Sitting of 2 July 1897

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware the letters are carried by mail car from Ennis to Kilkee, a distance of 35 miles, although both places have been connected by train for the past four years, with the result that letters which should be delivered at 8.30 a.m. are often not delivered until 1 p.m; is he aware that the reason the letters are sent by mail cart is because the Post Office authorities will not pay a reasonable sum for the carrying of the mails to the West Clare Railway; and if he is prepared to advise a reasonable subsidy being paid to the railway company for carrying the mails to secure an efficient postal service for West Clare?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The letters are carried by mail car from Ennis to Kilkee, although there is now a railway between the two places. The car is due at Kilkee at 10.5 a.m., and it is very seldom that the delivery has been later that 12 noon, even when there has been loss of time on the railway before the mails reach Ennis. The first train does not arrive at Kilkee till 11.45 a.m. The letters are sent by car because the Postmaster General has not seen his way to pay the company the sum which they have asked for the establishment of suitable trains. The demand of the company may have been reasonable from their point of view, but it was more than the Postmaster General, with a due regard for the Revenue, was warranted in giving. There is now reason to believe that the company are prepared to accept lower terms and the matter is being further inquired into.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to merchants and traders in Irish towns by the partial delivery of the mails on Bank Holidays; and, if he will arrange that for the future the deliveries on those days, particularly Whit Monday and the first Monday in August, will be the same as on the ordinary business days of the week, the letter carriers to be compensated for the increased work?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that great inconvenience arises from the arrangement referred to by the hon. Member. The arrangement, which is one of long standing, is common to the whole of the United Kingdom, and experience has shown that it meets with the almost universal approbation of the public. In these circumstances the Postmaster General cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member.

  DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER (CO. MONAGHAN).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much of the salary of Divisional Commissioner Slacke comes
  952
  from the taxpayers of county Monaghan; and, if he can state what duties he performs in that county?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Captain Sir Owen Slacke is Divisional Commissioner for the Northern Division of Ireland which comprises eleven counties, of which Monaghan is one. His salary is paid from moneys voted by Parliament. As Divisional Commissioner he has the general supervision of all matters appertaining to police and crime in his division.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that jurymen at coroners' inquests often take grave objection to the statutory task, always unpleasant and frequently repulsive or dangerous, of viewing the body; and, if he will consider the subject in order to devise some alternative method, leaving the coroner or jury to decide in difficult cases whether such viewing is necessary, and abolishing such viewing in ordinary and well-attested cases where the medical evidence is conclusive?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, Sir, objection is taken occasionally, I believe, to the performance of this duty; and the question of relaxing the requirement was some years ago under the consideration of this House. I am afraid there is no prospect of my being able to deal with the matter at present, even if it should appear, on consideration, to be desirable to do so, but I will look into it, and ascertain from the coroners what views are held by them upon the subject.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the recommendation of the inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, with regard to auxiliary postmen, namely,

  953
  that Sunday duty should always be paid for at a rate and a-half, has as yet been carried out in all cases?
  MR. HANBURY: The recommendations have not yet been carried out in all cases. They affect a large body of men and involved inquiries which have necessarily taken up a good deal of time, but the men will not suffer in any way from the delay, as the increased payments will take effect from the 1st April last.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now reply fully to the memorial presented to the Postmaster General on 6th August 1896 (receipt acknowledged on 8th September 1896), especiallly with regard to Clauses 1, 4, 5, and 8.
  MR. HANBURY: If the Question refers to a petition from the town postmen in Manchester, concerning which the hon. Member asked a previous Question on the 19th February last, the Postmaster General regrets that he is not yet in a position to reply fully to the petition; unavoidable delay having occurred in the contemplated revision of the duties of the staff. But as the petition is in Manchester with the other official papers it is not possible to give a definite answer respecting the clauses named.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. (IRELAND).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what steps, if any, have been taken to oblige the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland to erect a bridge at the level crossing on their line of railway at Clones; and, will the Board of Trade at least compel the company to construct a foot bridge so that persons requiring to cross the line at Clones while the gates are closed may be enabled to do so without the risks with which the present tunnel passage is beset?
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): No, Sir, the Board of Trade cannot compel the Company to substitute a bridge for the existing tunnel passage. The Company state they are not aware of there being any risk whatever attendant upon the use of the subway.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  MR. THOMAS HEDDERWICK,: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether having regard to the incapacity of the gunboat Redwing, and the cutter Active, to overhaul steam trawlers, he will favourably consider the propriety of substituting for these Government vessels others capable from their speed, of efficiently sea-policing the fisheries of Orkney and Shetland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In addition to the gunboat Redwing, and the cruiser Active, the fast torpedo gunboat Niger is frequently employed on fishery duties in the Orkney and Shetland waters. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that it is the intention of the Government, to place on the Table of the House an estimate for the construction of special vessels to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government has yet decided to approach the signatories to the North Sea Convention, with a view to an extension of the limit for illegal trawling from 3 to 13 miles?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The answer is in the negative.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the contract for the new fishery cruiser has yet been placed; and if so, with what firm?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Fishery Board have not yet entered into a contract for the building of the new cruiser, hut no unnecessary time will be spent in bringing the matter to a conclusion which it is hoped will prove satisfactory to all concerned.

  PATENT LICENCES.
  MR. F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that persons desirous of applying for licences to work patents in this Country under Section 22 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act are deterred from doing so because according to eminent

  955
  legal opinion the cost of procedure in such a case is very heavy, and the language employed in the Section is vague and doubtful; and whether, seeing that the Act as it at present stands is extremely detrimental to British Trade, he will introduce a Measure to amend it?
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The Board of Trade do not think that the difficulties suggested by the hon. Member are felt by all persons desirous of applying for licences, as they have several petitions before them at the present time. In one or more of those cases, in all probability, the capabilities of the existing law will be tested. If the law be found wanting my right hon. Friend will at once consider the propriety of amending it.

  WICKLOW HARBOUR LOAN.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether an application has been received from the Session of the Baronies guaranteeing the Wicklow Harbour Loan for a further loan on the terms offered by the Treasury; and (2) whether the Government will at once introduce a Bill to give effect to the contract and the special conditions required by the Baronies, so as to enable the necessary works to be undertaken before the close of the summer?
  MR HANBURY: The answer to the first Question is generally in the affirmative. As regards the second Question, a Bill dealing with the subject is in course of preparation, and will be introduced as soon as ready, if I can be assured that it will meet with no opposition in this House.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "ADEN" (GULF OF ADEN LIGHT).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether for many years Her Majesty's Government have contemplated the erection of a light at the east end of the Gulf of Aden, namely, either on the island of Socotra or on Cape Gardafui; whether the light dues surrendered by Egypt under her commercial treaty with this country were to be applied in part to the erection of such light; whether, since
  956
  Socotra is under the control of the Aden Political Agency, we have the means of securing the lighthouse from attack by the natives; and whether, seeing that a disastrous wreck has been added to the many which have taken place in past times in the same locality, Her Majesty's Government will take early measures to establish such lighthouse?
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): The question of lighting the east end of the Gulf of Aden has for some time occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is believed that the most suitable site for a light, or lights, is in the vicinity of Cape Gardafui, but the lighting of that coast is beset by difficulties, especially with regard to jurisdiction, which have up to the present prevented this scheme from being carried out. No part of the Light Dues surrendered by Egypt will, as at present arranged, be available for lighting either Gardafui or Socotra. There would be no difficulty in securing the safety of a lighthouse at Socotra, but my right hon. Friend is not so clear as regards the safety of one on the mainland. The Board of Trade will spare no pains to overcome the difficulties which have hitherto prevented the lighting of this locality.

  POST OFFICE (BRILLEY, HEREFORD).
  MR. JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he would take into his consideration, the possibility of establishing a post office in the parish of Brilley, in the county of Hereford?
  MR. HANBURY: There is already a wall letter box at Brilley from which a collection is made at 5 p.m., and it is regretted that the circumstances are not such as to warrant the establishment of a post office in addition to the existing facilities.

  STEAMER COMMUNICATION (HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS, SCOTLAND.)
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is in a position to state that there will be no diminution in the mail steamer service to the Outer Hebrides?
  MR. HANBURY: No statement can be made at present on this subject. The Government have undertaken to give these districts, like the rest of the country, the benefit of the recent Post Office concessions, and probably an inter-Departmental Inquiry will be instituted to ascertain whatsteamer service is necessary for carrying this into effect.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, some few years ago, the President of the Swiss Republic was appointed to arbitrate as to the claims of the bondholders of the Delogoa Bay Railway Company upon the Portuguese Government; (2) whether the final replies to the Portuguese case were sent in before 15th November 1893, and the Portuguese answer before December 1894; and (3) when a final settlement of this question, affecting the interests of holders of £743,000, is likely to be announced?
  MR CURZON: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, but I find that the long delays that have taken place have been due in about equal proportions to the successive applications of both parties concerned. The expert who had been sent to South Africa to conduct certain inquiries on the spot having now returned, there is good reason to believe that the final awards will not be much longer delayed.

  SHOOTING VERMIN (SCOTLAND.)
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, on what grounds do the Inland Revenue authorities hold, contrary to the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Gosling v. Brown, that rabbits are not vermin in relation to agriculture, and that farmers in Scotland require to take out a gun licence before shooting rabbits for protection of their crops, the Gun Licence Act expressly providing that no such licence should be required by a farmer for shooting vermin?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: The decision in the case referred to was arrived at by a majority of two Judges to one. I am informed that the Board
  958
  of Inland Revenue were advised that the decision was erroneous. They have therefore continued to hold that licence duty was chargeable in such cases with a view of obtaining a final decision from the superior Court as soon as an opportunity occurred. No case, however, has occurred in which the view of the Board has been challenged by appeal to a Court of law, but the Board would be glad if such an opportunity were afforded.

  CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if the Government would be willing to form a Consultative Council of Agriculture for Scotland, consisting partly of members of agricultural societies, as is proposed in the Bill for establishing a Board of Agriculture in Ireland?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I cannot say that I think any advantage would be gained by the adoption of the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet. The circumstances of the two countries in regard to agricultural organisation are not analogous and, in the case of Scotland, I should be sorry to find myself in any way fettered in regard to the manner in which I can obtain advice and assistance.

  OUTRAGES AT POONA.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government are taking with regard to the state of feeling among natives in India, as shown by late events, more particularly by the murder of Lieutenant Ayerst. The hon. Member also asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government proposes to recognise in any special manner the services rendered by Mr. Rand and those associated with him in the Poona plague operations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I stated yesterday in this House that the causes and circumstances of the recent outrage at Poona are being investigated, and I have

  959
  at present nothing to add to that statement. In reply to the hon. Member's second Question I can only say that all services rendered in connection with the plague and famine will be duly considered, and will receive such recognition as they deserve.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the plague administration European soldiers were employed in house visitations at Poona, whereas Native Sepoys were employed in Bombay; and whether he has any information to show that, in consequence, the feelings and prejudices of the people were more considered in Bombay than in Poona?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am aware that the services of British soldiers were utilized on plague duty at Poona. I cannot say for certain that they were not similarly employed at Bombay, but Native soldiers were also employed. The European cantonment is large at Poona, while the number of European troops at Bombay is small. I have no information tending to show that the feelings and prejudices of the people were more considered in Bombay than in Poona. As I have already stated, I believe than in both places the Government have been most anxious to do nothing beyond that which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of dealing thoroughly with the plague in its early stages. Lord Sandhurst informed me some time back that he had met the leading inhabitants of Poona to discuss plague regulations, and that the result of the interview was satisfactory.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is his intention to propose Press legislation for India as the result of a private inquiry conducted by the Government regarding recent events at Poona?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, and if the hon. Baronet will study the phraseology of that reply he will see that it will not bear the interpretation he has now endeavoured to place upon it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do I understand from the noble Lord that no alteration will be made in
  960
  the Press law of India until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon that subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not know where the right hon.Gentleman got that idea from; but I must respectfully point out to him that the Indian Government is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in India—[Ministerial cheers]—and that upon the Indian Government rests constitutionally the responsibility of initiating such measures as they may consider essential to the discharge of this their duty. [Ministerial cheers.] Any action which they may so take is, of course, subject to review in this House. There is no ground, in my judgment, at the present moment for reversing these well-established principles. [Ministerial cheers.]

  ASYLUMS (IRELAND.)
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether contractors to asylums in Ireland are obliged to sign a bond for the fulfilment of the contract, whether members of the asylum board (or other person on their behalf), as the second party to the contract, are also obliged to sign the bond; and whether in case the asylum board failed to sign the bond, the board could hold the contractor liable for the fulfilment of the contract or refuse to pay him for goods supplied on the ground that the board had not signed his bond?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Contractors to Asylums sign a bond for the due fulfilment of their contracts, if required to do so by the Board of Governors. Members of the Asylum Board, or other persons on their behalf, are not obliged to sign the bond.

  WESTMINSTER HALL (STATUARY).
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended to complete the architectural designs of the north front of Westminster Hall by filling the niches with statues of personages connected with the history of our country?
  THE. FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): There is no proposal such as my honourable and gallant Friend suggests, under the consideration of the Office of Works.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why assistant teachers in national schools are not paid as much salary as assistant teachers in model schools?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The system of payment is somewhat different in the two eases, the staffs of the Model Schools being almost entirely dependent on the payments made to them by the Commissioners by whom they are appointed, whereas the payments made to teachers of ordinary National Schools are grants in aid towards the maintenance of those Schools. Moreover, the Model School Staffs have the responsibility of educating Pupil Teachers for the office of Teacher. Of late years, since the Irish Education Act of 1892 became operative, the Staffs of ordinary National Schools have become more dependent than formerly on the grants from the Commissioners. The whole question of the condition of the Model Schools, including their financial position, is at present under the consideration of a Committee of the whole Board.
  MR. DALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the assistant teachers in the National Schools do not perform the same duties as assistant teachers in the Model Schools for a similar salary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of the hon. Member would point to paying these extra sums to the Model Schools rather than to assimilate the National Schools to the Model Schools.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the Report?
  MR GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am not at present in a position to give an answer to that question.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of applications for grants to build National Schools now before the Irish Board of Works: and whether this sum was considered by the Treasury
  962
  when making up the Estimate for the present year?
  MR. HANBURY: Applications for grants for building National Schools are made, not to the Commissioners of Public Works, but to the Commissioners of National Education who decide the amounts to be given and the priority of the claims, having regard to the amount made available by Parliament. It was decided in 1895 after consultation with the Irish Government and the National Education Commissioners, that the most convenient arrangement for the latter body would be to fix the amount of the grant for a term of years and the sum, £10,000, in this year's Estimates is the result of that arrangement.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the total amount of the grant now under consideration.
  MR. HANBURY: I don't know that we have the information at the Treasury. That is rather a matter for the Commissioners.
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that teachers of national schools experience some difficulty in obtaining school books, copy books, and pens, owing to the long delay in forwarding the articles and because only one-half of the order is sent; and, will he call the attention of the Commissioners of National Education to this matter and to the importance of a full supply of books, etc., being in the schools?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There has been a failure on the part of a contractor, newly appointed from the 1st April last, to supply books and school requisities within the prescribed time. It is hoped that in the course of a few days supplies will be received for issue to the schools concerned. The contractor has been warned that the contract will be cancelled unless the books, etc., are delivered forthwith.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that teachers of national schools do not receive the amount due for result fees for a considerable amount of time from date of examination, and that in some cases two or three months elapse before

  963
  final payment is made; and, will steps be taken to have these payments made more promptly?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Results fees earned at the Annual Results Examinations on the passes given by the inspectors are, as a rule, paid within a month from the date of the receipt of the Reports in the office of the Commissioners. Where irregularities are observed in the course of the examination of the Reports, necessitating correspondence with inspectors or managers, it may not be possible to come to a final settlement, and to pay the fees, within the usual and prescribed time. In cases where troublesome correspondence is proceeding, and prolonged delay in settlement apprehended, efforts are made to pay so much of Results fees as safely can be discharged, pending the issue of the investigations upon which the final payment must depend. Every effort is directed to be made to have the payments made promptly; but under a system where the payments are made to the individual teachers, and are subject to various conditions unavoidable delays will sometimes occur.
  MR. J. GIBNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mrs. Elizabeth Carpenter, of Grangeguth, county Meath, was obliged to resign her position as school teacher on account of ill health, and after service of 18 years and five months; and, whether the Commissioners of National Education have refused compensation to Mrs. Carpenter; if so, could he state upon what grounds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mrs. Carpenter, who is 37 years of age, resigned from the 1st September, 1896, after a period of service as stated. The report of the District Inspector on her application for a retiring gratuity was not such as indicated a decided opinion on his part as to her permanent incapacity, and the manager of the School was informed that before the case could be certified to the Pension Department it would be necessary for Mrs. Carpenter to consult a specialist and obtain his certificate as to the permanent character of her malady. As soon as the required certificate is received the case will be further considered.

  IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man, named Shanaghan, has been appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Works, and that much dissatisfaction exists among the staff in consequence; whether he can say if Shanaghan's appointment was competitive, or had he any previous knowledge of the work of this office; whether it has been customary to appoint to the office in question only men who passed Civil Service examination; and, whether Shanaghan did this?
  MR. HANBURY: The office of Assistant Secretary to the Board of Works is a new post created in 1896, in order to strengthen the staff, especially with reference to Railway work. The appointment was made under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 4th June 1870, which requires the Civil Service Commissioners to be satisfied of the fitness and qualifications of the person presented to them, with the consent of the Treasury, by the Department concerned. The post being a new creation, no officer of the Department had a claim to be appointed to it and none had the special qualifications required.
  MR. DALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question, namely: Was there dissatisfaction amongst the staff at the appointment of Shanaghan over the heads of men who had spent all their lives in the office?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware that there is any dissatisfaction? If it do exist, there is no reason for it, because none of them were qualified for the appointment.
  MR. DALY: Will the right hon. Gentlemen make inquiries to see if there is any dissatisfaction amongst the staff?
  MR. HANBURY: I have made inquiries about it already. I know all about it.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for loans to build workmen's dwellings have been received by the Irish Board of Works during last year; and, how many have been refused?
  MR. HANBURY: 17 Memorials for loans were presented last financial year. Of these seven were sanctioned, four are still under inquiry, one was withdrawn

  965
  temporarily for private reasons, one was withdrawn because the Board of Works, in view of the insufficient security offered, declined to recommend the full amount asked; one was withdrawn because the Board limited the advance to suitable houses, excluding houses that were too large and expensive, one was postponed by the Board until existing arrears on other loans should be paid up, one was refused on account of the inadequacy of the security offered, and one was refused because the projected houses were in excess of the size and cost suitable to the purposes of the Act.
  In reply to a further question from Mr. DILLON,
  MR. HANBURYsaid that, as he had already stated, 17 memorials were sent in, and of these seven were sanctioned. He had full particulars of the other ten, but they were too long to state across the Table of the House.

  INDIAN LOANS.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has had brought to his notice the memorandum by Mr. J. H. Sleigh, manager of the Bank of Bombay, showing the large economy that would be secured by taking up a sterling loan here instead of, as proposed by the Government officials, a rupee loan of four crores in India?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My attention has been drawn to the memorandum by the manager of the Bank of Bombay, showing what would in his opinion be the economy resulting from raising a loan in sterling instead of in rupees, as indicated in the financial statement of the Government of India. I will only point out to the hon. Member that Mr. Sleigh's calculations are purely hypothetical, being based on assumptions as to the price at which a second sterling loan could now be issued as compared with a rupee loan, and as to the rate of exchange, not only in the immediate future, but also during the whole of the next 15 years.

  EDUCATION ACT (ASSOCIATIONS.)
  LORD WARKWORTH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education
  966
  whether, in the event of any recommendation of an association being disapproved of by the Education Department, the particular amount so refused will be referred back to the association to be dealt with or whether the Education Department will proceed to allot it without further reference to the association.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I am afraid I cannot give a general answer. Each case will he considered with reference to the particular circumstances.

  REPORTED DANGEROUS ROCK IN THE ATLANTIC.
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the Hydrographic Bulletin, published in Washington, U.S.A., on 16th June last, a report is made in which it is stated that on 2nd May 1897, at 7.40 a.m., a rock 60 feet long, about seven feet wide, and about eight feet out of the water, was seen at about 600 yards distance by Captain Lloyd, of the British ship Crompton, in lat. 47. N., long. 37.20, W; and, whether, if upon investigation this report should be confirmed, the location of this rock, dangerous to navigation, will be placed upon the Admiralty Charts?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The report was duly received at the Admiralty. If confirmed, the rock would be shown on the charts in the ordinary course, but the existence of an unknown rock above water in the middle of the Atlantic, situated precisely on the line followed by the vast trade between Great Britain and America is so incredible that it is not proposed to take, in the meanwhile, any steps in the matter.

  BOARDING-OUT ORDERS.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when guardians grant out-relief to a child who is living with a person not legally liable for its support, does it come under the Boarding-out Orders of 1889; if not, what provision is made by the Local

  967
  Government Board for the welfare and protection of such children?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The view of the Local Government Board is that the Boarding-out Orders apply in the cases referred to.

  WRECK (INDIAN TROOPSHIP "WARREN HASTINGS.")
  MR. J. L. WANKLYN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War upon what date compensation was paid to the officers and men who lost their property in the wreck of the Warren Hastings off the Island of Réunion on the 13th January last, nearly six months ago, and who behaved on that occasion with great gallantry?
  THE HON. MEMBERalso asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, beyond the 24s. for a free kit, it is proposed to give the rank and file, who lost their property in the wreck of the Warren Hastings off the island of Réunion on the 13th January last, 10s. only as a gratuity for the loss of their private property, and no reward whatever as a recognition of their gallantry and fine exhibition of discipline upon that occasion?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODICK,): The officers and men who lost their property in the Warren Hastings are distributed in several foreign commands, and inquiries necessarily took time. Free kits were issued on January 28th, and the orders for payment of compensation have all been dispatched. Every sufferer by the wreck has received a sum in excess of the regulations, and the military authorities regard the sums awarded as adequate to the loss incurred. The gallantry and discipline of the troops have been fully recognised in the proper manner.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he will state whether, of the eight Head Constables who were nominated to compete on the 30th June for two vacancies in the rank of district inspector, one is
  968
  Head Constable Roe, of Queenstown, who was cast in damages by the County Court Judge of Kerry, and was also severely censured by Mr. Justice Gibson at the last Cork Summer Assizes in connection with a charge of abduction for proselytizing purposes; (2) is another of the nominees Head Constable Marks, clerk to the commandant, who has never been in charge of a station or a party; (3) how are Head Constables selected for these examinations; and (4) is he aware that the recent nominations have caused great dissatisfaction in the force?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are seven, not eight, Head Constables now undergoing examination for the rank of District Inspector, two of the competitors being Head Constables Roe and Marks. In the case in which damages were awarded against Head Constable Roe, the Treasury sanctioned his being repaid the sum awarded (£5), on the ground that he had acted in a bonâ-fide manner and in the interests of the public, though he had made a mistake upon a point of law. The circumstances of the other case concerning this Head Constable were referred to by me in answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman of the 31st July 1896. In consequence of his action in that case he was deprived of the opportunity of competing at a similar examination for promotion held last year. It is considered that he was sufficiently punished by this deprivation, and that his advancement should not be further retarded. As regards Head Constable Marks, it is true he has not yet been in charge of a station, but his practical knowledge of such duties will in due course be tested. The selections are made in strict accordance with the regulations laid down by the Lord Lieutenant; a copy of which I will forward to the hon. Gentleman if he so desires. I have no information to the effect mentioned in the last paragraph.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that enables him to say whether the majority of those persons are Protestants or Catholics?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information on the point whatever.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention

  969
  has been called to the fact that a verdict of £35 was returned against District Inspector Langhorne, Castlecomer, for falsely imprisoning a mason named Williams, who was doing work in his house, and against whom he brought an unfounded prosecution, which was quashed at quarter sessions; (2) whether the District Inspector has paid the damages without taking an appeal from the verdict; and (3) have the Government taken any notice of the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The action of Mr. Langhorne under the circumstances referred to has been investigated by the Inspector General of Constabulary, who has taken such notice of his conduct on the occasion as appeared to him to be proper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is Inspector Langhorne to be allowed to remain in a district where he has been proved to have brought an unfounded charge against a poor man?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have told the hon. and learned Member what the Inspector General says. It is considered that the man has been rather severely mulcted in damages, and he has been ordered to be reprimanded, but beyond that nothing has been done.

  COUNTY CESS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the magistrates of Keady Petty Sessions recently refused to direct warrants to the police for recovery of county cess, as the barony high constable would not name any person to execute them; (2) what is the usual practice in such cases in other districts; and (3) considering that 6 and 7 Will. 1V. c. 116, s. 152, directs that the warrants should be addressed to and executed by the barony high constable, and that he may levy by distress either with or without warrant, and as he has a large percentage ft n· collection, will the Government allow the burthen of performing this duty in a county like Armagh to be thrown on the police?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND) (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I believe the facts are as stated in the first paragraph, but I am
  970
  informed that the matter will be again considered by them on the 9th July. Until a final decision has been arrived at by the magistrates, it would not be desirable to reply to the third paragraph of the Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What I want to know, for the guidance of the magistrates, is, what is the practice in other counties?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: That is what I object to say. The magistrates should be allowed to decide without any guidance from me.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN SCHOOL, SUTTON.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU; I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the pauper children belonging to the South Metropolitan School at Sutton were so arranged as to solicit alms from the persons going to and from the races on Derby Day; that they received £197 or some such sum on that day; and that the school bands were playing to attract notice; whether similar practices have occurred before; and whether steps have been or will be taken to prevent children from being officially allowed to beg in future.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that the children in the District Schools at Sutton are permitted to assemble in the field belonging to the school, which abuts on the road to Epsom Downs, to see the people passing on their way to and from the races. They are prohibited from asking from money, but money is often voluntarily given by good-natured passers-by throwing coins to children in the field. The sum thus received in the recent Epsom week is correctly stated in the question, and the money is applied to defraying the expenses of an annual outing to the Crystal Palace or the seaside and otherwise in providing recreation for the children. The School bands played, but not, it is said, for the purpose of attracting attention. The practice referred to has existed for more than 20 years. It would be a great disappointment to the children if it were prohibited, and I see no reason for interfering.

  CRETE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bashi-Bazouks returning from Kani-Kasteli with their plunder attacked the Cretan Christians and killed 13 of them; and, whether the booty was openly sold by auction in Candia, and realised a considerable sum?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question I beg to ask him another—whether these unfortunate conflicts which occur near the towns are caused by the fact that a large number of Mussulman refugees are cooped up by the Christian insurgents in very confined positions, where they are unable to obtain either food for themselves or pasture for their cattle?
  MR. CURZON: In answer to the Question just addressed to me by the hon. Baronet, I may say that I believe the statement he has made correctly represents the facts of the situation. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that no such information has been received.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Question is based on a statement made by The Times correspondent yesterday?
  MR. CURZON: I have not myself seen the statement.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the plundering of the houses of Christians still takes place in Candia under the eyes of the European troops; and if he can state whether the garrison is sufficient for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property?
  MR. CURZON: Colonel Chermside reported on the 15th of June that two premises in Candia had been broken open, and that some of the perpetrators had been arrested. No later report of plundering has been received. If Colonel Chermside should consider that the troops in Candia are insufficient for the maintenance of order and protection of property he will no doubt report to that effect. No such representation has yet been received from him.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in connection with the recent raid made by Mahomedan Bashi-Bazouks in the
  972
  Christian village of Kani-Kasteli, whether it is a fact that their intention was known to several of the Christian inhabitants, who informed the consulates and the military authorities of the intended raid; if so, what steps were taken by the representatives of the Great Powers to prevent these armed men from sallying forth out of the protected zone and killing a number of Christian villagers; and whether any steps have been taken to punish those engaged in the raid and to prevent its recurrence?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have received no information of the kind mentioned in the Question. There is now no protected zone outside Candia, the arrangements to that effect having been cancelled by agreement with the insurgents. Nor do the Moslems appear, in the case in question, to have sallied forth until two successive ambuscades had been laid for them by the Christians. Colonel Chermside reports that he is in correspondence with the local authorities concerning the prevention of similar incidents in future.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Canea delegates have petitioned the Admirals complaining of the inaction of the military authorities?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I have not heard.

  THESSALY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been given to the statement, telegraphed by Reuter's correspondent in Constantinople and published in the Press, that Sir Philip Currie, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, has received letters from Mr. C. N. E. Eliot recently sent to Thessaly to report on affairs there, and giving the substance of those letters; whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received copies of the letters in question; and, if not, when they expect to receive them; who communicated to the newspaper correspondent the substance of Mr. Eliot's reports; whether Her Majesty's Government have any information showing whether those reports were communicated by Mr. Eliot to any other person than Sir Philip Currie; and, if so, to what other person; and whether

  973
  Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to prevent in the future the publication in the Press of public documents before they have been communicated to Parliament?
  MR. CURZON: The statement alluded to gives only the briefest outline of what are alleged to be Mr. Eliot's Reports. These have not yet been received here, but, if they have reached Constantinople, will no doubt be forwarded at once. We do not know whether the letters have been shown to anybody or whether they are public or private documents. The brief announcement in the Press cannot be said to amount to publication of them, nor does there seem to be any objection to the facts being made public, as they appear to correct exaggerated rumours.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the statements made by the newspaper correspondents, apparently on the information of the Ambassador, are directly at variance with the truth?
  MR. CURZON: I decline to admit either of the assertions contained in the hon. Gentleman's Question. In the first place, there cannot be "many" statements attributed to the Ambassador, because the telegraphed summary sent to the newspapers only occupies eight or nine lines of The Times; and in the second place, so far as our information goes, none of the statements are in direct contravention of the truth.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the telegram occupies 20 lines?
  MR. CURZON: I am not aware.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at it? [Cries of "Order!"]

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state how the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the working of the Irish Land Acts is to be composed, and what will be the order of reference.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The terms of reference are as follows:—" To inquire into and report upon the procedure and practice and the methods of
  974
  valuation followed by the Land Commission and the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts—(a) in fixing fair rents; (b)ascertaining the true value to be paid for a tenant's interest in a holding by a landlord exercising the right of pre-emption; also to inquire into and report upon the procedure and practice and the methods of valuation followed by the Land Commission arid the Land Judges Court respectively in carrying out the provisions of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts." I shall be prepared to state the names of the Commissioners upon the Queen's pleasure being signified in regard to them.
  MR. J. MORLEY: If I rightly apprehend the right hon. Gentleman's description of the order of reference, the last part of that order will include and prescribe inquiry into the action of Mr. Justice Ross—that is to say, a judicial Court—in interpreting Section 40 of the Irish Land Act of 1896.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should not like to pronounce off hand, but it is not intended that this Commission should inquire into legal points.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Land Commissioners try cases while the new Commission is actually trying the Land Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir this Commission is not to inquire into special cases.
  MR. MACNEILLasked if the Commission would not inquire as to the general practice of the Land Courts, and, therefore, as to the conduct of the Commissioners.
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. MACNEILL: With great respect, I must insist upon an answer. [Laughter.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  POSTAL DELIVERY (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he in a position to say when the house-to-house delivery of letters in the rural districts of Ireland will be commenced?
  MR.HANBURY: The Surveyors have been directed to submit, and, as a matter of fact, have begun to submit, their proposals for extending the delivery of

  975
  letters throughout the United Kingdom in accordance with the promises of the Budget Speech, and these proposals, after their examination in the Secretary's Office, will be carried into effect without any unnecessary delay. I must remind the hon. Member however, that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget Speech, the work of extending the deliveries to all parts of the country will occupy a considerable time, and cannot possibly be completed within the present financial year.

  WATERFORD DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is true that the Treasury have received an offer from an English Railway Company for the purchase of the Waterford Dungarvan and Lismore Railway; and, if true, whether the offer has been accepted?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, we have received an offer from an English and Irish Railway Company. I do not know whether the hon. Member objects to the employment of English capital in Ireland. The offer of an Irish Railway Company was, as he knows, declined on the ground that it might not prove of advantage to the district; and I believe that that refusal was generally approved in the district. The negotiations with the company mentioned in the question are still pending.

