Sitting of 17 February 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
ADDRESSES FOR RETURNS.

  INSTITUTION TO BENEFICES.
  Address for—
  "Returns giving the Form of Institution to Benefices in the dioceses of Canterbury, York, and London, with a Statement of the origin and authority for the said Form: and giving the Form of Testimonials required in the dioceses of Canterbury, York, and London, prior to admission to Holy Orders, to Curacies, Benefices, and other Church preferment."—(Mr. Monk.)

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER CAMPAIGN.
Address for—
"Return of the Marching-out (Field) Strength of each Battalion of British Infantry detailed for service in the recent Operations on the North-West Frontier of India: Of the number of Non-commissioned Officers and Men left behind in quarters: And, of the actual number who joined the Field Force and engaged in active Operations: And, Statement of the Reasons for the retention in Quarters of such
862
Non-commissioned Officers and Men as were left behind by the Battalions of British Infantry detailed for service in the recent Operations on the North-West Frontier of India."—(Sir James Fergusson.)

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Francis William Lowe, esquire, for Borough of Birmingham (Edgbaston Division); John Wynford Philipps, esquire, for County of Pembroke.
QUESTIONS.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Report on last year's Naval Manœuvres will be published?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): A Report on the Naval Manoeuvres of last year will be prepared and laid on the Table at an early date.

WAGES OF LIGHT-KEEPERS.
MR. D. N. NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, considering that the Board of Trade have long since sanctioned the lighthouse authorities' decision upon the light-keepers' petition for a rise of pay, and seeing that the Trinity Board have made known this decision to the English keepers, some time ago, would he state the reason why the Northern Lighthouse Board, of which he is a member, have not yet intimated their decision to their light-keepers?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY): The decision of the Board of Trade was only communicated to the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners on 31st December last, and considerable correspondence has since passed with a view to clear up some points of detail, but the General Order embodying the scheme has now been issued.

THE NATIONAL COLLECTIONS.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has further considered the expediency of a Civil Works Loans Bill for spreading over several years the cost of such works as those connected with the rehousing of portions of the National Collections?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir; a Bill for the purpose referred to in the question has been drafted and will be introduced in a few days.

CANADIAN SEALERS.
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would inform the House the amount of the award for damages claimed by the Canadian sealers against the United States of America; and whether it has yet been paid; and, if not, could he state when it is likely to be handed over?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The amount of the award for damages claimed by Canadian sealers against the United States of America is 463,454 dollars and 27 cents, exclusive of the claims as to which the Commissioners held that they had no jurisdiction, but which they assessed, provisionally, at 5,000 dollars and 1,000 dollars with interest from the 18th of September, 1897. The award has not yet been paid. On the 14th January a message was sent to the Senate recommending the early appropriation of the amount by Congress. No information has yet reached Her Majesty's Government as to what action has been taken.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that no copies of the final Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, presented during last autumn, are now obtainable, and that the type was actually broken up before the
864
meeting of Parliament; if so, who was responsible for such a proceeding; and will steps be at once taken for placing an adequate number of copies within the reach of the agricultural community and the public generally upon the same terms as prevailed with regard to the original issue?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It is the case that no copies of the Report are obtainable at present. The supply was adequate to meet ordinary demands, but it was exhausted by a large and unforeseen requisition from one of the Government Departments. There would not, under ordinary circumstances, have been any difficulty about replenishing the stock; but in this case, owing to the contract with the printer having expired, the Stationery Office had no further claim upon the type which was found to have been broken up. I have given instructions for the Report to be reprinted with a view to its issue to the public on the same terms as before.

LIGHT SILVER.
SIR HENRY HOWORTH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his attention has been called to a recent regulation issued by the Bank of England, in virtue of which it refuses to receive worn or light silver; if he is aware that this regulation has caused considerable inconvenience to country bankers and to the public, who find it difficult to dispose of light silver; and, if, considering the large profit made by the Mint in coining silver money, he can see his way either to advise the Bank of England to withdraw the regulation in question or to charge the loss involved to the Mint?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-EXCHEQUER: I understand that, pursuing a practice of many years' standing, the Bank of England accepts worn silver coins, provided that they can be identified as English coins of current issues. These worn coins are separated from those waiting reissue, and are sent to the Mint from time to time for re-coinage, the loss in weight

865
being made good from the Mint Vote. The hon. Member is, therefore, misinformed when he talks of a regulation in virtue of which the Bank refuses to receive worn silver. It is probable that he refers to a somewhat more stringent practice with regard to the reception of defaced coin, which was temporarily adopted, but is, I understand, no longer in force. There is no disposition to be unduly rigid in this respect, but it is obvious that it is not the business of the Bank or of the Mint to accept freely defaced coin, which is not legal tender under the Coinage Acts, or to encourage laxity on the part of the public in their treatment of coin in circulation.

RAILWAY BETWEEN BURMA AND CHINA.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the great commercial importance to British interests of opening up early railway communication between Burma and China, the recently reported acquiescence of the Chinese Government in such a policy will be promptly acted on by Her Majesty's Government causing the necessary surveys to be made for a continuation of the Burma railway system into Yunnan?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): The question of the hon. Member is based upon a report which I am not in a position to confirm. In any case, I think it will be advisable to construct the railway to the Chinese Frontier before coming to any decision with reference to possible continuations beyond.

CRETE INSURGENTS.
SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Christian insurgents in Crete are now being prevented from landing ammunition in the island by Her Majesty's Fleet; and, if the same restrictions apply to the Mahomedans in the towns?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I understand that both parties are prevented from landing ammunition at Candia, Canea, and Suda. The restriction does not apply elsewhere.
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any difficulty placed in the way of sending food to the interior of the island?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Not that I am aware of. In the latest letter from the British Admiral at Canea he speaks of the shops in the town being open, business proceeding briskly, and there being free communication between the town and the interior.
SIR R. REID: Could the Under Secretary give us the orders to the Admiral as to the blockade or partial blockade?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: As far as I remember, the order to the Admiral was to use his discretion in this matter.

EX-KING MWANGA.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign affairs whether there have been any communications with the German-African Authorities as to the detention of ex-King Mwanga after his defeat in July last; whether Buddu and the neighbouring States have remained quiet; and whether the Soudanese garrisons in the southern provinces are still friendly?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Lieutenant von Wulffen, a German officer, wrote to the British Commandant on July 22nd, from the German sphere, that Mwanga was then his prisoner, and was being taken to Bukoba. We do not know what has passed since, but Lieutenant von Wulffen has been most friendly in supplying ammunition to the British force round Lubwas. There have been troubles and fighting in Buddu, but from latest accounts there is reason to hope that things will settle down there. So far as we know, the Soudanese garrisons in the Southern provinces are still loyal.

867
Indeed, we know that at the end of December, under Lieutenant Hobart, they defeated one of the rebel chiefs. The papers about to be laid will contain the information as yet received on these and other points.

MOMBASA-UGANDA RAILWAY.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the number of miles of the Uganda Railway that were laid and completed by 1st January last, and of the cost of the railway to that date; and whether Her Majesty's Government is contracting or sub-contracting for labour on this railway with any of the Arab natives?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: A hundred and twenty one miles of the Uganda Railway, of which 100 were open to traffic, had been laid and completed by the 1st of January last. The cost to that date amounted to £788,379 11s. 3d., including initial expenditure at Mombasa on workshops, buildings, lighters, machinery, water-supply, landing-stages, etc., etc., also expenditure on all kinds of railway plant, and material for future construction. So far as we are aware, no contract has been entered into with any Arab for the supply of labour.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: What will be the total mileage of the railway when completed?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I believe the original estimate of the mileage was 650, but the length has not yet been definitely settled.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what relation the cost bears to the Estimate?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: That is a rather difficult question to answer, because a good deal of the expenditure is for what may be called prospecting work; that is, the pro-
868
vision of railway plant, which, of course, will be useful for a long time to come. An estimate of the cost has already been given in Papers laid upon the Table.

SOUTH AFRICA MAIL.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the South African mail came by the Pembroke Castle, which arrived at Plymouth at 9.58 p.m. on Friday last; and if so, why the letters were not delivered in London on Saturday evening?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The South African mail was not brought by the Pembroke Castle, but by the Mexican, which arrived on Sunday, and the correspondence was duly delivered in London on Monday morning. A ship letter mail was brought by the Pembroke Castle, and letters contained in it were delivered in London on Saturday morning.

LEAD POISONING.
MR. GERALD LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many deaths attributable to lead poisoning occurred last year amongst boys under eighteen years of age; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent boys of that age from being employed in lead factories?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE-RIDLEY,): Thirty-seven cases of lead poisoning were reported last year as occurring in factories and workshops among boys under 18, two of which are known to have ended fatally. I am not prepared at present to make any statement as to the steps which will be taken in regard to the processes in which lead poisoning is most common, but the whole subject is engaging my earnest attention.

ENGAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE OF BRITISH SEAMEN.
MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to carry out all the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of the engagement and discharge of British seamen at Continental Ports within the Home trade limits?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have been in communication with the Foreign Office and the Treasury, and I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that arrangements have been made for giving effect to the greater part of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of the engagement and discharge of British seamen at Continental Ports. The office accommodation and staff at the Consulates are to be increased where necessary, and I trust that this, in conjunction with the revised instructions to our Consular Officers, will serve to protect our seamen from the extortion to which in many cases they have been hitherto subjected.

FOLDING OF NEWSPAPERS.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has been able to reconsider his decision that the folding of newspapers is not a process, like the bottling of beer, having for its main object the adaptation of the article for sale; and whether, in such event, the folding of newspapers would constitute any premises in which the same is carried on a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1878 to 1895?
THE HOME SECRETARY: The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. Whether or not a place in which the folding of newspapers is carried on is a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Acts does not depend on any decision of mine; the question is entirely one of law. I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last year upon this subject.

MULLINGAR WATER SUPPLY.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for about 20 years the people of Mullin-gar have been endeavouring to get a supply of water for the town; that the sanitary authority has four times, at considerable expense to the ratepayers, prepared schemes to afford the required supply; and that two of these schemes were sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and afterwards confirmed by Parliament; whether he is aware that the people of Mullingar have, by a large majority, petitioned the Local Government Board to insist on the carrying out of the necessary work under the powers conferred by the Public Health Amendment Act of 1896; and whether he can state why these powers are not availed of?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are generally as stated in the first paragraph. It appears that the town is about equally divided on the question of the relative merits of the two schemes which have been before the Guardians, and this, no doubt, accounts for the great difficulty experienced by them in arriving at a satisfactory decision in the matter. The Local Government Board have already addressed the Guardians as to their duties in providing a water supply under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1896, and the Board will be prepared, should a representation be made to them under the 15th Section of the Act, to consider whether they should not exercise the powers vested in them by that Act.

IRISH TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the new rules for the administration of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund enacted by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with the consent of the Treasury, whether an opportunity of considering them will be given to the House for confirmation of same; if he will state on what date these rules will be laid upon the Table of the House;

871
and whether he will have them printed and circulated among hon. Members before any further step is taken regarding them?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The Irish Teachers' Pension Rules of 1897 were made under the terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1879, and these rules do not require confirmation by Parliament. The rules, however, have been laid on the Table, not because of any statutory requirements, but for the information of hon. Members. If the teachers desire to bring any question affecting their local rights before a court of law, the Treasury would not interpose any difficulties, and if the view of the law taken by Government proves to have been mistaken, steps will be taken to ensure that those teachers who exercise their option shall not suffer. The great majority of the teachers concerned have exercised their options, though with a protest, I understand, under the new rules.
MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Government admits there is a legal question involved, will they suspend the further operation of the rule until the matter has been decided? Will they give the teachers a limited time in which to bring their action?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: We could not suspend the rule. The rule has already the effect of an Act of Parliament.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman can, at any rate, extend the time in which the acceptance may be signed.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am afraid that is impossible.
MR. DANE: Has the Chief Secretary taken the opinion of the Irish law officers?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Certainly.
MR. YOUNG: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can extend the time to June?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I have already explained that I cannot do that.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state on what ground Irish National Teachers are required to bear one-fourth of the cost of their pension when no such requirement is provided for in any of the statutes affecting National School Teachers in Ireland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It was the intention of the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1879, as explained by the then Chief Secretary in the House of Commons on the 12th of August, 1879, that the contribution of the teachers should provide one quarter of the benefits provided under the Act; and the rates of contribution and benefits laid down in the schedule to the Act were based upon that calculation. This is referred to in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Pension Fund, C. 8, 471, presented to Parliament last May, to which I would refer the hon. Member. It must, of course, be remembered that this Act imposed no permanent financial responsibility whatever upon the Treasury with regard to these pensions.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering his acknowledgment of £1,000,000 as the Government liability to the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund, he will state if an equivalent sum of £25,000 per year will be given to the Fund; and, if such sum be not given, if he will explain the reasons?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The hon. Member probably refers to my answer a few days ago to the Member for East Cork. I stated that there was a deficiency of about £1,000,000, but I did not state, nor do I admit, that there existed any liability on the part of the Government to make the whole of that amount good. As I have already explained, it is calculated that a Government grant of £18,000 a year, supplemented by the action of the new rules, will suffice to make good the deficiency.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why it is that, although the Chief Commissioner issued an Order to the force on 21st December that any sergeant who has been passed over or is ineligible for promotion should not be called upon to act as station sergeant, the above-mentioned duty is now performed by sergeants before they pass any qualifying examination, and by sergeants who failed to qualify at a recent examination; and whether these men are to continue to perform such duty over the heads of sergeants who are senior to them in rank and service, and who have done this duty for a great number of years without complaint?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police that the Order of 21st December has been generally complied with, except in a few cases where men, ineligible under its terms, were employed for a short time to replace others who were sick. The employment of such men has now been discontinued, and steps have been taken to secure a strict compliance with the Order in future.

