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There is nothing to prevent the Chief Secretary from being a Member of the Cabinet. It does not rest with the Chief Secretary, and I do not think that any discussion of the kind can arise on this Vote; certainly Committee of Supply is not the time to raise the question.
    MR. MACNEILLsaid that the Chief Secretary laboured under the great disadvantage that he came to the discharge of his duties without any official experience. Formerly Mr. O'Connell, when a Chief Secretary was appointed, compared him to an apprentice to a barber who was allowed to shave provided that the customers did not raise any question if they were gashed. [Laughter.] He accordingly would describe the right hon. Gentleman as a prentice hand. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have delivered himself up wholly to the judgment of the gentlemen in Dublin Castle; he had been more or less their mouthpiece. In the first speech which he delivered in August last the right hon. Gentleman, new to his office, said that he actually approached the Judges of the Land Commission with reference to the administration of judicial business. His chief objection to the administration of the right hon. Gentleman was that he did not exercise sufficiently his own judgment—that he allowed the officials of Dublin Castle to dictate to him. What the right hon. Gentleman did was to give himself up wholly to the officials and to one class of the community. The officials of Dublin Castle were the enemies of the people, and the moment the Chief Secretary attempted to do anything independently he was coldshoulderod by the people of Dublin Castle. The late Chief Secretary, no doubt, set a good example in this matter, but he confidently said that until they had a Chief Secretary wholly unamenable to Dublin Castle, and who had the courage to make himself proof against its corrupt influence, there would not be much hope that the administration would be materially changed.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONhoped the Chief Secretary would not be deterred from his duty by any remarks of the hon. Member. Speaking for the people of the North of Ireland, he could say that they were extremely thankful to him for what he had done. They had witnessed with great interest his efforts to carry through a great Land Bill, and they were most anxious that he should not be hindered in bringing; his labours to a successful issue. He wished to dissociate himself from those who, while professing to be friendly,
    46
    tried to prevent the business being done. He thanked the Chief Secretary for what he had done for the labourers of Ireland. He again hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not be discouraged by the obstacles thrown in his way, but continue to do all he could impartially for the welfare and the well-being of the people of all sorts in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he joined in the complaint that had been made that the Chief Secretary was not in the Cabinet. He raised the question last year, and it had been raised, he recollected, many years before. Recent revelations, however, as to what was going on in the Cabinet, made him rather doubt whether there was much dignity and importance attaching to a seat in the Cabinet. It was, however, satisfactory to be assured by the Home Secretary that the Members of the Cabinet were all on speaking terms with each other. That was a great advantage, but so far as he could see the Cabinet did not seem to interfere with anything whatever. They had a splendid record during the present year, and perhaps it was just as well that the Chief Secretary was left out and was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility in his conduct and management of Irish affairs. But there was one Department—the British Treasury—over which he wished the Chief Secretary had more control. He rose, however, chiefly to two matters connected with education. Two months ago the House had ordered the publication of the correspondence of the Bishop of Limerick with regard to the Erasmus Smith School. He went into the Library expecting to find this correspondence, but it had not been thought worth while apparently to carry out the order of the House with regard to a correspondence, which contained the gravest impeachment probably ever made against an Irish Secretary. To print it would probably cost the Treasury 7s. 6d., but the order of the House had been simply ignored. Last year he carried a Resolution on this subject, but apparently the "continuous" policy of the English Government did not apply here. If the Liberals had remained in office there was not the smallest doubt that the correspondence would have been published. What was the position? Canon Gregg, the proselytiser and souper as they regarded him,

    47
    had grabbed the schools to which he had not title. When the matter came before the Education Endowments Commission they gave Canon Gregg a small amount of compensation in order to get him with decency out of the premises he had held ever since he grabbed them. As the Privy Council in Ireland was always Tory, Canon Gregg made a whip of the Orange gang of the Privy Council, and it being summer and the people mostly on their holidays, he was enabled to improve upon the compensation he got from the Education Endowment Commission, and a further Amendment was made by the Privy Council in the scheme in favour of Canon Gregg. When he (Mr. Healy) saw this, he put down a Motion excising the alteration of the Privy Council and leaving the scheme in such a shape that the sign-manual of the Viceroy could have been put to it almost at once. At the end of June or the beginning of July the late Government scurried out of office and left the scheme hanging up. He believed it was the clerks in. the Irish Office who, knowing that their friends were coming into power, kept back the amended and excised scheme from Lord Houghton, who was about to quit the position of Lord Lieutenant. The present Government came in, and they allowed the scheme to lie from June or July until the Bishop of Limerick—who had never expressed any views in favour of the National Party, but who was one of the most zealous men connected with his own Church, and especially zealous against soul-grabbing and the stealing of little children out of the religion to which they belonged—on the 3rd December, 1895, wrote a letter on the subject, the House of Commons having negatived the particular portion of the scheme in the previous May. Before he quoted from the Bishop's letter, he desired to say he, personally, entirely and absolutely acquitted the Chief Secretary of anything more than mechanical action in the business. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the matter, and had never heard of the Resolution of the House, which was passed at a late hour of the night. On the 3rd December, 1895, the Bishop wrote to the Chief Secretary pointing out that on the 5th July previously Her Majesty's assent was given to a Resolu-
    48
    tion of the House of Commons dealing with the scheme of education endowments for the Roxborough Road School, and as the matter had, he said, been spun out for years, he inquired what effect was being given to the excision Resolution of Parliament and when the Lord Lieutenant would signify his approval of it. In reply to that letter the Chief Secretary wrote stating that, as a result of the scheme as originally drawn having been objected to in one part by the House of Commons, it had been referred in its amended form to the Judicial Commissioners under the Educational Endowments Act for their observations, which was the course adopted in the only other similar case. On the 6th December the Bishop wrote, asking whether it was referred to the Judicial Commissioners as to the one particular point, or whether it was intended to re-open the whole case on its merits. That was a very plain question. In reply to that the right hon. Gentleman stated that only that part of the scheme relating to the Limerick Diocesan Endowment had been referred to the Commissioners to obtain their observations upon it for the information of His Excellency. He added—
    "No unnecessary delay will take place and no alteration will be made in the scheme without your Lordship and every person interested having an opportunity of making objections in writing and appearing in support of them."
    The matter then rested from the 9th December until February the 8th. There was not a keener man in Ireland than Bishop O'Dwyer, and he took this reply of the right hon. Gentleman to mean that this scheme had only been referred to the Lord Lieutenant for his information. However, on the 8th February the Bishop wrote, saying—
    "To-day I have received an official communication which rather surprises me. I am informed His Excellency has decided not to approve of the scheme. That is to say, he has set it aside in toto, and a new draft scheme has been substituted for it."
    It was to be remembered that the Chief Secretary had informed the Bishop that no alteration would be made in the scheme without his Lordship and every person interested having an opportunity of making objections in writing and

    49
    appearing in support of them. What was the language of the Bishop in reference to that transaction? They were not dealing in this business with an ignorant peasant, and if this were the impression gathered of the methods of Dublin Castle and its administration by a person occupying the dignified position of a Bishop of the Catholic Church, what would be the impression created in the mind of every peasant throughout the country suffering and smarting under keen grievances? Here was the language of the Bishop to the Chief Secretary:—
    "Your letter of the 11th (February) expresses regret for a misunderstanding. I beg to assure you there has been no misunderstanding. The case is quite clear. I thought so when writing to you on the 7th, but I considered if only fail-to allow for the possibility of your being able to offer some explanation of your proceeding's. Your letter of the 11th disposes of that possibility, and puts it beyond all doubt and question that you have distinctly and deliberately broken your pledged word and deceived mo in reference to a matter of at least local importance. I am fully alive to the gravity of the personal as well as official grounds of such a charge. I make it with great pain against one occupying a position of great responsibility in the government of the country, but it will be for you and the country to judge whether or not it is justified."
    The Government were so anxious to have the correspondence with their replies published, that they were stuck away in the coalholes of the House of Commons, although the House had ordered the letters to be published two months ago.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government never raised any objection to the correspondence being published. They did not order the publication. They left it to the Gentleman who moved for the Return to be presented, which is the universal custom.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was a sort of excuse which impressed him, and he believed would impress the country, unfavourably. Here was a man in the position of the Bishop of Limerick, who, in regard to this matter, made this charge, and the Government had agreed, a long time after, to the correspondence being presented; but, because the Gentleman who had asked for the correspondence did not take the trouble to run after the officials of that House and find out the Queen's printers, or whoever had charge of the printing, the course
    50
    was not followed which would have been if the matter dealt with had been English and concerned even the spoiled rations of a single soldier, in which case the whole correspondence would have been printed long ago. The Government had allowed their reply, which they considered convincing, to remain unprinted. The right hon. Gentleman's reply to the Bishop extended to many pages.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is shorter than the Bishop's.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: And a great deal less pungent, if I may say so. He had acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of anything personally dishonourable, for he was sure he acted on the advice of his officials. The Government had referred the matter back to the Educational Endowment Committee, who for three years had been considering it. But let the House take cognisance of the expense involved in this matter. The Catholics of Ireland were necessarily a poor people, and those interested in this matter were obliged, at great expense, to come up to Dublin time after time and appear before the Privy Council. He confessed he did not thoroughly understand this matter, and he believed it was beyond the power of human comprehension to understand it. The fresh scheme had now been sent back to the Endowment Commissioners, and in the meantime the money of the people, public time, and public temper were being wasted. When the Chief Secretary came into office he said he would hold the scales evenly, but the way in which he had done that, metaphorically speaking, was by hitting the Bishop of Limerick on the head with a loaded stick, and giving £600 or £700 a year compensation to the local Protestant Canon, of which he had been previously deprived by the House. Her Majesty's present Government were in opposition, and were represented in the House when the scheme was approved, and why did they not then claim to have it mitigated. No such claim was made. He (Mr. Healy) had brought this matter forward with keen regret; he would have preferred to have let it sleep, but the action of the Irish education authority compelled him to bring it forward. He had next to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the case of the Erasmus Smith Endowment,

    51
    the present position of which, after it had come before Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Justice O'Brien, was to leave the Protestants in possession of the entire scheme, amounting to something like £20,000 or £30,000 a year, the Catholics being deprived of all aid for education. The present Chief Secretary, following a pledge given by Mr. John Morley, promised, in reply to a deputation, that he would turn the matter over in his head, and endeavour to give effect to the pledge of his predecessor. But what happened. When he (Mr. Healy) questioned the right hon. Gentleman on the matter, he said he thought a Bill would settle the matter, adding that he did not think there was any prospect of bringing it in because he had ascertained there would be opposition in certain quarters of the House. [Laughter.] But why could not the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, bring in his Bill and let them see what it was like. The Government were now at the end of their first Session, and they had not even put a cup of cold water to the lips of Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] If Bills were required to redress the grievances to which he had called attention, something might be said for the Government by way of excuse, owing to the multiplicity of their legislative projects. But those were matters of administration, and no Bills were required for a reasonable fulfilment of the promises of the Government. Of course, he could see that the Chief Secretary was in a position of difficulty owing to the gang of advisers with which he had to deal in Ireland. One of the most remarkable things ever said by an ex-Minister to a Minister was the words of warning which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose addressed to the Chief Secretary on entering into office last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose said:—" The Chief Secretary must remember the class of people he has to deal with as advisers in Ireland," which showed that the late Chief Secretary must not have been well served by those gentlemen himself. The truth was that the whole system of government in Ireland was clogged with Toryism, clogged with religious prejudice, clogged with hatred of the people.
    52
    Hatred of the Papist was the predominant feeling in the governors of Ireland. That was the system of which the Chief Secretary was the British mouthpiece. The accents of the right hon. Gentleman were those of civilisation, but the officials whose accents he translated represented mediæval barbarism. [Nationalist cheers.]
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR,who was received with cheers, said the hon. Gentleman had reminded him that his predecessor in office had warned him against the officials he would have to deal with in Ireland. This constant denunciation of the officials of Dublin Castle was one of those commonplaces which people went on repeating until they believed them. [Cheers, and Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should have been the last person to utter such words. The right hon. Gentleman himself should have remembered that it was he himself who had appointed the Under Secretary and the Assistant Under Secretary in Dublin Castle, and that, in attacking Dublin Castle, he was attacking the two chiefs whom he himself had appointed. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for South Donegal also attacked him for having delivered himself over to the Castle officials, and as an instance of that the hon. Member stated that he had approached a Judge of the High Court under the inspiration of the officials of Dublin Castle. What authority had the hon. Member for saying that? Absolutely none; it was entirely the hon. Gentleman's own invention. [Cheers.] All he had done was to ask Mr. Justice Bewley what, under certain conditions, would be the course the Land Commissioners would think themselves justified in adopting. He did it in the interest of the tenants; he had no reason to be ashamed of it; and he did not see how in doing it he had tampered with the foundations of justice in Ireland. [Cheers.] He did not think that the hon. Member for Louth would have raised the question of the Roxborough schools, for the simple reason that the correspondence in reference to those schools was not of a kind of which the Bishop of Limerick ought to be particularly proud. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] The hon. Member was a

    53
    master of pungent language; but he was proud to say that on this occasion the hon. Member had exhibited a courtesy towards him which the Bishop of Limerick had not. The Bishop had accused him, on what was an exceedingly slender foundation, of a breach of faith; and the hon. Member had said he was not guilty of a breach of faith. But the hon. Member went on to say that he had, metaphorically speaking, struck the Bishop of Limerick on the head with a loaded stick. [Laughter.] The exact contrary was the fact. The head that was struck was not the Bishop of Limerick's, but his; and the person who wielded the loaded stick was the Bishop of Limerick. [Laughter.] He had reason to think highly of the Bishop of Limerick, and therefore he had read the language of the Bishop's letter with astonishment and regret. One of the recommendations in the scheme of the Judicial Commissioners, in connection with the Roxborough schools, which was submitted to the Castle, was that compensation should be given to Canon Gregg. The Privy Council disapproved of compensation, but instead inserted a provision giving Canon Gregg the right of pre-emption to the school. When the scheme came before the House of Commons, the House declared against the principle of pre-emption, on the ground that the Commissioners were better judges than the Privy Council of the merits of the case. The Government then remitted the scheme to the Judicial Commissioners for their observations, and the Commissioners wrote to the Government that the effect of striking out the pre-emption clause without reinstating the compensation clause would be to deprive Canon Gregg both of the pre-emption directed by the Privy Council and the compensation to which the Commissioners thought him to be justly entitled. The Commissioners drew up another scheme in which compensation was again substituted for preemption. He then wrote a letter in which he told the Bishop of Limerick that no scheme would be adopted without giving him and others interested a full opportunity of appearing in opposition to it. But he did not mean that that was to preclude the Lord Lieutenant from disapproving of the existing scheme. In fact, he thought the Lord
    54
    Lieutenant had already disapproved of that scheme. But the full opportunity promised was given to the Bishop of Limerick, and the Bishop availed himself of it to such excellent purpose that he persuaded the Privy Council that the new scheme ought not to be adopted, and to restore the scheme which the Resolution of the House of Commons had approved. In due course of time that scheme would be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, and would, he thought, be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; but as the approval of Parliament must be obtained the scheme would have to be laid on the Table of the House. Under the circumstances, he did not see how it was possible for the Irish Government to act differently, having regard to the expression of opinion by the Judicial Commissioners. The one thing he regretted was that he should have had a correspondence of this painful nature with one whom he should have wished to respect as he had done before that correspondence took place. As to the Erasmus Smith Schools, last autumn he stated to a deputation that, as the learned Judges had unfortunately differed on the matter, it was desirable that a conclusion should be arrived at, but that if legislation were necessary he could not undertake that it would be proceeded with. When Parliament met he was given to understand that any Bill which he might introduce on the subject would be bitterly opposed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: By whom?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it was unnecessary to say by whom. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that at least a sight of the Bill might have been given to the House. But when another small Bill dealing with park regulations was introduced and opposed, the hon. and learned gentleman was very sarcastic at the expense of the Government, asking why, as the Bill had no chance of passing, it had been thought worth while to introduce it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any scheme in his mind, or are the Catholics to be entirely deprived of these endowments?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had already expressed the opinion that the question ought to be settled, and if there were ample time he should be quite prepared to introduce a Bill. The hon.