  CHANNEL FLEET.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in view of the loss inflicted upon the traders of Queenstown by the protracted absence of the guard ship Howe, the Admiralty will consider the desirability of making some compensation by permitting a portion of the Fleet to visit Cork Harbour during the Autumn Manœuvres?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, the Admiralty must entirely repudiate the principle on which he founds his question, that there is a kind of pecuniary vested interest to any locality in the presence of guardships
  976
  or other Government vessels. As I have repeatedly stated, movements of Her Majesty's ships must be guided by naval considerations.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give special consideration to this special case?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, Sir; I must leave the question of the manœuvres to my naval advisers without introducing pecuniary considerations.

  PUBLICANS' LICENCES, DUBLIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether it was in accordance with the wishes of the publicans or in the interest of public order that the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in response to a memorial, recently changed the hour of opening for certain public houses in the vicinity of the Dublin Corporation markets from 4.30 a.m. to 5.45 a.m.; (2) whether the Chief Commissioner of Police has granted a new exemption order in favour of five publicans who had forfeited the early opening privilege allowing them to open henceforth at 4.30 a.m.; (3) whether he will state why these publicans had been deprived of the privilege now restored; and (4) whether it is his intention to make any change in the exemption order of those traders who never forfeited their early licences, but who are now forced to keep their houses closed till 5.45 a.m., while their competitors who had forfeited theirs are allowed to open at 4.30 a.m.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It was at the request of a deputation of publicans that the Chief Commissioner of Police made the change mentioned in the first paragraph. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. These publicans had been deprived of the privilege of early opening in consequence of breaches of the law. The publicans opening at 5.45 a.m. have been informed by the Chief Commissioner that if they found that it would be for the advantage of their customers that the earlier opening hour of 4.30 a.m. should be restored, he would be prepared to revert to this latter hour.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is intended to take the Foreign Office Vote?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTinquired when it was proposed to take the Vote for the Colonial Office?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that both these Votes had better he deferred, and the Foreign Office Vote certainly, because it will be the last ordinary opportunity which the House will have for raising any question which they desire to raise on the foreign policy of the Government.
  *SIR C. DILKE: There will be the Appropriation Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There might then be a very thin House, and it is not a very convenient time—being the last day of the Session—to raise any question. I should suggest that both Votes should be deferred as long as the other exigencies of Supply render it possible.
  *SIR C. DILKE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House has had no opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the extraordinary delay that has taken place in the settlement of the terms between Greece and Turkey?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That, of course, is quite true; but, as the right hon. Baronet will readily see, the House is not likely to be more anxious than the Government are to bring these negotiations to a conclusion, and certainly no complaints we make in this House are likely to hurry events. I should have said that the functions of the House are more by way of criticism than in any other direction. I should, therefore, think that my plan would be the best.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Can the First Lord of the Treasury give us any further idea as to the order of business for next week? Can he say when the Naval Works Bill will be introduced? We are anxious to see that Bill, and it is now rather late in the Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Naval Works Bill would have been introduced before, but, as the
  978
  Houses is aware, the First Lord of the Admiralty has been absent for official reasons for some time past. I think he will be in a position to introduce it on an early date. The Bill is quite ready, and it might be convenient that the House should allow it to be introduced in Committee on Monday, before we commence the consideration of the report stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That must be done without Debate, or at any rate prolonged Debate. Otherwise the main business for Monday, and, if requisite, the following day, must necessarily be the report stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Agirculture, with a view to saving time on Monday, whether his promised opposition to the Mersel Docks Bill would be made on behalf of the Government?
  *MR. LONG: No, I do not think I am entitled to say it will be made on behalf of the Government. In my capacity as Minister for Agriculture I have examined the case on both sides, and I have come to the conclusion that injury would be done to the agricultural interests of Ireland if the Bill were passed in its present form. I do not think it necessary that opposition should he offered on behalf of the Government, or in any other way, inasmuch as the promoters of the Bill, as I am informed, are prepared to accept the decision We have already indicated in order to the rejection of the Bill. The House will be asked on Monday to permit the excision of the clauses to which the hon. Gentleman and his friends take objection.
  MR. MACNEILLasked when the War Office Vote would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think it will be taken before Friday week.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRasked when it was intended to take the Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannon tell precisely when the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken, but it will not be next week.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONasked before what date would

  979
  the Committee stage of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill not be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will not be taken next week.
  SIR C. CAMERON: Not till after the Scotch Education Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Probably it will be after the Scotch Education Bill.
  MR. SCHWANNasked when the Post Office Vote would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will endeavour to take it on Friday week, but I cannot give an absolute pledge.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.

    COMMEMORATION SERVICE IN ST. MARGARET'S CHURCH.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved:—
    "That the thanks of this House be given to the Very Rev. Frederick William Farrar, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, for the sermon preached by him on Sunday, the 20th day of June last, before this House in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, and that he be desired to print the same; and that Mr. Balfour and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley do acquaint him therewith."
    CAPTAIN CHALONERsaid it would be in the knowledge of the Leader of the House that the sermon contained certain remarks of a distinctly political nature—[Opposition cries of "Oh ! "and Ministerial cheers] —if not of a controversial nature, and although he would be sorry to oppose the vote of thanks, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment to insert after the words "to print the same," that he be requested to omit such parts of the said sermon. [Opposition cries of "No !" and Ministerial cheers.]
    *MR. SPEAKER: I think any such Amendment would be unusual and irregular. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear !"] The Motion must either be accepted or refused. It is a Motion that has been proposed in this form on every occasion that this House has attended St. Margaret's Church. ["Hear, hear !"]
    Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [FIFTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

  CLASS I.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £137,137, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the erection, repairs, and maintenance of public buildings in Ireland, and for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, and for drainage works on the river Shannon."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLobjected to the lavish sums being spent on the Viceregal Lodge in Dublin when it was notorious that the Viceroy resided less and less in the country. Then the Chief Secretary's Lodge had cost in a year for repairs £1,025. Now it was proposed to spend £650 more to extend the conservatories. If the Chief Secretary was fond of flowers let him build a conservatory for himself. There were five or six conservatories as it was. Yet he had never seen the Chief Secretary with a flower in his buttonhole. [Laughter.] But the conservatories were run on strictly commercial lines. The flowers were sent to Covent Garden or sold in the fruiterers' shops in Dublin, and he believed they were the gardener's perquisites. The hon. Member also objected to the sum proposed to be spent on new heating apparatus at Queen's College, Galway. Galway College was notoriously a failure, and he objected to a further expenditure on useless educational institutions. Why, he asked, should not the professors, whose offices were sinecures, contribute this sum for the heating apparatus which was desired. At present there were 105 students in the institution, and their culture cost

  981
  the enormous sum of £6,505 10s. 4d. a year. Another point was this, that a considerable sum, some £1,200, was to be devoted to the alteration of the ground floor of the postal and telegraph buildings in Dublin. These alterations had already been begun, and at present they were a perfect disgrace and scandal. It was intended to make a new telegraph office for handing telegrams between say 11 o'clock at night and 8 o'clock in the morning. The huge construction for which this sum was to be charged seemed to be at present the most badly ventilated and heated place he knew of. He did not know how the telegraph clerks could stay there, as the building was the acme of discomfort both in summer and winter, and was expensive and wasteful and injurious to those who had to frequent it. He objected to the sum of £150 for the boundary wall and railing of the Queen's College, Belfast. The last time he was there it had a good boundary and a good railing, and he could only imagine that during the last few years they had simply, for the fun of the thing, thrown down the railing. But they objected to the expenditure because they objected to the education given at this college. He hoped to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the gardens of the Chief Secretary's Lodge. There was another matter which he desired to mention. There was one building in Ireland which, if it were removed to Florence would even adorn that city, he referred to the Custom House of Dublin. There was in this building an Italian portico of very excellent design, which was actually being filled up, the interstices between the pillars were being filled up, and he believed they were asking for a sum of £1,400 or £1,500 for this. He would not move any reduction, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would be told of the points which he had referred to.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he wished to direct the attention of the authorities to the desirability of establishing a coastguard station at Castle Gregory, in Tralee Bay, County Kerry. There was no telegraph office near the place, and they had to send across the country to try and get coastguard apparatus when it was needed for the saving of life.
  982
  The post office in College Green, Dublin, was extremely badly situated and badly furnished, and the telegraph clerks had to work there under conditions of great discomfort. If it was not possible to improve time present premises, new buildings of suitable character ought to be obtained in College Green. In reference to the alterations in the Custom House, Dublin, he wished to know what had been done with time collection of very valuable historical paintings in that building. He suggested that the pictures should be removed to some place, such as the National Gallery, where they could be properly looked after and be seen and appreciated by the public.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this Vote, which would be charged against Ireland in an Imperial balance sheet, was made up of a number of charges with which Ireland, as a separate fiscal entity, had no concern whatever. For instance, there was a charge of £9,937 for the improvement of coastguard stations. He submitted that that was an Imperial charge, and that it had no business whatever in an Irish Vote. Its proper hue was in the Navy Estimates. Again, the Dublin Custom House, so far as it was used for Imperial revenue, should be charged to Imperial revenue. The Royal Hospital, Dublin, was like the Chelsea Hospital, a home for worn-out veterans, and was, therefore, an Army charge. The -Royal Hibernian Military School was intended for the training of young lads to feed the Army, and was, therefore, an Imperial charge. Again, why should the charge for the Quit Pent Mike be included in an Irish Vote? Quit rent went entirely in case of the Crown. The Vote also contained an enormous charge for postal and telegraph services, which he submitted should be included in the Post Office Vote. Altogether there were about £20,000 of Charges, which were strictly Imperial in their nature, and could not be considered in any sense Irish. He could not find in time Vote for time English Board of Works anything analogous to the charges in the Vote for the Irish Board of Works. The total of the English Vote was only £55,200, while time Irish Vote amounted to £270,137, which showed that things were charged to the Irish Board of Works which were not charged to time English Board of Works. He would also suggest that there

  983
  should be some rearrangement of the Votes by which all the Votes should be put into one class. Irish Members had at present to get five or six volumes and lug them into the House in order to he prepared for a Vote when it was put from the Chair. He noticed a very large charge, amounting to £12,000, for the Belfast Parcel Office. He did not grudge Belfast the money, it was only what its progress entitled that city to, but he wanted to know why other places in Ireland were ignored. Then there was £10,000 for the Killibegs pier. When Irish Members urged the building of piers in various parts of Ireland they were told that the money for piers was all expended, but here was an instance of a fresh pier having been constructed. It was very remarkable that the whole of the half-million voted for Irish railways was spent in a particular quarter of the North, and here was the Board of Works giving £10,000 to be expended in the same district. He wondered whether that had any relation to the fact that the new President of the Board of Works had been the manager of a northern railway. He did not say that this money should not be spent, indeed, he thought every penny of it was required, but he said that other parts of Ireland should receive the same attention. He would also like to know whether the roads through the grounds of the Royal Hospital were still closed to the public. These roads were a great convenience to members of the Bar driving to Kilmainham Court House. They were closed when Lord Wolseley was Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and he did not know whether the same rule was continued by Lord Roberts, the present Commander-in-Chief. While it was proposed to reduce the number of Judges in Ireland by three, a now court was to be built. There were courts enough already, but it would be a great convenience if the old library could be given to the Bar as a dressing room. As to the River Shannon, Works, he approved of them, but he should like to see them rendered profitable to somebody. They could be made to yield handsome revenue with a little extension. At present, though more than £100,000 had been spent, no one derived a shilling from them. The Government sent surveyors to the falls of the Nile, to the Zambesi falls, and to Uganda, to see how the water
  984
  power could be utilised; and yet the water power of the Shannon was allowed to run to waste.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERcalled attention to the incomplete state of the buildings of Queen's College, Belfast, and to the inconvenience caused thereby. He said that the original design was for a long line of buildings; but that design had not been completed, and that there was a gap between the two extremities. The scientific side of the College suffered severely for want of more accommodation. It was useless to expect that the completion should be carried out by private enterprise in Belfast, because the College was in no way controlled by the people of the City. It was unfair to leave the College crippled because the original design of the Government had not been completed.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that he had a Motion on the Paper to reduce the Vote for Queen's College, Belfast. For some years the College had been obtaining large sums for the completion of the scientific buildings. It had been richly endowed by the State, though it was maintained for only a small section of the community, even in Ulster; and it would be most unjust to grant large sums to such an institution, while all assistance was denied to the Colleges which represented the vast majority of the people of Ireland. If the hon. Member wanted more money for the College, let him urge the Government to do justice in the matter of Catholic University Education. There was a scientific college in Dublin, which had been maintained and equipped by the private exertions of the Irish Catholics, and only the other day an appeal for a further £1,000 was issued. They were always hearing that Belfast was the wealthiest and most intelligent part of Ireland; and yet it could not provide for the smallest requirement of its Queen's College. He wished to obtain some information with regard to the grant of £40,000 for the building of National Schools in Ireland. In a question which he had put to the Secretary of the Treasury he had asked for the total amount of the applications now before the Commissioners of National Education or the Board of Works, but the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had no information on the point. It was very important that they

  985
  should ascertain how many applications had been made for the building of these schools, because he was informed that the managers who wished to erect new schools were subjected to very great delay in obtaining the necessary grants for the purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman had stated that £40,000 had now been fixed upon as the annual sum to be voted for National Schools in Ireland, and without reference to the demands——
  *MR. HANBURY: No; that was an arrangement specially made by which £40,000 was paid last year, £40,000 will he paid this year, and £30,000 next year.
  MR. DILLONasked was it because the National Commissioners, in their anxiety to meet the demand for schools, had anticipated, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the amount of the Vote that they were to get £10,000 less next year, and that a Vote for a fixed sum was decided upon?
  *MR. HANBURYsaid the Commissioners of National Education had agreed to make a certain number of grants, and they wanted £10,000 additional in 1895–6 to carry out that arrangement.
  MR. DILLONasked was it the policy of the Government to obstruct and delay the furnishing of these remote districts in Ireland with schools? He had never heard a more extraordinary proposition than that, because the Commissioners had entered into certain arrangements some years ago with regard to the building of schools, and were anxious to redeem that engagement, an artificial limit should be put on the amount to be expended for this purpose, that it should be fixed at £40,000, no matter what the demand of the various districts might be —[" hear, hear !"]—and that they were to be fined £10,000 the year after next. He wanted to know on what grounds the Government could justify this policy of obstructing and starving the construction of new schools throughout Ireland? He should have thought that with the record which the Government had behind it in Ireland of hostility to education, that they would be ready to do everything possible to encourage the construction of schools in Ireland. [" Hear, hear ! "] From a Return of the Commissioners of National Education, he found that the amount voluntarily subscribed from local sources in Ireland in 1895 for building
  986
  and for repairs and other improvements was £69,331, and that did not include the Christian Brothers and other schools not connected with the National Board, while the Government grants only amounted to £45,000. In face of the fact that the Government grant amounted to £45,099, he wanted to know why the Government should now draw a hard and fast limit at £40,000? He had intended to draw attention on that Vote to the Board of Works contract, but as that difficulty had been satisfactorily arranged and Dublin firms would be able to secure the contract, he would not say anything then on the subject. With regard to the Vote of £953 for police huts, he found that sum was £100 larger this year than last year. They maintained that 19–20ths of this money was lavished, that this policy tended to stir up disorder and crime, and that not only was there a waste of the money, but a criminal disuse of it. [" Hear, hear !"] The consequence of their reckless encouragement during the last 15 years was to promote discord and strife being worked in a vicious circle. Therefore he thought that unless he got a satisfactory explanation from the Chief Secretary it would be necessary to move a reduction of the Vote in that respect.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that whereas the English Votes were under a certain Minister, the Irish Votes were turned over to the gentleman who represented the Treasury. The Board of Works was a kind of an outpost of the Treasury, and he ventured to say that it was an outpost which required more supervision than was supposed. It was very extravagant, and it was badly administered. It was concerned in the handling of the large amount of £270,000 a year. It was the same Vote every year, and so long as it should not increase, it seemed not to matter to the Treasury how the money was spent. Items were continually charged which ought not to be there, year after year. There was a curious illustration of this system of not keeping money that might be saved in hand with regard to the wall of Dundrum Lunatic Asylum. The cost would be only £10,500, and the Board of Works proposed to take nine years in building it. Certain important works were neglected, while the Board was allowed to spend the money on