IRISH LOAN FUND BOARDS.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is proposed to legislate respecting Irish Loan Fund Boards this Session, or to take any action on the Report of the Commission?
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why no report for the year 1896 of the proceedings of the Irish Loan Fund Board, and of the several loan societies under their control and management, has been presented to Parliament in accordance with the provisions of 6 and 7 Vic, c. 91, s. 7, which require that the Loan Fund Board shall cause a report of these proceedings to be prepared on or before the 31st day of March in each year, and to be 'aid within one month afterwards before both Houses of Parliament?
THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my statement in answer to a similar question addressed to me on Friday last by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Fermanagh.

DEATH DUTIES.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken or proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps to carry out the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee made in consequence of the remission of death duties by the Treasury on property to the value of £213,000 in this country passing at the death of the late Emperor of Russia, that, whenever a dispensing power is exercised by or with the sanction of the Treasury involving any important principle or substantial amount of money, a statement of the fact should be presented for the information of and, where necessary, for ratification by Parliament?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The views of the Treasury on this subject have been embodied in a minute which will be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee in due course, and will, no doubt, be brought by them before the notice of the House.

MR. CRAWFORD'S ARREST (IRELAND).
MR. JAMES H. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Crawford, of 38, Serpentine Avenue, Dublin, who was arrested on a charge of murder on Sunday, the 23rd January, 1898, and detained in Kilmainham until Thursday, the 27th January, in the absence of the slightest evidence even of suspicion, and notwithstanding a verdict of accidental death at the inquest on Monday, the 24th January; whether he is aware that the representative of the Crown Solicitor in informing the magistrate that he might discharge Mr. Crawford stated that there was no further

875
ground for proceeding with the charge at present; and whether, in accordance with, the course adopted in several similar cases in England, the Treasury will indemnify Mr. Crawford in the costs of his defence?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first paragraph of the question. It is quite true that on investigation Mr. Crawford appeared to be perfectly blameless, and while I regret that he was put to any inconvenience, the Government are unable to indemnify him as suggested.

SHEEP-SCAB.
MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has noticed the alarming increase of sheep-scab in Great Britain; whether the number of fresh outbreaks in January last amounted to 714; whether he is satisfied with the efforts made by the local authorities to counteract the disease; and whether he will consider the necessity for the Government to take steps to stamp it out?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am happy to say that there is no cause for any serious anxiety on this subject. It is true that there were 714 outbreaks in January as compared with 453 in December, and 233 in November, but there has always been a sharp rise in the number reported in these months, followed by a corresponding decrease as summer approaches; and notwithstanding the increased attention recently given to the subject, the returns for the past three months have, as a whole, been lighter than usual at this season. I think that in some cases the measures adopted by the local authorities are capable of improvement, and I have recently issued a circular letter calling attention
876
to the subject, a copy of which I shall be glad to supply to my hon. Friend. But the character of the disease is such as will always render its extirpation mainly dependent upon the action taken by the local authorities and flockmasters themselves, and there is not much room for any executive work on the part of the central authority.
In reply to a further Question, Mr. Long stated that the number of outbreaks in 1895 was 3,092, in 1896, 5,336, and in 1897, 2,191. In the month of December, 1895, there were 771 outbreaks, and in December, 1896, 1,207.

WRECK OF THE "CHANNEL QUEEN."
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement of Captain Collins of the steamer Channel Queen, recently wrecked with serious loss of life on the Brayes rocks, namely, that for years he had advocated the establishment of a lighthouse and fog signal, but had obtained no satisfaction from the Trinity Brethren, although he had offered at his own expense to build a lighthouse and fog signal station; whether he will at once adopt such steps as are necessary for the safe navigation of the Brayes and other dangerous rocks in that neighbourhood; and whether the Minniquea rocks, claimed by the Island of Jersey, are lit by the French Government with four gas buoys, besides other ordinary ones?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My attention has been called to the statement of Captain Collins, but I am informed by the Elder Brethren that they have received no communication on the subject from Captain Collins. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Board of Trade have no power to take the initiative in providing lights, that being the duty of the General or Local Light house Authority. In the present instance, the Trinity House inform me that any light or sea mark in the neighbour-

877
hood of the Brayes would be for local purposes, and their establishment would be a matter for the Local Authority. I understand that the Minniquea rocks are, as stated, lighted by the French Government with four gas buoys.

DOG MUZZLING ORDERS.
MR. C. A. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what progress has been made with the extirpation of rabies in England since the muzzling orders have been imposed and enforced by the Board of Agriculture, and not by the local authorities?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The number of cases of rabies in dogs in Great Britain was 438 in 1896, and 151 last year, when our operations began. The figures during the four quarters of the year 1897 have been 48, 42,40, and 21, and during the first seven weeks of the current year only five cases are known to have occurred. The first of the series of muzzling orders which we have imposed took effect as from the 6th April last, so that we have every reason to be satisfied with the progress we have made towards the eradication of rabies in this country.

CAMPING GROUNDS (IRELAND).
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiry to be made into the necessity for changing the present site of camping ground at Kilworth owing to deficiency in the water supply during the dry months, and to the ground being worn out and too foul for camping purposes; also to the very great hardship inflicted on the inhabitants of Glen Cora Valley by the sewage from the camp finding its way
878
into the Glen Cora Stream, their only source of supply for domestic purposes, the catch-pits made last year having proved most ineffectual to prevent pollution of the stream from the overflow during wet weather; and if the Military authorities will consider the desirability of changing the camping ground to the Shara Glen, where the water supply is most ample, and the troops will be three-quarters of a mile nearer to the rifle ranges, and contamination of the water in Glen Cora Stream will be entirely avoided?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Nothing is known in the War Office as to a deficient water supply at Kilworth. The drainage from the wash-houses into Glen Cora Stream has already been diverted, and three of the camping grounds are about to be removed to positions farther from the stream. Inquiry will be made as to the possibility and expediency of removing the camps to the Shara Glen.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND: ATTENDANTS' HOURS AND WAGES.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department of Science and Art has received a resolution of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland, forwarded in December, 1897, with the urgent request that it should be laid before the Treasury, in which the trustees signified that an injustice amounting to a breach of contract is inflicted on the attendants in the National Library by reducing their hours of work from 69 to 60 per week, such reduction reducing their pay considerably, and whether certain of the library attendants have been strongly recommended for compensation; and what steps are to be taken with reference to the resolution of the Trustees of the National Library for Ireland?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Resolution has been received, but has not yet been submitted to the Treasury, as further inquiries are being made. When these are complete the Committee of Council will communicate with the Treasury. I would point out that the reduction of hours does not come into force till the beginning of the next financial year.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT: ARREST AND SEARCH.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether an inspector of police, on the 16th December last, arrested one Bourtzev (a Russian refugee), at or near the British Museum, on a charge that he had committed an offence under The Offences against the Person Act, 1861; and whether the same inspector, or some other officer or officers of the Metropolitan Police force, on the same day, opened the outer door of the house in which Bourtzev had lodged by means of a key taken from Bourtzev after his arrest, and made a search in his room, and seized divers papers and things belonging to Bourtzev; if so, had any search warrant been issued to the officer or officers making the search, and by whom?
THE HOME SECRETARY: The facts are correctly stated in the Question. It is not the practice when a warrant of arrest is issued to issue as well a warrant to search the premises of the accused. The search is made as a matter of ordinary police duty.

CONDITION OF WANDSWORTH PRISON.
MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his
880
attention has been called to certain published statements seriously reflecting upon the condition of Wandsworth Prison, the conduct of the prison officials and visiting magistrates, and the treatment of prisoners there, and that prisoners have sent their petitions to the Home Office complaining of their treatment; and what action has been taken upon such petitions, if any?
THE HOME SECRETARY: Yes, I have seen the statements to which the hon. Member refers, and am glad to have this opportunity of saying publicly that they are unfounded, and, in fact, the exact reverse of the truth. Complaints by prisoners at Wandsworth of their treatment have been very rare during the past year, and in no case serious or calling for any action on my part.

LAW OF SEDITION IN INDIA.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the general disapproval and alarm excited in India by the proposed changes in the law of sedition as shown by the fact that more than thirty public bodies, European and Indian, have protested against the proposed changes; whether these protesting bodies include the Calcutta Bar, which consists chiefly of Englishmen; whether, according to present arrangements, the Government of India proposes to pass the Measure into law within a few days from the present date; and whether, in view of the gravity of the matter, he will secure that the Bill shall not become law until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon its provisions?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Bills to which the hon. Baronet's Question refers were introduced

881
into the Legislative Council more than eight weeks ago. No information has reached me confirming the allegations of the first Question. On the contrary, from what I hear, I believe the opposition to the Measure to be confined to a very limited class of the community. The Calcutta Bar does not consist chiefly of Englishmen; and, if a protest has been submitted by that Bar, I am unaware by what proportion of its members such protest has been signed. According to the telegrams which have reached me, the Penal Code Amendments will be considered to-morrow in the Legislative Council. The Procedure Code Amendments have not yet been reported, so far as I know, by the Select Committee to whom they were referred. I have no intention of asking the Government of India to postpone the consideration of these Measures. If they should pass into law, the power of allowing, or disallowing them, is vested in the Crown, and I am in no sense disposed to shirk responsibility for any advice which I may give to Her Majesty on this subject.

INDIAN FAMINE.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms of reference to the Famine Commission, which began its sittings in Calcutta last month?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, I will lay the correspondence between the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India on the subject upon the Table of the House. The terms of reference to the Commission will be found in it.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, will he state if there is still a dearth of suitable candidates for the Army Medical Department,
882
and how many vacancies there are; if the standard of medical and surgical attainment has had to be lowered; and what steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in order to put the department on a better basis?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I regret to say there is still a dearth of candidates for the Army Medical Staff. There are at present 38 vacancies, and 21 probationers are available to fill them. The standard of medical and surgical qualification has not been lowered. The steps which it is intended to take in order to put the department on a better basis will shortly be announced.

TRINITY HOUSE: HOURS OF WORK.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in June last the Corporation of the Trinity House introduced the 48 hours a week into their workshops; whether notice has now been given that on and after the 19th instant the concession will be withdrawn and the 54 hours a week reverted to; if so, on what ground this step has been taken; and whether, seeing that the Admiralty and the War Office have introduced and adhere to the 48 hours a week in their workshops, he will use his best endeavours to obtain the withdrawal of the notice?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: In the course of Last year the Board of Trade gave their sanction to the expenditure involved in conceding an eight-hour day to the men employed at the Trinity House workshops as a temporary Measure. I now understand that notice has been given by the Trinity House that the 54 hours week will be reverted to; but I have no information as to the grounds on which this step has been taken. As the Board of Trade have no

883
control over the Trinity House workshops beyond financial control over expenditure, I have no power to interfere in the matter.

LIVE STOCK SALES AT GLASGOW.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a proposed bye-law of the Glasgow Local Authority, bearing upon the conditions under which live stock can be sold at the Yorkhill Wharf, Glasgow, was submitted for the approval of the Board of Agriculture on 18th October last; whether he is aware that at the Scottish Agricultural Conference on the 23rd October the Secretary of the Board declared that the principle embodied in that bye-law seemed an absolutely clear principle, and, so far as the Board could give effect to it, they ought to do so, and that the Secretary for Scotland had informed the Board that in his opinion it was expedient the bye-law should be approved; and whether the said bye-law has been considered by the Board of Agriculture; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in making known its decision?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: My reply to the inquiries contained in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third, I would say that, in view of the importance of the matter, I felt it essential to obtain further advice on the legal questions involved. That advice has now been given, and I hope to be in a position to communicate with the Local Authorities on the subject in the course of the next few days.