    55
    Member who moved the reduction of the Vote complained that he, as Chief Secretary, had adopted an attitude of "masterly inactivity." If the way in which he had spent his days since he assumed Office could be described, as "masterly inactivity," he should like to know what activity meant. [Laughter.]
    MR. DILLON: I only alluded to the results.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURreminded the hon. Member that it was "not in mortals to command success;" they could only deserve it. As to the complaint that he was not a Member of the Cabinet, if it was particular to himself, his modesty would shrink from entering upon the question. [Laughter.] But if it was contended that the Chief Secretary should invariably be a Member of the Cabinet, he could only say that that had not been the established practice. During the last 15 years, while Ireland was most disturbed, there had been two Liberal Chief Secretaries who were not Members of the Cabinet—the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division and the right hon. Member for Stirling. Previous to that time it was more frequent than not for the Chief Secretary to be outside the Cabinet. But, at any rate, the fact that he was not in the Cabinet was hardly a reason for reducing his salary—[laughter]—unless, indeed, Irish Administration had suffered, and that had not been proved. The hon. and learned Member for Louth would remember that at the end of the Debate on the Address it was arranged that a Bill dealing with the Christian Brothers' Schools should be brought in on the understanding that it should be introduced after 12 o'clock, and should not be proceeded with if it were opposed. Therefore, on that score he could not see any ground for complaint against him, for he was not responsible for what was done four years ago. Then his action in proposing to give grants-in-aid to schools which were not under the Conscience Clause had been criticised as inconsistent with the policy pursued by his two immediate predecessors. Neither the hon. Member nor the Bishops who condemned his policy had taken the trouble to understand it. If these schools were to have been dealt with as a part of the national system, he should have required a Conscience Clause. But, having abandoned
    56
    the hope of dealing with the question by means of the National Board, he adopted a policy which ran on quite different lines. It was argued that the grants were too small and that the Conscience Clause ought to have been insisted on. But those two things went strictly together. He decided that if these schools were to receive a grant from the State at all they must be left free to carry on the internal arrangements as they pleased; but then it became necessary that the grant should be so small that it would not be a temptation to other schools within the national system to leave it. The hon. Member had reminded the House that when he took Office he expressed the desire to hold the scales evenly between the two factions in Ireland, and in the same breath the hon. Member complained that he had pleased nobody. He thought that was perfectly possible. He hardly expected to please anybody in Ireland, because what was fair to one party was always condemned by the other. That was, and would continue to be, the lot of any Chief Secretary who tried to direct his course, not to plase one party or the other, but to do what was right. [Cheers.] That he had tried to do. He might have failed, for the task was very difficult. But he did not think that the House of Commons would support the hon. Member in the declaration that he had so entirely failed as to deserve having his salary cut down by £2,000. [Laughter and cheers.]
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that there had been fewer complaints made against the right hon. Gentleman than was usual when the Chief Secretary's salary came up for discussion. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that the Irish people were less discontented with the existing state of things; very little had occurred during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of Office in the direction most likely to arouse complaint. For the last 12 months there had undoubtedly been a lull in Ireland, and the people had been in a state of expectation. There had been a disposition to give the right hon. Gentleman a chance. The Chief Secretary had taken comfort from the fact that no one had imputed bad faith to him. He had no more complaint to make against the present Chief Secretary than of any

    57
    other Chief Secretary; his objection was to the Office itself. He was not acquainted with the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently to decide upon the question of his charms and his amiability; but, however great his charms as an individual, or his amiability as an official, he predicted that the right hon. Gentleman would find himself bitterly opposed and surrounded with all sorts of difficulties unless he was prepared to urge on his Government the desirability of carrying forward large reforms in Ireland. The Office of Chief Secretary was a standing source of humiliation, disgrace, and disaster to the Irish people. He believed, honestly, that it was absolutely impossible for any Chief Secretary of any Party to give satisfaction in Ireland under the present circumstances of the country. The office ought to be held, or at least the work ought DO be done by half-a-dozen Ministers, and if Irishmen were allowed to govern themselves that would be the case. The very name was the embodiment of a system which had ruined Ireland. As an Irishman, the very name Chief Secretary was distasteful to him. Every time he looked across the floor of the House and saw the right hon. Gentleman, and behind him some other gentlemen helping him, he felt humiliated, as an Irishman, that, with so many of his countrymen here, 80 or 85 representatives of the race to which he belonged, they were not allowed to manage the most trivial affairs in the Government of their country, but were compelled to come over here and submit to the control of Gentlemen, who, however amiable, were English and not Irish, and had no possible qualification to govern the Irish people better than they could govern themselves. There was no person in the House freer from bigotry than he was. He did not care what a man's colour or country was, provided he was a good man, and intended to do his duty, but to a people like the Irish, with their storong sense of national feeling and sentiment, it was a continual source of irritation, to put it mildly, to see their country governed and controlled by Englishmen instead of by people of their own race and blood. He was not suggesting that the Office should be filled by an Irishman, because the Irishman who
    58
    would take the Office would be a political character, and calculated to give satisfaction to the people of the country. Again, without entering into any religious question, he maintained that it was a wrong thing that in a country like Ireland, where the vast majority of the people belonged to a particular religion, the officials connected with the administration should hardly ever be men of the same religion as the majority. It was not because they had the slightest objection to Protestants—the Irish were the least bigoted nation in Europe—but he contended that the practice—for it was more than a coincidence—of every official in Ireland, from the Lord Lieutenant downwards, being a Protestant, was a slur and a reflection upon the great mass of the people. Experience had taught the Irish people what they were likely to expect, and throughout the century their experience had been such as to show that nothing was to be gained for their country by the continuance of these offices. The Irish people had been accused without reason of being rebels, and it was said that they had no genuine grievance to complain of owing to the representation they had in Parliament. But, against the unanimous opinion of the Irish Members, the word of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant was enough to carry with them the House of Commons, and thus the whole system of an amiable and charming despotism, under which Ireland was ruled, was wrong. When Parliament was not sitting, the right hon. Gentleman was as absolute master of Ireland and the liberties of the people as the Czar of Russia. He had no personal feeling against the right hon. Gentleman in the matter. He did not think that the former Chief Secretary was better than the present Chief Secretary; in fact, the balance was rather to the credit of the present Chief Secretary, because the last Chief Secretary sent 200 policemen to forcibly prevent him from addressing his constituents. The present Chief Secretary had not yet done so, but he had no doubt that unless the Government did something to justify itself, the right hon. Gentleman would probably send 300 instead of 200. He hoped that before this time next year, the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to do

    59
    something really to make the people believe that it was his desire to do something for their benefit. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to rule the country with an even hand. Other Chief Secretaries had said the same, but under the present system such a course was impossible, even to the best intentioned Minister. Unless something was done, therefore, to meet the wants of the people coercion would be again in force in opposition to the Irish people, and the Chief Secretary would have to go through a distressing period like that with which some of his predecessors had to deal.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYacknowledged that the Chief Secretary deserved credit for not having put in force the provisions of the Coercion Act, capable of being brought into play by Proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman had also shown good sense in resisting the representations of the Judges who had been endeavouring to dictate to the Executive Government of Ireland the methods by which the country should be governed. There was no foundation for the allegation that juries had failed to do their duty, or that criminals had not been punished. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would continue to maintain his present attitude, and that his administration would not be stained by the enforcement of the obnoxious provisions of the Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman had vindicated his own consistency on the education question, but the important point was not what had happened in the past, but what was going to happen in the future, and he observed that the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee no information as to what he meant to do. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that this question was closed. He at least gave no hint of any attempt to reopen it, though he could not consider that it was settled. By the introduction of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was a question which required settlement. It was usually treated as if it was a religious question. It was a financial question, in the first place, and in the second place compulsory education in Ireland was another branch of the subject. Up to the present they had not got the education in Cork which they wanted, while
    60
    in England parents could obtain, free of cost, that education for their children which they wanted.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is now travelling into the general question.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he did not propose to discuss the general question; he wished to invite from the right hon. Gentleman some declaration of policy on this question of education. That was a question raised by previous speakers, and he did not think it could be disposed of by the apologia which he had made. If the right hon. Gentleman thought it more convenient to raise the point on the Education Vote, he should be quite willing to take that course. He wished to raise that part of the question which dealt with the personal responsibility of the Chief Secretary. He thought they were entitled to invite from the right hon. Gentleman some declaration as to what he meant to do on this question in the future. If not strictly in order, he should not go into minute details. The religious aspect was the most serious aspect. In Cork the policy of compulsory education was never enforced, in consequence of the attitude of the Chief Secretary. Four years had passed since the compulsory Act was passed. He thought it was a most excellent Act.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That certainly does not come within the Vote.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he should not speak further on that question beyond saying that the right hon. Gentleman must be sure that he would never succeed in putting the provisions of the Act into satisfactory operation unless there was some practical settlement of the religious difficulty. The local bodies were not going to be forced to send their children to schools which they did not want, and unless the right hon. Gentleman hit on some plan he might bid good-bye to any hope of seeing the Act put into operation. He would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that this was a very large question, and that it was quite impossible for him to leave it where he left it the other night. He hoped they would obtain some further statement from him as to his future policy on this important question. There was one other matter to which he wished

    61
    to direct attention—the case of Professor England, and the way in which he had been treated by the Irish Government. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was himself satisfied with the answer he had recently given on this matter, or that he was satisfied with the way in which the learned Professor had been treated. If he were to speculate as to what went on behind the scenes, he would say that it was the Treasury in this country which prevented the Irish Government doing what was just ant right. The treatment to which the Professor had been subjected was absolutely illegal, for the President of the Galway College, Dr. Moffat, who had more sense and influential friends, was able to retain his office and its emoluments. He obtained a declaration from the highest legal authorities that the action taker with regard to Professor England was absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. The decision in Dr. Moffat's case ought to govern Professor England's case. There never was a stronger case than this for compensation. It was an extraordinary position for a Government to take up and say, "we have acted illegally, we have inflicted a wrong and damage, but Professor England submitted to it, and therefore we shall not give him any compensation whatever." He thought that he had gathered from the reply of the Chief Secretary that the matter would be favourably considered, but the blame, no doubt, rested with the Treasury. He asked the Chief Secretary not to sit down under proceedings of this kind. So far as Ireland was concerned, the policy of the Treasury seemed to be summed up in the words, "Let us put our heads together and see what we car steal from Ireland," This principle was developed even in the Procedure Clause; of the Land Bill. The Treasury officials lifted their hands in horror at the idea of having to pay for 50 or 60 Sub-Commissioners. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be careful in dealing with the Treasury. He admitted that the duties of the Chief Secretary were very onerous, and that anyone entering upon the Office for the first time would find the work at the outset certainly most difficult and laborious. At the same he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to give attention to the points to which he had referred. For
    62
    the administration of affairs in Ireland was still very unsatisfactory to the people at large, and he ventured to say that the Executive Government would yet be obliged to choose between two courses—either to hand over the control of such affairs to the people of Ireland themselves, or to place the Office of the Chief Secretary on a totally different basis from that on which it now stood—to make the Chief Secretary the Minister of Ireland in reality. Until one course or the other was taken, Irish Members would have still to come to that House, as they had done year after year in the past, to complain of the position in which the country was placed, and of the injustices from which it suffered. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. GEORGE MURNAGHANsaid he supported the Motion on the ground that the Chief Secretary had not fulfilled the promises he made when he entered upon the Office, that he would deal out equal treatment alike to all sections of the Irish people. His ideas of the duties of a Chief Secretary were that he should give his first thoughts and efforts to the interests of Ireland—that in all his duties his main consideration should be the benefit and welfare of the people and the country which he represented, and for which he acted. But this had not been the grounds on which Chief Secretaries generally had acted, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman also had failed to do so in several matters. In regard to the Rating Bill, for example, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had stood up for Ireland as he ought to have done, and he certainly had not followed the just and admirable example of his predecessor with respect to the appointment of Catholic magistrates in fair proportion in places where the population was almost evenly divided between the two sections of Protestants and Catholics. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman had not observed his promise of evenhanded treatment in this respect in the part of Ireland which he represented.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANScalled the hon. Member to order, on the ground that the particular matter to which he was referring did not come within the province of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. MURNAGHANsaid he would obey the ruling of the Chairman, but he desired to point out that in a matter which closely affected the majority of the people of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled his promise of equal treatment to all sections of the population. He contended that it was the peculiar function of the Chief Secretary to watch over the interests of Ireland—to see that she had fair play in the general Government of the United Kingdom, and that she suffered no loss or disadvantage in any respect. For the Chief Secretary was really the only Minister for Ireland responsible to the people, and through him only, under the present system, could the people hope to obtain just treatment and redress of their grievances. ["Hear, hear!"] There were several matters in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman might succeed in obtaining fairer treatment for Ireland if he devoted his attention and energy to them. For instance, in regard to the Land Bill, there was nothing which the people in the part of Ulster he represented desired more than a reduction of the statutory term, but the Chief Secretary had permitted that point to be excluded from the Measure.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it was out of order for the hon. Member to discuss the Land Bill on the question of the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. MURNAGHANsaid that with regard to the great question of education, again, the right hon. Gentleman had not sought to carry out his purpose of even-handed treatment in Ireland. In many places where the population was equally divided between Protestants and Catholics, and even in places where the Catholics predominated in numbers, the Catholic schools received no grant or assistance whatever from the State and had to support their own schools, while the Protestant schools were in receipt of State aid. This was a question to which, almost above all others, the right hon. Gentleman might devote his attention with advantage to the country, for at present Catholics in Ireland laboured under great disadvantages in the matter of national education. ["Hear, hear!"] But the prospect of redress in Ireland in this and other matters under the present system was not, he feared, very favour-
    64
    able. From the way in which business was conducted in that House, he contended that the Irish people had no really effective representation there at all; for the great body of the Irish Members—those who represented the people as a whole—were never consulted as to the wants of the country. In those circumstances, he thought he was justified in supporting the Motion.
    MR. MACNEILLwas sorry there should have been any matter savouring of personal controversy between him and the Chief Secretary. He charged the right hon. Gentleman with having appointed Mr. Justice Bewley a Judge of the High Court, with having taken that step upon the instigation of Castle officials. He based this charge on a speech of the right hon. Gentleman's in that House on the 15th August 1895, on a speech of the Irish Attorney General's defending the Chief Secretary's action as the action of the Government, and on a speech of Mr. Serjeant Hemphill's commenting strongly on the impropriety of the step. He thought, as the matter was one of a technical character, he was justified in considering that the Chief Secretary acted on the advice of others, and he was surprised at hearing his statements characterised as "an invention."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid as the hon. and learned Gentleman had always been polite to himself, he had pleasure in withdrawing the word "invention" and substituting the word "inference."
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to press the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the Erasmus Smith Schools. There was an admitted grievance upon which two great Judges—one a Catholic and the other a Protestant—differed. The Protestant said: "We won't give the Catholics what is ours." He did not object to their position, but it was a position in regard to which he was entitled to say that the Government which claimed to administer even - handed justice, should say: "We will make a fair and equal distribution of the money," or, if they would not do that, should say: "We will refer the question to some tribunal of the nature of an appellant tribunal." That was all he asked. It was most unsatisfactory that the Government had allowed the Act of 1875 to lapse, and that there should be