  987
  favourite works. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would look into this matter, which he was as well qualified to deal with as was his predecessor. The Department was an utterly irresponsible one, and it had put up piers which were a laughing stock. Money was squandered in every direction by this body.
  *MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Mayo was under some misapprehension when he supposed that they limited the Commissioners as to the number of schools. If he would look through the lists he would see there was a great increase since 1870. Since then, with the exception of '87–8, this was the largest grant that had ever been made. It was held by the Commissioners themselves that instead of having this Vote varying from year to year, they should know what was the amount of money that was to be granted to them. That limit had been very much below what was granted in these three years. The grants in 1891-2, 3 and 4 were £30,000, £30,000, and £28,000; therefore this grant of £40,000 showed a considerable increase. The hon. Member went on to discuss the question of the constabulary huts. These had been reduced from 103 to 87, and those that were kept up were absolutely necessary for the personal protection of persons who were unpopular. Many of the retained huts were used for the constabulary, when the police barracks wanted repairing, and he would rather see the men in houses or barracks than in these huts. The small increase of £80 to £100 in the Vote was due to the removal of the disused huts. As to the references to the expense of the Viceregal Lodge, the alterations were principally of a sanitary nature. Some buildings had been moved and new houses erected elsewhere. The road referred to had been devoted to the general convenience. The hon. Member went on to say something in connection with the Chief Secretary's Lodge. No doubt a few years ago what struck him as a strange arrangement was entered into by which the gardens were practically farmed out, but that arrangement had now ceased, and they were under the Board of Works. With regard to the charge for the glass houses, up to two years ago there was a large amount of glass there in a dilapidated condition. That had now been
  988
  pulled down, and smaller houses, much less expensive to keep up, built in their place. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member in connection with the Queen's Colleges, this was not a Vote on which the policy of those colleges could be discussed, and he could only deal with small details. The charge in connection with the Galway College was for the Examination Hall. Hitherto there had been no fireplace in that hall, and this charge was for heating it. He would, however, look into the amount, and see whether it was too large. Then the hon. Member said something as to the erection of the buildings for the Belfast Post Office. All he could say was that if the hon. Member or any other Member would at any time inform him of any suspicion they might entertain that anything was being badly done in connection with any Government contract, he would always inquire into it. He did not think it was fair to denounce the system generally without some special ground for attacking it. Government contracts were now being a great deal more rigorously looked into. The hon. Member also complained of the alterations being made at the Custom House in Dublin. So far as his information went, it was that certain arches were simply being glazed in for the purpose of giving greater accommodation, but if the hon. Member could show that they were being bricked in he would inquire into the matter, and see what was really being done. He thought he ought to say on behalf of the permanent officials of the Board of Works that some of the language used by the hon. Member was hardly fair. Whether the hon. Member agreed with the system of the permanent Civil Service or not, he would admit that both in England and Ireland the country was, on the whole, very faithfully served. With regard to the Post Office in Dublin, great alterations were being made during this year, but the hon. Member's chief complaint was that they were taking place in rooms which were dark and approached by narrow and dangerous passages. He understood that the hon. Member himself had suffered from the darkness of these passages, and that fact would afford him additional inducement to look into the matter. Then a question was raised as to certain works of art in the Custom House. If there were valuable works of

  989
  art there, special care should he taken of them, and it would probably be possible to get the advice of the Director of the National Gallery as to their value. The hon. Member for Longford raised an important question as to the variety of subjects put upon this Vote, many of which were not for purely Irish purposes. The Vote did not profess to draw a. distinction between Irish and Imperial purposes. That question had come into greater prominence since the Vote was originally framed, and he did not think it would be advisable to rearrange the Votes so as to group all the Irish Votes together.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why is this Vote in a different class to the English Board of Works Vote?
  *MR. HANBURYadmitted there were a certain number of subjects in this Vote which found no parallel in the English Office of Works Vote, and the hon. Member mentioned in particular the Coastguard. He had often thought himself that that was hardly an item which ought to appear on this Vote, but, after all, the question of how far that ought to be charged against Ireland was one that would have to be inquired into by the Commission about to inquire into the financial relations of the two countries. At the same time, he agreed to a great extent that it did not tend to economy to have the Votes connected with any one Department not confined to the nominal Votes for that Department, but scattered over other Departments. He would see how far it was possible to alter that. As to the new Post Office at Dundalk, he would be glad to give a reply when the Post Office Vote came on. He would be out of order in discussing the matter on this Vote, because it was a question of site. As to the pier at Killybegs, it was one of the first built on a somewhat new principle. It was built of wood instead of stone, and he hoped it would be more successful than several piers he had himself seen in Ireland. This pier had, he believed, been built well within the estimate.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this particular district was selected for a pier?
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that the people of the district have been petitioning for the pier for years?
  MR. MACNEILL: Has not the pier been promised for some years?
  *MR. HANBURYsaid that no doubt considerable pressure had been put on the Government to build the pier. It would be managed by the Board of Commissioners, one named by the railway company, on e or two by the Congested Districts Board, one by the Government, and one by the locality. It would be a Board of four or five. Attention had been drawn to an item of £600 for a new Law Court in Dublin. This sum, he was glad to say, would not he spent in that way. It would be "hung up" and eventually spent in Dublin on something more useful. He had communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject, and the noble and learned Lord agreed with him that as a reduction was being made in the number of Judges the money need not be spent on a new Law Court. The increase in the ordinary charge was due to the fact that extra repairs and painting had to be done this year. The contention that the Government ought to set aside more money for the extension of the college buildings in Belfast he met by pointing out that £8,000 had already been expended in that way, and that it was necessary to hold the scales evenly, and to be fair to the Queen's colleges in other cities. The hon. Member for East Donegal had spoken about the control of the Treasury over the expenditure of the Board of Works in Dublin, and he implied that the Treasury had not sufficient control. All he could say was that he had himself gone over every item in these Estimates. The hon. Member had evidently in his mind certain items which he thought ought not to he continued from year to year. He should be glad if the hon. Member would communicate with him privately on the subject and point out what items ought in the hon. Member's opinion to be discontinued. He agreed with the hon. Member who said that works like the wall near Dundrum Asylum ought not to be spread over too long a time, but ought to be finished as soon as possible. It had been found out in connection with the Navy that it was a most extravagant system to allow work to be spread over a great number of years, and the practice was equally extravagant in civil matters. He also agreed with the hon. Member that when a saving on one subhead was proposed to be appropriated to another the operation ought

  991
  to be scrutinised most carefully by the watchful eye of the Treasury. The suggestion that the water power of the Shannon should be turned to good use was a very practical one. Water power was one of the chief resources of Ireland, and the Board of Works ought to utilise it as far as they could. He would have the matter inquired into.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONwished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of doing something more for Queen's College, Belfast. The report of the President of the College showed that additional buildings were urgently required. He took that opportunity to record the kindness of Sir John Hibbert when he was at the Treasury. Sir John Hibbert then devoted much attention to the needs of the college at Belfast, and met the representations of the President in a cordial manner. He hoped that the present Secretary to the Treasury would reconsider his intention not to provide further funds for the structural improvement of Queen's College, Belfast.
  MR. DALYdrew attention to the items for the Divisional Commissioners' Office, and argued that it ought to disappear from the Estimates. In the North of Ireland one Divisional Commissioner was responsible for large expenses in connection with extra police. He had hoped that the Divisional Commissioners' Office would have been abolished before this. He, therefore, observed with great disappointment that the office not only continued to exist, but that the item relating to it had increased by £25. Crime it was well known was largely decreasing in Ireland, and the function of the Divisional Commissioners' Office was to prevent crime. Why should the expenses of the office increase at a time when crime was decreasing? He had to complain of the maintenance of a police hut in a part of South Monaghan where there was neither crime nor disorder. There had not been any criminal cases at assizes or quarter sessions for a long period of time, and the Attorney General for Ireland had in consequence actually brought in a Bill to relieve jurors from the annoyance of being summoned to attend court when there were no duties for them to perform. Was it not disgraceful in these circumstances that this hut, which was
  992
  a stigma on the locality, should still be maintained. The hut, he believed, was maintained at the suggestion of the Earl of Dartrey and his agent, who was working in the interests of a number of Irish landlords. As to the decreased item for teachers' residences, he read a Resolution passed at a Teachers' Congress in Galway, asking that the Vote should be increased and not reduced. But instead of giving effect to this recommendation the Vote had been reduced by £109. This was the way in which almost every Government managed Irish affairs.
  MR. P. J. POWERreferred to the item of £10,000, and said that the South coast of Ireland was greatly in need of harbour accommodation. The Government had been well advised in making this expenditure, and he should like to see it extended elsewhere. The harbour accommodation was so bad in many parts that it was absolutely impossible for the fishermen to keep proper boats and go to sea. The grounds were being fished by the boats from Cornwall and the Isle of Man. He should like to know whether there was any money available for this most useful work.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that the question of policy could not be raised on this Vote. These piers had to be recommended to the Irish Office, then they came before the Treasury, and afterwards the Irish Board of Works had to build them. There was no fund specially available for this purpose; and the case of Killybegs was a very exceptional one. There was no police hut being used in Monaghan. The hut to which reference had been made had taken the place of the police barracks, and was used for the ordinary purposes of the police. As to the teachers' residences, this Vote had reference only to the repair of the residences which had been built. There had been no change of policy and no stinting of expenditure in any way. The question of Divisional Commissioners did not arise on this Vote.
  MR. DALY: Then why is it on the Vote?
  MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved the reduction of the Vote by £150 in respect of the grant to Queen's College, Belfast. He felt bound to resist any proposal to grant money to these colleges until justice was

  993
  done to the Roman Catholic colleges. This Vote contained items of £100 for a boundary wall and railing at Queen's College, Belfast, £40 for the Examination Hall, £591 for the Cork College, £1,715 for the Belfast College, and.£599 for Galway College. If the Government had in reply to his Question said specifically that they would introduce a Measure this Session, or make it the first business next Session, to remove this monstrous grievance of the Roman Catholics in Ireland with regard to their colleges, he would withdraw his opposition. As, however, the Government had declined to do this, as they were continuing the system of admitting, the grievance while declining to state that justice would be done; he asked for a definite pledge as to the time when they would address themselves to the remedying of this grievance, and until that was forthcoming he would oppose every Vote for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
  MR. MACNEILLsupported the reduction of the Vote. He acknowledged the friendly and conciliatory way in which the right hon. Gentleman had met him and his hon. Friends; but they must oppose every farthing proposed to be expended on institutions which obtained advantages refused to other sections of the community. When the First Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary he wrote a letter dated December 2, 1889, in which he stated that he had not the face to apply to Parliament for any grant to the Queen's Colleges of Belfast, however estimable the object for which the grant might be, as long as educational advantages were denied to the great mass of the Irish people. He might mention simply as a matter of interest, that the sum for which the Presbyterians of Belfast were clamouring in 1889, was granted eventually.
  *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANSreminded the hon. Member that a Vote dealing with Queen's College, Belfast, would come before the Committee presently, and that, he thought, would be the proper time to raise the question he was discussing.
  MR. MACNEILLsaid he had fully expressed his views in reference to Queen's College, and he should not dream of occupying the time of the Committee by repeating his arguments. So long as a
  994
  Catholic University was denied, to Ireland, he and his friends would oppose every proposal to increase the expenditure on Queen's College, Belfast, even by a single farthing.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he should be obliged to go into the same Lobby with his hon. Friend who had moved the reduction of the Vote, though, as an old student of Queen's College, he could not be supposed to enter the lobby with quite the same feelings as his hon. Friend. What he wished to strongly impress on the Government was this:—The Queen's Colleges were founded partly with a worthy idea, partly with an unworthy. The idea of Peel and other Statesmen who were responsible for founding this scheme of education in Ireland was that, by bringing together men of different creeds, they would somewhat assuage the religious bitterness that divided people of different communions in that country. He could fully respect that view and object. On the other hand, a large number of persons undoubtedly aided in establishing this system in order to use it as a weapon against the Catholic religion.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is now clearly arguing the question that arises on Vote 14, Clause 4, which will raise the question of the general position of Queen's College. The only question before the Committee now is the grant for boundary wall and railings.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understood the question had been discussed by previous speakers; but I am quite willing to postpone what I have to say.
  Question put, "That Item B be reduced by £100 in respect of the Charge for the Boundary Wall and Railing in the Queen's College, Belfast.
  The Committee divided:——Ayes, 70; Noes, 224.—(Division List, No. 264.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £19,928, to complete the sum for Railways, Ireland.
  MR. DILLONasked if it would be in order on this Vote to raise any question as to the fares charged and the treatment of the public on light railways.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought not, as the fares must have been settled by the various Acts of Parliament passed when the lines were first constructed.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was not so. The fares, as he understood, were settled by the companies who worked the lines. There were some questions which he should like to raise of considerable importance as to the treatment of the people on lines which were worked by agreement with the main Irish lines. He hoped there would be a subsequent opportunity of raising the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked when a statement would be made on behalf of the Government with regard to the expenditure of half a million last year for the Irish railways.
  *MR. HANBURYreplied that the statement could be made on the Board of Works Vote, which would be brought on next Firday.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £630,291, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
  MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that there had been considerable complaint as to the action of the Government respecting the arrears due to the Teachers' Pension Fund.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)understood that there had been an arrangement that this discussion as to the claim for arrears should be taken on the Vote for the sum in aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. DILLONthought it would he impossible to allow the Vote to pass without some discussion of the matter, especially as a large part of the Report of the Education Commissioners was devoted to the whole controversy on this question of arrears.
  MR. T. M. HEALYconsidered that if the Chief Secretary assured them the matter could be discussed on the Friday
  996
  following in accordance with some arrangement, the next week would suffice for the discussion as well as this.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwould not say there was a definite arrangement, but there was some conversation between the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for East Mayo, as a result of which he understood that it was generally recognised that the most convenient occasion for discussing all questions in connection with the Pension Fund would be when the Vote came on for the money in aid of that fund.
  *MR. HANBURYexplained that the hon. Member for East Mayo came to consult him about the order of the Votes, and he told the hon. Gentleman that he did not think they should be able to bring on the matter in connection with the Education Vote, but that the Government would agree that the Education Vote should be taken, leaving the question of the arrears until the Vote for the sum in aid of the Pension Fund was brought on, which might be on the following Friday. The hon. Member promised to see him later on, but the opportunity did not arise. The impression left on his mind was that the hon. Gentleman had undertaken, so far as he was concerned, that he would not raise the question of the Teachers' Pension Fund on this Vote, but that he was only anxious to raise those questions which could ordinarily be raised in connection with the present Vote.
  MR. DILLONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat misapprehended the matter. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke to him he told him that the Government had some difficulty about taking the Education Vote, as the Supplementary Papers relating to the teachers' pension had not been circulated. He then asked the right hon. Gentleman would it not be possible on the Education Vote to state the policy of the Government, although the Estimates had not been circulated. The reply was yes, but the Irish Members might complain of the Education Vote being brought on before the additional Estimates for the teachers' pensions were printed and circulated. He then told the right hon. Gentleman that he would submit that for the consideration of the teachers themselves, and he himself would be largely guided by their convenience. The right