LONGFORD BARRACKS.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state
884
the reason which induced the Military Authorities to withdraw the small military force from Longford, seeing that for more than 50 years Longford was a headquarters' station, and that large sums of money have been spent there in providing barrack accommodation; and can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to restore the detachment to the town which was recently removed from it?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: The field battery which was quartered at Longford has been retained at Dublin by the Field Marshal Commanding for drill and training with other arms. The barracks at Longford will probably be re-occupied, but no date for their re-occupation can be fixed.

ACCIDENTS AT LONGFORD CANAL HARBOUR.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday night last a man named Connolly walked in the dark into the Royal Canal Harbour at Longford, from which he was rescued with the greatest difficulty; and, whether, in view of the repeated accidents and the loss of many valuable lives in the place, he will instruct the police authorities to institute a prosecution to compel the owners to erect a protective railing?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The facts, I am informed, are as stated in the first paragraph. It is open to any person suffering by reason of the unprotected state of the canal at the place mentioned to take such proceedings for civil redress as he may be advised, but the police have no power to take any steps in the direction suggested in the question.

IRISH MILITIA.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in Ireland during the present year, it is intended not to mobilise any of the Militia Regiments, but simply to pay them their bounty at the gates of the barracks without allowing them access to their arms; and, if so, what is the reason for this course of action?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: There is no intention of dispensing with the training of Irish Militia battalions in the present year.

INDIAN MINTS.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any reply has been sent by the India Office to the dispatch of the Government of India, dated 16th September of last year, on the re-opening of the Indian Mints; and whether any correspondence on that subject has taken place since that date; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay such correspondence upon the Table?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): A telegram and a short dispatch were sent in reply to the letter of the Government of India, dated September 16th, 1897, on the proposal to re-open the Mints. If my hon. Friend, will move that they be presented I shall offer no objection. No further correspondence has passed on the subject.

LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
MR. F. A. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, to state what progress has been made as regards the proposed building of a new
886
post office in the city of Limerick, the tenders for which have been advertised and received over twelve months since?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The advertisement referred to in the Question was for a site, not for building tenders. No suitable site has yet been found, though one, recently offered, is under consideration; and, of course, no plans have yet been prepared for a building.

EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN
SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, what have been the results of the appointment in 1896 of the Departmental Committee on the education of defective and epileptic children; whether the Committee reported some months ago; and how soon the report will be laid before Parliament?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION: The Committee, in January last, made a very interesting report, which will be laid before Parliament directly.

EXILED CHIEF, MATAAFA.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a communciation has recently been received from the German Government, expressing willingness to allow the Chief Mataafa to return to Samoa from his place of exile in the Marshall Islands if the British and United States Governments were agreeable; and, whether a favourable response to this representation has been made?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affir-

887
mative. Her Majesty's Government, acting upon the advice of the British Consul at Apia, have replied that it would be a measure of wise precaution to postpone the pardon of Mataafa and his chiefs until assurances have been received that the rebellion in certain districts is at an end.

NURSES IN UNION WORKHOUSES (IRELAND).
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that an Order has been issued by the Local Government Board directing that only paid nurses shall take charge of the sick poor in Irish workhouses in future, which will entail heavy expense on the ratepayers; whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland were consulted before the Order was issued; and whether, seeing that nurses in Scotch workhouses have the half of their salaries paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, he will advise the Government to act similarly towards nurses in Irish workhouses?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The substitution of paid trained nurses for pauper assistants, while perhaps entailing some additional expense, will undoubtedly result in increased efficiency in the management of the Union hospitals, and in the treatment of the patients therein. For many years the Local Government Board have continually impressed upon Boards of Guardians the necessity of providing trained or experienced nurses in workhouse infirmaries and fever hospitals, and it was in consequence of the unwillingness of some Boards of Guardians to carry out the recommendations of the Local Government Board to appoint qualified persons as nurses that the Order in question, which is practically to the same effect
888
as the English Order, has been issued. Boards of Guardians were not consulted as to the issue of the Order.

REFRIGERATING MACHINES ON H.M. SHIPS.
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the modern improvements in refrigerating machinery on board ship, and the general adoption in the mercantile marine of such machinery; and, whether he could state the number and names of Her Majesty's ships on foreign stations in hot climates which have been furnished with such machinery, and with what results on the health of the ship's company?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the subject of refrigerating machinery, as the following statement will show. In future all ships above 3rd class cruisers will have refrigerating machines attached to their cold storage rooms, and ice-making machines will be supplied to all 3rd class cruisers and small vessels. Steam-driven machines are on order for, or fitted in, 49 ships, of which the following are in Commission abroad:—Hood (Mediterranean), Eclipse (East Indies), Powerful (China), Renown (North America and West Indies), Phœbe and Doris (Cape and West Coast of Africa,). With regard to the effects on the health of the ships' crews of such of Her Majesty's ships as have been fitted with steam-driven refrigerating or ice-making machines, sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable the medical officers to form an opinion upon the results.

WATER-TUBE BOILERS: H.M.S. "POWERFUL."
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the

889
experience with the water-tube boilers of H.M.S. Powerful on the outward voyage to China; what was the largest number of the same elements under steam continuously at full pressure during the voyage, and for how many days these elements worked under full power conditions; and whether defects of any kind have been reported in these boilers as the result of experience on the outward passage?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No detailed reports of the working of the boilers of the Powerful have yet been received. No defects of any kind in these boilers have been reported as the result of experience on the outward passage. They were not worked under full power conditions, no orders to that effect having been given.

REMUNERATION FOR SUB-POSTMASTERS.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, in consequence of the order treating parcels under 12oz. in weight as letters, sub-postmasters who were formerly paid £1 for every 10,000 of such parcels now only receive £1 for every 52,000; and whether any arrangement has been made to remunerate the sub-postmasters for the extra trouble of weighing, labelling, stamping, and entering such parcels; and, if not, whether he will take same into consideration?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The hon. Member seems to be under some misapprehension in this matter. If a packet not exceeding 12oz. in weight is marked "By Parcel Post," and handed in over the counter as a parcel, it is sent as a parcel; if not marked "By Parcel Post," and posted as a letter, it is sent as a letter. If it is treated as a letter, the sub-postmaster does no more with it than he would with an ordinary letter, and for the purposes of his remuneration it belongs to the category of letters. If, on the contrary, it is treated as a parcel, the sub-postmaster is paid for it as a parcel. The rates of remuneration for sub-postmasters quoted by the hon. Member are wholly incorrect.

BELFAST LINEN TRADE.
MR MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has prepared an Order under the Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1897; and, if so, will the same include and extend to Belfast linen cloth and spinning factories that are using polluted water for steam generation and use amongst workers; and when he will submit the same to the House?
THE HOME SECRETARY: Yes, an Order has been made and laid before Parliament. It extends to all cotton and cloth factories, but I have no power to extend it to linen factories, which are subject to special rules.

EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVES.
MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the announcements that have been made as to its being the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give greater encouragement to the civil employment of Reserve and discharged soldiers, he will consider the expediency of remitting or abating the cost of licences to employ servants in cases where the persons so employed shall be Reserve or discharged soldiers?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am unable to assent to the proposal of the hon. Member. These licences go to the benefit of the ratepayers, and I see a great difficulty in altering them, except at the wish of the Authorities who would lose by the alteration. Moreover, the remission or abatement suggested could not be so checked as to prevent evasion, without necessitating inquiries which would, in most cases, be felt to be much more irksome than taking out a licence which only costs 15s. in the year. I doubt if the discharged soldiers would profit by the change.

CARRYING FIREARMS (IRELAND).
DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire why Mr. Jeffery, of Drumlong

891
House, Newport, County Mayo, was refused by the resident magistrate of West-port to carry firearms, notwithstanding the fact that he had the recommendation in writing of two of the Justices of the Peace for the petty session district, and also that of his landlord?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: It would be contrary to the invariable practice to disclose the reasons which may influence a resident magistrate in exercising the discretion vested in him by law in granting or withholding the issue of licences to keep firearms. I have, however, made inquiry into the case referred to in the question, and have satisfied myself that the resident magistrate exercised the discretion with which he is invested in a reasonable and proper manner.

NAVY CHAPLAINS.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to increase the number and improve the status of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy, in pursuance of the undertaking given by him two years ago in the House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Our proposals as regards Roman Catholic Chaplains, as a whole, have only just received Treasury authority, and steps will be at once taken to communicate to those concerned the changes which have been found practicable. Full particulars will be sent to the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult in an answer across the Table of the House to indicate all the changes.

PRISON-MADE GOODS.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether as many complaints of the importation and competition in this country of the produce of the labour of foreign convicts and felons have been received since the passing of the Prison-made Goods Act, 1897, as prior thereto?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Since the passing of the Act no complaints of this nature have been received by the Board.

MULLINGAR WATER SUPPLY.
MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board sanctioned the action of the Mullingar Sanitary Authority in seeking a water supply from an enlarged boghole known as Lough Sheever, the waters of which are polluted by the sewerage from the neighbouring asylum. And (2) seeing that before the works were commenced the public analyst reported that a sample of the water was hardly distinguishable from sewage, and that the works have been abandoned on the report of the clerk of the works, and on account of the protest of the townspeople, whether the Local Government Board will give facilities to the Sanitary Authority to avail themselves of the public offer recently made to provide on favourable terms a water supply from Lough Owell, the best and natural source of supply for Mullingar?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The proposal to obtain a water supply from Lough Sheever was put forward by the Guardians, and was not sanctioned by the Local Government Board until after a public inquiry was held, of which everybody had full notice, by the Board's Chief Engineering Inspector. The facts are not accurately stated in the second paragraph. Sir Charles Cameron describes the water from Lough Sheever as a peaty water of an objectionable colour, but that it is free from sewage and similar pollution. Professor Tichborne states that the water is moderately hard, and that it would be still further improved, and will make a good potable supply, by passing through a gravel or sand filter. Filter beds were to have been provided under the Scheme. The

893
Local Government Board are not aware that the works have been abandoned. The Board will not only give every facility in their power to enable a good supply of water to be obtained from Mullingar, but they will urge, as they have been doing, the Guardians to take definite steps towards the attainment of this object.

FLOODING OF CLOONE RIVER.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Board of Works has been directed to the periodical flooding of the Tributary of Cloone river issuing from Little Lake, in the barony of Carrigallen, South Leitrim, and the consequent injury to the adjoining farms in the locality, which is a congested district in the Bawnboy Union; and whether, as the people are suffering acute distress from the failure of the potato crop, the Board of Works will take steps to give employment there by having this river deepened where necessary in its course?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The tributary in question is included in the Rinn and Black River Drainage District, but it does not form one of the water courses which the Trustees under the Award of 1859 are bound to maintain, and therefore the Board of Works have no power to carry out works of improvement as suggested. With regard to the question of distress in the locality, I have nothing at present to add to my statement in answer to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for West Cavan on Tuesday last.

ALASKA TREATIES.
MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when the
894
territory of Alaska was purchased from Russia by the United States, the rights and obligations under all Treaties existing at that time and having reference to that country also passed under such sale, whether, under the Treaty of 1844, entered into between Her Majesty's Government and Russia, the Harbour of Fort Wrangel and the inlet to the Stikeen River was constituted a free Port as far as concerned the trade of Great Britain and her Colonies; and whether the United States Government now propose to establish an excise supervision over that Port and levy therein their Tariff on all foreign merchandise, as well as a poll tax on all passengers passing through to the North-West Territories of Canada, although neither merchandise nor passengers are consigned to any portion of United States territory?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: In the Treaty of March, 1867, between Russia and the United States, by which Alaska was ceded to the latter Power, certain Articles of the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, with regard to the geographical limits of the ceded territory, were recited, and Her Majesty's Government are advised that the United States are bound thereby, but that is not the case so far as the rest of the Treaty is concerned. There is no Treaty between this country and Russia of 1844. By Article XXVI of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, it is provided that the navigation of the rivers Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikeen, shall be free and open for the purpose of commerce to British subjects and to citizens of the United States subject to any laws and regulations of either country within its own territory not inconsistent with such privileges of free navigation. Inquiries are being made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington as to the regulations applicable to the navigation of the Stikeen river.

RAILWAY CHARGES FOR CYCLES.
MR. J. BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of

895
the Board of Trade what replies the Board of Trade has received to the representations which he promised last summer to address to the principal railway companies of the United Kingdom regarding the conveyance on their lines of bicycles at reduced charges or free of charge, and regarding the provision of better facilities for the conveyance of cycles by rail and their custody at stations?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade received a reply in December last, intimating that the matter was under the consideration of the railway companies. Sir Henry Oakley has also written me a letter, in the course of which he says—
"No satisfactory mode of carrying bicycles has so far as I am aware been devised by any railway company or by anyone else. I know that many companies have experimented, and are still experimenting with various plans of their own, or suggested by others. The Great Northern Railway have provided at many of their suburban stations special stores for bicycles, and are at the present moment fitting up two more vehicles for further experiment."
I shall be happy to show the right hon. Gentleman the whole of the letter.