    65
    no means now known to the law by which a rehearing of this case could be had. The question could not be allowed to remain where it was. The right hon. Gentleman would not bring in a Bill because he had on hand the Uganda Railway, a Conciliation Bill, an Army Manœuvres Bill, and all the rest of the rag-tag and bob-tail of English legislation. To use the phrase of an English Judge, he did not care one dump for either one or the other of those Measures, but he did care for a settlement of the question concerning these schools. The Chief Secretary had said the Bishop of Limerick would have his own way in the end. Yes; but no thanks would be due to Dublin Castle. If the Bishop had won his case, he had done so because the merits were on his side.
    MR. DILLONthought the Chief Secretary should explain what the future policy of the Government on the educational question in Ireland was to be. The right hon. Gentleman had said he despaired of settling the question in connection with the National Board. Why did he despair? He had a majority on that Board, and he had both the Catholic and Protestant Archbishop of Dublin with him. The right hon. Gentleman also said he had arrived at the conclusion that he could not please anybody in Ire-laud. The Chief Secretary went a little further than he would be inclined to go, but as the right hon. Gentleman was not concerned about the opinion of the people, why did he not try to settle the education question?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsubmitted that on the Estimates, and at this period of the Session, he could not be expected to make a statement as to the views of the Government on the education question. The time to raise such a question was surely during the consideration of the Address. [A laugh.] "When next Session came the Government would have time to consider the position, whether any legislation on the education question was compatible with their other legislative proposals. It was quite evident that if Parliament sat for 365 days in the year, and hon. Members opposite had their way, Ireland would require 300 of those days. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Yes; every day if we want them. We do not want to come here. Give us
    66
    our own Parliament."] With regard to the Erasmus Smith Schools, he had already explained that he concurred in the view that, as two eminent Judges had differed upon this question, it was desirable that a settlement should be arrived at in another way. The only question was, whether he ought to have introduced a Bill this Session to settle the matter, and it had seemed to him inexpedient to adopt that course in view of the relative importance of other legislative projects. If he had enough time at his disposal, he would be willing to deal with the matter. With regard to the Roxborough Schools case it had been said that it was with deep regret that he had recognised that the Bishop was likely to have his way in the end. He could assure hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that he had felt no such regret. It was a matter of indifference to him whether the Bishop of Limerick or the other side gained the victory. What he desired was that justice should be done. On the receipt of information that there was some danger that justice was not going to be done, he took steps to have the case reheard. If the result of that had been to put the case back into the position in which it was when the Resolution was passed by the House of Commons, he could not do otherwise than regret the expense that had been incurred and the time that had been lost. But such circumstances did not alter his opinion that he was right in taking the action he did. With reference to the case of Professor England, he had to say, as he had pressed for information, that the Principal of Queen's College had declared that it would not be to the interest of the College that Professor England should continue in the performance of his duties. In these circumstances, apart from the Order in Council, it would have been quite proper to decide that his tenure of office should come to an end. The case was fully and fairly considered.
    MR. J. DALYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Irish education question should be raised in the Debate on the Address next January or February. But his hon. Friends would insist on bringing the question forward before this Session closed if they did not receive satisfactory

    67
    assurances now. He had the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he believed that he would be inclined to do justice to Ireland if things were left in his hands; but Dublin Castle had exercised its usual influence over the right hon. Gentleman with the result that his administration had up to the present been as great a failure as the administrations of many of his predecessors. The only hon. Member who had congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his government of Ireland was an hon. Member whose followers in Ulster not long ago threatened to kick the Queen's crown into the Boyne.
    MR. JOHNSTONsaid that this charge was evidently directed against him. He had repudiated the charge already more than once. The language referred to by the hon. Member was not used by him. The only ground for the charge was that at a certain meeting which he attended a clergyman spoke of King James's crown being kicked into the Boyne.
    MR. J. DALYsaid that it was unfortunate that the Chief Secretary was not a Member of the Cabinet. As it was the right hon. Gentleman was the representative in that House of the landlords' cabinet. He was disappointed at the inaction of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the evicted tenants' question, and he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had made a bitter and partisan speech on that subject. If the right hon. Gentleman only understood the circumstances that led to the eviction of these unfortunate men he would, he felt sure, make a great effort to reinstate them. The right hon. Member had said that a vast number of evicted tenants were going back to their holdings in the district from which he came. That certainly was not the case. No tenants had been reinstated there. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make an effort, even at the eleventh hour, to put these men back into their homes. They did not ask that English money should be used for that purpose; the Irish Church Fund was available. An Education Bill had been introduced this Session and abandoned.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: This is not the time to review the legislation of the Session.
    MR. W. FIELDreminded the Chief Secretary that at an early period of the Session he promised to introduce a Bill providing £15,000 for the establishment of a veterinary college in Ireland. There was a veterinary college in Scotland, and in England, but in Ireland, a country whose chief product was live stock, they were without one. He thought this was a matter deserving the serious attention of the Government. He hoped, also, that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to grant an increased amount of money to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; in the transit of live stock there was half a million of money lost yearly to Ireland, and any steps which might be taken to mitigate that loss were of great value. He found that there was a miserable sum of £50 granted to the Vice President of the Society. It was the duty of the Irish Chief Secretary, who was charged with the responsibility of looking after the material interests of the country which he practically governed, to enable them to make the most of their resources. He had formerly asked the late Chief Secretary to bring in a Bill to make the shipowners as carriers responsible in this matter, but he was told that there was so much opposition to the proposal that it would be impossible, as it would take up so much time. But a Bill which would enrich Ireland to the extent of half-a-million per annum would be looked upon as a national matter. When the right hon. Gentleman came to office they were told that all the material interests of Ireland would be looked after, and it was predicted that Home Rule would fail by reason of the kindness which they would receive from the Conservative Government. But he would ask the right hon. gentleman what material interests of Ireland had been looked after? How much money had been spent in their country? They, who produced meat in Ireland, were supplied now from across the Atlantic with foreign meat.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid these matters did not arise on the Vote.
    MR. FIELDsaid he thought it was relevant to the subject to point out that they had to pay taxes to subsidise foreign Governments, who made a war

    69
    of Protection against their goods, while they were themselves a meat-producing country. Their constituents did not expect them to come there Session after Session without getting some useful legislation.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNORregretted the reply which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the hon. Member for East Mayo. One of the fundamental duties of any Government was to provide for the education of the rising generation. They did not think the right hon. Gentleman would do very much for Ireland, but a large section of the Irish people did think that when the Unionist Government came into power they would certainly do something for the education of the people in Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman, with his large majority at his back, had refused to do anything for education. But he was in a position to defy any narrow section which might oppose him, and could dispense with the vote of the hon. Member for South Belfast, whose opinions on this education question were well known.
    MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid they recognised the courtesy and urbanity of the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time their sense of duty impelled them to attack his administration, which up to the present had been conducted on very different principles from those which he had laid down at an earlier period of his official life. His whole administration in Ireland might be summed up as a policy of good intentions but most fruitful in failure. He protested against the manner in which Irish legislation was introduced at the fag end of a Session, or at late hours of the night. Turning to the subject of Irish education, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was connected with the administration of the law, and having come into office with a large majority at his back—a majority that was strongly in favour of denominational education—ho had been placed in a peculiarly fortunate position for dealing with the subject. In June 1895, just before he went out of office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs had brought his negotiations with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to so
    70
    close a point that very little more was required to bridge over the difference between them. Nothing could have been more simple than for the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland to have taken up the negotiations at the point where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs had left them. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not taken that course. It must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs had laboured under the disadvantage that the majority at his back were not in favour of denominational education. Who had the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland consulted in reference to this subject? Had he consulted the Irish Roman Catholic bishops? Why, it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had only consulted some narrow sectarian body in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have consulted public opinion in Ireland on this important question, and he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course. The matter went to the very root of the popular conscience and feeling in Ireland, where education was the burning question of the hour. The right hon. Gentleman should take some pains to inform himself of the feelings and opinions of the Irish people with regard to this question. He desired to protest against legislation on this subject at the fag end of the Session, as being most unfair to Irish Members. Legislation with regard to Irish education ought to be treated with some sense of decorum and of fair play. ["Hear, hear!"]
    DR. TANNERsaid that Irish Members had absolutely to hold up the looking-glass before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show him his own political physiognomy reflected therein. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Everyone on those Benches was perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman had no power to do anything. He might have some family influence, but, after all, that would not always be available. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman was a man of genius, talent and geniality he would leave to posterity to say; but the Nationalist Members had found him an extremely amiable and

    71
    nicely-spoken young gentleman. [Laughter.] Anybody asking him a question always met with courtesy, but whenever an Irish Member put a question on any matter he was sent to the House of Commons to carry out, he was met with a very emphatic "No." In answer to at least 99 out of every 100 questions, though most urgent matters affecting the benefit of the constituencies of the hon. Gentlemen putting them, the answer was "No"—a universal, unyielding "No." It had been his duty during the current Session to put many questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and he had never received a single satisfactory reply, though those questions had mainly affected the constituency he represented, whether in regard to light railways, labourers' cottages, or like matters. He was always courteously put off, and nothing was done. Let the right hon. Gentleman not be led away by the occasional praise with which his actions were met. Let him look to the praise he might obtain, if his Government were a good one, from the Irish people. Let him look to their judgment. The whole system was a bad one. It was not by establishing a Veterinary College in Dublin, or by bolstering up the Munster Dairy School that the gangrene that existed in Ireland could be cured. The right hon. Gentleman should try during his tenure of office, which they all hoped might be as short as possible, to shake himself free from the trammels set up by his predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman had, practically speaking, no control over any one of the Departments of which he was the chief. The gentlemen on the Local Government Board held the ribbons in their hands, and the right hon. Gentleman lacked the power to do anything. He might occasionally spur or whip the horses of administration, but he could not take the reins into his own hands. His distinguished predecessor failed in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman would fail. He hoped, as he had said, that the right hon. Gentleman would shake himself free from the trammels that surrounded his office, and try, in the interests of the poor people under his rule, to do something more for them than had yet been done to promote a certain amount of welfare in Ireland. If he did so he would at any rate put down for the time that growing discontent which, from all
    72
    accounts, was now existent in Ireland. Ireland required a steady, tolerant, and benevolent system to relieve her from the distress in which she lived. The right hon. Gentleman was a new comer to office, and being a new boy the Irish Members Jet him off with a caution. [Laughter.]
    MR. MICHAEL FLAVINsaid they were told to expect that if the Conservative Party came into office, Home Rule would be killed by kindness. Instead of that he found that the Irish people were being-strangled by taxation. The county of Kerry was asked to pay £1,628 7s. 1d for six months for extra police. He had lived in that county for years and was intimately acquainted with the duties the extra police had to perform, and he had no hesitation in challenging the Chief Secretary to say that these police were necessary? He could not give more conclusive evidence of the peaceful condition of the county than by pointing out that the County Court judge—Judge Shaw—at the three principal towns in the county, was lately presented with white gloves, and had to declare that there was no criminal business on the local calendars. In view of that fact and the fact that at the last Assizes only four bills came before the Judge, it was a monstrous thing to impose on that impoverished county a tax of over £3,000 annually when the county was in such a peaceful condition. He would mention also that under the Grand Jury system the people of Kerry were asked to pay annually £20,122 11s. 10d. for railways for the promotion of which he believed the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors had been to some extent responsible. To some extent these railways might be beneficial to the people of Kerry, but for them to be asked to contribute the enormous sum of £20,000 a year for guarantees given by a body which was not elected by or representative of the people of the county, was a thing they could not and would not bear much longer.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the matters to which he is referring are not in the discretion of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. FLAVINwould direct his observations to the duties of the extra police, which were in the discretion of the Chief Secretary. Their duties were, and had been for years, to protect evicted farms. He instanced cases in which the tenants had been evicted 14 years ago for £60, one year's rent, the farms being still idle, though the tenants had offered half the rent, but the offer had been declined. Special police had been employed to protect the farms, which were on the estate of a landlord who was an absentee, and who, through the mismanagement and tyranny of his local agent, had become bankrupt. It was not fair that a people who were anxious to live as law-abiding citizens, should be compelled to pay an extra tax because of the tyranny of a local agent or landlord who was an absentee. He pressed the Chief Secretary to take immediate steps to relieve the people of the county from the burden of excessive taxation under which they were suffering, and against which they had frequently protested. There was no necessity for extra police, the county being quite peaceful.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR,in reply to the points raised, observed that it was perfectly true that Kerry was in a comparatively peaceful position. If it was necessary to have there a certain number of extra police, the reason was that so many protection posts were required, and unless they were employed in this duty, he was afraid that Kerry would not be quite so free from crime as it was now. It was his earnest desire to reduce the number of extra police, not only in Kerry, but in every county, as far as it was possible to do so, this matter being one that constantly came before him. He did not know whether the Member for North Cork expected him to go at length into the questions he had touched upon. He did not think the hon. Member was present when the matter of the Christian Brothers was raised, to which he had already replied. The hon. Member made one fresh point as to the possibility of dealing with the subject administratively, and he seemed to think that when the late Chief Secretary went out of Office matters were on the point of reaching a satisfactory conclusion. This was really not at all the case. The right hon. Member for Montrose during the whole
    74
    of his three years' tenure of the Chief Secretaryship, was engaged in negotiating with the Commissioners of National Education in this matter, but when his tenure of office came to an end he was no nearer a settlement than he was at the beginning. A careful study of the mass of correspondence which took place in his predecessor's time convinced him that it would be practically useless to pursue the correspondence any further. There was one other assertion of the hon. Member to which he must beg to take exception, and that was that at the time the late Government went out of Office the Christian Brothers were prepared to accept the terms suggested by the Commissioners of National Education. That was not so. He had taken the trouble to ascertain what the true state of the case was, and the conclusion he had arrived at—which had never seriously been impugned—was that the Christian Brothers would not have been content to accept what had been drawn up by the Commissioners. One other Question had been asked by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin. He said that the late Government promised to bring in a Bill establishing a veterinary college for Ireland, and, on the principle that one Government should act in continuity with another Government, the present Chief Secretary was bound by the promise given by his predecessor. He could not admit that the promise given by one Government in such circumstances, was necessarily binding on a succeeding Government. However, on more than one occasion, he had stated to the hon. Gentleman it was his desire to carry out his predecessor's pledge, and that he hoped to be able, during the course of the present Session, to bring in a Bill dealing with the question. He had not been able to do so so far, but without saying anything more he thought he might be allowed to remind hon. Gentlemen that the Session had not absolutely come to a close. ["Hear, hear!"] It was impossible for him not to appreciate what hon. Members had said of himself personally, and so far he should carry away with him pleasant recollections of that Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped that the Committee would now allow a decision to be taken on the Vote. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. J. CLANCYobserved that the Chief Secretary had stated that the extra police were required for duties in connection with protection posts. But extra police were imposed on counties where there was no necessity for protection posts, and whilst the quota of the free force to which they were entitled by law was not given them, the extra police were absolutely forced upon them at a great cost. This he regarded as a great hardship, calling for immediate redress.
    MR. FLYNNremarked that, in reference to the question as to the negotiations between the Chief Secretary's predecessor and the Commissioners of National Education, he regretted that he and the right hon. Gentleman must agree to differ. He could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions. He had very carefully read the correspondence, and he failed to see how anyone could say, upon it, that the right hon. Member for Montrose was further away from agreement with the Commissioners at the end of his term of office than at the beginning. He held that the letters showed that there was every prospect of arriving at a settlement when the right hon. Member for Montrose quitted office. He was strongly of opinion that, inasmuch as the present Chief Secretary was placed in a far different position to his predecessor in regard to a question of this kind, any little remaining difficulty could easily be got over by a little patience and prolongation of the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioners of National Education. With relation to the subject of extra police, he could corroborate all that had been said by the hon. Member for Kerry. He knew a case where the original rental of a farm was £40 a year, the tenant had been evicted, and for 14 years £4,200 annually had been spent in keeping three policemen to protect the holding, the people of the county being mulcted for this extra sum. He suggested that the landlords in such cases should be made to pay their share of the cost of extra police. One of the first things a rack renting landlord applied to Dublin Castle for were extra police. The two great objections were, first, that the free force to which each county was entitled was
    76
    sufficiently large for each county, and, secondly, it was a monstrous thing that the overtaxed cesspayers in different parts of Ireland should pay 7s., 8s. or 14s. in the pound for these extra police. It should not be levied upon them without the closest scrutiny and inquiry. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give this matter his earnest consideration and not permit a continuance of extra police unless necessary in the interests of public peace and order.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that on several occasions already he had drawn attention to the non-appointment of the Bishop of Ardagh to the visiting board of Mullingar Lunatic Asylum. From this year's list of the governors it still appeared that the Bishop had not been appointed. Both of his predecessors were governors of the Asylum, and there was no earthly reason why he should be excluded from the Board. It consisted of 22 members, of whom 14 were landlords, Conservatives or Unionists, and 7 might be said to represent Nationalist or popular feeling, of the district served by the Asylum. But a vacancy existed through the death of a gentleman who represented Westmeath. He had, himself, intended moving a reduction of the Chief Secretary's salary to call attention to this case. It accentuated the fact that Local Government in Ireland as far as it could be made directly from a central authority was the government of Protestant over Catholic. He hoped this matter would have the attention of the Chief Secretary. He joined with his colleagues in saying that as long as the right hon. Gentleman placed himself in the hands of the official ring in Dublin Castle so long would the people, and especially the Catholic portion of them, expect to find nothing but the same system of official tyranny that had characterised previous Governments. He next wished to call attention to the system of inspection in connection with the Veterinary Department in Dublin. It seemed that local inspectors were appointed by the Boards of Guardians who were paid a salary which could be controlled by a central authority. The local official was not alone in charge; the central authority sent down assistants. But some of these assistants went down with the fixed view that it was their duty to oppose the view of