  997
  hon. Gentleman distinctly stated it would be possible for the Government to expound their policy on the teachers' pension question in the course of the Debate, and on those conditions he told the Secretary to the Treasury that the Irish Members for whom he spoke would waive the question of the Supplementary Estimates not having been circulated. He gave no hint that they should not raise the question of the condition of the Teachers' Pension Fund its this Debate, which he considered of importance.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought it was immaterial whether they took the discussion of the Pension Fund now or next week. He desired to call attention to the position of the Model Schools in Ireland, as to which the Government ought certainly to be expected to make some statement. It was rather unfortunate that although the attention of the Chief Secretary had been directed to the matter by no fewer than six Questions, the Departmental Committee had not been pressed to make their Report, and hon. Members were still without information as to the policy of the Government upon the subject. The Vote had previously been prefaced by a. laudatory paragraph stating that the extra expenditure under the Vote was due to the exceptional character of the education given in the model schools. That paragraph had been altogether omitted from the present Vote. What was the reason for the omission—that the convent schools of Ireland, which did not receive a third of the Vote for the model schools, turned out pupils who took higher prizes and passed better examinations than those in the model schools. A Departmental Commission had the matter under consideration, and he expressed his sorrow at the death of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, who took a sensible view of this question, and the loss the country had sustained on the National Board by his death and by the resignation of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon. That Lord Justice Fitzgibbon should have been allowed to resign without an expression of regret for the services he had rendered to education from his particular point of view was more than he could understand. The remaining Protestants had assented to the appointment of a Departmental Committee, and he was told that the revelations from
  998
  an educationist point of view would involve the sweeping away or entire rearrangement of the system. Whichever way England ruled Ireland he should have thought John Bull would have insisted on getting value for his money. But he did not get it. In three of the provinces in Ireland practically no Catholic would attend the model schools, and in Limerick an absolute inhibition was laid on the attendance of Catholics. Protestants had valuable foundations in the South of Ireland, and these model schools were kept up in the interests of a minority of the minority; the general body of the people had neither part nor lot in them, and the Government did not get from them fair and reasonable educational results. The Government had notice that the schools would be discussed on the Vote, and the report of the Committee, or the evidence as far as it had been taken, should have been presented. They had neither, and were groping in the dark as to what was the view of the Committee. The Government should have pressed the Committee for an ad interim report or supplied the evidence already taken, so that they might pass on the subject before the Vote was taken. He hoped the Chief Secretary would postpone the Vote until the House had the report. Why should the House of Commons be asked to vote money for an effete system which was turning out results in no way commensurate with the enormous sums expended upon it. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £4,000, which, he said, practically represented the items for the model schools.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied that the attention of the Committee had been called to the undoubted fact of the great expense of the model schools. It was only lately that the Committee had begun their investigation, and the laudatory paragraph to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded was omitted because it would be obviously absurd, when an investigation was going on into the position of the schools and the system under which they were carried on, to preface the Vote with a laudatory paragraph concerning them. The matter being sub judice, it naturally followed that the laudatory paragraph should be omitted. The hon. Member said the Government should have insisted on an

  999
  interim report. But when a Government appointed a Commission or Committee of Inquiry on any subject, it could not insist on its reporting by a given date. The result might be that the investigation would be inadequate and incomplete. The Commissioners had undertaken to report, and, no doubt, would present their report as soon as it was ready. The Government, and previous Governments, had been painfully aware of the great cost of model schools, and had urged that some steps should be taken to reduce it. When the Government had the Report of the Commissioners, they would be able to decide what steps they would take. Before they had that Report it would be premature to act. The hon. Member thought the Vote might be omitted this year. That could not be done in any case, because if the Commissioners reported that the systems under which the model schools were carried on required alteration, anything done would have to be done in a future financial year, and not in the present. He regretted as much as the hon. and learned Member that the Committee were not in a position to discuss the matter with that full information before them which the Commissioners would eventually supply. It would be idle for the Government to come to a conclusion on the matter now, and all he could say was that it would have careful attention.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked did the right hon. Gentleman throw the blame upon the National Board? His questions were three months old, and in those questions he pressed for the Report as a necessity. Did the Chief Secretary throw the blame for the delay on the Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he threw blame on nobody, all he said was that it was not the fault of the Government. The Government were not in a position to bring pressure to bear, and he did not know that the Commissioners were in a position to report.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he, as a protest against these non-Christian schools, which cost twice as much as Christian schools, giving but half the results, would take a Division against the Vote, trusting, however, if he interpreted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman rightly, that by next year,
  1000
  after he had received the Report from the Commissioners, should it disclose, as it must disclose, for the facts were undeniable, the state of things he had indicated, the Government would be prepared for a root-and-branch reform, and would not say there was no time to deal with the subject. There was no time apparently for dealing with any Irish reform, though for English reforms time and money were always available.
  MR. DALYsaid his hon. and learned Friend had rightly said there was too much favouritism shown towards these schools. Taking an instance of two teachers, the one in a model school, the other in a national school; the first-mentioned assistant received £10 in annual salary more than the national school assistant teacher, though they performed the same work. The model school teachers were made the pets of the Department, but simply because the national school teachers came from the class of the majority of the people of Ireland, they, for performing the same work, were paid lower salaries. He commended this to the attention of the Chief Secretary, assuring him that the subject would not be allowed to rest, but by questions and all other means attention would be drawn to it until national school assistant teachers were raised to the same level of pay as the model school assistant teachers. The right hon. Gentleman misinterpreted the question put to him earlier in the day, suggesting that it was proposed to bring down the salaries of the model school teachers to the level of those paid to national school teachers. That was not his meaning. He desired to have the national school salaries raised. It was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make up the difference in salary, for it was most unfair that the class of teachers drawn from the Catholic majority of the people of Ireland should be paid at a lower rate than the teachers representing the Protestant minority in the model schools.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid this was one of the many questions the Commissioners would have to investigate. He did not misunderstand the purport of the hon. Member's question, though it would seem the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the answer given. Of course, he understood the hon. Member desired that the level of the pay should be

  1001
  raised. The discussion now raised depended on the greater cost of the model schools as compared with other schools. The course suggested by the hon. Member would not tend to economy, but the reverse.
  Question put, "That Item D (Model Schools) be reduced by £4,000."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 42; Noes, 160.—(Division List, No. 265.)
  MR. DILLONcalled attention to the arrears of the fee grant. The Report of the Board of National Education in Ireland showed that a very large sum of money, estimated at £72,477, was in arrear. Of that sum a small amount had, since the discussion had arisen, been paid, but there was still a sum of about £70,000 unpaid. These sums, if they had been paid, would have gone, not to the Teachers' Pension Fund, but direct into the pocket of the teachers, and the result, therefore, had been to take from these poor people a portion of the salary to which they were entitled. The question had passed through several stages. For a long time the Government resisted the claim to the payment of these arrears. Then they admitted the claim, but maintained that it was a matter of past history, and that they were only bound to see that in the future no similar injustice was done. But in July last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech in which he admitted that there was an injustice—that these arrears had been unjustly withheld from the teachers, and that the Government was under an obligation. But the right hon. Gentleman said that by making an additional grant to the Teachers' Pension Fund, which was alleged to be in an insolvent position, the Government had adopted the only practical means of remedying the injustice. He denied that proposition. This question ought to be treated on its merits, and apart from the question of the Pension Fund whether that fund was absolutely solvent or not. The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to distribute the arrears amongst the teachers on account of the changes which had taken place, but he ventured to say that if this sum was distributed amongst the teachers as closely as possible as if it had been paid when it
  1002
  originally fell due, it would be satisfactory. The teachers of Ireland were not prepared to accept an additional grant to the Pension Fund as a compensation for their losses from the withholding of the arrears of the fee grant. This question should be dealt with as a separate question, and he protested against its being mixed up with the question of the Pension Fund. The trouble about the Pension Fund had arisen, not from any fault of the teachers of Ireland, but owing to the expert accounts of the Government. So long as the teachers did what they were required to do by the rules, the Act of 1879 gave them the promise of a pension, and the teachers had in no way failed to comply with the rules. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the arrears of the fee grant ought to have been paid to the teachers.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I never admitted that.
  MR. DILLON: You admitted that an injustice was done.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I admitted that there was a debt to Irish education on that account, but not to individual teachers.
  MR. DILLONsaid if the money had been paid when it was due it would have gone into the pockets of the teachers, and he thought the Government were bound to deal with the question on its merits. On the other hand they found out that under the Act of 1879 the Government had contracted certain obligations towards the Irish teachers which, he maintained, they would be bound to discharge even if this deficiency had never arisen, and in order to save the British Treasury £70,000, they made a desperate effort to mix up the two questions. He protested against that. The two questions ought to be treated separately. The teachers held that the Government were bound to make good the deficiency of the Pension Fund, which had arisen entirely from the mistakes of their accountants, and not from any fault of the teachers, and the question of the arrears of fee grant had to be dealt with quite apart and as a separate matter. There was one other matter to which he wished to allude. That was the question of the position of the Irish language in the national system of education. There was no doubt whatever that the national

  1003
  system of education was in its original conception and for a long period of years an anti-national system. He was glad to believe that a considerable change had come over the system of late years. They had not so much ground of complaint in some respects, but as regarded fairplay being given to the Irish language they still had great ground of complaint. The Irish language was not treated in Ireland as the Welsh language was treated in Wales, and, judging from the speeches of the Chief Secretary when this subject was raised last year, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be still possessed of the idea that the best thing that could happen to the Irish people was to forget their own native language altogether. He should like to see every Irishman and Irish woman able to speak English; but he should also like to see them able to speak their own language as well. To his mind it was proved beyond all controversy that the intellectual development and the teaching of the children in the western districts of Ireland were cramped and injured by the fact that the teachers were not properly instructed in the native tongue. A valuable and interesting Report on this subject from the head inspector of the Western District would be found in the Appendix to the last Report of the Commissioners of Irish Education, and this showed that in the County of Galway alone 58 per cent. of the population spoke the Irish tongue. The Report of this inspector ought to attract the attention of the Government, and it ought to be the object of the Education Department in Ireland to secure that in every district where a considerable portion of the children spoke the Irish tongue, the teacher ought to be an Irish-speaking man, and able to address the children in the native tongue. That, of course, would remove the ban which had been placed on the Irish language by successive administrations. This was a subject which was increasing in interest year by year, and a movement had arisen, and was rapidly growing, which would require of the Government that the native tongue of the country should be taught to the children in the schools.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had supported the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo with regard to the Teachers' Pension
  1004
  Fund last year, and he proposed to support it again this year. The two matters which it was proposed to mix up were absolutely different, and it was only the accident of time and not the unity of substance which allowed the Government to bring them together. Two blunders had been made in this case—not by the Irish teacher but by the Government officials. The first was the miscalculation of the Pension Fund, and the second was the misapprehension of what might be the ultimate decision of that House as to the proportion of money which was due to the Irish teachers. He really could hardly understand the Chancellor or the Exchequer when he wished them to believe that this money would not have been appropriated in the form of fee grant to the teachers had the same principle which was now admitted to rule the case been admitted when the money first became due to the Irish people. He thought that really was almost admitted. They were told last Session that it was impossible to correctly allocate this money to the individual teachers, who would have received it in the form of fee grant, because some of them were not now living, or had left the schools in which they were engaged. It was suggested that there was some equity in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was a debt due not to the teachers, but to the cause of Irish education at large. He did not see where this equity came in. If that was a debt due to Irish education at large, he thought they would want a great deal clearer proof than they had received that it ought to be applied in the particular form now proposed. It was said that they could not apply this fee grant to individual teachers because some teachers had dropped out of the allocation. The answer to that was that the thing had been done on a considerable scale in the case of the convent schools, to which this money had been granted in the form of a lump sum. No difficult had arisen in this case, for the reason that the convent schools were not within the benefits of the Pension Fund. The thing was therefore practicable, and could be done, because it had been done. They were told that it was an equivalent, giving it to the Pension Fund, which would go to the general body of teachers, and that they ought to

  1005
  be satisfied with that. He did not think they ought to be satisfied. It was perfectly true, as said by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that these two matters were separate, and that if this Pension Fund had never been miscalculated there would have been no suggestion of applying this fund in the way which was now proposed. He contended this was not a proper compensation under any circumstances, even if it were a legitimate form of compensation to the general body of teachers. There were a considerable number of teachers who were not subscribers to the Pension Fund. What benefit would those teachers get from the proposed allocation of the £72,000. Even supposing that the Pension Fund, when distributed, reached the teachers, the application of the money would be leased on an entirely wrong principle—that was to say, teachers who should receive a larger benefit would receive a smaller benefit, mid teachers who should receive a smaller benefit would receive a larger benefit. There were many third-class teachers controlling large schools; there were cases of first-class teachers directing small schools. The third-class teachers in the large schools having been made recipients of the fee grant would obtain results in fees corresponding to the number of their pupils; but as third-class teachers they were entitled to merely a third-class share of the pension. On the other hand, the first-class teacher in the small school would obtain a minute share of the fee grant, but they would receive a large share of the pension. He could not be persuaded that the proposed arrangement was anything more than a makeshift, by which the Government were endeavouring to get out of a blunder. The teachers had undoubtedly earned the money, and by every right they were entitled to receive it. Therefore he would support the hon. Member for East Mayo, as he had supported the hon. Member for Londonderry on a former occasion.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid there was no answer to the case put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Belfast. By some mistake at the Treasury, for which the National teachers were in no way responsible, a sum of something like £72,150, which ought to reach their
  1006
  pockets, did not do so. If it was an ordinary case between an employer and the employed, and if it turned out that the employed were underpaid, what any honest firm would do would be to refund the money. He thought they should altogether disregard the argument of impracticability upon what was a matter of simple common justice. What was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said: We will apply this money to make up further deficiency occasioned by some other blunder.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the figures. £95,000 has already been voted in respect to those so-called arrears, and is to be applied at the rate of £10,000 a year to the Pension Fund.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Will that £10,000 a year in any way come out of the arrears?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.£95,000 has already been voted, and the Government, in addition to that, propose to give £10,000.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid, of course it was not necessary for him to go into that subject, and he would not do so, but he asked the Government to do justice to a poor but most worthy class—the National teachers of Ireland.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNdid not think the Chief Secretary was justified in referring to the arrears as alleged arrears.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So-called arrears.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the arrears were not "so-called" or "alleged" arrears, but were actual arrears. The conduct of the Treasury in the matter would, in a commercial transaction between private individuals, be condemned as shabby, as dishonest, and as downright fraudulent. The Chief Secretary did not represent the Treasury, which had its own separate champions in the House. The Chief Secretary was the official representative of Ireland in the House, and it was his duty to defend the rights of all classes in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not done that in the present instance. It was utterly wrong to mix up the questions of arrears and of pension. He had

  1007
  no doubt that their English and Scotch friends in search of the truth would imagine that the Pension Fund was originally founded in the generosity of the Treasury. As a matter of fact, it was founded upon a capital sum of £1,300,000, which was a portion of the Irish Church surplus. Could there be anything more intolerable than the cant the Treasury indulged in in respect to this matter? A certain number of teachers did not accept the pension scheme, but in 1885, six years after it was started, a valuation of the fund was published as a Parliamentary Paper, which showed that there was a surplus of £196,000. Presumably the fund was based upon an actuarial calculation, and yet now it was declared that the fund was insolvent. Where was the proof of the insolvency? There was not a little of proof. It was quite possible that the fund was insolvent through some mistake or fault in the calculation, but if there had been a mistake or fault it rested with the Treasury. He protested against a hard worked and underpaid class of men, a class who, next to the ministers of religion, performed the most valuable functions to the community, being mulcted in order to recoup a loss incurred by the Treasury of this great and wealthy Empire.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENassociated himself with his colleagues in supporting the just claims of the national teachers of Ireland. The treatment which was being meted out to those men was, however, only a part and parcel of the general treatment Ireland received from the British Treasury. The Treasury were always ready, by fair or by foul means, to seize all the Irish money they could. If there was any doubt about the fund, the teachers might be given the benefit of it. Certainly if there was any doubt about any fund in which the Royal Irish Constabulary were concerned, that body would be given the benefit of it, but then it was quite evident the Government relied more upon the Constabulary than upon the teachers. He trusted the Irish people would take note of this plundering policy on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. DALYhoped the Chief Secretary would explain what he meant by arrears.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURadmitted that the phrase he used was not a very
  1008
  happily chosen one. He meant that it ought not to be taken for granted that this money should go to the teachers as such.
  MR. DALYsaid it would be difficult to get over the fact that the national teachers of Ireland had been plundered or robbed of close upon £100,000. It made no difference to him by what Government the mistake had been made; if it had been made he should protest to the utmost against the teachers being made the sufferers. It was impossible to conceive a more dishonest act on the part of a Government than this attempt to deprive the teachers of pensions. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that the teachers did not know their own business, but he had been furnished with copies of resolutions passed by the Carrickmacross teachers in which formal protest was made against the action of the Government on the ground that it would not only prejudicially affect the monetary interest of teachers, but tend to the employment of an inferior class of men. The refusal of the Government to pay the teachers this £100,000 was simply an attempt to shirk their just debts. It was a most extraordinary demand that was made by the Government—that the teachers, who for 20 or 30 years had been contributing to the fund, should now increase their contributions for the benefit of those who came after them—who had not yet joined the service. Supposing the Chief Secretary's salary were in arrears when he came to leave office; would he think justice was done if those arrears were paid to his successor? [Laughter.] There could be no defence for this attitude on the part of the Government, and the only thing for them to do was to "fork out." [Laughter.] it was no good being select in his language, because the Government had not been over select in their conduct. [Laughter.]
  [After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.]
  *SIR JAMES HASLETTwhose opening remarks were interrupted by an unsuccessful attempt to count out the House, said there was strong dissatisfaction among the national school teachers about the amount of arrears due to them. It was most desirable that the