COTONNADES: TUNIS TREATY.
MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what meaning Her Majesty's Government place on the word "cotonnades" in the Treaty betwixt Great Britain and France, relating to Tunis? And whether they hold it to mean all classes of cotton goods, or only a few limited classes of those fabrics, while limited application seems to be placed on the term by the Custom House Officers in Tunis, to the great inconvenience and loss of British exporters in many classes of cotton manufactured in Tunis?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The word "cotonnades" is translated "cotton goods" in the English text of the Agreement, and Her Majesty's Government interpret it as meaning all classes of such goods.

MUNICIPAL REVISION IN DERRY.
MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have certified that they have paid in respect of the municipal revision of Derry the sum of £33 12s. for the year 1896, and £33 12s. for the year 1897; how that sum has been arrived at; whether, when giving this certificate, the Treasury were aware that there has in fact been no additional cost of revision in Londonderry since the passing of the Act of 1896, which made the Parliamentary Lists, without lodgers, the lists also for Municipal purposes, the revisions in 1896 and 1897 having occupied a shorter time than in any of the ten preceding years; whether any report was called for from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County; and, if so, what did he report; whether he is aware that under the Act of 1896 the wards are conterminous with the polling districts, and there is, or can be, no municipal voter who is not also a Parliamentary voter; and whether, under these circumstances, he can explain what additional cost has been incurred?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The Treasury have certified in the terms stated in the first paragraph. The sums in question have been arrived at from statements furnished by the Revising Barristers, who state that in each year they were occupied for two additional days in consequence of the Municipal Revision. The Treasury Certificate was not based upon any comparison between the cost of revision in the two years 1896

897
and 1897, and any previous years. Obviously the circumstances vary from year to year. The Treasury did receive communications from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in connection with Section 13 of the Londonderry Improvement Act, 1895, but in making their certificate under section 12 they were not under any obligation to consult him. I cannot accept the hon. Member's argument that, merely because the wards are conterminous with the polling districts, no part of the cost of a joint revision is to be attributed to the revision for municipal purposes. The Treasury regard the Revising Barristers as best qualified to form an estimate of the additional work entailed by the municipal revision, and by their opinions the Treasury have accordingly been guided.

PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES (IRELAND).
MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the words used by County Court Judge Orr, at the Licensing Sessions, held in Newry for County of Down, in November last, when he said that every man who voted for public-house licences under ordinary circumstances was a criminal himself; whether any steps will be taken to remove from the magistrates of the County Down this reflection cast upon them by the County Court Judge; and whether he is aware of the strong feeling of indignation among the Justices of County Down owing to the use of such language concerning them by the Judge?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am informed that Judge Orr does not admit the accuracy of the words attributed to him in the first paragraph. Any observations made by him were directed against the practice of magistrates, in certain cases, in attending Licensing Sessions pledged to
898
vote for particular applicants, regardless of the evidence given or the needs of the locality. I have no power to take any action as suggested in the second paragraph, and I have no reason to believe that the fact is as stated in the third paragraph.

CORK POSTMEN.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the decision of the Postmaster General transferring Cork postmen from the fourth to the third scale was subject in the case of indoor postmen to the conditions that an allowance of 3s. a week, which they had previously received, should be abolished; whether the effect of this is, instead of improving their position, to, in effect, reduce a salary of 29s. a week (i.e., 26s. and an allowance of 3s.) to 27s.; whether the abolition of allowances elsewhere was limited to future appointments, the right to them being preserved by existing recipients; whether the Cork indoor postmen, on the 27th October last, presented a memorial to the Postmaster General, asking to have their case reconsidered; and when a reply thereto may be expected?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: In accordance with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee no new allowances to postmen for indoor duties have been granted since the 1st April last, but postmen actually in receipt of such allowances on that date, were allowed to retain them as an addition to their existing wages. The postmen concerned at Cork therefore become entitled to their maximum pay of 24s. (not 26s. as the hon. Member supposes) plus 3s., the latter payment being merged in their wages. Some months later, the maximum of scale of wages for all the town postmen at Cork was raised from 24s. to 26s.; but those men who were in receipt of allowances, continued to be entitled to a maximum of 27s.

899
The memorial referred to does not appear to have reached the Postmaster General.

EVACUATION OF THESSALY.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact, as seems to appear from the account given on page 59 of the French Yellow Book on Eastern Affairs of a conversation with the French Chargé d'Affaires in London, relative to the evacuation of Thessaly by the Turks, that Lord Salisbury stated that, even in the event of the loan for the war indemnity payable by Greece falling through, the Greeks would nevertheless remain in possession of their province; and whether, and if so when, Sir Edward Monson's despatch of the 25th August, 1897, published in the same Yellow Book, will be laid upon the Table of this House?
THR UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The statement in the French Yellow Book referred to appears to be the inference drawn by the French Chargé d'Affaires from a conversation with Lord Salisbury. The despatch of Sir E. Monson will be included in the papers, which are in course of preparation.

SUPPLIES OF THE TROOPS.
MR. WILLIAM FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the promised consideration of the subject of foreign supplies to the troops has resulted in any modification of the tenders to reduce the percentage of frozen meat to be supplied; whether he can state the percentage now allowed; and whether the War Office will recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the matter?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Certain alterations of the forms of Tender have been made on the suggestion of the Irish meat-producers which may possibly result in an increased supply of home-fed meat, but the authorised percentage of frozen and refrigerated meat remains unchanged. The percentage of frozen meat allowed is one-seventh of the supply. The answer to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

FREIGHT CHARGES: TULLOW TO DUBLIN.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway charge from Tullow to Dublin is 6s. per waggon dearer than it is from Carlow, which is only four miles nearer to Dublin than Carlow; whether he is aware that the guarantee for Tullow and district is 3½d. in the £; and whether relief can be afforded to the ratepayers from such railway tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I cannot say whether the facts are as stated, but I have more than once explained to the hon. Member that it is impossible for the Board of Trade to deal with such general complaints. If the complaint is intended to be one of undue preference, the law has provided a remedy, which I assume the parties aggrieved can adopt.

RELEASE OF PRIVATE PHELPS.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has released a man named Phelps, late a private soldier of the Wiltshire regiment, who, on the 19th November last, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for highway robbery in Guernsey; if so, will he explain to the House upon what grounds, and what are the conditions of his release?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY,): The sentence has been remitted by Her Majesty on my recommendation, the facts which came to light subsequently to the trial throwing such doubt on the propriety of the conviction as to justify me in taking this course. The release is unconditional.

IRISH LOAN FUND SOCIETIES.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to his statement that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to meet the necessity of providing means for recovery of outstanding debts in connection with Irish Loan Fund Societies, his attention had been called to the case of the Enniskillen Loan Fund Society v. Green, wherein it was proved that the defendant had actually paid £44 on a £10 loan which is still due; and whether it is the intention of the Government to pass special legislation for the purpose of facilitating the recovery of the original sums lent in the case of Green and of others, who have by the action of these societies been compelled to pay in interest the capital sum lent four times over?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: My attention has been drawn to the case of Green, specially referred to in the Question, at the hearing of which, before the Justices, it was proved that the defendant had paid by way of renewal fines, and interest, on the original loan of £10, the sum of £44. With regard to the promised legislation, the Bill to be introduced will take into consideration abuses in reference to the renewal of loans, and the intention is to limit, as far as practicable, the claims of the Loan Fund Societies, in such cases, to what is equitably due.

CLONES POST OFFICE.
MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he take due precautions to have the projected new post office for Clones, County Monaghan, built upon a central and convenient site, and not at an extreme end of the town I is he aware that a strong objection exists among the inhabitants of Clones to the erection of the new post office upon any but a central site? and at what early date does he hope the erection will be commenced?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: Until recently no suitable site has been offered on reasonable terms, but it is reported that a central site is now under examination, and will be recommended for approval shortly. I am not aware of the feelings of the inhabitants of Clones on the subject, but I can understand that they would naturally object to have the post office at an extreme end of the town. At present it is not possible to indicate when the new building will be commenced.

LEAD POISONING IN THE POTTERIES.
MR. L. R. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the intended visit of the chief inspector to inquire into the circumstances of certain cases of lead poisoning in the Potteries district will not be in the nature of a surprise visit, he will, either now or after such inquiry has been made, take an opportunity of acquainting the House with the nature of the reports already received from inspectors as the result of the surprise visits they have made?
THE HOME SECRETARY: I have no doubt that at a later stage, I shall be able to inform the House as to the general results of the inquiries. Surprise visits, of course, are useful in ascertaining how far some of the existing rules are enforced; but this is only a part of the subject.

RABIES ORDER.
MR. R. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under the Rabies Orders now in force, any exemption from muzzling is allowed in the case of sporting dogs; and whether such exemption extends to sheep dogs?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Under the Muzzling Orders now in force sporting dogs are exempted from being muzzled while being used for sporting purposes, but there is no exemption in favour of sheep dogs, as such, nor would it be possible for such an exemption to be allowed consistently with the success of the operations which we have undertaken for the extirpation of rabies.

VOTE ON ACCOUNT FOR IRELAND.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to put down any Irish Vote on Account for discussion before the Easter Recess?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Vote on Account must be taken before the 31st of March, find in the Vote on Account Irish Services will be included as usual.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the annual grant for the Science and Art Department in Great Britain has within 25 years increased from £232,293 to £754,795, but that the annual rate for Ireland has almost remained stationary, the question of technical education in Ireland will be dealt with this Session; and whether a Commission will be appointed to inquire into and report on the intermediate system?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The figures given in the first part
904
of the question are misleading, because the grants for drawing in elementary schools are included in them, and no grants are made by the Science and Art Department for drawing in National Schools in Ireland, as the National Board make their own grants. As regards the grants for museum and higher science and art instruction, I find that Ireland receives a fair proportion. The system of grants for ordinary science and art schools, which appears to succeed in England and Scotland, does not appear to succeed in Ireland, and the question of what modifications are necessary in the system is a matter for consideration. With regard to the system of intermediate education, I am by no means satisfied that it is working as satisfactorily as could be be desired; but, without looking further into the subject, I am not prepared to undertake on behalf of the Government that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the system.

RAILWAY TARIFFS—TULLOW TO DUBLIN.
MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway charge from Tullow to Dublin is 6s. per waggon dearer than it is from Carlow, which is only four miles nearer to Dublin; whether he is aware that the guarantee from Tullow and district is 3½d. in the £; and whether relief can be afforded to the ratepayers from such railway tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I cannot say whether the facts are as stated, but I have more than once explained to the hon. Member that it is impossible for the Board of Trade to deal with such general complaints. If the complaint is intended to be one of undue preference, the law has provided a remedy, which I assume the parties aggrieved can adopt.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the Catholics of Ireland have long suffered and still suffer under an intolerable grievance in respect of University education; that the existence and the oppressive character of this grievance have been recognised by successive Governments; and that it is the duty of Your Majesty's Government immediately to propose legislation with a view to placing Irish Catholics on a footing of equality with their fellow countrymen of other religious denominations in all matter's concerned with University education."
    MR. ROBERT WALLACEresumed his speech, which had been interrupted by the operation of the Rules of the House. He said: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish now to say that I am by no means out of sympathy with the preamble to this Amendment. I think that, as the general educational situation stands at this moment, Catholicism is suffering under an intolerable grievance in not possessing a State University system equally with Protestantism. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his followers have shown great alacrity in the work of sectarian endowment. They lost no time, or, at all events, very little time, in endowing and strengthening Anglican sacerdotalism; indeed, the speed they showed in this work was second only to the natural, or rather supernatural, swiftness with which they proceeded to endow another important, though secular, sect, I mean British landlordism. As we know, the First Lord of the Treasury thinks that the Irish Catholics have a right to a University made as impossible for Protestants as Trinity College is said to be for Catholics, by a diffusion of what is called Catholic atmosphere, to be generated by a mechanism he did not describe, but which he seemed to warrant as sufficient for the purposes. I think, Sir, that Irish Catholic Members have a right to ask why he did not state at what time, or
    906
    about what time, he proposes to introduce a Bill for carrying his design into execution. From the pathetic and high-toned appeals he made to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen behind him I think it may be inferred that he has got to educate his Party in this matter, as had to be done by an illustrious predecessor of his in connection with another subject; and I am not sure that he has not got to educate his Government also in the matter, as it seemed to me that he put his views forward rather as a personal and pious opinion of his own; and as his Party may, I think, without offence, be described, especially in this matter, as the Party of privilege, of tradition, and of the status quo, it is not improbable that the right hon. Gentleman may have considerable difficulty in effecting this work. Still, however much the Irish Members may sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his difficulties, I think it is natural on their part to make as sure as vigilance will do it, that he is making the most rapid progress he can with his interesting propaganda. As regards this side of the House, at all events as regards by far the larger section of Liberals, I think they have an equally strong case. Those Members of the Liberal Party have either expressly created, or deliberately approved and acquiesced in the State endowment of religion in universities and in schools. The case seems to be, to a considerable extent, locally permissible, but that does not matter as to the principle involved. Nor does it matter that, while in Scotland this system is frankly sectarian, in England it is for the most part only indirectly so, the only direct dogma in it being, I believe, the undoubted and unmistakable affirmation that the Scriptures are a Divine revelation, or, at all events, are the supreme and exclusively authoritative manual of religious and moral truth, a position which, of course, at once makes the whole system clearly sectarian in relation to agnostic persons, and to what is, I believe, a growing Pagan element in the population, to say nothing of Jews and others. It is perfectly well-known to all persons conversant with the subject that such an element in the population is rapidly growing, and is already very extensive over all parts