    77
    particular cases taken by the local inspectors. Now he contended that there should be a fixed system in the work. It should be left entirely in the hands of the local authority or be taken in hand by the central authority. The present system led to confusion, and loss to the people whose animals were treated. Great hardship was inflicted on the poor, in cases where compensation was given for animals slaughtered. Some of the inspectors took the view in certain cases that the owners of animals were not entitled to compensation, and they had to overcome a lot of red-tapeism before they could obtain it. Then there was not sufficient precaution exercised as regarded the number of animals slaughtered. They were slaughtered in a haphazard rough-and-ready fashion, and it depended on red-tape whether compensation was given to the owner or not. Reference had been made to the general condition of the country over which the Chief Secretary was supposed to exercise almost unlimited power. Twelve months ago the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would see the condition of the country for himself, form his own opinion, and act accordingly. He went to Ireland, and, from what he himself knew of the right hon. Gentleman's vist to the West, it was not made in a way that would give him a fair idea of the country. He was surrounded by the very official rings whose business it was to keep up the system of ascendency and poison the minds of those who wished to do real justice to the country. If the right hon. Gentlemen wished to see the true condition of the people let him mix amongst the people. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had recognised by this time that he need not have any fear of going alone amongst the people, and if he would do that—dispensing with the official escort which accompanied him on his last visit—he would return to the House determined to do justice to the people.
    DR. TANNERwished to call attention to the work of the Fishery Department, which he did not think was at all well done. There were three fishery inspectors. One was good, one was doubtful, and one was bad. The work of the Rev. Mr. Greene in connection with the deep sea fisheries was thoughtfully entertained and practically
    78
    carried out. In fact, it might be said that Mr. Greene did all the work, and Mr. Cecil Roche did all the loafing. A great deal of good might he done by the Department if it were more liberal in granting loans to fishermen to assist them in procuring boats and fishing appliances. He would like know why it was that only a sum of £1,884 16s. 6d. was issued in loans last year, and out of that sum £1,285 went to County Dublin alone. Was it because the fishery inspectors, having County Dublin within easy distance, confined themselves to County Dublin? If the right hon. Gentleman could get the fishery inspectors to carry on their work on the excellent plan pursued by the fishery inspectors in Scotland, vast improvements would be effected in the Irish fisheries.
    MR. DANIEL MACALEESEsaid he would avail himself of the deserted condition of the House to make his maiden speech. [Laughter.] The County Court Judge of Monaghan had quite a store of white gloves which had been presented to him sessions after sessions, owing to the happy absence of criminal cases; and it was understood that he intended to ask the permission of the Incorporated Law Society to set up a shop for their sale. [Laughter.] It was said that brevity was the soul of wit, and he intended to win the reputation of being one of the wittiest Members in the House by making the shortest maiden speech on record. [Laughter.] He would, therefore, simply ask the Chief Secretary what justification he had got for keeping up the extra police force in Monaghan in the circumstances mentioned? [Laughter and cheers.]
    MR. J.P. FARRELLdesired to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Mid Cork in favour of a more liberal distribution of loans to fishermen. The quantity of fish that was lost to the inhabitants of the west coast of Ireland owing to the want of proper fishing appliances was enormous. The people there were practically living on patches of sand amongst aid hills, striving to eke out a most miserable existence, large numbers of them, men and women, having to migrate annually to Scotland for the purpose of finding employment. Yet here, at their very doors, were great shoals of herring and other fish, which, if captured, might be

    79
    the means of preventing this migration to Scotland to get the wherewithal to live. The district was in very truth the very poorest in all Ireland, and the Congested Districts Board could not do better than devote some of the money at their disposal to the advancement of the fishing industry in the locality, than which nothing that had yet been done for Mayo would be a greater blessing to the inhabitants.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURassured the hon. Member that it was the earnest desire of the Government to do all that could be done to develop the sea fisheries. It was not, however, the want of new piers which prevented fishing enterprise, but the want of boats. In this connection he must protest against the strictures which the hon. Member for Mid Cork had thought fit to pass upon one of the fishery inspectors. He was quite certain that the inspector whom the hon. Gentleman had praised would be the last to join in the condemnation passed upon his colleague. There was not the slightest disinclination on the part of the Government to place the Bishop of Ardagh upon the particular fishery board referred to whenever a vacancy occurred. As to the suggestion that the inspectors should be under the control of the locality, he thought there were advantages in the present system, and it would be almost impossible to carry out the work if the inspectors were subject exclusively to the local authority, because there must be certain unity of action in the matter. He should be glad to give careful consideration to any suggestions that might be made to him with regard to the work of the veterinary department.
    DR. TANNERsuggested that if, as in Scotland, each inspector reported upon a certain given district, they would then see who did the work. He was bound to attack Mr. Roche, because he never had any knowledge of the business or of the position into which he was pitchforked. He was half military man, half policeman, half magistrate, and because he was a bully he was made a fishery inspector.
    After the usual interval, Mr. E. R. WODEHOUSE (Bath) took the Chair.
    MR. DALYcalled attention to the erection of a police but on property
    80
    in South Monaghan, the value of the property being only £18. He would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter, and he hoped he would be able to give him a satisfactory reply that in a short time this but would be removed. He considered it a great grievance to a large number of his constituents. The but was put there to please the landlord during the time when the right hon. Gentleman's brother was Chief Secretary. During that time there might have been occasion for the but, but what occasion was there for it now, when Ireland was never in a more peaceful condition than it was now.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had already pointed out that the existence of these protection posts was with the view of preventing crime which might otherwise take place, and he presumed from the statement of the hon. Member that there had been no crime in the district, that the police protection post had been successful in achieving the object. The hon. Member must recollect that freedom from ordinary crime by no means guaranteed freedom from agrarian crime, if the opportunity for agrarian crime presented itself. That was one of the most elementary facts connected with the administration of justice in Ireland. That was the reason why these protection buts or posts were retained, and he must protest against the idea that the necessity of maintaining these posts was to be measured by the value of the property which was under protection. The protection of the person in his legal rights was the first and most elementary duty of a Government, and they could not measure the urgency of that duty by the mere totting up, the calculating, of the amount of the material interests which were involved. Of course, he would look into the matter, and if he found that the but was unnecessary he would undoubtedly remove it. If he found it necessary, notwithstanding the statement of the County Court Judge that from the point of view of ordinary crime the district was singularly peaceful, he was afraid he could not hold out any hopes to the hon. Member that it would be possible to remove this protection.
    MR. MICHAEL AUSTINdrew attention to the extra police

    81
    in the county of Limerick, and said that the condition of affairs in that county in no way justified the extra police retained there. They had a most satisfactory return from the city of Limerick for the past twelve months. The Judge had been presented with white gloves on three successive occasions; the Judge of Assizes had referred to the peaceful condition of the county; and the Grand Jury of the county had also dissented from the continuation of the large number of police in the county of Limerick. Although earlier in the Session, when he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, he got no satisfactory answer upon the subject, he thought that, in view of the fact that the peace of the county had been maintained in such a satisfactory manner, it was high time to consider the question of the maintenance of this extra police force in the county.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid this question had been raised several times before, and his answer to the hon. Member must be the same as he had given on previous occasions—namely, that where he could reduce the extra force he should only be too glad to do so.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £616,077 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,375), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete a sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid he wished to call attention to several questions affecting the National Education Board. In the first place, he thought it was an unfortunate circumstance that the unusually important Report of the Board had not yet been distributed to Members. He dared say it was not the fault of the Government, but he simply mentioned it as an unfortunate fact. He noticed from the Report that the Commissioners had instituted an Inquiry, and had asked for reports from all their inspectors on the
    82
    payment by results system in Ireland. That system was an entirely antiquated one, and had been long ago abandoned in this country. It was in no way in the interests of good education, but did a vast deal of harm to the schools of the country, and ought to be abolished as soon as possible. He was also glad to find that the Commissioners had been led to do what they could to increase the amount of manual education in Irish schools. He did not refer simply to technical education, which he looked upon as a comparatively small part of the work of schools, but to manual education, such as was taught on the Swedish and Kindergarten system, which had hitherto been almost entirely unknown in Ireland outside one or two of the big towns. There was the greatest need for further manual education in all the schools throughout the country. He was glad to hear that the matter was to be dealt with, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would use his influence to expedite matters, and to get over any difficulties. There was also the matter of the need of further expenditure on the continuation schools in Ireland. Great progress had been made in England, chiefly owing to the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham when he was at the Board of Education, but in Ireland they had lagged behind. The payment given to the teacher in a case of a continuation school was not sufficient to induce any effort, and as there was a great need in the towns for a further development of these schools, he hoped the Chief Secretary would endeavour to get the same liberal grants for them as the Member for Rotherham got for similar schools in England. He also desired to call attention to the need of improving the position of the assistant teachers in schools. The present payment was only £63, and as that included the assistants in tolerably big schools in towns, it would be seen that in some cases the payment was very small. He noticed that there was no increase of expenditure on model schools. He did not object to model schools, though outside Dublin they existed almost entirely for the benefit of the Protestant population, and in the north mainly for the benefit of the Presbyterians. They were doing good work, and he should

    83
    deprecate any interference with their work. He would ask, however, that the same principle should be applied all round. The Christian Brothers' schools were practically model schools for the Catholics and were one of the most effective educational agencies in the whole United Kingdom. There was no reason why the grant should not be given to them without raising any complicated questions. The principal matter, however, to which he wished to call attention was one which concerned the Secretary of the Treasury and the attack which he had thought fit to make on the Commissioners of National Education. The position of that Board was rather a peculiar one. There was nothing like it in England or Scotland. Ireland had the advantage of the unpaid services of the leading men of the country, and they received no reward whatever. What differences there might be as to the system, he should have thought that the Board deserved from Ministers somewhat more consideration than was ordinarily given to paid officials. Nevertheless the Secretary of the Treasury thought fit to make an attack on the Commissioners. In his speech on March 30th dealing with the question of the deficiency in the payments, the Secretary of the Treasury expressed surprise that the Commissioners—who were mainly Conservatives—had never raised the question until the present Government came into office. That was a most extraordinary charge. [Cheers.] It was an allegation that the Commissioners of Education had abstained from performing their proper duty by not demanding the sum to which they were entitled. ["No!"] Certainly there was an insinuation that the Commissioners had abstained from doing their duty for some political reason, ["Hear, hear!"] These gentlemen, who, whether Catholic or Protestant, were mainly Conservatives, had been accused of refraining from pressing their legitimate demand because it would embarrass the Home Rule Government then
    84
    in office. A more absurd charge never was made by a Government in a difficulty to get out of that difficulty. What were the circumstances? It was undoubtedly a very large sum to which the National teachers would have been properly entitled. Altogether under the Act of 1892 £816,000 had been paid or voted for the purpose of free education, but if the proper sum had been voted it would have been £945,000, so that Ireland had been deprived of £129,000 to which she was properly entitled under the Probate Duty grants—9–80ths of the whole. The principle of that duty was that the different parts of the United Kingdom were to contribute to the common purse in certain proportions—that Ireland was to pay 9 per cent., Scotland 11 per cent., and England 80 per cent. In dividing up this money, which was in the nature of a grant for the relief of local taxation, it was held that, in accordance with those figures, Ireland should receive 9–80ths of the sum that England got. But, while year by year Ireland had been paying her full quota of taxation to the common purse, England had been taking out of that purse more than her fair share, and to the disadvantage of Ireland. Conduct of this kind between partners in ordinary business would give a right of action against the offending partner in the Court of law of any country where honesty was enforced, and the partner who had thus taken more than his fair share of the common purse would be ordered to refund that which he had fraudulently taken. ["Hear, hear!"] He claimed that this analogy of ordinary partnership should be applied to England in this case, and that the English Treasury should be called upon to refund the amount of which she had deprived Ireland. Explaining the circumstances under which Ireland came to lose the large amount referred to, the hon. Member pointed out that under the Irish Education Act of 1892 Ireland was to receive £210,000, or such amount as Parliament might determine, having regard to the fee grant

    85
    under the English Act of the preceding year. But in the first year (1892) Ireland received only £156,000 in consequence of the Treasury having failed to take the necessary steps to get the money voted by the House before Parliament dissolved. The Commissioners of Irish National Education were, therefore, obliged, under the circumstances, to be content with what they could get from the Treasury, which was the amount for three-quarters of the year. But when the English Government discovered the mistake they had made, why did they not bring in a supplementary estimate to make the deficiency good? ["Hear, hear!"] The Commissioners claimed that deficiency as still due to them. ["Hear, hear!"] In the following year, 1893, Ireland was short by £31,000. At the time the Commissioners made their estimate for that year they had no means of knowing, and did not know, what would be the English estimate, so as to be able to fix the amount of the 9–80ths. But at that time the Treasury knew very well—must have known—what was going to be the claim of the English Department, and if they had shown common frankness and honesty, they would have communicated the fact to the Irish Education Board in order to enable them to make their estimate in just proportion. But they carefully concealed that fact, and even refused information on the matter when applied to. Those facts were a crying scandal. (Nationalist cheers.) It would be hard to find in the whole history of international relations a more open case of designed, conscious, and well-considered fraud. [Nationalist cheers and loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. WODEHOUSE)did not think the hon. Gentleman was entitled to charge a Department with fraud.
    MR. KNOXsaid it was impossible to describe it in any other way. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "It is true!" and several HON. MEMBERS: "Stick to it."] He
    86
    maintained that they were guilty of conduct which, had it taken place between private persons, would have been described as fraud by every Court in the wide world. [" Hear, hear!"] In 1895 the facts were discovered. He took the credit to himself that he discovered what was going on and called attention to the matter. During the financial year ending 1895 application was made for the arrears. Those arrears were refused. Then a claim was made for the deficit in the actual year in which they then were, and that was refused. [Mr. HANBURY: "By the late Government."] This was not a Party matter. There had been three Governments. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Forty thieves."]—a Conservative Government, a Liberal Government, and again a Conservative Government—and they all acted alike. [Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: "It was the Government of 1893."] It was the Government of 1892 which failed to put any estimate at all before Parliament and made no provision for carrying out the Act. He did not suppose any English gentleman were anxious to cheat the Irish—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: "I do"]—but they certainly persisted in refusing to do financial justice to Ireland. There was only one possible excuse for the late Government not paying the money, and that was that at the time they were hard up; that was the year in which they had great difficulty in squaring their accounts. The present Government could not offer such an excuse. They had plenty of money. There was, perhaps, some excuse for a man who was hard up not paying his debts. [Mr. HANBURY: "You are getting it this year."] Yes; but why should not the Government pay the arrears? Suppose a tenant who owed several years' rent only paid one year's, what would the landlord say? A process would issue. He asked them to apply the same principle to this national matter that they would apply in a case of an Irish tenant; he asked