  1009
  Government should make a. clear statement to their officials so that the dissatisfaction might be removed. There was the statement that the amount of arrears was £100,000, and it had been hinted that this sum was voted for education purposes and need not go to individual teachers. They were entitled to know from the heads of the Government whether it was to be applied to the teachers directly or indirectly. The indirect application appeared to be in the augmentation of the Pension Fund. The Pension Fund partook to a large extent of an insurance. The Government asked for that insurance under an Act of Parliament in 1879, and they stipulated for the amount of the premium to be paid by each teacher. If that amount had been found to be insufficient and the insurance principle under the Act could be proved to be a mutual principle, then it would be fair and reasonable for the teachers to look to the fact that in the past they had paid a smaller premium, and that premium might be augmented, or the ultimate sum to be obtained from the insurance might be diminished. If such an error had been made it behoved the House to ascertain clearly where it rested, and the nation should bear the responsibility for its officials' mistake. Or if it were proved that there was a mutuality, then each party should bear its share, and the entire amount should not be made up out of the emoluments that should have gone to the teachers. The Government should place clearly before the intelligent body of teachers the exact position in which the case stood. If anything was coming to the teachers out of the arrear fund, let them know it at once. His own impression was that the statement that the sum in question was being applied to the Pension Fund amounted practically to giving the case away, because if it was applicable to the teachers it should go to them direct; and if not, why give it to the teachers' fund? He earnestly asked the Government to place the case before the country so that the teachers would be able to grasp the question. It was purely one of finance, and could be dealt with mathematically. It was not a political or a party question. He believed there was no class of men who would accept the position more readily if it was clearly
  1010
  put before them than the teachers of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DALYurged that they ought to have a reply from the Chief Secretary.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it appeared to him that one of the questions that had been raised on this Vote—namely, the arrangement with regard to the payment of the arrears of the fee grant to the Irish Teachers' Pensions' Fund, would be far more appropriately raised on the Pension Vote. He had not anticipated that this question would be raised on the Vote for Education, with which it had nothing in the world to do. Not one single penny of these arrears had been or could be included in that Vote, and therefore if he detained the House for a few minutes on the matter it was solely from a desire to show courtesy to hon. Members opposite. What happened in regard to this fee grant last year would be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. For some time there was a dispute between the Treasury on the one hand and the National Board of Education on the other hand. It had been found absolutely impracticable to work the system of equivalent grants in connection with the fee grant for Irish and Scotch education. It was found that it could not be calculated how much was due on the basis of an equivalent grant to Ireland and Scotland on account of the fee grant, because no one could tell until after the expiration of the financial year what amount would be paid to England within the financial year for that purpose; and therefore any calculation founded on the basis of the total sum paid to England could not be arrived at in time to give effect to it by Parliament. Therefore, about 18 months ago, having taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, he felt it his duty to propose another basis instead of the equivalent grant—namely, that all three countries should have 10s. per child in average attendance in their schools as a fee grant. That system was adopted, and adopted, he might say, with general assent; but what was said was this, that t here had been a. failure in previous years to pay what Ireland and Scotland were entitled to under this head, and that that should be made up. He went into the matter and it was debated at considerable length last year. He said

  1011
  that he considered it a debt to Ireland and Scotland, and with regard to both countries he undertook to make the arrears good. The Treasury had some discussion with the National Board of Education as to the manner in which it should be done. It was urged, and not unfairly, that it was not fair to Ireland and Scotland to adopt one system at the commencement of the Act and to change it for another system which might be less favourable to those countries in the future. Therefore, the Treasury agreed to pay to Ireland and Scotland the amount they would have received if 10s. per child had been given in all three countries from the commencement of the Act. Towards the commencement of this Session an arrangement was arrived at which received the full assent of the National Board of Education, who had stood up for the rights of Ireland as stoutly as any body of men could possibly do. It was that a sum, amounting to £108,000 in all should be devoted to the purpose, a small portion of which, he thought about £12,000, was to be applied to convent schools, and the remainder, £95,400, to the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. The Irish National Board, he believed, unanimously resolved that, having regard to the position of the Irish Pension Fund, which was practically bankrupt, this was a satisfactory settlement both on the question of the fee grant and on the question of the Pension Fund. Acting on that, last February his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury obtained a Vote from the House of the amount he had named, to be devoted to the two purposes he had stated. He would say in passing that it was proposed to give the smaller sum to the Irish convent schools, because with them there was no question of a grant to the teachers. It was a question of a grant to the institutions. Therefore there was no difficulty in allocating the amount to convent schools, the teachers in which would receive no benefit whatever from the Irish Teachers' Pensions' Fund. A sum of nearly £96,000 was voted by the House in aid of the Teachers' Pensions' Fund after very little, if any, discussion. Hon. Members now said that the national teachers had thereby been deprived of what they ought to receive.
  1012
  But when the Vote was before the House no objection whatever was taken to it upon that ground. The matter was then considered to have been settled. It was impossible to allocate these arrears to the teachers who might have received them if the money had been voted previously, for years had passed and teachers had changed their schools and their positions. It could not be denied that the purpose for which this money was given was a purpose which was advantageous to the Irish teacher. It was notorious that the National Teachers' Pension Fund was bankrupt, and that unless it was largely supplemented it could not possibly defray the claims made upon it. By hon. Members opposite it was contended that this was purely a matter of Treasury concern, that if the fund was bankrupt it was the fault of the Treasury, and that any deficit ought to be made good by that Department. He would ask hon. Members to consider the history of this matter. The Irish National Teachers' Pension Act of 1879 granted to the National Teachers of Ireland a boon which had never been granted to the teachers of England or Scotland. The Act instituted a pension fund constituted in the first place by a fixed sum of £1,300,000 out of the surplus of the Irish Church Revenues. That was to form a nucleus of the fund, and the teachers were then to subscribe by certain annual payments what was calculated to amount to one-fourth of the benefit they would derive. There were arrangements in the Act for temporary advances to be made by the National Debt Commissioners until the payment of this £1,300,000 by the Irish Church Commissioners, and the seventh Clause of the Measure dealt exclusively with those arrangements. The clause only protected the National Debt Commissioners in respect of any such advances which they might make pending the allocation by the Irish Church Commissioners of this sum of £1,300,000. There was absolutely no obligation thrown by this Act upon the Treasury to make the pension fund good after the £1,300,000 had been paid. But it was contended by hon. Members opposite that there was a moral obligation upon the Treasury in consequence of the fault of an actuary, or rather in consequence of the failure of the calculations of an actuary to prove correct. It was provided that there

  1013
  should be a quinquennial valuation of the assets of this fund in order to ascertain its solvency, and it was clear from the wording of the Act, which laid down certain rules in the schedule under which teachers would be entitled to pensions and under which their contributions were to be regulated, and provided that such rules might be revoked or varied from time to time by the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury, that the intention of the Act was that this fixed sum of £1,300,000 should be the nucleus of the pension fund, but that if it should prove insufficient the amount required would have to be made up by increased contributions on the part of the teachers. [Serjeant HEMPHILL: "Has the £1,300,000 been advanced?"] Cerainly. A valuation was made in 1885, and appeared to show a surplus of £100,000, and, in consequence, the rules in the Schedule of the Act were revised for the benefit of the teachers. The teachers, therefore, as far as their contributions were concerned, had been in a better position since the end of the five years, when the first valuation was made—and, up to the present moment—than they were in during the first five years after the passing of the Act. But after the second period of five years had expired the second valuation had to be made, and it was then discovered that the calculations had been erroneous and that there was a deficit. The amount of the deficit was a doubtful point; it was fixed by one actuary at one amount and by another at another. But the contributions of the teachers were not raised, because it was felt in 1891 by those who were in power that the matter was so serious that it required further investigation. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "What was done in 1885?"] That was the first valuation, when the rules were modified to the advantage of the teachers under the mistaken notion that the fund showed a surplus. Was the actuary who had miscalculated to be blamed? At one time he believed he was to be blamed, but he was not satisfied of that now. The Committee would understand that calculations of this kind must be based on certain assumptions as to the number of teachers in each class who would benefit by pensions, the number of years during which they would remain in the service, the number of premiums they would pay, and other
  1014
  matters. When the fund was established the age of entrance into the service was 17 for males and 16 for females, but it was subsequently raised to 18 for both sexes. The Committee would see that that change would by itself make a very material difference, because it lessened the number of years during which contributions would be paid to the fund, in some cases by two years and in others by one year. Then the tendency on the part of teachers to retire from the service without pensions proved to be much less than had been anticipated, and as time went on there were far more teachers in the first and second class and fewer in the third class than there were in 1879. The result of the errors in. the calculation was that when the second valuation came to be made it was found that the first had been entirely wrong. He did not like to blame any of his predecessors in office, but he felt bound to say that the time during which this matter remained untouched was not very creditable to the Government of the day.
  MR. SERGEANT HEMPHILL: When did it come before the late Government?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The mistake was discovered in 1891 and they never put it right. The present Government had had the matter considered by three eminent specialists— Mr. Finlayson, Mr. Sutton, and Mr. Robinson—and the result of their investigations was discussed by a Committee, of which the Resident Commissioner of National Education was a member, who had made the recommendations upon which it was now proposed to act. He had shown how it was that the Pension Fund became deficient, and he hoped that he had also shown that neither in the Act nor in anything that had passed since was a liability imposed by Parliament on the Treasury to make that deficiency good. Further, he hoped that he had shown that certainly the Government could not be held responsible for the deficiency which occurred, and also that by what happened the teachers had materially benefited, because for all these years their contributions had been materially less to the Pension Fund than if the mistaken valuation in 1885 had never been made and their contribution then lowered. Now it was contended that the £96,000 ought to be paid into their pockets, and should not be devoted

  1015
  towards assisting to render the Pension Fund solvent. He did not think that they ought to ask Parliament to take such a course as that. It had not been suggested in Scotland, where there was a similar sum, though not so large, waiting to be devoted to educational purposes, that those arrears should be given to individuals after the years had elapsed during which they considered them to be due. The teachers would benefit by this allocation of the fund. Their increased contributions would be subject to a less increase than they would otherwise have been. It must also be remembered with regard to the fee grant that the Irish teachers, as compared with English and Scottish teachers, were in a very fortunate position. What was the origin of the fee grant? It was desired to give free education in England, and the amount which Parliament was asked to provide for free education in England and in Scotland was estimated to be precisely what the teachers would lose by the remission of fees hitherto paid by the children. That sum was calculated on the average of 10s. in England and Scotland; and he believed that the fees actually paid in Scotland had amounted to 12s. per child. There was no profit made by the teachers either in England or Scotland by the substitution of the fee grant for the fees paid by the pupils; but in Ireland, whichever basis was taken, whether the, original basis of a mere equivalent grant or the basis of 10s. per child, the Irish national teachers had profited enormously by the change. The average fees in. Ireland paid by the pupils were only 4s. 6d. per child in average attendance, compared with 10s. per child in England and 12s. in Scotland. Thus the Irish national teachers, instead of only receiving what they had received before, got more than double what they received before. For every reason, therefore, it seemed to him only just and fair that this £96,000 should go to the benefit of the teachers in relief of the Pension Fund. This was no case in which the Treasury had overruled anyone. He believed that this had been a very liberal settlement on the part of the Treasury, because it was proposed that an annual sum, amounting to £18,000 in the present year, should be voted by Parliament to make the Pensions' Fund solvent, besides the contributions to be made by the
  1016
  teachers and by this payment for arrears. It was accepted by the Irish Government, and unanimously accepted by the Irish Board of Education; and he hoped the Committee would approve of what had been done. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that everyone on his own side of the House who had heard the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman must at least have desired that some of the extraordinary ability shown in denying the elements of justice to Ireland could have been employed to a slight extent on the side of Ireland, and in endeavouring to make out a good case for her. Unfortunately the Irish Members had equipped against them the whole hierarchy of the British Government, with all the resources of the Government behind it. Though Ireland had only a number of untrained men, without a figure at their disposal, to put forward the Irish case, he thought that these men would be able, in spite of the marked ability of the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to show that right, truth, and justice were on the side of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Irish teachers were in the first instance put into a position in 1879 far in advance of the position occupied by the teachers in England and Scotland. Taking the salaries of the Irish teachers and comparing them with those of the teachers in England and Scotland, he said that for every 14s. or 15s. received by the Irish teacher, the English or Scottish teacher received £1, while the last named were at least 2s. 6d. in the pound better off both as to pension and pay. The right hon. Gentleman next asserted that a fair bargain was made in 1879. It would be true to say that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the authors of the Act of 1879; but from 1874 to 1879 it would be found that the unfortunate Irish teachers, paid a miserable pittance, were clamouring to the Government, not for pensions, but for an increase of salary. The Treasury, in reply. said,—
  "No, we will give you an increase of salary if you can persuade the Irish Boards of Guardians to vote something out of the poor rates."
  [Cheers.] Then the pension was provided out of the Church Surplus Fund; so that in either case the dog was being fed by a bit of his own tail. [Laughter.]

  1017
  In a matter of this kind Ireland could not, like a State in the American Union, appeal to a Federal Judge to give a decision; Ireland could only, through the feeble voices of her representatives, appeal to and argue with what he would respectfully call the guilty parties. [Laughter.] It was a case of the traveller on the roadside appealing, like Ali Baba, to the Forty Thieves. [Laughter.] The Seventh Section of the Act said that if at any time the Pension Fund was insufficient for the payment of the £1,300,000 the Treasury, on being duly informed thereof by the Commissioners of the National Debt, should issue the amount of deficiency out of the Consolidated Fund, and the Treasury should certify such deficiency to Parliament. The Irish teachers, argued the right hon. Gentleman, supposed that if there was a deficiency in reference to the fund, the Treasury had undertaken to make it good. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not the position at all; the Commissioners might make an advance to the extent of £1,300,000, and the limit of liability on the part of the Treasury was to make good the amount to that extent, and no more. His argument was that the teachers were all wrong—that they were only to get the £1,300,000, and that all the rest was to be made good out of their salaries and contributions. They asked, "Where is the evidence?" and the right hon. Gentleman replied,
  "If you look back to the spirit of the time you will find that everybody knew it and agreed to it."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was speaking of what I know. [" Hear, hear ! "] I said that I was Irish Secretary the year before this Act was passed. I had a good deal to do with the preparation of the Act, and I am perfectly certain it was never intended by that Act to impose any liability on the Treasury except to the limited extent I have stated. [" Hear, hear ! "]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was quite sure that was the understanding of the right hon. Gentleman; and he had said, while he was out, that he believed he intended to do the Irish teachers service. That was the right hon. Gentleman's
  1018
  understanding; but was that the understanding of the Irish teachers? Observe this—who was now complaining of this deficiency? Was it the teachers? Did they come howling to that House, saying, "Our Pension Fund is bankrupt; give us something"? They had made no such complaint. The people who were howling and grumbling that the Irish Teachers' Fund was bankrupt were not the recipients of the fund themselves, but a benevolent British Treasury. [" Hear, hear !"] It was not the poor man of Connemara, and Donegal who would get perhaps 15s. a week pension were the fund in good standing; it was not he who was coming to represent to the British Treasury that he stood in danger of being cut off without a shilling in his old age. No; the man who was feeling it in every pulse and fibre of his nature was the tender-hearted Treasury clerk. [Laughter and cheers.] What was the case of the Irish teachers? Talk of actuarial calculations! He remembered a remarkable instance. He could recollect being startled some years ago on reading in the Standard that at a Foresters' convention held in Edinburgh it was alleged that the Foresters' fund was bankrupt to the amount of a million. Yet the Foresters' Order was going gaily on; and, in spite of an actuarial deficiency, existing only on paper, was meeting every liability with as much regularity as the Bank of England. [" Hear, hear ! "] These were your actuaries, upon the faith of whose advice the Government were acting. One actuary, a gentleman of high reputation, said the Teachers' Pension Fund was only bankrupt to the extent of £100,000; another, of equally good standing, put it at £900,000. Really, when actuaries differed, it was worse than doctors. [Laughter.] The position was this—that the Treasury put into a pool £1,300,000 of Irish money, and then called on the teachers to put in so much out of their salaries, in return for which they were to have a certain pension at such and such an age. Suppose they were dealing with an insurance society, what would be said; would such a thing be listened to for a moment? There was to be a great Commission on the financial relations of England and Ireland, and Mr. Lidderdale, of the Bank of England, had been mentioned as an authority of high standing.