    907
    of the country, while it is responsible for teaching as many diverse dogmas, as there are expounders and interpreters. Nor is the irony of the situation lessened, rather it is intensified, by the fact that the persons, most zealous for the disestablishment of religion in churches are also the most zealous for its establishment in schools. How such persons can insist on having a religious establishment, educationally and otherwise satisfactory to themselves, and yet can at the same time refuse to grant a religious establishment to Catholics that shall be satisfactory to them, is one of those mysteries which I have never been able to penetrate. For myself, I am in no such difficulty, and I have no such inconsistencies to defend myself against. I am, and always have been, what is called a secularist in the matter of national education, and its relations to religion. This is not the time, and this is not the occasion, for me to enter into any elaborate explanation or defence of what is called Secularism, although I am prepared, at all suitable times, to defend, and contend, and, as I think, prove that it is best for religious truth itself, and best for educational progress in its higher aspects, that the State should leave religion severely and absolutely alone. I am very well aware that this term Secularist is an epithet of opprobrium—possibly of a little ridicule—not very far short of that epithet of "infidel," which the First Lord of the Treasury was using yesterday with considerable familiarity, making me wonder how it would be relished by the author of the "History of Rationalism," from whom he yesterday received a support that was not, at all events, over-impassioned. I know that secularism has considerably gone out of fashion since the reaction of thirty years ago against Disestablishment, and iconoclasm generally set in; but I am of opinion that it may come a little more into fashion again when once people thoroughly wake up to the facts of the gigantic strides which clericalism is making in connection with our education, and when they see that the attempt to weld and intimately interweave sectarianism with public education is subjecting the training of the youth of the community to the narrowing and anti-rational influences of sacerdotalism, with all its limitations and delusions. This might be the expectation,
    908
    because, if you give this Catholic University to Irish Catholics you must also, in due course of time, give an English one to English Catholics, and a Scotch one to Scotch Catholics. We ought to do so, if it were upon the principles of the equivalent grant. This principle has come into vogue as a sort of standing financial institution, and however much, speaking, at all events, from my observation of my colleagues from Scotland, we may fight against the initiation of the grant upon principle, the moment it is passed we all endeavour to outstrip one another in securing the equivalent grant in point of money for our own nationality. I think this development of a sectarian system in this country will go on until the people will begin to ask where this sort of development is to stop, and we may be thrown back upon a solution of the question which will bear a very close resemblance to denominationalism. With these views I think the House will see that it is quite impossible for me to do anything else but vote againt the Amendment before the House. No doubt hon. Members for Ireland will tell us that their consciences, instructed by their priests, whom they publicly tell us are the ministers of God, they tell us—and I do not for a moment question their reverent sincerity in this matter—that they are compelled to make the demand which is contained in the Amendment. Well, Sir, I treat this statement of their position with all the respect due to an over-earnest statement. I must also state for myself that I too have a conscience, which I have not deemed necessary to submit to the authority and instruction of a priest, but which I have taken care shall be well informed from other sources satisfactory to myself. And that conscience commands me to look further forward in this matter than merely to the inconveniences and the hard cases of the hour, and the temporary and hasty expedients that may spring up to salve them for a short time, and it forbids me to participate in marring the higher progress of humanity, as it is to be conducted in this country by a system and development of sectarian control other than the national life. And at the same time I must remember that I have been sent here on behalf of

    909
    a number of very plain, it may be, but thoroughly respectable people, who do feel that they are sharply wounded in their consciences when they are compelled to pay in the shape of taxation, out of their probably hard-earned belongings, for a system of teaching which, however much reverenced by those who accept it, is in their minds dangerous and publicly injurious. Of course, with antithetic and antagonistic consciences of any extent in such relations—it is possible that a political deadlock may be the consequence—I cannot do otherwise, and it is for statesmen to find a solution of the difficulty. All I can say is that the solution must be something very different from that which is at present under our review. Now, Sir, I have been challenged as a Home Ruler—not, of course, on the lines of the second, the revolutionised vitiated impossible Bill, impossible edition of the first 1893 Bill, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth still adheres to under the judicious reservation of that power of distinguishing between principles and details, which has so very often changed black into white and yes into no. Something will have to be done before Home Rule can ever again lift a hopeful countenance in this country. Well, Sir, I have been charged and challenged as a Home Ruler, and have been told that because I did my best to secure that Ireland, through a Parliament of her own, should manage, or, if she liked, mismanage, her educational System in schools and Universities, and of her other business, as she chose, that therefore I am compelled in consistency here and now to do, to help to do, in my own person, whatever she cares to come and demand of me in connection with her business at home. Well, Sir, if I did that I did not know that I was doing it, and, at any rate, I hereby cancel the engagement. Hut, Sir, I say as a matter of fact I did nothing of the kind. In creating or helping to create what was hoped to be an Irish Parliament, I did not either intentionally or by logical inference make myself responsible for the uses or abuses of that Parliament of the powers that I was endeavouring to confer upon it. What was proposed to be done was not to be the agent, but the child, of this Parliament, and while we all know that a principal may be respon-
    910
    sible for the deeds of his agent, he is not responsible for the deeds of his offspring. If I assist or help a man in a righteous cause by making himself master in his own house, it does not follow that I am to become participator in all the acts of folly which he may choose to perpetrate when he has got into that high position. If I help to get a, man into possession of his property—involving always, of course, the power of the proprietor either to use or abuse it—if I do what I can to help him to get into his rightful property and the attempt fails, that does not entitle him because he wanted to do something that was unwise, or even worse, with his property, if he should get it, but has been disappointed by the development of events or want of development—I say that does not entitle him to come round to me and to say that I am directly and inferentially bound to perpetrate the folly for him in my own person. I contend that the endeavour to impeach me with a constructive inconsistency in this matter breaks down, because it is, even if there was a shadow of defence for it, broken down on the ground of what the lawyers call "being too remote." Sir, I don't need to defend myself from a charge which, at the same time, I know is whispered against us, that we Radicals on this side of the House, many of us are voting; against this Amendment because we resent being deserted by the Irish Party last year on the Education Question. Sir, that is a huckstering and log-rolling policy, degrading to Parliament by whomsoever it may be practised, and is essentially immoral in its character. Nor, Sir, do I defend my vote against this Amendment on the ground that I know is held and will be held, and I believe defended, by a good many people in this country, that the endowment of Catholicism is the endowment of falsehood, while the endowment of Protestantism is the endowment of truth. Sir, in my view, that is vulgar arrogance, narrow fanaticism. While I most heartily believe, as a student of history, that the persons who are commonly called reformers, although in their own hearts, and on theoretical principles, persecutors, did a great work in asserting their own freedom fro-n another class of the same species, and created a wealth of political, intellectual,

    911
    and social liberty, which proved, in the end, to be a Frankenstein too strong for its creator and beneficial to us; while I believe that I do not make a quarrel with that considerable body of intelligent persons who think that, when one theological school was substituted for another, no very great contribution was made to the higher aspects of human brotherhood. Sir, I do not think it necessary to say more in explanation of my position. I do not think that the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's policy are the lines of brotherhood. I think they are the lines of reaction, and give rise to a feeling of surprise that a man of his well-known acquaintance of the position, and whose thought is for the truth and progress of events, should be found—I cannot believe in his heart of hearts he can be found willing, but yielding to political necessity and works out an educational scheme in which he can only see darkness and despair. In Scotland we have an old proverb that every herring must hang by its own head. I must hang by such head as I have. For myself, I believe that the true line of progress in this matter is not that of multiplying the centres of sectarianism, but to do everything in one's power to reduce, I will not say to a minimum, but to absolutely extinguish all such centres where such religious influence is bound to prevail. My position in this matter is not to my liking; I see the difficulties of the situation, and I am oppressed and angered. I feel that we must look round us, and forward to the future, and to the general course of events and social relationship, and I find they are, to a certain extent, against my feelings; and, while I have no resource but to vote as I intended, it is not to my taste that my position is what might be described as non possumus.
    MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: The University question is somewhat academic in its character, and I confess the words we have just listened to, although they afforded us much amusement, seemed to me of rather too academic a character. They were too far away, if I may venture to say so, from the human facts of the situation, and had no reference to the real problem before us. If the speaker had followed his arguments to their
    912
    logical and ultimate conclusion he would, I think, have arrived at this truth, that no University was possible at all which would reach everybody's ideal. It is, at best, a matter of compromise; and, regarding it as such, we must approach this question of the Irish Universities in the spirit that we ought under the circumstances. I shall not be amusing, possibly I may be academic, but I desire to return to the appeal that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made to his Unionist followers yesterday afternoon. Never did I see him more earnest, nor did I ever see anything more pathetic than the master of a vast majority appealing, almost despairingly, to those who follow him, to adopt the policy which he believed, on their account as well as on account of the Empire, was the only one they could follow. I respect the appeal. I knew that it was honest; but it disagrees with the opinion I hold in this matter. He addressed himself to this question as a friend of the people, and a great supporter of the principle of denominationalism. I know he allowed the infusion of every element in the University; but what he pressed on his friends was the honest secular education with certain denominational ideas, and because they wished for the same thing for themselves he appealed to them with spirit to support him.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do hot wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think he goes beyond anything I said or am prepared to defend.
    MR. L. COURTNEY: If I misconstrued the remarks of my right hon. Friend it may be due to my want of apprehension, but it may also be due, in some degree, to the obscurity of some parts of his speech, and I must confess that I still think I am right in saying that the inference of his arguments addressed to the hon. Members behind him was this—
    "What you desire for yourselves, and what you would insist upon as the academy to which you would send your children, is a University strongly tinged with, if not dominated by, a particular form of religious belief, and because you desire that, you are bound to accord the same spirit and method of treatment to hon. Gentlemen opposite; that the golden rule of doing unto others as you would they should do to you compels those who delight in the

    913
    Anglican character of our Universities, who are unwilling to see altered the present character of the University of Dublin, to accord to the Catholics of Ireland a University in accordance with Catholic feeling."
    It is a strong argument, and I confess I do not see what answer can be given to that appeal except to say it is the desire of those who, like him, look at the present constitution of the British Universities and the Dublin University as not being the most perfect form of University, but as they are now, in fact, and he appealed to those who are satisfied with Oxford or Cambridge as they are to give the majority of Irishmen a similar University under similar circumstances—Catholic, instead of Anglican or Protestant. Now, that appeal does not touch me; I am one of the small minority on this side of the House which, I am afraid, has always been in favour of undenominational Universities, that is the course I should like to pursue. If Ireland were self-governed I would do for Ireland what I would do for France and Belgium. Let it be a form of University, called by any name, so long as it is kept on moving with the spirit of the times. The actual situation in Ireland with regard to University education corresponds pretty well in its potentiality to what I desire to see myself. Consider what the situation was when Queen Elizabeth, following the example of her father, established the University in Dublin, she made it a close University, for the propagation of a particular faith, associated with a particular religion. But, at the close of the last century, Trinity College was thrown open. And for more than 100 years Roman Catholics have freely resorted to the College, and have never been molested in the course of their training in any respect of their religious doctrines. I have met in many years numbers of students of Trinity College, and they always speak of it with gratitude and affection, and testify to the free and friendly life they led at the College with students with different religious views to their own.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Six per cent.
    MR. L. COURTNEY: I am coming to that. The settlement arrived at 100 years ago is essentially wanting in this, that the emoluments and prizes were still restricted to Protestants, and no Catholic could take any share of them. Well, when you come to a much later period than this, you find in 1845 the Queens Colleges were established with considerable endowments, and which were intended for and used by Roman Catholics who occupied high positions in the course of their career at those colleges. Then, finally, we had the complete throwing open of Trinity College under Mr. Fawcett's Bill, with the result that any Roman Catholic could go and complete at Trinity College, and compete on equal terms and have competed with the Protestants at Trinity College, where they have since obtained fellowships and other positions in the dominating body of the college. Trinity College was left, by the Act of 1873, completely open to students, irrespective of all creed, and it depends on the character of a student who comes there, and what position he gets in the examination, what position he obtains within the governing body of Trinity. I was interrupted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who said there were only six per cent. Well, I am not going to proceed from questions of potentiality, and I do say that in theory and in organisation the present system of University education in Ireland corresponds with what all lovers of undenominationalism would desire. There was no reason to believe but that the Roman Catholics would resort to the opportunities that were open to them, and would rush in and compete for the positions that might be attained, and so gradually get Trinity College transformed, so as to correspond with what may be called the educational composition of Ireland itself. When Trinity College was thrown open a century ago it was hailed by the Roman Catholics, not as perfectly satisfactory, but as a privilege they meant to make, full use of, and my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin read us last night a most interesting petition from the Roman Catholic laity apropos of the foundation of Maynooth, in which they protested against the notion that Maynooth should be restricted to students of