    87
    them to make restitution of the amount they had wrongfully taken. The matter was so plain that he did not wish to dwell further on the point. He now came to the principle which had been applied this year in making up the estimate. At last the Government had discovered that the principle of the nine-eightieths was not always an advantageous principle for England if strictly applied. When free education was introduced the Irish asked that the 10s. a head should be applied in the same way in Ireland as in England. That was refused because it would have meant too much money. The English population had increased and the Irish had decreased, especially the school-going population. Things had so changed that nine-eightieths would next year give to Ireland more than 10s. a head. He found that the Secretary to the Treasury on the 6th of July, in answer to a question of his, gave the following history of the matter:—
    "The Estimate first submitted by the Education Board put the grant for 1896–97 at nine-eightieths of the original estimate of the English grant for 1895–90, but it took the English grant of the past instead of the current year, an arrangemeut obviously disadvantageous to Ireland. Instead of this, the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Irish Office, now suggested that the new grant should not be calculated on the equivalent basis, but should be made a capitation grant as in England. The immediate effect of this proposal was to increase the estimate by about £12,000, and the Education Board accordingly accepted it, adding that they did so 'without prejudice to their claim for nine-eightieths of the English fee grant.' "
    The Education Board made their estimates on the figures of a prior year. They put them in alternative form, asking for a particular sum, or for nine-eightieths of the English grant. They were refused both by the Treasury and by the English Education Department, information as to what the English education grant was. They then had a letter from the Treasury saying they would give them an estimate which would increase the amount by £12,000. It would turn out, however, that they would only get £3,000 even if there was
    88
    no Supplementary Estimate for English free education this year. In certain circumstances the English Treasury would gain in future years, whilst the Irish Treasury would lose by the adoption of the principle which the English Treasury had so artfully substituted, for the principle which they had found might work against themselves. He asked that the Treasury should make restitution of the sums that had been kept back from Ireland, and that instead of trying to throw the blame upon gentlemen who were performing unpaid service in Ireland, the Treasury should acknowledge that it was itself in the wrong. He asked, in the second place, that in future the Government should keep to the principle laid down by the right hon. Member for St. George's Hanover Square, that Ireland's contribution should be nine-eightieths of the probate grants; and, in the third place, he asked that the Irish National Board, upon whom the heavy responsibility of framing these estimates was placed, should be given at the earliest possible moment in each class the fullest information as to which was going to be the estimate, original and supplementary, for English education.
    MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERassociated himself with the hon. Member opposite in his criticism of the policy of the Treasury. This was not a theoretical question, but a question which affected directly the incomes of school teachers in Ireland. In consequence of what had taken place there were teachers who were not receiving the addition which Parliament had intended that they should receive. That nine-eightieths of the probate grant would be applied to Irish purposes had been distinctly stated, but the understanding had not been kept. The Act of Parliament laid down that the grant should be £210,000, or such amount as Parliament might determine having regard to the amount of the grant under the English Elementary Education Act

    89
    of 1891. The representatives of the Treasury said that the letter of the law had been observed because £210,000 had been given to Ireland in successive Sessions. The spirit of the Act, however, had not been complied with. It was impossible to know at the beginning of a year what would be the number of children in England entitled to the 10s. grant, and, therefore, a certain amount of the grant had been given at the beginning of the year and it had been supplemented afterwards. This supplementary grant to English schools, if it formed part of the grant first made, would have largely increased the sum divisible between this country and Ireland, and the result would have been a considerable addition to the amount available for Irish teachers. The arrears due to the National Board he calculated at £74,000, and he asserted emphatically that those arrears ought to be paid to the Board. He was not sanguine enough to hope that the whole amount would be paid over this year, but unless some arrangement was arrived at this question would be brought up again and again. ["Hear, hear!"] He suggested that the payment of the arrears might be spread over such a period as might be thought reasonable. He trusted they might have not only an acknowledgment of the justice of the claim made for this year and the coming year, but a clear promise also that these arrears would be paid back.
    MR. CLANCYdirected the attention of the Committee to the various pleas set up by the Secretary to the Treasury whenever this matter was brought before the House on previous occasions. The first answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question or this subject was, if he knew all the facts, a most disingenuous one. He stated on the 23rd March 1896, that—
    "up to the year 1891–5 the inclusive Estimate was accordingly fixed at £210,000 at the in-stance of the National Board for Ireland themselves."
    The implication in that statement was
    90
    perfectly clear. It was that the National Board knew what they had a right to claim, and they claimed that amount. The Report which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry contained 10 or 12 page's upon this subject, and it was absolutely impossible for any man to read that Report and afterwards to say what the Secretary to the Treasury said in that House on the 23rd of March. From the year 1893, when they first discovered they were entitled to more than the £210,000, the National Board every year, in one shape or another, made a demand for more money.
    MR. HANBURYwas understood to dissent from the statement.
    MR. CLANCYhoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not compel him to read the Report. What they said was that a Supplemental Estimate for £22,300 was submitted to Parliament by the Treasury as requisite for the purposes of the English grant for the year 1892–3,—
    "But this Estimate was not presented until the 14th of February 1893, whilst our Estimate for the Irish Grant for the year 1892–3 had to he forwarded by us to the Treasury on the 31st of the preceding month. At the time we neither knew, nor had we any reason to suppose, that the amount of the original Estimate for the English Grant as presented to Parliament in February 1892 was insufficient, and that a supplementary Estimate for a considerable amount would have to be presented before the end of the financial year in March."
    They went on to say that—
    "It is essential to direct special attention to the dates. Our Estimate for 1893–4 has to be made up by our officials towards the close of the year 1892, and was forwarded to the Treasury in due course in January 1893."
    That was in quite time enough for the Treasury to inform them of what they were going to do—
    "As a matter of course it was prepared on the only basis upon which it was then possible for us to proceed—namely, the £210,000 specifically mentioned in the Act of 1892. All that has been stated in connection with our Estimate for 1892–3 is equally applicable to that for 1893–4. The last-mentioned Estimate was, in fact, prepared and forwarded to the Treasury somewhat previous to the Estimate which had

    91
    to be made out, under such exceptional circumstances, for the year 1892–3. Throughout all this time, as has been already stated, no supplementary Estimate had been presented for England, and nothing occurred to us to suggest that the amount specifically named in the Act, £210,000, the only amount then in question, did not adequately represent Ireland's share."
    Would the right hon. Gentleman, after that statement, persist in saying or implying, as he did on the 23rd of March, that the Board knew their rights and asked for them. If the right hon. Gentleman did so after what he had read from the Report, the only conclusion he-could come to was that he regarded the statements made by these gentlemen as false. The right hon. Gentleman now appeared to blame them for not putting forth their full demands in time. But the English Treasury knew what they ought to have demanded, and, knowing that, they kept silence—not only kept silence, but refused to answer their letters, and deprived them of the very information on the basis of which they might have made their demands. He had no hesitation in saying that that was a fraudulent and dishonest transaction. The words of the Act were that Ireland should receive £210,000 per annum, or whatever other sum corresponded in proportion to the amount of the grant which England received. Ireland was to have more or less given to her, having regard to the amount which was given to England. The proportion fixed by the statute was that 80 per cent. was to be given to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland, and 9 per cent. to Ireland. Those were the amounts which the Parliament of 1892 fixed as the several proportions which the three countries were to receive. But, in fact, Ireland had never received her due proportion of the grant, and the Estimates had not been increased as they should have been in order to enable Ireland to receive her fair proportion of the grant. The right hon. Gentleman had said that that was the fault of the last Government, and not of the present Government. He did not care in the least
    92
    which Government was in fault, because both Governments appeared to be acting together in this matter with the view of depriving Ireland of her just rights. In his view, both Conservative and Liberal Governments had robbed Ireland of her due share of the grant. The Treasury appeared to be masters of the situation, notwithstanding the clear and distinct provisions of the Act of Parliament. The next point taken on behalf of the Government was that the Irish Members had not objected to the course that had been taken. But the Irish Members did object to it in 1894.
    MR. HANBURYsaid that the Irish Board of National Education had not objected to it.
    MR. CLANCYsaid that the Irish Board had not objected to it because they were kept in ignorance of the circumstances. The Irish Members had been guilty of the folly of putting their trust in the Irish Board, and now a Treasury official came down to that House and said that the Irish Board did not complain. It was perfectly monstrous that the Government should act in such a matter. He did not believe that any change had ever been voluntarily made by the English Government in favour of Ireland; on the contrary, whatever change was made in the arrangement was sure to be to the disadvantage of that country. It was obvious that as the population of England was increasing and that of Ireland was diminishing, the former would in the future receive an increased grant and the latter a decreased grant, and, therefore, if population were to be taken as the basis of the grant, Ireland would not receive her allocated proportion of it. He hoped the admission of the circumstances would be acted on by the right hon. Gentleman in practice, and that he would not take advantage of the ignorance of the Education Board. He believed that all speeches addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury were perfectly fruitless. The Treasury had made

    93
    up their minds. They had their accounts cooked. They kept their opinion to themselves. They were kept, he believed, even from the Chief Secretary himself. But he would address himself to the Chief Secretary, and ask him whether he was content that Ireland should he cheated in this manner by the English Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be the guardian of the interests of Ireland. Was he going to take up the. line of the National Board, or the line which would undoubtedly be taken by the Secretary to the Treasury? The constitution of the National Board was well-known. They were all men of eminent position. They had no sympathy with the National movement in Ireland, or, so far as he knew, with the attacks upon England. They had simply found out that a glaring piece of jobbery was being practised at the expense of the country in which they lived, and, being Irishmen, they had—and he said it to their credit—declared in the most emphatic manner that it was a piece of dishonesty. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to take their side in this case or the side of the English Treasury which had, through the mouth of its officials that night, virtually called them liars?
    MR. HANBURYrose to reply, but gave way to
    MR. T. M. HEALY,who said he objected altogether to the right hon. Gentleman replying. The Government ought to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer there. The Secretary to the Treasury was only a subordinate official, and he objected to a subordinate official being allowed to get up and repeat the answers he had given to his hon. Friend. [Cheers.] This was a matter of vital principle to Irishmen, and they would not take the replies of the right hon. Gentleman. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible to them in this matter, and he ought to be present listening to the Debate. It had been shown on incontrovertible evidence
    94
    that Ireland was being robbed of £125,000, and were they to be replied to by a mere Barabbas on the Treasury Bench? [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw."]
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. WODE-HOUSE): The hon. Member will feel, I am sure, that that is not a proper expression to use, and I hope he will withdraw it. [Cheers.]
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Colonial Secretary was allowed to call Mr. Gladstone Herod. ["Order!" and "Withdraw."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I beg pardon, Sir; I never did anything of the kind.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. WODEHOUSE): I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the expression.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will do so, Sir; but I say the right hon. Gentleman is a committed party, and he ought, at any rate, to have the good sense to hold his tongue in this business. If the right hon. Gentleman carried into his private life and his private business this system of conducting transactions, he would say the less anyone had to do with them the better. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!"] This was only a matter of £125,000, but it was of the system of the robbery of Ireland. Irishmen had proved that they had been robbed of £3,000,000 per annum since the Union, and this particular sum had been ear-marked for Ireland. It was only the National teachers of Ireland who had been robbed, but the principle was the same. The Secretary to the Treasury said, "Why did not the Irish Members find this out before?" [At this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the House.] He saw it was a laughing matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman had never heard of the matter before; but he would like to give him the defence of his subordinate.

    95
    The Secretary to the Treasury said that the Irish Members should have known of this before. If he was going along the street and somebody picked his pocket and he was unaware of the fact, was that acquiescence in the robbery? That was the defence of the Secretary to the Treasury. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a bargain with Ireland in 1881 and ear-marked the amount Ireland was to get as nine-eightieths. She had not got it. In 1896 they had got the full amount of nine-eightieths, but they wanted the money back for 1895, 1894, 1893, and 1892. The Scotch, too, had been robbed of £30,000. Fancy, £30,000 in bawbees! [Loud laughter.] The Irish admittedly had been robbed of £125,000. Who had got the money—the predominant partner I The predominant thief. [Nationalist cheers.] This was a laughing matter to gentlemen with £5,000 a year, but it was no laughing matter to the poor teacher with £1 a week. It was £125,000 this year; it might be a million next year. So this atrocious system of misgovernment by aliens would continue, with only a feeble protest by those who happened to be in the House. The National Board applied to the Treasury for information, and they refused it. The Board applied to the English Education Department, and, in collusion with the Treasury, information as to the amount coming to Ireland was refused again. [Laughter.] Yes, but would their laughter put the money into the pockets of the Irish teachers? Do them the decency not to laugh at them after robbing them. He was glad that Lord Justice Fitzgibbon had resigned, and he believed that he had resigned as a protest against such treatment. He expected before long more resignations; he hoped there would be. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied them justice he did not see how any self-respecting member of the Board could remain a member. If they had demanded more than their share, would they have got
    96
    it? They had not demanded their proper share, and the Treasury exclaimed—
    "These ignorant Irish, this unpaid Board, do not ask for the £125,000 to which they are entitled. We are the predominant partner, and we will put it into our predominant pocket."
    Although the matter was a small one in amount it was a large one in point of principle. What the Nationalist Members wanted was the basis of the settlement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891. The whole transaction was a disgrace to England. It was like levying a charge upon India for the Soudanese expedition—exactly the same kind of thing, only a little more shady. He asked any Unionist—was it any wonder they kicked against the Union? If the Treasury would not yield to necessity let them yield to arithmetic. Let them keep to the engagements they had made. The Nationalists would bring it up again and rub it in until they were sick of the subject, as the Nationalists of Ireland were sick of any union—political or financial—with England. [Irish cheers.]
    MR. HANBURY,in replying on behalf of the Treasury, said it, was not necessary to go into the large question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, for a Commission was now considering it. It would be enough for him to deal with the issue before the Committee. The hon. Member for Derry had fairly presented the leading facts of the case. He did not dispute either his figures or his dates. In spite of the rather violent attack made upon himself by the hon. Member for Louth, his one desire, as far as he had any influence, was to do the fullest justice to Ireland. What was the real difficulty of the case? That they were merely carrying out the statute enacted by Parliament and the practice of the late Parliament, and there must be a certain amount of continuity in these matters. The policy now condemned by the Irish Members was not the policy of the present Gov-

    97
    ernment. The Act of Parliament distinctly laid down two alternatives—that Ireland should receive £210,000, or such other sum as Parliament should decide.
    MR. CLANCY: Having regard to the English fee grant.
    MR. HANBURY: Yes; he should have stated that. But Parliament did undoubtedly, under the directions of the Government then in power, vote £210,000. The complaint of Irish Members generally against the present Government was that they did not carry out the policy of the late Government in Irish matters. But in this matter the present Government were carrying out the policy of the late Government—a policy embodied in an Act of Parliament—and yet attacks were made upon them. He should say that there had been neglect both on the part of the Irish Members and on the part of the Commissioners of National Education in not applying for Ireland's full share of the grant. It could not be said that that, neglect was entirely due to ignorance of the position of affairs. There was a Statute in existence, and if the Irish Members had paid attention to the needs of Ireland they would have seen from that Statute that the £210,000 was not necessarily the full amount.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Why, we had to whip you into honesty. [Nationalist cheers.]
    MR. HANBURYsaid the contention was that the duty of applying for the full amount ought to have been discharged by the Treasury. But it was not the duty of the Treasury to frame the Estimates of the various Departments. The Estimates had to be submitted to the Treasury by the Departments, and it was the duty of the Treasury to cut down rather than to increase those Estimates. But the Treasury did not cut down the Estimates in this particular instance—they granted the whole amount asked for by the Irish Commissioners of Education. Of course, if it were the fact that information as
    98
    to the exact amount was refused by the Treasury, under the late Government to the Commissioners, he was not ashamed to say that the Treasury ought not to have refused it. However, it was not until the end of 1894 that the hon. Member for Derry discovered that during the two preceding years the full 9–80ths had not been given to Ireland, and an appeal was made to the Treasury for the arrears. It was impossible for the Treasury to open up the accounts for 1893–4, but as the appeal was made to the Treasury before the year 1894–5 had expired it was possible for the Treasury to grant the whole 9–80ths for that year, but it was refused by the late Government. But the present Government had not treated Ireland in that fashion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were bound to admit that the present Government had given in the year for which they were responsible the whole of the 9–80ths to which Ireland was entitled. He had been accused of charging the Commissioners with not having claimed the whole of the nine-eightieths before because their Party were in power. That charge was based upon a misapprehension. What he had said was that the Commissioners had never raised the question until 1894, and that possibly the Irish Members had not raised the question because the Party with which they were connected were in power. He had never suggested that the Commissioners had not acted because a certain Party were in power. He. had, he thought, shown that there must be a certain amount of continuity of policy in these matters, and that the present Government could not undo the action of the late Government up to the year 1894–5 inclusive. He had also shown that during the year that the present Government had been in office they had given Ireland the whole amount to which she was entitled. But then it was said that they had made a certain alteration this year because they wanted to evade giving Ireland in the future the whole nine-eightieths.