  1019
  How would Mr. Lidderdale be listened to if he issued a prospectus to policyholders, saying, "Oh, my friends, we were all in the wrong; it was a little matter of actuarial miscalculation! You are now paying a bagatelle of £50, would you mind increasing it to £100, and you will then have as your reward a good conscience—[laughter]—and, when you get bald and grey, you will be in receipt of 13s. a week." [Laughter.] That, as he understood it, was the position of the British Treasury. But, passing the sponge over these small matters, he would like to address Her Majesty's Government as human beings. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.] What were they arguing about? They spent millions on ships, soldiers, and railways. Here, in the case of a body of men—some 20,000 or 30,000—who had charge of the education of the whole Irish people, they were dealing, not with millions, but with a paltry sum of £70,000 or £100,000, and yet, with an income of 100 millions a year, they deemed it respectable and decent to carry on this contest over an addition of £3 or £4 a year to the salaries of men who were responsible for the teaching of millions of their fellow-subjects. ["Hear, hear !" and laughter.] How was it these actuarial calculations were not discovered until the Irish people found out the Government were diddling them? There was to be a quinquennial revision, and the first quinquennial revision found out that the Irish people were £100,000 to the good, and accordingly every national teacher went out and had a drink. [Laughter.] That was the first essay in quinquennial revision. Five years passed away, and then in 1890—a Liberal Government having in 1885 brought Paddy in as having £100,000 profit—a Tory Government, on the close investigation that was always applied by the present First Lord of the Admiralty with his theory of foreign exchanges, brought them in £500,000 to the bad, and then said, "Oh ! this is terrible." Having kept this secret locked in the Treasury bosom since 1890, the Government unlocked their bosom for the first time when the Irish people discovered that John Bull had been doing them on this "nine-eightieth" principle, and when they proved it. Then it was that John Bull had his ever fertile and ready answer: "It is true that we did you in
  1020
  that year, but we have a remedy for that. Your Pension Fund has gone wrong, but we did not tell you before." These poor people had invested their money on the faith of British honour. They allowed dockages from their salaries on the faith that they were dealing with a great, a generous, and a powerful nation. He remembered how Gordon, in Khartoum, said of the issue of leather shillings and leather halfpence that they would be redeemed because an Englishman had passed his word that they were good. The English Government had passed their word that their money, or rather the Irish people's money, was good, but what did they find out? They got this answer,—
  "You have worked for it, for you were teachers from 1880 to 1897, but we will give the money to your children or your children's children. Take heart, my friends, for when you are mouldering in your graves, when another king is celebrating his jubilee in some dim and distant future, then the Pension Fund will be made good at the slow and sure rate of £10,000 a year by the bounty of the Britisher, and in 1996 the teachers yet unborn will be retiring gaily with the bright assurance of 13s. 6d. a week."
  He had addressed himself to this question as he hoped he did to all these international questions, no doubt with the sentiment of a partisan, but with a desire, if he could, to do justice to the arguments that might be opposed to him. He admitted that they in Ireland might be poorer hands at rule of three than the British Government. But the Government controlled the purse, and they had the Irish money in it. No honest or fair-minded man, with regard to a mere bagatelle of this kind, would deal with it in the spirit of the rule of three when dealing as a great nation towards a small one, but as dealing with a body of men whose duty it was to instruct them, they should rather err upon the side of generosity than upon the side of parsimony.
  MR. GEORGE MURNAGHANurged that the Government should listen to the united voice of the Members from Ireland, and yield in this matter. The teachers of Ireland had a right to expect that the Government would treat them justly. Certain pensions were promised in 1880, and if the fund did not

  1021
  allow of them why should the teachers, who were not responsible, suffer? If a miscalculation had been made, the State was better able to pay for it than the teachers.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he would not have intervened in the Debate if he had not wished to state that there was absolutely no difference of opinion among the Members from Ireland on this question. [Nationalist cheers.] In matters of this kind, which dealt with the financial treatment of Ireland, the Government should be careful to act with scrupulous justice towards that country. The present moment was not the time when the Government could choose to carry out injustice to any section of the Irish people. [Nationalist cheers.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his able and powerful speech, stated that the National Teachers' Act of 1879 conferred great benefits on that body. That was about as wide of the question the Committee were discussing as any subject that could be introduced. The question was not whether their position was bettered by that Act or not. The question was, had the British Treasury kept faith with the teachers under an Act of Parliament passed by the House? [Nationalist cheers.] He was glad that this year they started in a somewhat better position than last year. He well remembered the struggle they had last year to get an admission from the Treasury that the national teachers in Ireland had been defrauded in the past to the tune of something like £100,000, and he remembered the discussion (in which Irish Unionists and Nationalists took part) when they wrung from the Treasury the admission that by a miscalculation, not of Members of the Government but of officials of the Treasury, who always set themselves up as authorities on this question —[Nationalist cheers]—the national teachers of Ireland had been defrauded—he used the word literally—as it was admitted now, of a sum of at least £100,000. What the Committee were discussing was what was to be done with respect to the sum admitted to be due to the school teachers, and what he said was, "Pay it back to the men who had earned it, the men who in the past had been deprived of it." It was no answer to say as had been said from the Government Bench,
  1022
  that there would be difficulty in finding these men, there would be no great difficulty in finding them. Fortunately a large number were still teachers in Ireland, and if there were any others that could not now be found, at all events, let those who could be found receive the money they ought to receive, money due to them under the Act passed by Parliament. But assuming that the money was not applied in the way he proposed, and as it ought to be applied, what reason was there why the Government should propose to supply the deficiency in the Pension Fund by money having no connection with the Pension Fund? Teachers had not asked for it and teachers were entirely interested in the fund. What connection could be found as between the arrears due to the teachers in the past and the Pension Fund that may be due to them in the future? There was only one connection, and that was the Treasury thought they had found a sum of money by which they could fill up the hiatus, and if the gap were not filled in that way it would have to be filled from Imperial sources. What he did say was this, and this was the whole crux of the question. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer was addressing his argument to the Committee he asked the right hon. Gentleman what construction he put upon the 7th Section of the Act of 1879, and with a wave of the hand and one or two words the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he had got rid of the question. But take it in the most technical way, the whole crux of the situation depended on the 7th Section, the question could not to be decided by saying "we are right and you are wrong in the construction of the Section." How did the case stand? In 1879 a pension was created in this way—£1,300,000 was allotted as a fund from the proceeds of the robbery of the Irish Church, and that was of course a purely Irish fund. It was enacted in the Act of 1879 that to supplement that fund certain deductions specified in the schedule should be made annually from the salaries of teachers who came under the scheme. In consideration of those deductions they were guaranteed in an Imperial Act the payment of certain pensions set out in the Act. What was the Government case now? They said "although that is so, although we have deducted these sums,

  1023
  we are unable to pay the sums guaranteed by the Act." Assuming this Treasury construction of the Act, and that it could be so argued before a Court, was this the kind of justice the House was going to give to the teachers of Ireland? [" Hear, hear ! "] Would the House support the Government in saying, "we have deducted your money, taking the full quota we laid down for you to pay under the Act, you have done your part, we are unable to do ours, and you must be the sufferers." [" Hear, hear ! "] A most unworthy argument for the British House of Commons. [" Hear, hear ! "] He denied the construction. The 7th Section enacted that so long as this money, which was to be advanced by the National Debt Commissioners until the money was paid over from the Church Fund, so long as this money was unpaid, the National Debt Commissioners were to go on paying to the Pension Fund, and if there was any deficiency it was to be met out of the Imperial Treasury. If the money was still due to the National Debt Commissioners they would go on paying to the Pension Fund, and the Imperial Treasury would pay the deficiency. But now the House was asked to say that because the National Debt Commissioners had been repaid out of the Church funds, then when funds fell short the Imperial Treasury was not to afford relief. It was an argument that could not for a moment hold water, for its whole construction would depend not upon whether persons were rightly paid or not, but whether the Church Fund had made payment to the National Debt Commissioners or not. It was an absurd argument, and even if that were the technical construction of the Act of Parliament he should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been ashamed to put it forward in the House as against the claims of these school teachers, whose salaries had had deductions made from them according to a scale laid down in an Act of Parliament. [" Hear, hear ! "] But the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw himself that the Act must have meant that the pensions mentioned in the schedule were to be paid under all circumstances to the teachers so long as they made contributions, but he said deficiencies must be made up by increased contributions from the teachers. From beginning to end of the Act he defied anyone to point to a
  1024
  single word showing that such was in contemplation. So far was that from being the case, it declared there should be no divergence from the sums stipulated as deductions from the salaries of National teachers, and the schedule enacted to a penny what these deductions were to be. Therefore, it was perfectly plain, whether the common-sense view of the case were taken, or whether the Act itself were taken, as it would be understood by a teacher or any person who read it, or even on the narrowest construction of the section itself, there was no reason in the world why the pensions promised to the teachers should not faithfully be paid. What did the proposal of the Government amount to? It was a proposal to pay a debt of the British Treasury from the hard-earned wages of these men—["hear, hear!"]—and that was a matter on which Members on the Ministerial side of the House, who represented Irish constituencies, wished to protest as much as Members of the Party opposite. ["Hear, hear !"] He would say to his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it was this higgling and peddling on the part of the Treasury, more than in any other manner, that distrust was raised in the minds of hard-working men in Ireland, such as these teachers were. They said, "If we are unable to get common justice from the Imperial House of Commons in such matters, how can we expect in the broader political questions that come under discussion, and in which the happiness of our people is concerned, that our claims will be listened to? ["Hear, hear !"] He would be ashamed to get up on any platform in Ireland and for a moment attempt to defend this proposal to take £90,000 from these National School teachers. He hoped that on this question what he might call the unanimous voice of the representatives of Ireland would be listened to. They were unanimous a short time ago on another question, and they were outvoted, but the Government afterwards found that the question was not disposed of. He thought they ought to take warning by that. Upon this question they none of them had any political objects in view—[Irish cheers]—and on that side of the House at all events they wished for justice, not merely to Ireland, but to England and Ireland as a whole. He

  1025
  hoped the Government would see their way to meet them, and if they did he should not look upon it as a concession, but as an equitable and just carrying out of the provisions of the Act of Parliament itself. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they had listened that evening to one of the most good-humoured and clever speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Louth which he had ever had the pleasure of hearing. It would perhaps be a pity to criticise in a serious spirit a speech delivered obviously with the intention of amusing and diverting the House. The speech which had just been delivered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, on the other hand, seemed to have been delivered in most serious, he might even say a desperately serious, spirit. His right hon. Frieind asked what these two questions had in common. The question of the deficiency of the Pension Fund and the question of the way in which these arrears were to be applied, were from the nature of the case intimately connected with each other, and that that was so had been shown by the fact that in the discussion hon. Members had found it almost impossible to dissever them. The deficiency in the Pension Fund might be diverted into two parts. Owing to the fact that the teachers had not up to the present time contributed the amount which they ought to have contributed to the fund, there was a deficiency of £200,000. The actual total deficiency in the fund was £1,200,000. What did the Government propose to do? They might have said that it would be fair in future to apply to the teachers' contributions, inasmuch as they had hitherto paid less than they should have done had the calculations been made on an adequate basis. But instead of that they proposed that a certain sum which the Government last year consented to pay under the name of arrears for school grant, should be applied to this purpose, and that, so far as increased contributions from the teachers were concerned, they would only ask them in future to pay on the scale on which they ought to have paid from the beginning. The remainder of the deficiency in the fund had eaten up the whole or a very large portion of the £1,300,000 with which the fund was
  1026
  originally endowed. That sum was derived not from Imperial but from Irish sources. They proposed to supply, not from Irish but from Imperial resources, the sum of £1,000,000, which was the amount of the deficiency irrespective of the deficiency which was due to the teachers not having contributed so much as they ought to have done. Therefore, although it was true that in the first instance this fund was endowed out of Irish sources, it would in future be practically endowed out of Imperial sources, and from that point of view, so far from not treating Ireland generously, they were treating Ireland with every generosity that could be fairly expected. [Ironical Nationalist cheers.] If they were now voting these school grant arrears to the purpose of supplying one portion of the deficiency in the fund, he would remind the Committee that that portion of the deficiency arose from the fact that the teachers had not contributed as much as they ought to have done. His hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast had said that the deficiency was the result of a miscalculation, but he would point out that during all these years the teachers had had the benefit of that mistake. His right hon. Friend said they had paid what the Act said they ought to have paid, and that there was nothing in the Act to countenance an alteration. Notwithstanding his right hon. Friend's great reputation as it lawyer, he seemed on this occasion to have offered a legal opinion without even reading the Act, and the Act did not bear out his statement. With regard to the schedule he pointed out that in 1885 the rules in the schedule actually were altered. Did his right hon. Friend seriously put forward the proposition that the rules in the schedule might be altered in favour of teachers, but could not be altered in order to redress the balance so as to do justice to the State?
  MR. CARSONsaid that what he had said was that the scale laid down could not be altered by any act of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he should be very sorry if his right hon.

  1027
  Friend's reputation as a lawyer were to depend on the case he had put forward. He would like to say one word more as to the legal opinion which had just been given by his right hon. Friend. He referred to Section 7. Would any other lawyer of reputation in the House get up and say that Section 7 was intended for any other purpose than to guarantee the National Debt Commissioners? The National Debt Commissioners, under many of their Acts of Parliament, had to make temporary advances, and when they made those advances there was always a provision in the Act to guarantee the Commissioners against any loss which they might incur. That, and that only, was the object of that section, and when his right hon. Friend said that the whole question turned on the interpretation of Section 7 he was quite willing to take him at his word. If it did, then he had not a doubt in his own mind that his right hon. Friend had really no standing ground in this matter at all.
  MR. CARSONsaid his right hon. Friend unintentionally misrepresented him. He said that, the debt having to be repaid to the National Commissioners, if the Government were prepared to take this money upon a strict technicality they could do so.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it did not appear to him to be a question of strict technicality at all. This clause was inserted just as a similar clause was inserted in other Acts wherever a temporary advance was to be made by the National Debt Commissioners. He was very sorry that hon. Members from Ireland on both sides of the House should have taken in connection with this matter the line they had taken. He should be sorry indeed to see any injustice done to Ireland, and if he thought that this was an injustice he should certainly say so. But from the beginning—he said so in the most distinct and emphatic manner—he had held the view that the Treasury were acting not only fairly, but even generously in the action they had taken.
  1028
  [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] The result would be a benefit to the National school teachers — [renewed cries of "Oh!"]—because unless this deficiency were met in the Pension Fund it would be impossible to maintain the scale of payments. If a sum of something short of £100,000 was to be paid from the arrears of school grant towards making this fund solvent, let the House remember that the Government were making a contribution to the fund this year, and it would probably turn out to be an annual contribution of £18,000. The hon. Member for Louth said that this was of little matter, and that the Government should give that which all the Irish Members and the Irish teachers were agreed ought to be given. The conclusion he was driven to was, that all the Irish Members would invariably come down to that House and press for money when they thought it could be squeezed out of the Treasury.
  MR. MACNEILL: It is our own money. [Cheers.]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was a question as to the application of these funds. They were asked to make good the deficiency in the Pension Fund entirely out of Imperial money. They were supposed, on the other hand, to give the teachers the benefit of the arrears of school grant, and to give them that benefit by adding to the Pension Fund so as to make it solvent. He maintained that, if they looked at the action of the Treasury in contributing £18,000 a year to the deficiency, and that if they considered, further, that this deficiency in the Pension Fund arose entirely from the fact that the teachers in the past had not paid the full contributions they ought to have paid, the Committee would come to the conclusion that fairness and justice had been done to the teachers in this matter. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for West Belfast to the convent schools, and he had said that the giving of a contribution to those schools was a proof that this money was due to