    915
    the Catholic faith, because they desired that Protestant students should come in as well as Catholics, and should take rank in the fullest sense with Catholic students. And when the Queen's College was established they, too, were welcomed by the Roman Catholic laity. Mr. Shiel in this House welcomed heartily the establishment of Queen's College—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What did O'Connell say?
    MR. L. COURTNEY: And at that time, let it be remembered, not only the Roman Catholic laity, but the majority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were not opposed to the Queen's College. Dr. MacHale, the Archbishop of Tuam, denounced heartily and consistently the Protestant colleges, but Dr. MacHale was in a minority. The Archbishop of Dublin was friendly to them, and it was not until twenty years after they had been established, it was not until they had developed a high degree of usefulness, and had attracted large numbers from Cork and Galway, that, at length, by a narrow majority, and under extraordinary circumstances, the Synod of the Church pronounced against them. When Cardinal Cullen came to be Archbishop of Dublin, when one by one the episcopacy got changed, when the old order passed away, there was—I think it was in 1866—a Synod held at Thurles, at which the question was raised, and a vote was taken as to whether the colleges should or should not be condemned, and the condemnation was passed by a majority of one. I only point to this to show that, even among the hierarchy themselves, up till a comparatively recent date, there was considerable uncertainty of feeling towards the colleges, and that Archbishop MacHale was in a minority in his condemnation of them. I think that, with these historic facts before us, we who were interested in the question at the time were justified in thinking, in 1873, that there was a possibility of solving the Irish University question by the action taken in passing Mr. Fawcett's Bill, that we had some right in thinking that the Roman Catholic laity, and possibly the hierarchy, might in time to come acquiesce in Trinity College as open to all, with prizes open to every-
    916
    one, and its mode of government also subject to their approval, so that within a generation it could have been captured by the Roman Catholic students, and the Roman Catholic people, if they had the wit and the brains, in competition with their fellow-students, to win honour and authority in the College; and Trinity College might have been modified, might have been developed, so as to correspond to the actual position of the educated opinion in Ireland itself. These things have not come to pass. Whatever the strength and permanence of the influences against them, we must own that for a time they have prevailed. In the struggle between Archbishop Murray and Archbishop MacHale the latter may be said to have succeeded. In spite of everything that has been done, the numbers of students resorting to Trinity has not increased; and though Roman Catholics have got some of its fellowships, and though the Roman Catholics are on the board of authority—the board which controls and directs the College—still they are very few. They are not at all what they should be if what we desired in 1873 had been realised, and Trinity is still, in fact, though liable to be changed by another development of action in Ireland, a strongly Protestant institution. So, also, we have to confess that the colleges at Cork and Galway, though they have come to be presided over by Roman Catholics, cannot be said to be Catholic; and in truth, we may admit, when we number up the amount of Roman Catholic lay students in Ireland, availing themselves of the advantages of University education, they are not commensurate with the number that ought to be so found sitting in Universities in a population divided as Ireland is. That is a thing we are bound to recognise with regret; and here, I think, the statesman to whom the hon. Gentleman referred is bound to take account of the fact, to recognise the failure of hopes, to admit the dismal truth, that there is this reluctance on the part of Roman Catholic youths, who might be expected to resort to the University to avail themselves of Trinity and Queen's Colleges. No doubt the apparent reluctance is much greater than what it really is. We do not make allowance in our comparisons for the fact that among the students of Trinity are

    917
    contained all the divinity students of the Irish Church, whereas the students of the Church of Rome are found at Maynooth. If you take away that body from the students of Trinity, you will find the number very much reduced. We also do not take account of the fact that the particular class which is capable of bearing the expense of sending their children to go through the University curriculum is very differently divided between the Protestants and the Catholics as compared with the population of Ireland as a whole, and if you take the test of the division which is furnished by the comparative numbers of the two creeds in the professional classes in Ireland, you would not find the proportion of Roman Catholic doctors and lawyers to Protestant doctors and lawyers so very different from the proportion of Roman Catholic and Protestant students as at first sight you might be led to suppose. There is not that deplorable absence of resort to the University as is sometimes alleged, although I admit it falls very considerably short of what we could desire. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has great faith in the progress of humanity in the development of thought and in the advance of culture. Is it not a terrible thing, even from his point of view, that an engine so potent in the advancement of culture, the development of thought, and the building up of character as Universities are, should not be made use of amongst the majority of the population of Ireland, and that we should be almost struck off from the possibility of promoting that advance which he believes in and longs for and anticipates by this miserable abstinence, on the part of the students who might, and ought to, enter them? This is the real question. We here touch the vital point. Are we to go on hoping against practical experience that the Roman Catholic laity will come in? Our past action has certainly not brought them in. Indeed, it would sometimes seem as if we were driving them back rather than advancing. I know that what is seen in Ireland does not stand by itself. We have to confess in England, too, and I believe in Scotland, in spite of the hon. Member who has just spoken, to the growth of the power of ecclesiasticism, and to what
    918
    I must confess—although, perhaps, wounding the feelings of some of my Friends—I for myself regard as an inroad of obscurantism winch is creeping in amongst us, despite the progress of science, and apparently reinforced by an alliance with democracy. You must acknowledge it, you must face it. Is there nothing that can be done? I have to confess the failure of hopes in the past, but I look in as practical a spirit as I can at the situation as it is. I am ready to look round to discover what hope there is for any change that would transform this apparent retrograde movement into one of advance, at all events, that would bring within the sphere of University education, within the possibility of University culture, within the force of freedom, of growth and movement, those elements of life which are now apart from them. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House held out some hope, which I grasped at, and which I acknowledge as a Unionist we ought, if possible, to make the most of, if there be any possibility of doing anything at all. I entirely respond to the appeal of the Unionists that we, as Unionists, are bound to be more than considerate, to be tender in dealing with this question, because we are charged with enormous powers and responsibilities. We are actually regulating the education of the Irish people, and we must take some account of their habits and their traditions, and even of their prejudices, in that organisation. I hope there is no one amongst us who will be misled by the spectacle of what we have been witnessing with different feelings during the last weeks, that there is no one who will be tempted to say—"See how Home Rule has broken to pieces, and how they are quarrelling amongst themselves, and what disagreement and dissension there is among the parts, not merely of the Irish, but of the English, Scotch, and Irish union of hearts." I hope there is no one among us who will take thought from that to say, "He need not be careful about this matter." I think our responsibility is enormous, that our position is critical. We are bound now in the plenitude of our power to do all we can towards the solution of this question. My right hon. Friend commented yesterday upon the loose use of the word denominational, and said a

    919
    denominational University meant something different from what we understood was wanted. My right hon. Friend went on to develop what was wanted, and, amid approving cheers and the apparently hearty support and concurrence of hon. Members opposite, he said—
    "We want to have a Catholic counterpart to Trinity College. This is what we want to have in Ireland," he said, "and I implore you to assist me in setting up something that shall take the same relation towards Ireland as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge do towards England; something that will satisfy in the same way the proper natural and legitimate aspirations of Irish Catholics."
    Now, what does that mean? Let us understand exactly the situation in England. Oxford and Cambridge Universities may be said to be Anglican institutions. They are saturated with Anglican traditions. They are for the most part presided over by men born within the fold of the Anglican Church. That is so for the most part. It is not necessary that that should be so, but it is the fact that they are so presided over, and the physical fact that the church and chapel bells ring in Oxford and Cambridge all day long is but an illustration of this close connection of the Universities and the Church. I speak of Cambridge particularly; what is the situation there? It is dominated by Anglican traditions, it is imbued with the Anglican spirit. But its schools are open to all Englishmen, as well as to Scotchmen, Irishmen, colonists, and people from all parts of the world. The school prizes of Cambridge are open to all, not merely the degrees, but the Fellowships and the emoluments, and those who get their degrees and take a Fellowship pass on, and in process of time constitute the resident masters, who are the immediate administrators of the University, or the masters of arts scattered throughout the Kingdom, who are the ultimate governing authority. Cambridge is a pure democracy, governed by those who have passed through from the ranks of students, and so obtain automatically the positions they hold. With the exception of one head nominated by the Crown, the students who become Fellows do, as Fellows, choose their head; the Council of the University is elected by the resident graduates, and each generation as it comes up elects its own Council; and
    920
    the professors of the University—except a few Regius professors, unimportant in point of numbers—are appointed by a body representing the popular power. Indeed, what we may call democratic Cambridge absolutely controls the University. If, therefore, the Nonconformists of England send, as they are sending at present, their sons to the University, and these sons win, as they are winning, prizes there, it is not long to seek to find the character of the governing body of the University changing, and Cambridge, instead of being predominantly Anglican as it has been, will become perceptibly tinged with a larger life, and in a reasonable time will become transformed so as to completely represent the opinion of educated England. The same thing, I believe, is true of Oxford. Dublin University in the same way might be transformed; Dublin in the same way might be invaded, seized captured. You cannot, it is true, abolish the Divinity school, but, apart from that Dublin might, within a reasonable time, become transformed so as to correspond to what I understand my right hon. Friend said is the legitimate desire—and he seemed to have the assent of hon. Members opposite—and the feeling of the country. If all that is wanted is the establishment of a Catholic University in Dublin which shall be a counterpart of Trinity, and shall correspond to what I have described Oxford and Cambridge to be; if all that is wanted is that you shall start, as you must start, no doubt, with a governing body exclusively Catholic; if you start with that, but at the same time provide that all its examinations, all its teachings shall be open to everyone, that all its prizes shall be open to everyone, and that within the sacred precincts of the Senate itself a man may come, having obtained his position through the schools, if, in fact, you mean a democratic Catholic University open to democratic Catholic influences, then I think we may see our way to some solution of the difficulty. But, of course, I do not know how far such a future as I have described has been realised. I do not know how far the conditions necessary for the success of such an experiment are understood, how far they have been consented to. Imagine what I mean. I have shown how the Cambridge governing body is the result of growth, and if

    921
    Anglicanism is predominant it is not from the possession of special privilege. The University is open to all the world; generation after generation passes through the schools and becomes in turn heads of houses and professors, and the whole character of the place is liable to automatic and unmarked change, slowly moving forward by natural growth of itself, so that in that way Cambridge and Oxford become what England wishes them to be. So with a Catholic University. If it is completely, absolutely, and perfectly Catholic at the start, but still open to all the elements that may come to it from Ireland, so it may at last become what those who reside at I he University make it, by natural growth; and then I think we may accept the appeal put forward by my tight hon. Friend, and have no difficulty in arriving at a solution of the problem. This business may be exemplified by others. The Universities of Scotland have been referred to. They were ecclesiastical in their origin. St. Andrews sprang into existence under the influence of the Primate of Scotland. Glasgow was founded by a Pope, on the application of its bishop, and Glasgow, St. Andrews, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh have come to be what Scotland likes them to be by the mere inroad of students making a University assume the form they desire. You may, in fact, see the same transformation in London. The Inns of Court are fragments of an ancient University, or, more strictly speaking, of the Colleges, the University never having been formed. In their inception they were Anglican institutions. We still keep up the Temple Church and chapels of Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn, but students of the law, with all the popular access to these bodies, have so changed the whole character of the institutions that they no longer bear their original aspect. If you want to have a counterpart of Trinity established in Ireland, and assent to the conditions under which Trinity exists, then, indeed, you may put before us something which the strong friends of undenominational education would be disposed to accept. You say this corresponds with your national movement, and with national ideas. We may hope that if the nation changes the University may change with it, having within itself the power of free growth
    922
    and movement. That is all we desire. I want to have the possibility of a Protestant getting on a Catholic governing body. An hon. Member near me, says: "He would soon be kicked off," but that could not be if you have a really democratic institution. If a student having won his place in the schools is entitled to take it position on the governing body, you may have troubles with the Roman Catholics, but, in spite of any organisation, that student will find his way on to the body. I might amplify this by suggestions, but I refrain; it is enough for me to say that if you do secure the position I suggest, then I think we shall have no difficulty in accepting an embodiment of the proposition. What, it means is that you meet the demand and set up a Catholic University under the absolute control of a Catholic body, and establish a Divinity school, which would be unchangeable. But, for the rest, it should be open absolutely to the free ingress of students of all descriptions who should be entitled to compete, not only for every prize, but also to succeed in due course to positions on the governing body, so that the governing body necessarily nominated at first may eventually be transformed as the result of the free growth and development of University education in Ireland. That is what I want. I confess I see no great difficulty in doing it. My right hon. Friend spoke with despair almost of persuading his friends, but if I rightly interpret his proposals, I confess I see no ground for despair, and I venture to approach this question in a practical spirit. I think the Parliamentary difficulty of dealing with this question might easily be overcome. In the first place, we know the foundation of a University lies within the prerogative of the Crown. The terms of its charter are settled by the Crown. There remains the provision of money. But without in the least degree suggesting anything—which it would be most improper in me to do—which would curtail the action and authority of this House, I think I could devise a plan and submit to the House the question on a Motion in support of a particular charter in the form of a Bill which would not admit of much discussion, but which might be so organised that the question of the House