    99
    He held that a charge of that kind ought not to be made unless there was more foundation for it than the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth disclosed. What were the facts? The amount of the capitation grant given this year was considerably in excess of what was granted last year, and more than nine-eightieths of the original English grant for this year. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Keep it, and give us our money."] If hon. Members did not want the extra £2,000 or £3,000 that the Treasury was giving to Ireland, the Department had no wish to press it upon them. In fact it looked rather as if the Government were giving more than was absolutely necessary. [Laughter from the Nationalist Members.] He wondered whether the hon. and learned Member for Louth had read the last Report of the Public Accounts Committee presided over by the hon. Member for East Donegal. That Committee, in going through the appropriation accounts for 1894–5, were struck by the fact that the National Education Commissioners had returned £866 out of the sum of £210,000. The hon. Member for Louth would doubtless say that it was the wicked Treasury which had forced them to refund this amount; but that was not the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for East Donegal. The Committee said that it was agreed by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Treasury that this balance of £866 might have been expended instead of surrendered. It might be assumed that the Education Commissioners had some difficulty in distributing the whole of the money.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that the report to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had not yet been circulated. As the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be anxious to cast some responsibility upon him, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the Committee he did not bring the matter forward and urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that
    100
    there ought to have been no surrender to the Exchequer of the amount in question? ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HANBURYadmitted that that was so, and said that he was about to give the same explanation to the Committee. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Donegal that the National Commissioners would have been perfectly justified if they had not returned this money. But they did return it, and the presumption was that they were not able to spend the money. However, this year the Government had raised the Estimate to £255,000. If the English Supplementary Estimate this year was only up to the level of the Estimate for last year, the amount that was being given to Ireland would be about equal to 9–80ths of the original and supplementary English grants. In addition to that, the present Government, having already provided a sum which they anticipated would be fully equal in the year that was coming, as in the past year, to 9–80ths of the total English grant, was also going to grant a sum of £10,000 towards the teachers' pension fund. He thought, therefore, he had shown that, whatever might have been the faults of the late Board of Treasury—and he did not want to defend them—at any rate since the Unionist Government had come into power they had dealt honestly by Ireland in this matter, and had not only given the whole 9–80ths, but were going to exceed it this year by £10,000.
    MR. FIELDcalled attention to some of the grievances of Irish national teachers. In his opinion the Irish teachers ought to receive at least the same salaries as were granted to English teachers. Again, the system of payment by results still continued in Ireland, although it was discontinued in England. Some time since an Act was passed to grant a certain amount of public money to the teaching of agriculture, but so far as he was aware no money had been actually devoted to this purpose up to the present.

    101
    The absence of proper school apparatus was also very much complained of, and in many instances the teachers were badly housed. The teachers' pension fund also was in a most unsatisfactory position, the accounts not having been properly audited for the past 12 or 13 years, and the quinquennial report of the Treasury not having been furnished for 10 years the teachers really did not know how the matter stood. With regard to the £125,000, he thought the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury was eminently unsatisfactory. He was entitled to the restitution, and the money which was owing to them by reason of the solemn agreement made by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, as a business man, could not understand the morality of the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted that before the Debate ended the the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a more reassuring reply to the Irish Members in regard to this question, for he could assure the Committee they were not going to allow it to rest.
    MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to acquit the Treasury of culpable negligence in connection with this transaction. The words of the Act were, "£210,000 or such other amount as Parliament may determine, having regard to the amount of the free grant of the English Elementary Education Act, 1891." It was the duty of the Treasury to supply the National Board of Education with the necessary information. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the past two alternative propositions were made to Parliament—(1), the payment of £210,000; (2), the other, the voting of nine-eightieths; and Parliament elected to vote the £210,000. That was not how the matter stood. Parliament was not put in possession by the Treasury of that which the Act directed them to give—namely, the alternatives. But someone appeared to have supplied information in connection
    102
    with the annual provision for Scotland and their proportion of the Free Education Grant, but no such information had been supplied to the Irish Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that what the Commissioners applied for they got, but the Report showed that there was some correspondence between the Commissioners and the Treasury, a portion of which had evidently not been published. The Commissioners said:—
    "Accordingly, when the preparation of our Estimates for the financial year 1894–6 was about to he taken in hand in the autumn of 1893, we called the attention of the Treasury to the provision in the Irish Act of 1892 which regulated the amount of the Irish Grant 9–80ths. In consequence of the reply then received we did not insert in our Estimates for the then coming year 1894–5 any other amount than the £210,000 originally mentioned in the Act."
    He wanted to know what the reply of the Treasury was, because it was clear that the Commissioners were precluded from publishing it; but in consequence of the reply they received only £210,000 was presented. How, then, could the right hon. Gentleman maintain that any portion of responsibility attached to the Commissioners for what had occurred. He thought that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was most unsatisfactory. It was not the ordinary charges that would suffer by the smaller amount voted, but it was an amount that would have gone into the pockets of the national teachers. If the £210,000 had been given to the National Commissioners, they would have distributed it to the teachers in accordance with the scale of grants apportioned by them; but because it was not given to them, and because they happened to have £9,000 to spare, it was, therefore, forsooth, endeavoured to be proved that they did not really require the other amount at all. The mere fact of the return of the £9,000 was not a shadow of an argument against the claim which the Commissioners had for the whole amount. If the right hon. Gentleman would read the Report of the Commissioners, he would see that every year application was made by the

    103
    Commissioners for information on the question both to the Irish Government and to the Treasury, and upon no occasion could they get the necessary information to enable them to put that Estimate before them. They also stated that they had no basis on which they could form an estimate except the £210,000, and they implied that the Treasury precluded them from making an estimate for any larger sum than the £210,000, and he charged it as the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to find out why it was that the Treasury, though they had two alternatives in the Act of Parliament, tied the Commissioners down to the one alternative, and gave them no opportunity of presenting another Estimate.
    MR. EDWARD CARSONthought it was impossible the Government should understand that Members of all political opinions for Ireland were entirely united upon this question. For his own part, although in one respect he thought the reply of the Financial Secretary was entirely satisfactory—namely, as to what the Government intended to do in the matter of refunding this money which was plainly owing to Ireland—it was entirely unsatisfactory. He was glad the Financial Secretary had been able to announce that at all events the present Government would be no party, in the financial years over which they had control, to taking from Ireland the sum which was due under the Act of Parliament, and under the compact entered into in 1891. That was so far satisfactory, and he would have been glad if the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, or somebody who had control of the finances at the time that this petty pilfering from Ireland went on, had been present to explain under what circumstances they thought themselves justified in refusing to Ireland her proper proportion of this grant. Various reasons had been put forward. It had been suggested that it might have been a mistake. Whenever the Treasury made a
    104
    mistake, they always made it, he feared, against their poor country. But, if it was a mistake, surely that great Department and that great English Government were not going, because a mistake was made, to take away from the Education Board in Ireland this to them enormous sum of £125,000. It had been said it might have been negligence on the part of the Treasury. It was also suggested, and he might say entirely, as it seemed to him, without ground, that it might have been negligence on the part of the National Board. Even if it was so, were the national teachers in Ireland—because he believed it really came out of their pockets—to be deprived of this very substantial sum of money? There was only one other way in which it could have occurred, and that was that it was done purposely by the Treasury. He could hardly believe that the Treasury would have purposely perpetrated an act of that kind; but he must say, in view of the correspondence read out from this Report, it seemed to him that the Treasury, to say the least of it, sat rather tight on the information in their possession, and were very much inclined to put off as eminent and as trustworthy a body of men as there was in Ireland by giving them the very scantiest information possible. How did the matter stand? Simply in this way. An agreement was come to, an agreement sanctioned by Act of Parliament in 1891, that a certain portion of these duties should go to Ireland as an education grant. It was not denied by the Secretary to the Treasury that they had had it. It was admitted that the sum was in or about £125,000. What was the sole explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury? It was that this had already happened in the Treasury, and they must have a continuity of policy. If they put it as a question of continuity, it was a continuity of wrong, and did the Treasury really mean to suggest that, when there had been a wrong of this kind perpe-

    105
    trated towards Ireland, they were not going to try to find some remedy by which this money should be returned to the National Board. [Cheers.] He knew that all the Chief Secretary's sympathies were with Ireland, and he thought it was the right hon. Gentleman's business to fight the Treasury to the bitter end over this question. [Cheers.] This was no question of politics, and whenever hon. Members opposite claimed that this money should be repaid to Ireland he should be always most ready to support them. [Cheers.]
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)remarked that, when the present Government came into office, they carefully examined this matter in the light of what happened in the past, and they were completely satisfied that the course which had been followed was not one in their judgment that was proper and light. They therefore decided, in the first place, to give to Ireland as much as had been claimed for the year 1895–6. Further, having in view the utter impracticability and want of logic of the system under which the fee grant to Ireland had been fixed—not in regard to the number of children attending schools in Ireland, but with regard to the number attending schools in England—which was quite another thing—they decided, after conferring with the Irish Government and the Irish National Board, to alter that system, as they were advised they could under the provisions of the Act of 1892, in order to give to Ireland the same fee grant as was now given to England of 10s. per child in attendance. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Louth rather seemed to object to that principle for the coming year. All he could say was that, in his belief, it would give to Ireland more than she would obtain under the system of 9–80ths, and certainly much more if, as they hoped, compulsory education before long should be introduced into that country. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the past, the present Government were not responsible for what occurred from 1892 to 1895. During those years the grants Ireland recieved were, as his right hon. Friend said, the grants which were asked for by the National Board. They were not, as it appeared now, what the National
    106
    Board might have asked for at the time, and what probably would have been given if they had been asked for; therefore, hon. Members asked that payments should now be made to Ireland in respect of what were called arrears. He was bound to say he utterly demurred to the calculation of those arrears, which he did not think could be brought to anything like the sums named. As had already been stated, in the course of the present year they were going to give £10,000 towards the deficiency in the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. That amount of £10,000, he was afraid, would have to be continued for a considerable time, and, in his belief, what they should have to give in making up the deficiency in the Pension Fund would far more than compensate for the amount claimed to be duo by hon. Members opposite, which could not now be divided among the teachers between 1892 and 1895, because of the changes that had occurred. The Government had, therefore, chosen the only practical way to remedy what certainly in his mind was an injustice. [Cheers.]
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
WAYS AND MEANS.
  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tuesday next.
  MILITARY WORKS [MONEY].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT LAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. —LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had promised to make known as early as possible the terms of his Motion with regard to the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule on Monday and for the remainder of the Session. He proposed to place on the Paper a Motion couched in precisely the same terms as the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth. He wished to state that he proposed to make another Motion with regard to the proceedings in Committee on the Irish Land Bill. The House wow remember that when they separated last night the Motion before the Committee was the omission of Clause 4 of the Bill. The Motion was put under some misapprehension, and the best plan of getting over the difficulty would be to move, under the new Standing Order passed at the beginning of the Session, dealing with clauses to be omitted from a Bill. In that he should include not merely Clause 4, but also Clauses 5, 13, 14, and 15—["Hear, hear!"]—and in making that announcement it might be convenient to state that he should make the Motion with regard to Clause 4 with a different intention as compared with Clauses 5, 13, 14, and 15. He proposed to omit these clauses permanently from the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Clause 4 would be put down again as a new clause in an amended form with which the House was more or less familiar. He trusted that this course might be approved by the House without any prolonged discussion on Monday. He moved the adjournment of the House.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in his opinion this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill, and he congratulated the Government on the omission of these clauses. He hoped that when the Government brought up Clause 4 effectively it would be with the firm intention of passing it.
DR. TANNERthought that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Clause 4 was going back on the idea which the whole House held upon the subject last evening. He thought that some intimation ought to have been given to both sides of the House as to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and he did not think the Leader of the House had tended in any way to abbreviate discussion by taking what he could not refrain from calling an unfair advantage.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped he would be able on Monday to convince the hon. Member who had just spoken that the course he had taken was the proper course. In answer to the hon. Member for Louth, he had to say that Clause 4 would come up at the end of the Bill, and they had not the slightest intention of hazarding the clause by forcing it through. They would bring it forward in a form in which it would be far easier to discuss than if they introduced seriatim the Amendments put down by the Chief Secretary.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked whether Clause 4, whenever it was brought up, would be exactly as they now saw it on the separate paper? Would it be absolutely unchanged?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, exactly as it is now on the separate paper.
MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBEasked if the Government proposed between now and the end of the Session to afford any time whatever to any private Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that would be a proper question for his hon. Friend to put to him on Monday, when he should have to make a general statement as to business in asking for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule.
House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

VENEZUELA AND ARBITRATION.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I am laying Papers on the Table with respect to the correspondence which has taken place on the matter of arbitration with the United States. I venture to say a few words, which is unusual, because I am taking an unusual course with respect to the Papers. The negotiation is not complete. It is usual to wait until the negotiation is complete, but with the assent of the American Government we have thought it better to lay the Papers now. The Recess has begun in America, and I hope it will, before very long, begin in England, and I think it would be inconvenient that Parliament should separate without knowing what has been
2
going on in respect to this very important question. Therefore, I have departed from the usual practice by laying Papers intermediately. The negotiation, as I have said, is not complete, but I think, considering the great importance of some of the issues that are at stake, it has been advancing in a favourable manner, and certainly with entire friendliness on the part of both Governments. It has taken two courses. In the first place there is the smaller question of Venezuela, in respect of which the United States has assumed the attitude of the friend of Venezuela, and we have been rather glad to negotiate with the United States rather than with Venezuela. But in respect to that, as I have said, we have not come to a conclusion. The difficulty lies in the fact that Venezuela embraces a very large proportion, I think two-thirds, of the colony of British Guiana, including a considerable quantity of territory that is settled, and that has been settled for a number of years. We have never thought, and we do not now think, that