  1029
  the teachers in National schools. The case in regard to these schools was simply
  this. The teachers in those schools did not receive salaries, mid they did not contribute to the Pension Fund. If the convent and monastery schools were to receive their share of this grant it could not be otherwise than by way of a contribution to them as a corporate body. It would be impossible to pay these funds over to the individual teachers in those schools. Therefore, as regarded them, that method was adopted, but, as regarded the teachers, they had adopted the other method on the most careful consideration, and he believed the Committee would agree, on principles that were fair and just.
  MR. CARSONsaid there was one matter referred to by his right hon. Friend which he certainly could not allow to go unchallenged. He thought it was rather unworthy of him to suggest that the Irish Unionist Members were always prepared to come down to that House and make demands on the Imperial Exchequer, whether they thought they were entitle to them or not. He entirely repudiated that suggestion—["hear, hear !"]—and he thought it came with rather an ill grace from the Irish Chief Secretary of a Unionist Government, supported as he was by Irish Unionists. He could only say, for his own part, that it was absolutely without foundation. ["Hear, hear!"] He should like to say that on the present occasion it was not a demand on the Imperial Treasury at all. It was simply a demand that Irish funds earned by Irish teachers should be given to the men who earned them. [Nationalist cheers.] And he, no matter what might be the view or the criticism or the sneer of an Irish Chief Secretary, would certainly, as an Irish Member, have no hesitation in these circumstances in standing up in defence of these men. [Nationalist cheers.] He regretted the tone of his right hon. Friend, and he did not think that he either improved the position of Unionism in Ireland or made their task
  1030
  in that House easier by suggesting towards them motives which would at once brand them among their constituents as acting dishonourably for the purpose of obtaining money from the Imperial Exchequer for purposes for which they were net entitled to it.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Chief Secretary had gone so far as to challenge any other lawyer to maintain that under Section 7 any permanent charge could be thrown on the Treasury. He found that that was not the opinion of a great many speakers during the Debate when that section was introduced. On the 28th July 1879 the house went into Committee on Section 7. In Committee on the Bill, Mr. Childers, who knew something about financial matters, argued that the Resolution was necessary, in order that if there was a deficiency the charges should be defrayed from time to time from the public funds. That clearly showed that Mr. Childers interpreted the section as creating a permanent charge on the public funds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin took the same view. The Government then thought it right to show that no deficiency in the fund would arise. They accordingly limited the pension to a certain number of teachers in the various classes, male and female, which are set forth in the schedule of the Act. In fact, no one who read the Debates on the Bill could doubt that in the opinion of a great many Members of the House, including some of its most experienced Members, Clause 7 did contemplate the placing of any deficiency that might arise in the Pension Fund as a charge on the Imperial Exchequer: and it was argued that the proper way to deal with such charge was to bring it up on the annual Votes of the House. Again, the Chief Secretary had said it had been clearly proved that the deficiency in the fund hail arisen from the fact that the teachers had paid less than they ought to have paid. That was not the fault of the teachers, who had always paid what

  1031
  they had been called upon to pay. But the Chief Secretary in making that statement must have forgotten, or must have misinterpreted the Report of the Departmental Committee on the subject, which showed that the accounts were so mixed up that it was impossible now to tell whether the deficiency arose in the original fund or in the contributions of the teachers. The important part of the Report consisted in a recital of the various Acts. What had been the history of the operation of those Acts? In 1885 a first-rate actuary reported that the fund was £100,000 to the good. An alteration was then made in the rules in favour of the teachers, and in 1890 another first-rate actuary reported that the fund was £195,000 to the bad. Then the same actuary mid another actuary were set to work, and they reported that the fund was £837,000 to the bad. Subsequently it had been reported that the fund was £924,000 and £1,200,000 to the bad. There was no end to the reports, and no one had any firm ground to stand upon. What assurance had they that in another five years another actuary might not report that the fund was another £100,000 to the good? To seize upon a sum of money which went but a very small way towards filling up the alleged deficiency was a very harsh and new proceeding. The National Commissioners, in their Report for 1895, give a balance-sheet of the Pension Fund. According to that balance-sheet, the fund had been growing rapidly, and there was a balance to the good invested in Stock, of about £44,000. It was perfectly plain that if there be a deficiency—about which he was extremely doubtful—that deficiency could not or would not come into operation during the life of any living teacher. The Government now proposed to take away from a few poor Irish teachers a sum of £90,000 which they had earned. The question which had been raised to-night was an immediate one—one which ought not to be put off and made to hang upon the
  1032
  solvency of the Pension Fund; it was, whether a rich Government was, in the opinion of the whole Irish people, going to do an extremely shabby thing.
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were going to make a comparison between the Irish teachers and those of England and Scotland as to pension, he ought to remember that the Irish teachers received much smaller salaries. The average salary for teachers in Scotland (taking principals and assistants together) was £183 10s.; in England it was £122 6s. 7d., and in Ireland, where there were only principal teachers, it was £98 16s. 11¾d. How had this deficiency arisen? Ireland was to receive 9–80ths of what England received; and she did get that proportion of what appeared on the Estimates of the year. But owing to the increase in average attendance in England, a supplementary Estimate had to be brought in, and Ireland was entitled to 9–80ths of the amount of that supplementary Estimate. How would that sum have been distributed if it had been given? Beyond all doubt, it would have gone to the teachers. In 1892 the sum for Ireland had increased by £149,918, and £140,523 of that amount went to the teachers. Last year the sum for Ireland had increased by £73,000, and the expenditure on the teachers increased by £80,000. The increased sum from the fee grant went entirely to the teachers in Ireland; and if it had been larger it would still have gone to the teachers. Was it fair, therefore, because of a miscalculation, to deprive the teachers of the money due to them? As to the amount, according to the principle of 1889 (the proportion of 9–80ths), the amount due to Ireland would be £257,000. But on the principle of 10s. per child, now adopted in the Estimates, the amount was only £255,000. So that by this change of principle Ireland was defrauded of £2,000. The 10s. per child principle was urged on the Government for Ireland and Scotland in past years, but they

  1033
  would never adopt it while it was favourable to those countries.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): The hon. Member entered into that question very fully on the Scotch Estimates.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary would be received with bitter disappointment in Ireland to-morrow, not only by the National teachers, but by the general public, and they would be regarded as further evidence of the impossibility of Ireland getting justice from this House or from the Treasury. He called attention to the question of the average attendance necessary to qualify for the employment of assistant teachers, the present average being much too high. The Commissioners of National Education had brought this matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and also of the Lord Lieutenant more than 12 months ago, and a promise was made that the matter would be carefully considered, and he wanted to know what had been done about it. He further complained that no settlement had yet been arrived at in regard to the claims of the schools of the Christian Brothers.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought it would be undesirable to enter upon the debateable question of the Christian Brothers' Schools. He had already brought forward a proposal which was unacceptable to hon. Members opposite, and unless the Government was prepared to drive the proposal through the House at an immense expenditure of time, or an agreement was come to with the Members who represented the Christian Brothers, he did not see that anything could be done. The offer he had made he was still prepared to make if he heard that it would meet with their acceptance.
  Vote agreed to.
  5. £1,697, to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland.—Agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,771, be Granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
  MR T. P. O'CONNORsuggested that they should now report Progress.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURurged that they should go on, as this Vote would not need prolonged discussion.
  MR. DILLON and DR. TANNERdissented from that view.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsuggested that the Votes for the Public Record Office, the Surveyor General's Office, and the Valuation and Boundary Survey might be taken.
  MR. DILLONsaid there was an important question to be raised on the Valuation and Boundary Survey Vote, and also on the Public Record Office Vote. On the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's household he wished to call attention to the salary of the private secretary. Instead of the salary of this office being reduced or modified, it appeared to him to be enormously increased. The emoluments of this gentleman amounted to about £1,600 a year, and although the question had been raised year after year, it could never be ascertained what his functions were. He believed he had no public functions whatever, and he had always thought his salary much too large. The whole question of the cost of the Viceregal establishment had acquired a new aspect in view of the new system of charging certain sums against Ireland. Every single item in connection with the hangers on to that establishment was charged to Ireland, and he did not think the Chief Secretary could be surprised if the Irish Members scrutinised the extravagance of Dublin Castle with more care than in past years. He thought he would be expressing the feelings of the Irish Members on this matter by moving to reduce the salary of the private secretary to The Lord Lieutenant by £329, and he begged to move accordingly.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested to the Government that they should withdraw this Vote, and take the Vote for the Charitable Bequests and Donations Office.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought it was reasonable to ask the House to dispose of this Vote. It had never been discussed at any great length hitherto. The Vote for the private secretary reached the amount named, because he enjoyed a pension in view of his having been assistant under secretary, and he only received £829 in respect of his office of private secretary.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the discussion of this Vote must occupy considerable time. Why should the Lord Lieutenant have a highly-paid private secretary to write out invitations to Court functions? The services of a typewriter could be secured for £2 a week.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that the salary of the kettledrummer had disappeared from this Vote. In his place, however, a new personage appeared—namely, "the succentor." Who could he be? [Laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)pointed out that the only item now before the Committee was the salary of the private secretary.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that possibly the private secretary might be the "succentor." [Laughter.] He did not know. He suggested that this Vote should be deferred, and the Vote for the Public Record Office taken instead.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURacceded to the suggestion.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  6. £880, to complete the sum for Public Record Office, Ireland.—Agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POOR LAW BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, in moving, "That this House do now adjourn," stated that, as great progress had been made with private Bill legislation, it would not now be necessary to defer the consideration of public business until Half-past Three o'clock. For the remainder of the Session public business would therefore be taken at a. Quarter past Three o'clock.
House Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  *THE EARL OF MAYOhad given notice of the following Amendments:—
  Clause 9,—

  POWER OF TOWNSHIPS TO APPLY FOR SUPPLY AT UNIFORM PRICE.
  Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any of the scheduled Acts, it shall be competent for the Commissioners of any of the townships supplied with water by the Corporation to apply to the Corporation to be supplied with water for all purposes at the uniform rate or price of twopence and four-tenths of a penny for every thousand gallons so supplied, and the Corporation shall thereupon be bound to afford the supply on such terms as aforesaid instead of on the terms as to payment provided by the scheduled Acts:
  Provided that after the expiration of ten years front the passing of this Act the rate or price named in this section may on the application of the Commissioners of any township or of the Corporation be revised by the Board of Trade after such local or other inquiry as the Board may think fit.
  To leave out the word "ten" ("ten years") and insert the word "three" ("three years").
  Clause 10,—

  AS TO PAYMENT BY COMMISSIONERS OF KINGSTOWN.
  The Commissioners of the township of Kingstown in the event of their being supplied with water by the Corporation under the provisions of the last preceding section shall, in respect of the sum of six thousand pounds expended by the Corporation in the purchase of the rights and property of the Kingstown Waterworks Company, pay yearly to the Corporation a sum equal to the annual interest on the said sum of six thousand pounds at such rate as may be agreed, or failing agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland.
  To leave out the Clause.

  THE SECOND SCHEDULE
  PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION TO BE ADDED IN CERTAIN OF THE TOWNSHIPS.

  Name of Township.

  Additional Percentage.

  Bray

  …

  30 per centum.

  Clontarf

  …

  20 per centum.

  Dalkey

  …

  20 per centum.

  Kingstown

  …

  10per centum.

  Pembroke

  …

  5 per centum.

  After the word "Kingstown," to insert the words "and Blackrock," and to leave out opposite the word "Kingstown" the figure "10" and to insert "20." He said with regard to these Amendments he statement to make to their Lordships. The Bill had been before the House last year, and had been threshed out by four Committees. He had consulted with the Chairman of Committees in regard to these Amendments, and his noble Friend advised him that the Bill having now been before four Committees in this and the other House, it would under the circumstances not be in accordance with precedents to allow Amendments to be inserted at the present stage. His noble Friends, Lords Pembroke and De Vesci, who were interested in the Bill, would be very glad to have Clause 9 amended by substituting "three" for "ten" in line 12, but under the circumstances he desired to withdraw the Amendments. He did so with some reluctance, but he felt that Lord Morley was right in insisting that the force and authority their Lordships usually attached to the decision of a Committee should not be disturbed. This was not the first time this Session he had felt the noble Lord's restraining influence.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN of (COMMITTEES)thanked his noble Friend for withdrawing the Amendments, and thought he had exercised a wise discretion. The House would have been hardly

  947
  inclined to review a decision of its Committee arrived at after careful consideration.
  Bill read a Third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  *LORD REAY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that by the Act of 1895 the English Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 was amended in order that it might be made more applicable to market gardening. The object of the present Bill was a very simple one. It was to assimilate the Scotch market gardeners to the English market gardeners in relation to their holdings. The House would notice that there was every guarantee that the holding would not be let, or treated as a market garden, unless previous consent in writing had been given that the holding should be considered as such. The erection or enlargement of buildings was taken out of Part I. of the Schedule of the principal Act and was placed in Part III. of the Schedule, but only when such buildings were for the purpose of the trade or business of a market gardener. For greater security the vegetable crops (placed in Part III. with other improvements relating to market gardens) must continue productive for two or more years. That was not in the Measure which was introduced in this House in 1895 by the noble Earl opposite. For climatic reasons rhubarb was mentioned instead of asparagus in Section 3 (3) (iv.) The economic aspect of the question was rather important. Market gardening had now become a thriving and growing industry in Scotland, but the imports from abroad were still very considerable. In 1896 the value of imported potatoes amounted to about £908,000; of onions to close upon £682,000; of vegetables to £1,284,753; and of fruit to nearly £4,000,000. The main object of the Bill was to secure that market gardens should at the end of the lease be returned to the landlord in a satisfactory condition by encouraging the tenant to make and to maintain improvements. The situation in Scotland was now a very different one from what it was in 1435, when Regnault Gérard, Charles VII.'s Ambassador to James I., presented the Queen
  948
  with three casks of chestnuts, pears, and apples of divers sorts, who was much pleased, there being little fruit in Scotland.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)said he did not think it necessary to add anything to the explanation which the noble Lord had given of the purposes of this Bill. During its progress through the other House certain Amendments had been accepted which removed the objections which had at first been entertained, and it passed through that House practically as an agreed Measure. Therefore he hoped their Lordships would give it a Second Reading.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  LORD GLENESKsaid this was a short Bill of only two clauses. It was purely an amending Bill. Last year an Act was passed of a very beneficial nature enabling Poor Law officers to obtain superannuation without touching public moneys in any shape or form. This Act applied to all officers under the Poor Law, and it now appeared that there were classes of officers, especially nurses in the infirmaries, who did not wish to be bound in that way, and very naturally so, because, of course, the nurses did not wish to begin and end their career under the Poor Law. These two clauses provided, the one that the nurses should not be bound by the Act, and the other that any money which had been deducted from their salaries in conformity with the provisions should be returned to them.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)said that, in the absence of Lord Harris, he had to say, on behalf of the Local Government Board, that they had no objection whatever to this Bill.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  *LORD BALFOUR*LORD BALFOUR moved that the following Lords formed the Select Committee upon this Bill:—The Earl of Lauderdale, the Earl of Carnwath, the Earl of Morley, the Earl of Camperdown, the Marquess of Lothian, Lord Balfour, Lord Reay, Lord Tweedmouth, and Lord Thring.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdid not object to any of the names proposed, but asked whether it was not desirable that some more noble Lords representing England and Ireland should be appointed to serve upon the Committee. The Bill was nominally a Scotch Bill, but at the same time it effected a change in the system of conducting private business which, if it passed with regard to Scotland would, he apprehended, be extended in some form or other both to England and Ireland. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him it was desirable to have representatives of England upon the Committee in addition to the Earl of Morley and Lord Thring.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said that his impression was that, as there was no real controversial question involved, this matter would be more suitably dealt with by the Scotch Lords than by any other Committee that could be arranged. The suggestion of the noble Earl that the enactments would afterwards be extended to England was, he thought, animated by an undue distrust of their Lordships' own powers. If there were any fear of Scotch provisions being extended to England, England was quite strong enough to take care of herself. He therefore would not depart from what appeared to be, in a matter of this technical detail, the soundest plan—namely, that those who
  950
  were acquainted with Scotch business would be the most capable to examine into the suitability of the provisions of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at Half-past Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. I40.)
  METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to he printed.—(No. 141.)

  POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and to be printed.—(No. 142.)
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Five o'Clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.