    923
    would be "Yes," or "No." I mention this simply to show that although, as I have frankly confessed, I have approached with reluctance the necessity of such a solution as I have arrived at, yet when I do arrive at it I recognise it as practical, and I want to see it carried through if it can be. No doubt it is desirable first to catch your hare. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend has succeeded in his first propaganda. If he has succeeded in that, and proceeds in some such manner as I have suggested, it would not, if it were properly handled, be in the power of obstruction, whether on this side of the House or on that, to interpose any serious obstacle. I have occupied the attention of the House longer than I expected to do. I have verged in more than one sentence on the limits of discretion, but before I sit down there is one thing I should like to refer to. What is going to happen to the Amendment before the House? Of course, the hon. Member for East Mayo has the matter in his own discretion, and he can deal with it as he pleases, but I confess if I myself were to offer advice upon it I should think he would find it expedient not to press it to a division. After all he may think that the progress with reference to this question has been too slow, desperately slow, and he may resort to desperate methods to overcome it. He may resort to a division in despair, but he must realise that there has been some progress, that some minds are unsettled, that some are going forward, that some are taking a position they never before took, and at such a juncture it would be most unwise to do anything to crystallise the situation as it is, to freeze up the issues, and compel people to take sides one way or the other. I am quite certain that a division taken on the Amendment would falsely represent the views of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin has said that he cannot vote for it. An Amendment to the Address is a vote of censure, and although I am one who has always exercised an occasional freedom, for I am not a pedant of partisan organisation, I would not myself vote for a censure on the Government because they had not brought in a Bill on this subject. It would, in my opinion, be imprudent to invite any such vote upon
    924
    such an issue. But the hon. Gentleman is responsible for the action he will take, and he may persist or he may not. It is for him to decide. I myself have striven to do what I said I should hope to do at the outset, to be not too academic, to be, if possible, practical, and to reply as practically, as considerately, and as effectively as I could to the appeal—the strong, the earnest, and the pathetic appeal—made to us last night by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think that in a great many of the propositions which my right hon. Friend has advanced I am in entire concurrence with him. My right hon. Friend says he is averse to any move in the direction of denominational education. I think I am as averse to it as he is. He fears, more than I confess I do, what he calls the invasion into modern life of obscurantism, the invasion of ecclesiasticalism or clericalism. Now, Sir, if there is any one in this House who dislikes—I will even say abhors, and has all his life abhorred—clericalism in all forms and guises, I am he. But in fighting the battle of what my right hon. Friend calls obscurantism and ecclesiasticism, I look to two weapons. The first is fair play—that is to say, the assurance that my ecclesiastical friends shall have no right to complain of inequitable treatment; and the other weapon is education. Now it seems to me that both those two principles—namely, equity and the spread and improvement of education in one part of the United Kingdom—are involved in the question we are discussing to-night, and, in my own opinion, the solution proposed in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, and proposed, too, with such eloquence and power last night by the First Lord of the Treasury—that solution we ought to look to as affording lines upon which we shall most successfully fight these foes to progress which the right hon. Gentleman, like myself, dislikes. But I think my right hon. Friend was justified in complaining—well, perhaps that is not the right word, but in remarking upon the obscurity in which the First Lord of the Treasury stated the

    925
    proposal which the Government, or at least which he, favours. He spoke of a proposal before the country. If a Minister, and especially a Minister of the right hon. Gentleman's authority and pre-eminence, speaks of a proposal upon a burning, delicate, and difficult subject of this kind, I think he owes it to the House, and I think he would have been better advised and, I am sure, that it would have been better in the long run if he had done so—to define the conditions of his proposal, to meet the difficulty and tell us more clearly what kind of limitations he would impose upon this proposed educational body.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him. I was not referring to any Bill lying in the pigeon-holes of any office. I was referring to the general views now put forward by those representatives of Ireland who speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic opinion of that country.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, but I confess I understood that the right hon. Gentleman adopted or accepted the proposal before the country which was presented by Gentlemen below the Gangway. At all events, he assented to that proposal in principle, and indicated his willingness to weave it out in detail. This is one of the questions upon which it is very difficult to judge or pronounce an opinion—and especially for Gentlemen who are less acquainted with the problem than the First Lord of the Treasury or I for example—it is very difficult for them, and I am sure it is felt to be so on both sides of the House, until we know with something like definiteness what are the conditions to be attached to this University or College. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of opening two or three fingers of his hand, had told as frankly how far he is inclined to go in applying the general principle that there ought to be a University to which the Roman Catholics could go, he would have evaded, the difficulty of all sorts of sinister associations that gather round this proposal so long as it is a mere and vague shadow. In my opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman had stated with
    926
    more fulness the sort of scheme which I am quite sure he is forming in his own mind he would have advanced the cause which I sincerely desire to see furthered. In order myself to make my own position a little clearer, I must ask my hon. Friends behind me to understand, as I have said before when speaking on the subject, that I am simply speaking for myself, and that what I say imposes no obligation of any kind, personal or otherwise, upon anyone sitting on this Bench or behind. But it is due to the opinion which I formed in the course of my Irish administration and otherwise that I should endeavour to state as clearly as possible what I think of the proposal of the hon. Member. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh spoke of charges being made against himself and those like him who intend to vote against this Amendment, and the particular charge which he was anxious to avert was the charge that everybody who voted for the second reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 was thereby pledged morally to support the provision of higher education for Catholics in Ireland out of public funds. No, Sir, it was not the second reading of the Bill of 1893 which committed them. I should like—as many Members of the House were not present in 1893, and very likely many who were present have forgotten—I should like to go back to August, 1893. Upon that occasion—the narrative is not very long, but it gives the foundation of the present case, whether it be handled by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or myself—on that occasion the First Lord of the Treasury moved an Amendment upon the Home Rule Bill. We were considering the powers which an Irish Parliament should have or should not have, and the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment that the Irish Parliament should not be permitted to make any law whereby any denominational University or College might be established or endowed in whole or part or subsidised in any way out of public funds. The right hon. Gentleman gave a reason. He said—
    "I am in favour of a Catholic University or College, but I am in favour of it being done by the Imperial Parliament, and I will not allow it to be done, if I can help it, by an Irish Parliament."

    927
    I confess I thought at the time, and I still find, that the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for that distinction was rather too subtle, at any rate, for me, because the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I would not allow an Irish Parliament to set up out of public funds a denominational University or College, because then it would be taxing the minority of Protestants to do something to which they might object."
    but he said—
    "I do not object to the Imperial Parliament making the majority of the Protestants in Great Britain do it."
    As I have said, I thought at the time that that was rather too subtle a defence of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman I did not understand it then, and I do not understand it now. Then it fell to me to move this Amendment: that the Irish Parliament were to make no law whereby they are to establish or endow out of public funds any university or college in which the provisions of the University of Dublin Abolition of Tests Act are not observed. Then the Debate took a very remarkable turn, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the senior Member for Dublin, whom I see is in the House, raised the point of a Divinity School in Trinity College. This was the question whether in this new College there should be a theological faculty, corresponding to that which existed in Trinity College, and to which the Abolition of Tests Act of 1873 did not apply. I held that it would be absurd to apply tests to a theological chair, and then the hon. Member for South Tyrone pressed the same point. His suggestion was, that we were to get rid of all theological chairs, upon the perfectly fair ground that the grant to Maynooth would counter-balance any payment given for the undenominational chairs in Trinity College. Now that was how the case rested. I had already heard direct from certain important Irish Roman Catholics that they were quite willing to make provision for theological chairs out of private funds, and that they would not ask for a shilling of public money for any theological chairs. We arrived at this point, and then there was a further Amendment, to the effect that there should be no law
    928
    whereby may be endowed out of public funds any theological professorship for any university or college in which the conditions in the Abolition of Tests Act, 1873, were not observed, so that the Irish Parliament was to be permitted to establish and endow a College or University, provided that no public money went to support a theological chair, and provided that all the Provisions as to Tests in the Act of 1873 applied. Now, that was passed without any Division. That is what I want to recall to my right hon. Friend's mind—and to the minds of those who think that I am guilty of a certain departure from the pure milk of the word. Now, I observe that a remark is made in a document which was sent out from the Liberation Society to all the Members of the House. I have the greatest sympathy with the Liberation Society. I rather think I am a, member of it. I certainly have always been glad to find myself co-operating with them, and I hope I shall find myself in that position again. But what do they say, and what does my hon. and learned Friend imply in his argument. They say that this proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo is a vital departure from the principles of a disestablishment and disendowment of religion in Ireland, and my hon. and learned Friend argued to-night that this proposal amounted to an endowment of religion in Ireland, and was, to all intents and purposes, like the endowment of a Church. All those who supported this Clause, the history and genesis of which I have described, admitted without remonstrance in passing it, that there was a distinction between endowing and establishing an educational institution and the law affecting disestablishment and disendowment. The Irish Parliament was prohibited from establishing or endowing a church. For it to be able to do so was so intolerable to some hon. Members that they would not allow it to be able to do so, but to this proposal they raised no objection, and thereby I respectfully say that they recognised a difference between the establishment and endowment of a Church and the establishment and endowment of a College.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Clause—the whole of it?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not always carry the Bill with me. [The Bill was handed to the right hon. Gentleman by Mr. Gerald Balfour.] Thank you, here it is. That is one. Now the Clause I referred to, reads—
    "The powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law, first, respecting the establishment or endowment of a religion; or, secondly, in preventing it prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    "Whereby there may be established or endowed out of the public funds, any theological chair, or any University or College in which the conditions set out in the University of Dublin Abolition of Tests Acts are not observed."
    Therefore, we all of us, every one who was a party to that Bill, agreed to the Clause. You cannot take the tremendously high ground of saying that to do this is to sanction denominationalism in a form which their principles prohibit you from assenting to. But, Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo made a remark which I ought not to let pass, because it was of great importance. He said—
    "Nobody who votes for this Amendment is committed to any particular scheme,"
    and that is obviously true, and the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman last night, in addressing his own friends, is to get them to assent to the principle, and the terms may be discussed afterwards. Now, Sir, the only language I can find in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury which points to anything like definiteness in the nature of a scheme is the language already referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin—
    "The essence of the case is that the new University shall be founded upon such lines as will make it Roman Catholic in the sense that Trinity College is Protestant."
    I should not, of course, and could not pledge myself to support any scheme until I had it before me, with all its propositions set out clearly. There are certain general conditions which I should make before I assented to any scheme—conditions with which I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree. The first
    930
    is, that there is to be no test as to any chair, excepting, of course, a theological chair, which would not come out of the public funds. I do not wish to trifle with this matter, and if any one asks me to expect that these chairs are not to be filled mainly by Catholics, I say that they will be, because at the Queen's College, Belfast, the whole of the Professors are Protestants, and the President of that College is a Presbyterian clergyman of great distinction and ability. I repeat, every one of these Professors, some of them appointed by myself, is a Catholic.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Are Catholic.
    MR. MORLEY: I was not aware of that; at any rate, they were all Protestants when I was in office. Well, I have given my first condition. My second condition is, that no test shall be imposed upon any student, and nobody who desires to attend lectures or experiments in laboratories or elsewhere shall be shut out because he does not belong to the Roman Catholic religion. (Cheers from the Irish Benches.) That then, I understand, is fully assented to. The third condition is, that no student, on the mere ground of his religious convictions or creed, shall be shut out from competing for prizes; and the fourth condition is, that there is no endowment of any theological chair out of the public funds. The fifth condition is one which has been dwelt upon with great force, and is one of very great importance—I mean the constitution of the governing body, and the principles upon which it shall be constituted. The Bishops, as I understand from the Member for Mayo, agreed that there shall be a preponderance of laymen on the governing body over ecclesiastics, but they are all to be, I take it, Roman Catholics. I must confess that I am not quite satisfied that this preponderance of laymen over ecclesiastics will be a very solid gain, because there are in other churches than the Roman Catholic Church, a species of clerically-minded laymen. I am not sure that we do not hear his voice sometimes in this House. Therefore, I am not quite satisfied that the