3
the ownership of that territory is a matter which ought to be submitted to arbitration. At the same time, with respect to the unsettled territory, we have always been willing that that should be submitted to arbitration, but it is necessary, of course, to distinguish between the two. Our view has been that at this stage arbitration is not a suitable remedy; that the first thing that has to be ascertained is the real state of the facts in respect to the past history of Venezuela, and of Spain, and of Holland in those countries, and, when the facts are fully ascertained by a Commission in which both countries have confidence, I do not myself believe that the diplomatic question that will follow will be one that will be very difficult of adjustment. When once we know what the facts are, I do not think there will be much difficulty in coming to an agreement as to their result. But even if there is, that would then be the time for applying the principle of arbitration. In order that arbitration may be satisfactory, the issue presented to it should be clean, clear, and simple, and, when we know enough of the facts to be able to say what are the precise points on which the two Governments differ on the question of boundaries, I think then the question of arbitration will probably be dealt with without difficulty and without involving—what we deprecate—exposing to the hazard of a tribunal which is comparatively untried, the long-inherited and long-possessed rights of British colonies. But the real truth is, with respect to Venezuela, it has been impossible that we should go faster than we have done, because we have not yet obtained the whole of the facts that are necessary for a decision of the case. The labour has been enormous. I shall lay another Blue-book of documents upon the Table in a few days, and I think your Lordships will see, from the Blue-book that has gone before, that the labour it has been necessary to expend in ascertaining the facts that are concealed in all these archives is so large that it could not be accomplished in a briefer time. The Commission has been pursuing its investigations, and we have offered every facility to enable them to be pursued to a satisfactory result. When, as I say, the facts have been ascertained, it will probably be easy to
4
settle the matter by diplomacy; if not, to settle the particular issues that arise by an appeal to an arbitrator. But, my Lords, at the same time, concurrently with these negotiations, we have also raised again the negotiation which was commenced in the time of the noble Lord opposite on the subject of a general system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. It was terminated partly owing to the lamented death of one of the negotiators, and partly owing to a difficulty which has not yet been surmounted—the difficulty of dealing with these cases, which are so large, and which involve interests of so vital a character that Statesmen shrink from submitting them to what may be the hazards of arbitration. We have had much discussion with the United States on that point. I think the tendency of the United States Government is to desire a rapid and summary decision of this question. In our view the principle of obligatory arbitration is applied for the first time, and it is attended with considerable hazards and doubts, and we are of opinion that a circumspect and careful method of procedure is desirable. ["Hear, hear!"] We think that such machinery as an appeal or protest should be provided in one form or another, that will prevent the miscarriage of justice to the great detriment of, it may be, a large population of English colonists through any error on the part of the arbitrator who may be selected. I do not wish now to dwell on the difficulties of arbitration: it would be out of place. There are difficulties with respect to the tribunal and with respect to the law which is to be administered, but one of the difficulties which pressed upon us the most is that, the system being untried, we do not know how far an obligatory system of arbitration may not produce speculative claims—that is to say, a Government might claim that which it really had no great hope of obtaining by way of gaining popularity, or exercising pressure upon the Government which was negotiating. You might say that such claims would be dealt with by the arbitrator. Yes; but our experience is that arbitrations last sometimes for a considerable number of years. We are interested in an arbitration now in Africa which has lasted seven or eight years, and during

5
the whole of that time any part of the frontier which is affected by the claim of a neighbouring State comes very much into the position in which, in our youth, properties that were in Chancery used to be found—namely, that the title to them was uncertain, and there was no agency which could be trusted for maintaining that property and guarding it from danger. My Lords, Mr. Olney, on behalf of the United States Government, has answered that such questions are not likely to arise between the United States and Great Britain, and, no doubt, to a great extent, that is true; but it must not be forgotten that of late years the United States has shown a disposition to adopt as its own questions affecting many Republics in South America. I do not in the least quarrel with that disposition; it is what we have done ourselves. We ourselves take an interest in the frontiers of Sweden, of Holland, of Belgium, and of Portugal. These things are matters of importance to us, and I do not deny that the United States has some right, as we have, to show an interest in the welfare of a neighbouring people; but, of course, the fact brings with it the possibility that the claims of such Powers will become a matter of arbitration, and you must regard your prospects, under an obligatory system of arbitration, as depending rather upon the average disposition of various States over the continent of America, than upon the disposition of the United States itself, which, I have no doubt, would be much more moderate. For these reasons we have exhibited very considerable caution and circumspection in these negotiations. Still, the various questions at issue are still the subject of discussion. We have been reproached for delay, but, we feel that this matter is one of such supreme importance, that an error which you may commie may affect your national interests for a long period of time, and may affect not only your own frontiers, but the frontiers of the colonies which are intrusted to your charge. These considerations have made us very anxious to be careful in every step we have taken, and we have felt that we would rather incur the charge of unnecessary delay than, by precipitation, involve ourselves in difficulties
6
which would affect interests that ought to be so very dear to us. [Cheers.] For these reasons, my Lords, we have maintained these negotiations with the care and circumspection of which I have spoken, and it is also for these reasons that we have done what I mentioned at the beginning of my observations—namely, laid the Dispatches on the Table while the negotiations have been going on. We have need to know what is the trend of public opinion on these matters. We desire, in a question which is certainly not one of Party, that the best intellects that we have on both sides should apply themselves to a matter that affects the welfare of the human race in a singular degree, and especially the good relations of a State with which we so desire to be on good terms as the United States of America. Therefore we have laid the Papers on the Table, and we hope to derive, from such attention as noble Lords on both sides of the House may devote to them, much guidance with respect to the subsequent conduct of the negotiations that we have to pursue. [Cheers.]

VENEZUELA, No. 3 (1896).
Further documents relating to the question of boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 16th day of March last,
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of Juno next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 16th day of March last,
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.—[No. 206.]
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Minutes of Proceedings) made, and to be printed.—[No. 207.]
Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

PUBLIC OFEICES (SITE) BILL.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKErose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He remarked that the object of the Bill was to acquire the site known as the "Parliament Street Site"—that was, a site bounded respectively by Charles Street, Parliament Street, Great George Street, as far as the Institute of Civil Engineers, Boar's Yard, and Delahay Street. On this site the First Commissioner proposed to erect public offices, and to devote a portion of the site to the widening of Parliament Street, so as to throw the existing street back in a line with Whitehall. The Bill had passed the Second Reading in the House
8
of Commons with no real opposition, and it was referred to a hybrid Committee in the usual way, when one new clause was added for the protection of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and an Amendment was inserted in Clause 2 with respect to the powers of the Government in taking land of this kind. The other stages of the Bill had passed in the House of Commons without any opposition. This Bill was a consequence of the Act of last year, which was entitled the Public Offices (Acquisition of Site) Act, which authorised the raising of £450,000 for the purpose, and gave Parliamentary sanction to the Scheme. The present Bill was necessary to enable the Government to purchase compulsorily, and he hoped their Lordships would assent to its Second Reading. He moved that the Bill be read a Second time.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE BILL.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said the Bill was one to acquire certain houses in St. James's Square, Edinburgh, situated at the back of the Register House, with a view to alter and add to the existing buildings, which were inadequate to the present requirements. Additional accommodation must be found for the records of the General Register Office, and it was proposed to find the accommodation in the rooms now occupied by the clerks in the Sasines Department. These rooms were unhealthily crowded, and were never fitted by construction to be used as offices, but they would do well for the storage of the records, and the clerks would be moved into the new houses in St. James's Square when acquired under the Bill. The Bill passed through the House of Commons without opposition, after agreement had been made to delete Clause 6 and to insert a new proviso in Clause 3. £40,000 had been

9
voted in the Estimates this year to complete the purchase.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee (according to Order); the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
GLASGOW PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CHAIRMEN OF DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.
FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RENTS IN IRELAND.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they could state the principle upon which the Irish Land Commissioners had lately reduced rents in Ireland under the second term, and explain the great disparity between the average amount of such reductions and the average fall in prices of the chief farm products since 1881. He craved that indulgence which the House always extended to one who addressed them for the first time. He, an Irish landlord, was desirous of seeing justice done between man and man in Ireland, and he was prepared to act loyally under the Land Acts as they existed. Under the Land Act of 1881 the judicial term was fixed at 15 years. The second term was now beginning, and therefore this seemed a very good time to ask under what principles the rents in Ireland were being revised? What was the cause of the Government interference with rents in the year 1881? He believed it was the abnormal depression in 1879. What happened after the passing of the Act of 1881? The tenants whose rents had been previously raised, the tenants whose rents were high, went into the Land Courts, and the Commissioners granted them 15, 20, and sometimes 25 per cent. reductions. After a year or two tenants whose rents had never been raised thought they would try their luck—that was the expression used—and they went into the Land Courts, with the result that their rents were reduced by 15 to 20 per cent. Thus the same difference or inequality remained, and constituted a grievance. In view of certain statements made in Ireland it was well to bear in mind the words of the 8th Section of the Act of 1881. That section provided that—
"the Court, after hearing the parties, and having regard to the interests of the landlord and the tenant respectively, and considering all the circumstances of the case, holding and district, may determine what is such fair rent."
Sub-Commissioners were sent out to fix fair rents, but they received no instructions as to what constituted a fair rent, and he was informed they had never stated the mode by which they arrived at a fair rent. Suppose the net profits of a farm to be £100 per year, after

11
allowing for tenant's improvements, etc. It was not stated how much had to be taken for rent, and he was told that up to the present no Report which had been issued by the Land Commission of the valuation of a farm gave the details of values of the various allowances made for improvements, nor did it give the gross value, so that it was impossible for any person to take up this form of Report and arrive at how the rent was fixed. As he should refer later to cases lately heard before Mr. Bailey, the Commissioner at Armagh, he would quote the words of that gentleman as reported in the Armagh Guardian of June 26, 1896. Mr. Bailey said:—
"As I pointed out in Armagh, at the hearing, each case must be revalued. Now, a valuation means the application to the particular holding of a scale of value based on a consideration of the various elements that determine the rental capacity of the land. Thus, the scale of value must be based on the prices of such items of agricultural produce as are suitable to the holding in question. But price of produce is only one element, The amount of produce, the character of the seasons, the nature and quality of the soil, its elevation and aspect, its proximity to or remoteness from markets and railways, the water supply, the ease or difficulty of access to the public roads, proximity to seaweed or turbary, the price of labour, the rates and taxes, are all elements that must be taken into account."
Further on Mr. Bailey said:—
"As all these elements that I have enumerated are liable to vary from time to time, no more consideration of alterations in any one of them—such as alterations in prices of produce—would be sufficient or adequate."
The Commissioner referred to the scale of value. What scale of value? He referred to prices. What prices? Who fixed the prices? And were not the nature and quality of the soil, elevation, aspect, proximity, etc., taken into account on the fresh hearing? He asked whose prices the Commissioner had in mind, because he found that Mr. Bailey when examined before Mr. Morley's Committee last year, was asked—
"Do you take the scale of prices as one of the incidents of your instructions in fixing a fair rent?"
The reply was, "No, we do not." Another witness—Colonel Bayly—said:—
"I do not use them (the prices issued by the Land Commission), because I think they will
12
give me practically no assistance at arriving at what a fair rent is."
Asked—
"Do you mean to say by that that no return of prices would be of any assistance to you? "
he said, "I go so far as to say that." There was another question of importance to the landlords, and that was the principle on which rents were going to be revised. If the present reductions were to continue it meant that at least 30 or 33 per cent. of the income of the Irish landlords was to be swept away each year—of the £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of rental something like £3,000,000 would be lost to them. He understood before the present Government came into office that if they were returned to power there would be no further inroads on the landlord's property. He wanted to know whether that policy was adhered to or whether rent reductions were to go on. If the reductions that had taken place under the second term were justified—and upon that he would express no opinion—there was no reason why the whole property of every Irish landlord should not be taken away in course of time under the Land Act of 1881. Was such a result as that contemplated by the Government, or was the policy which they declared to be theirs before their return to power to prevail? In Armagh the rents had been reduced on the second term by 33 per cent., which was a much greater average reduction than the fall in the prices of farm produce. In some cases the rent had practically disappeared. Forty cases had recently been disposed of in Armagh. The reduction on the old rents when first settled 15 years ago was 24⅖ per cent.; the reduction per cent. on the second term was no less than 33¼ He would mention one or two cases that deserved special attention. In 1858, Boyd Brown sold to James Brown a farm for £216 subject to a yearly payment to Trinity College of £5 7s. 6d. since increased 8d. to £5 8s. 2d. The area of the farm is 11 acres 1 rood 11 perches statute. In 1861, having taken three crops off the land he let to John Hughes, father of the present tenant, part of the land containing 8 acres 4 roods 25 perches statute and

13
retained in hand 2 acres 1 rood 16 perches, a portion which being liable to floods is of little value. The letting was for 12 years and the rent was to be £13 4s. 9d., no fine or purchase money was paid. In 1876, when the 12 years' term had expired Brown wished to take up part of the lands and served a notice to quit for that purpose. A new agreement was made between the parties that Hughes should still retain the farm and pay £14 4s. 9d.—that is £1 increase. In January, 1883, the first statutory term was fixed, the judicial rent being £11. In June, 1896, the second statutory term was fixed and the judicial rent being £6. The Poor Law valuation is £9 10s., and there are no buildings. At the hearing the only improvements claimed by the tenant were making 50 perches of draining and levelling 9 perches of glen. The lands lay within a mile of Keady, which was a thriving town with linen weaving factories in and around it. Two things stood out clearly in this case:—First that the reduction upon the old rent of £14 4s. 6d. was 57·64 per cent., and that upon the first judicial rent of £11 the reduction was 45·45 per cent., and secondly that by the ordinary process of Irish land laws to-day the account between the landlord, who was himself a farmer, and very poor, and the tenant stood thus:—The interest which the tenant had acquired on eight acres was at the moderate estimate of £10 an acre worth £80. For this he had paid nothing. His rent was £6 a year. The landlord received this £6 a year and having to pay £5 8s. 2d. of it away was left with 11s. 10d. as his rent besides what he could win from about two acres of bad land liable to flooding, and say worth £20. That together with his 11s. 10d. was all he got by way of interest on his £216. In short he had been "wiped out by Act of Parliament." There was another case which he should like to mention, that known as "Cope's case." The short facts were as follows:—Cope, landlord; T. Cunningham, tenant; area 7½ statute acres, old rent £8, about 1882 first judicial rent £6—under second term judicial rent £2 12s. 6d. Five and a-half acres of this farm were described as the best of upland and the Government valuation of this part was £6 10s.
14
The other two acres were cut out bog and were added to the holding prior to 1881. The cut out bog was very valuable land and let without difficulty for £1 1s. per acre, and he was informed the landlord had let other parts of the same bog at that rate within the last 12 months. The cases to which he had drawn attention were cases of mixed farms, and he proposed now to give some cases of grazing farms. First ease, Captain Hamilton Jones, landlord; John Fawcett, tenant; area, 141·33 statute acres; old rent, £89 10s.; judicial rent fixed in 1883, £64 10s. Government valuation of rent, £64; landlord's valuation of rent, £65 16s.; second judicial rent, £46. That was a reduction of 481 per cent. on the old rent, and a reduction of 28½ per cent. on the first judicial rent. Second case, Captain H. Jones, landlord; T. G. Taylor, tenant; area, 80 statute acres, 8 perches; old rent, £53 11s.; first judicial rent, £37; Government valuation of the land £37; landlord's valuation of the land £35 5s.; second judicial rent £25 10s., being a reduction of 52½ per cent. on the old rent, and 31 per cent. on the first judicial rent. These were grazing farms used almost entirely for the purpose of feeding store cattle, which they were capable of putting into good condition. The tenant claimed some small reclamation. The improvements were trifling in each case, and would not affect the rent much. What, therefore, caused this reduction? In each of these cases it would be noticed that the first judicial rent was the same as the Government valuation of the land, which was usually fixed lower on pasture lands. Having shown what had been the reduction of rents in Armagh, he now proposed to show the average fall in the prices of farm produce, comparing the prices of 1881–1883 with the prices of 1887–1895. Wheat fell 26·2 per cent.; oats, 4 per cent.; barley, 7·9 per cent.; flax rose 4·4 per cent.; butter fell 11·1 per cent.; pork, 4·7 per cent.; beef, 17·4 per cent.; mutton 15·8 per cent. The average fall, including flax, was 13·8 per cent. In the period from 1881–1883 to 1889–1895 only one commodity he had mentioned fell over 17 per cent., and that was wheat, which was fast disappearing. In the period from 1881–3 as compared with

15
the year 1895, the average fall was only over 18 per cent. in two commodities—namely, wheat and pork. But when they considered the fall in farm prices they ought to take into consideration on the other side that there had also been a fall of 30 per cent. in Indian corn and artificial manure, and of nearly 20 per cent. in grass seed. It ought also to be borne in mind that in many directions there had been steady improvement in Ireland. There was, for example, the increase in live stock. Comparing the periods 1881–5 and 1886–94, they found that the number of horses and mules had risen from 568,000 to 614,000; of cattle of all classes from 4,070,000 to 4,290,000; of sheep from 3,254,000 to 4,062,000, an increase of 25 per cent.; of pigs from 1,289,000 to 1,338,000, and of poultry from 13,590,000 to 15,112,000. Another indication of increased prosperity was afforded by the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Joint Stock Banks. In 1881, the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank were £1,645,000; in 1895, they were £5,330,000. In the Joint Stock Banks, the deposits in 1881 were £28,200,000; in 1887, they rose to £29,000,000, and in 1895 to £37,400,000. It was often said that rents had gone down in England as well as in Ireland. He did not assert the contrary, and he sympathised with English landlords whose rents had been reduced; but before they compared the position of the English landlords with that of Irish landlords, they ought to be sure that the conditions affecting the two classes were the same; and he asked, were they? The following citation from Mr. Bailey's evidence before Mr. Morley's Commission in 1895 showed the position in which Irish landlords were placed:—
"I have found some of the best valuers will say that when a competition rent (we will suppose) would he 35s. per acre, perhaps the fair rent of that holding might be 20s. per acre."
In other words, the holding would be worth 75 per cent. over the judicial rent. Then, in answer to Question 2,757, he said,—
"I should say that the fair rent of a holding as a rule would he roughly about two-thirds of the competition rent."
16
That is the farm would let for 50 per cent. over a so-called "fair rent." Colonel Bayly in his evidence, in answer to Question 3,813:—
"How much would you deduct from that (competition rent) when fixing a fair rent on an average; would you go to the length of 30 per cent.? "replied," at least 30 per cent. more."
Were the English landlords, he would ask, forced by a process of law to let their farms for 30 per cent. less than competition rents? Had any of the ownership of the land in England been taken from the landlord and been given to the tenants? If they took wheat, which was the principal crop upon which farmers relied for profit, they found that during the five years 1871–7 the average area per annum of wheat grown in Ireland was 197,000 acres, the total average of all cereals being 1,993,000 acres; so that, during those favourable years the cereals comprised 12·68 of wheat, while it occupied but 5·57 per cent. of the area under crops, and only 1·24 per cent. of the entire area used for agricultural and pastoral purposes. In England, however, for the same periods wheat occupied an area of 3,284,445 acres, being 43 per cent. of the cereals, 31 per cent. of the land under crops, and 13·7 per cent. of the entire area of the country used for agricultural and pastoral purposes. This was a question which affected an enormous number of the best and most loyal people of the United Kingdom; an answer to the question was awaited with very considerable interest in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid the present reductions which were taking place under the new statutory term were creating the greatest consternation amongst the landowners in Ireland, who judged, and rightly, that if these reductions were allowed to be continued, many of them would be hopelessly ruined. The landowning class in Ireland, like many others, unfortunately, in this country also, had only a narrow margin to live upon. The landowners did not complain of the law; but they complained of the application of the law, and the way it was administered by an irresponsible body. Their chief complaint was that no record was kept as to the cause of the reductions that took place in the

17
Land Court, and that no reason was given to show that these reductions were in accordance with the general reduction of prices. The unfortunate landlord had no redress whatever, unless he went to appeal; and these appeals were very costly, and generally useless. He should like to read to the House part of a decision by Mr. Bailey, in the Land Court, at Armagh. Mr. Bailey said:—
"All evident improvements are presumed to be the property of the tenant. Thus it is not necessary to prove the making of such improvements as houses and fences. They are evident, and the tenant is entitled to them without limit of time where they add to the value of the holding. The same rule applies to improvements which are not self-evident, with this difference—that, as they are not self-evident, they must be proved to exist. Drainage and reclamation are not self-evident; it must he shown that these are in existence, and that they add to the value of the holding. Once these conditions are shown, however, the presumption is that they are the property of the tenant, and he is entitled to credit for them without limitation of time."
He maintained that that judgment gave absolutely prairie value. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in introducing the Land Bill on April 13th, said:—
"According to the Report of the Select Committee and to the Bill of the right hon. Gentle man, improvements should be held to include not merely the work done, but also the whole increased value, which is due to the tenant's expenditure of labour and capital, in conjunction with the inherent capacity of the soil. … Further, both the Bill of the right hon. Gentle man and the Report of the Select Committee agree in this, that all improvements, however ancient, are to be presumed to have been made by the tenant or his predecessor in title, unless the landlord has satisfied the Court to the contrary.…. I say without hesitation, that these two propositions taken together reduce practically all agricultural rents in Ireland to what is called prairie value."
He did not see any difference in the principles which Mr. Gerald Balfour denounced and those laid down by Mr. Bailey; and he wished to know if Mr. Bailey's judgment met with the approval of the Government.
VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid the two Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 had made such a mess of the whole land question in Ireland as no one could have thought would be possible when those Measures were passed. He had every objection to the Act of 1881; but the Act of 1887
18
was worse. He was not surprised at the way rents were cut down by the sub-Commissioners, which, after all, was a very simple question. If the sub-Commissioners did not cut down the rents the tenants would not come into Court, and if the tenants did not come into Court the sub-Commissioners would not be required. He thought he need not draw the deduction. They would hardly find an instance in which these sub-Commissioners had not cut down the rents below the poor-law valuation; and he was sure that, when they did so, in nine cases out of ten they fixed a very improper rent. In England they had had for many years very bad seasons, which had not visited Ireland, and in fact during the last dozen years in Ireland they had very little to complain of as to seasons.
THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid he could fully endorse what had been said by the noble Lord who asked the question. There was, in his opinion, great danger that the case of the Irish landlords would be prejudiced by what had occurred in England, in consequence of the existence here of agricultural depression, which had induced English landlords to temporarily reduce the rents. In parts of England, agricultural depression prevailed to an enormous extent, with the result that a large number of farms were lying idle, but that was not the case in Ireland, where there was always a large demand for farms. In the north of England, near the large manufacturing towns, the rent of farms remained exactly what it was 20 years ago. These were in a great measure dairy farms. There could be no doubt that the Irish tenant-farmers were willing to pay a large sum in order to become the existing tenants, because they believed that they were about to obtain that which was once the landlord's property. Until some clear and definite principle was laid down for the guidance of the Land Commissioners, the landlord would be entirely in the hands of that irresponsible body. This question was of far greater importance to Irish than to English landlords, because the former had not, as the latter had, other sources of income than that of the land. When the Irish landlord found himself unable to meet his expenses, he could not let his house or his sporting rights, as an English landlord could do. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid that he thought that it would not be right that only Irish landlords should take part in this Debate, because it appeared to him that the question involved affected the foundation upon which all property rested. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give due weight to the remarks that had fallen from the noble Viscount who had brought this subject under the notice of the House. The noble Viscount had addressed their Lordships in a speech of peculiar moderation, and he had supported his arguments by figures of undoubted accuracy. The noble Viscount had not come forward as the champion of the landlords' rights, but had placed before the House the views of the tenants with great impartiality. He trusted that Her Majestey's Government would not think that this subject had been brought forward in a hostile spirit towards themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] It appeared to him that the landlords in Ireland had been reduced to the position of mere rent-chargers on what was once their own property, and that the actual property in the land had been, to a great extent, transferred from the landlords to the tenants. In England we had never thought it right to interfere by law with the amount of a rent-charge, however onerous. It must be remembered that very large reductions of rent had already been made in Ireland, and it was, therefore, unfair to still further reduce the rents except on the one ground of a fall in prices of agricultural produce. If it were true, as the noble Viscount had stated, that an incoming tenant in Ireland would give more for the right to occupy a holding at the existing rent than he would for the freehold, could it be said that the holding was over-rented? He doubted, however, whether, under the existing system, the incoming tenant benefited by any reduction of rent, because he would have to pay a larger sum for the right of occupation in consequence of it, and the interest on the extra price he would have to pay would more than equal the amount of the reduction. ["Hear, hear!"] In his opinion, the position of the Irish agricultural tenant had very distinctly improved during the last 15 years. It was true, as was stated by the noble Viscount, that there had been a fall
20
in prices to the extent of 13 per cent., but that was no reason why rents should be reduced by 30 or 40 per cent. He wanted to know by what authority the Land Commissioners, who were given certain exceptional powers to use for one purpose, were able to use them for quite another, and that a predatory and confiscatory purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] Her Majesty's Government could not shelter themselves in regard to this matter under the plea that the existing legislation had been carried through Parliament by noble Lords opposite, because they were now the executive Government of the country, and it was their business to see that persons who had certain powers given them for one purpose did not use them for other purposes. It was impossible to suppose that, in these days of rapid communication, what was done in Ireland would not affect England, and that these object-lessons in constant tampering with the security of property would not bear fruit in this country. His object had always been to teach the tenant to rely upon self-help, rather than to trust to agitation to get his rent reduced. Agreeing, as he did, with what the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government had said on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Cattle Diseases Bill—namely, that the great object of Parliament should be to attract capital to the land—he wished to know how it was possible to attract capital to the land if they gave to Commissioners the power to do away with the only security which capital had—namely, that rent should be punctually paid? The way in which this matter had been brought forward would convince everyone that the Irish landlords took a fair and reasonable view of the situation. They only desired to know whether the reductions effected by the Sub-Commissioners were being granted on the principle of taking as a basis the fall in the value of produce, or whether they were simply perpetrating what was no more nor less than highway-robbery under the forms of law? That was the question the noble Viscount had addressed to the Government.
THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid that the answer to the noble Lord's question was that all Orders by the Irish Land Commission fixing judicial rents for a second statutory term had been

21
made in a judicial capacity. Almost all of those hitherto made had been made by the Sub-Commission Courts, and if the parties were dissatisfied with them, an appeal lay to the Land Commission. Her Majesty's Government had no control over these decisions, nor any right to require an explanation of the principle on which they had been based. He wished to say, personally that he had heard, on what he believed to be good authority, that many of the cases referred to were to be appealed against, and therefore he thought that in the circumstances it would be hardly right for him to make any remarks upon the subject. He certainly felt with the noble Viscount in his wish to know on what basis the rents were fixed. As an Irish landlord himself, he had hitherto personally avoided going into the Land Court except in three or four isolated cases, and he was strongly of opinion that that goodwill which ought to exist between landlords and their tenants was better maintained without the intermediary, if possible, of the law.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he did not know whether their Lordships were satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl. For his part, he was not the least satisfied. It was the same old story that had been going on since 1883. In a Debate in that year, raised by the late Marquess of Waterford, the Duke of Argyll pointed out that the Commissioners took this ground:—"We are judicial persons and you have no right to inquire into our decisions." In 1896 the same sort of answer was given. The Duke of Argyll said:—
"Parliament had committed to three gentlemen absolute and uncontrolled power over the whole agricultural property of the Irish people. These gentlemen had not a single principle to guide them; but were vested with absolute discretion to redistribute property in Ireland as they pleased. He said respectfully that the Land Court was not a court of law, but it was a legal court. It was a court which administered by the will of Parliament the absolute discretion of throe individual men. Under these circumstances their Lordships had a right and the public had the right, to inquire into the principles upon which the Commissioners were acting."
That was in 1883, and in 1896 the same thing was going on. What was to be the outcome of it? He only hoped that
22
when the Land Bill came up for discussion in that House, their Lordships would hear something more about the principle on which the Commissioners proceeded. The only principle, so far as he could see, was the fall in prices, and that fall had not been sufficient to admit of the enormous reductions in rent that had been made. It seemed to him that the Irish Office had a sort of cut-and-dried answer to every question put about Ireland. He objected to that sort of thing. Noble Lords spent a good deal of time in discussing their wrongs, and they would like to have a little more attention paid to them. He would certainly raise the question when the Land Bill came on, and he hoped noble Lords would support him.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)said noble Lords could scarcely have thought it probable, in view of the Notice on the Paper, that his noble Friend would be expected to enter into a general discussion upon the intricacies of the land legislation of the last few years. His noble Friend had given, as it seemed to him, the only answer of which the circumstances admitted. He was asked whether he could state the principle on which the Sub-Commissioners had lately further reduced judicial rents. Those rents had not yet been finally reduced. It was yet to be seen whether the reductions were confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Until the result of the appeals was known, no one was in a position to say that the Courts had reduced those rents to the extent of which noble Lords had complained. His noble Friend was perfectly correct in stating that it was not within the province of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the action of judicial tribunals. The Commissioners were a tribunal constituted under Statute, and it was, he conceived, altogether unconstitutional to hold that their decisions should be from time to time scrutinised and reviewed by the Government of the day. Obviously, the proper course, if noble Lords thought the law required amendment, was to raise the question of the amendment of the law. A Bill for the purpose of amending the Land code was now before Parliament, and would no doubt come before their Lordships' House in due time.

23
That would surely be the proper moment for considering whether any change in the law was necessary.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid that the answers of the Government had caused in him profound regret. He did not consider they dealt with the question he had raised sufficiently. Appeals could only be brought upon points of law, and not upon the point of value. A man might have his rents reduced 80 or 90 per cent., and yet he would not appeal unless a point of law was involved.
THE EARL OF ARRANthought the real point had been evaded. If the principles which pervaded the new Land Bill were in force there would be some basis on which to go as to the decisions of the Courts. At present the only conceivable basis was the fall in prices, and whereas the fall in prices had been only 13 to 15 per cent., the reductions in rent had reached 40 per cent. There was no reason for these reductions. He would like to point out that if, as he hoped would be the case one of these days, a turn came in the tide of agricultural affairs, the landlords in England would get their share of the increased prosperity, whereas in Ireland they would never get it. Another point that had not been touched on was very important. As a general rule, during the period through which they had passed, the fall in prices had been, to a very great degree, caused by very abundant harvests. Therefore, although prices had diminished, a good deal of the produce which the tenant consumed himself had been gathered in such quantities that he had fed himself very cheaply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)said the noble Lord had propounded a problem which it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to solve. The question he had put was upon what principle the Irish Land Commissioners had lately reduced rents in Ireland? The noble Lord knew perfectly well that, rightly or wrongly, the difficulty of deciding what was a fair rent had been placed by Parliament in the hands of certain persons. Did the noble Lord think Her Majesty's Government could go to those persons who had been invested with that responsibility and ask them upon what principle they had proceeded? If any Member of the Government did so, he had a strong sus-
24
picion that he would receive a very short answer. He would probably be informed by the judicial person that he was acting under the direction of Parliament, and by Parliamentary authority, and that an attempt to interfere by the Government for the time being with the judicial discretion invested in him was so unconstitutional and improper that he was much surprised at any Member of the Government venturing to do so. If the noble Lord was right that there could not be an appeal on what he might call the substance of the matter, if upon this question of fair rent, as to what was law and what was fact was certainly beyond his judicial experience, he thought there ought to be an appeal that there was not now; that was a fair matter to be raised, and if the noble Lord thought it right, to introduce a Bill on the subject. But what he would point out was that the Government were as powerless as the noble Lord himself to discern what were the principles upon which the Commissioners had acted. The wisdom of Parliament had confided to them that duty, and the Government could not be expected to dive into the minds of those Commissioners and find out what were the principles on which they had proceeded. What the noble Lord really meant was that the decisions were very wrong, and that the Commissioners ought not to have arrived at those decisions by reason of the contrasts that had been made between the fall of prices and the reduction of rents. Be it so, but Parliament had set up that tribunal, and that House was not a Court of Appeal in which that question could be properly discussed. If any future legislation was brought forward in that House in which this question arose, as both the noble Lords seemed to assume would be the case, then would be the opportunity of pointing out what was the defect in the law as it stood, and what were the Amendments they would suggest.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House, which stands appointed for Tuesday next, put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at Five minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.