    931
    provision that there shall be a preponderance of laymen over ecclesiastics is any adequate guarantee, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, before he endeavours to carry his Party with him, and, indeed, to-night if possible—perhaps—through the Chief Secretary or otherwise—should say somewhat more to us as to the principles upon which the governing body is to be constituted, for I foresee that upon this point a controversy is sure to arise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin has said that, in the first instance, Parliament would have full power over the constitution of that body, because, if the Government choose, we should have the name of the first governing body in the Bill, and it would be for this House to determine whether these names were wisely chosen or not. But that would not be a difficulty. The difficulty would arise as to the way in which that governing body is to be replenished as vacancies occur. I suppose one way would be by the nomination of the Crown. That would be a very satisfactory form, and I confess, for my own part, I should greatly prefer it. Indeed, I almost think that it is indispensable, that if you are going to carry the country with you in this matter something like the provisions described by my I right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, will have to be adopted. The governing body must not have the power of filling up vacancies, unless that is done from amongst persons within the College, and who would, therefore, have its best merits at heart. These are the conditions which present themselves to my mind as conditions that are more or less indispensable to a general assent—certainly to the assent, I think, of this side of the House—to any scheme such as the right hon. Gentleman favours. There is one suggestion—a hostile suggestion, made by some hon. Friends of mine, who sit below the Gangway. They held a meeting, and they passed a Resolution, moved and seconded by two friends of mine, from whom I differ with sincere pain, so much do I agree with them on general policy. The Mover and Seconder of this Resolution are the Member for Carnar-
    932
    von and the Member for Northampton, and they make this suggestion—
    "Any grievances suffered by Irish Roman Catholics in connection with University education, can be best removed by the creation of an unsectarian University under popular control."
    I will put this point to my hon. Friends. Suppose you get an Elective Board in Ireland, appointed to deal with the University question, and to make regulations and so forth for this body. Of course, my hon. Friends are too well acquainted with the facts of the case not to be aware that that body would consist mainly of Roman Catholics. I understand that they have in their minds the Welsh precedent of the governing body of the Welsh University, which is composed of representatives of the County Council, of representatives of the Municipal Councils, of a certain number of Members of Parliament representing certain districts, and so on. That may be a better scheme, for all I know, than the scheme which may eventually appear in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Of course, an elective body appointed in this way would not be a Wesleyan body—it would be undoubtedly and predominantly a Roman Catholic body, and I, for one, do not expect and do not desire that the governing body of this proposed institution, however appointed, should be composed of other than Roman Catholics. Now, Sir, I won't detain the House much longer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin seemed to lean to the position which is taken up by a great many Protestants, that there is no real want in Ireland for a higher education. He spoke of the proportion of doctors and other persons. But, then, does it not occur to my right hon. Friend that the absence of facilities for this better and higher education may be at least contributory to the very thing which he dwells upon and turns into an argument. I do not think that there is any sign at all that there is a deficient value set upon the higher education by the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, and I will only trouble the House with one single instance. The House understands that the Royal University is an examining body with decrees to be bestowed. But there is in Ireland, as hon. Gentlemen know, a

    933
    Roman Catholic College on St. Stephen's Green. In the report for the year 1896–97 it is shown that of first-class distinctions, prizes, and awards bestowed by the Royal University of Dublin, the Roman Catholic College carried off 49, whereas the whole of the three Queen's Colleges together, including even Belfast, Cork, and Galway, only carried off 33. This shows that in the quantity as well as the quality of the work done under grievous disadvantages by the Roman Catholic College it was able to defeat the Queen's Colleges in certain circumstances of open competition.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: That shows they do not want a new University.
    MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon. Friend says that shows they do not want a new University, but how many pupils have they got? It shows that many of the pupils insist upon acquiring the higher education in spite of the grievous circumstances under which they are placed, and the hon. Member's observation is not a serious interpretation of the fact I have brought before the House. I do not doubt for a moment that the competition of life forces the Roman Catholic College or University to insist that the doctor or lawyer, or anyone else trained there, should be well trained, and should have the higher education within his reach. The competition of life in England you may be quite sure will keep the standard of the Dublin College as high as that of Trinity College itself. There would be a competition between Trinity College and this new institution which must have a most salutary effect. Sir, I wish to point out one fact, one circumstance, and to press it very much upon the minds of hon. Friends behind me. Do you think—does my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh think—not at all impartially, that the attitude taken up last night by the First Lord of the Treasury—I am afraid he will say it of myself to-night—is due to political necessity? Well, I declare that I do not know what political necessity there is on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He has got a tremendous majority, and I think, therefore, as
    934
    applied to him that argument cannot be maintained. I will not say anything as to myself, but I can only say that if there is any significance to be attached to the circumstance that I am speaking, as I am venturing to do now, it certainly does not arise from any partiality for denominationalism, clericalism, or ecclesiasticalism, or any other "isms" which, like my hon. Friend, I sincerely dislike. It must have arisen from something else. Look at this fact. There have been during the last 12 years three Chief Secretaries for Ireland who have held that office, everyone of them approaching the question from entirely different political points of view, with the utmost difference of theological and anti-theological pre possessions, they everyone agree that in the highest interests of Ireland this is a proposal in the interests of social expediency, whether Unionists or Home Rule, which is not only justified, but necessary. I may add—and perhaps that may strengthen my case—that they are the First Lord of the Treasury, myself, and the present Chief Secretary. What did the present Chief Secretary say before he had been a year in office? He made a very remarkable observation, which I am well able to bear out. He said that he had been constantly obliged to pass over Roman Catholics in making appointments in Ireland because they had not had the same educational advantages, and, were not in the same educational position as Protestants. I can only say that my own experience absolutely corroborates that view. If there ever was a minister whose desire it was, as it is the interest and desire of all Chief Secretaries of whatever Party, to give Roman Catholics a larger and wider place in the administration of Ireland, it was my case. Of course, I was constantly obliged to disappoint my hon. Friends below the Gangway, because candidates were not up to the educational standard which the posts required. I say that it is idle for us when we have Home Rule discussions going on to point to the enormous number of Protestants—the great preponderance of Protestants—in offices in Ireland. It is not easy for us to found arguments, as many of my hon. Friends did in the course of the Debates on the Home Rule Bill, upon this preponderance when you hear from those who have the responsi-

    935
    bility of filling those posts that one reason, and a main reason, why that preponderance remains is that Roman Catholics have not had a fair chance to acquire the higher education. Then, there is the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was twice Chief Secretary, and I understand, from language quoted last night by my hon. Friend, the Member for Mayo, was party to a scheme which has been nothing, in fact, but a purely denominational endowment, and he was in favour of it. Well, there is another name which I am sure will carry weight with my hon. Friends behind me, and that is the name of Lord Spencer. Lord Spencer has had greater experience of Irish administration during his Viceroyalties than all three of us put together, and my noble Friend, Lord Spencer, entirely approves of the proposal we are now considering. The fact that men of all sides who have been concerned with administration in Ireland, and who have had a better chance than anybody else, can have had of acquiring a knowledge of the real working of social forces in Ireland, surely ought to be allowed to tell for a great deal. I think this is about all I have really got to say upon this question, but I should like for a moment to deal with the point of Home Rule raised by my hon. Friend. I take it that the foundation of the policy of Home Rule is the conviction that Ireland will not be governed as she ought to be, will not be content, and ought not to be content, to be governed, until she is governed in conformity with her own wishes, aspirations, and ideas. That, I take it, was the foundation—the fundamental principle—of the policy of Home Rule. Of course, we also thought, and think still, that an Irish legislature, with an Irish Executive, was the only way we could make sure that that great principle could be recognised and effectively carried out. But what has happened? At this moment a majority of the constituencies in the United Kingdom have declared themselves, as at present advised, to be unwilling to concede this demand from Ireland, and, therefore, this House would peremptorily decline to accept any such proposal now, I want to know whether the refusal on the part of the House and the constituencies justifies us in believing, as we do, in the policy of Home Rule, and
    936
    brought on by our attempt to carry out that policy, justifies us in flinging over all our fundamental proposals, and adopting the antagonistic principle that Ireland is to be governed, in the vital matter of education, according to English ideas, prejudices, and sentiments, without any reference to Irish ideas and Irish wishes. I will not be guilty of the impertinence of addressing any remarks to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they will not listen to their own eminent leader, they certainly will not listen to me. But, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, who is a pretty strong Unionist, if ever there was one, sees that if you do not attempt to deal with the problem of higher education you are shillifying or nullifying all the professions upon which you went with the country at the last election. That was fought mainly, I believe, on the policy of Home Rule, and that this Parliament would satisfy all the legitimate demands, and wishes, and views, of the Irish people, as much as would an Irish Parliament. I confess, I did not much like the language of the Leader of the House last night. I detected in some of it somewhat of a recession, not the least, in his own mind, or in his own conviction, as to the expediency of the proposal; but I did detect a little relaxing of the position that he took up even last year. Last year, I think, he at least promised a Bill.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, I did not.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think so, or at least it was mentioned; it was quoted yesterday. But, at all events, yesterday he showed, as I ventured to predict last year, the great difficulties, both on his side of the House and upon this. That, evidently, is so, and the fervent and eloquent appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman last night was, to my mind, a demonstration that he has found greater difficulties than he last year anticipated, and that it would take greater command and control to carry this matter through, and, I. must confess that, to my mind, in the main proposal he has gone a little back rather than come a little forward. I do not call all Irishmen unreasonable, impatient, and turbulent, but what wonder if they are unreasonable, when they find that reason does not decide? What wonder they are impatient,

    937
    when they find that patience brings them no nearer. What wonder that they have a temper of railling insurgency, when they find that, whatever action they take, whatever arguments they deduce, however strong those arguments may be, and however they may be backed up by the Leader of the Unionist Party, they, in fact, lead nowhere. What you want in Ireland, above all things, is to spread, with a vigorous hand, education of every kind, both primary, intermediate, and higher. And because I believe it is urgently needed, and because I can see the demand now has taken a moderate and rational shape, which those of us who are strongest for undenominational education—it is under those circumstances, and having regard to those particular conditions, which we can safely accept, that I, for one, shall undoubtedly vote for the Amendment.
    MR. R. M. PERKS: I think it would be impossible to disinter any single election address of candidates, either English, Scotch or Welsh, in the last General Election, in which the candidate undertook to vote for a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. It is an equally striking fact that not a single candidate, either Conservative or Liberal, during the course of the recent bye-elections promised to confer upon Ireland a Roman Catholic University. Now, my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary has said that the proper weapons to be used in fighting ecclesiastical intolerance in Ireland are fair play and education. But what sort of education is it? We are without any information. It is somewhat strange that the Irish Secretaries who go to Ireland as missionaries of sectarianism come back converts to sacerdotalism. But I should like to recall to my right hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose Burghs, who is never ambiguous, who is always frank and perfectly sincere, what he said upon this question. He said—
    "Why do we assert that the maintenance of this system of leaving elementary education in the hands of the priests is a fatal blow to our best hopes?"
    "Instead of giving to the schools the mark of an independent province of the National Government, we leave them in the dark, close, depressing hollows of sectarianism."
    938
    It is because the Nonconformists of this country honestly, conscientiously, sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic University in Ireland will leave the people of Ireland in those dark and dismal hollows of sectarianism that we oppose this Amendment. Now, the right hon Member for Bodmin sketched out what he called a purely democratic University, and he offered himself as a Parliamentary draughtsman to draw a Bill which might be got quickly through the House of Commons. But unless you convert the country, you make no real progress, and Bills, whether long or short, cannot be passed. In his Partick speech the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury laid down certain fundamental conditions without which, he said, no Government in this country could hope to deal with this subject. First of all, he said, you must have the Irish people agreeing; then, he said, you must present a scheme which must not be a means to Party triumphs; and his last condition—and there, I suppose, the germ of the predominant partner idea creptain—was that there must be a consensus of opinion in Scotland, England, and Ireland. Have those terms or any one of them been complied with? It was impossible not to see, on the previous night, that when the right hon. Gentleman was appealing with missionary fervour to his followers there was a considerable section on the opposide side of the House who are not on the road to conversion, and it is not surprising that they are not. Is it possible to drive from our minds the fact that this difficult subject has already wrecked two great Governments? Mr. Gladstone, when he was, in March, 1873, defending the Universities Education (Ireland) Bill, to which reference has been frequently made, used these words. He said—
    "I do not admit that the claims of the Roman Catholics has been made good to the endowment of a College or University. I do not found that statement exclusively on the state of Protestant opinion. If that were all, I should be ready for one to oppose myself to the tide of that opinion, however strong it might be, but I think there are the best reasons, strong and obvious, which render it impossible to entertain with consistency or justice the question of Roman Catholic endowment. I wish to leave on record the strong conviction I entertain that it would be a grave and serious

    939
    error on the part of this House were they to give the slightest encouragement to the demand that is made for introducing into Ireland the system of separate endowments for separate religious institutions for academic purposes, and thereby distinctly to denounce that I repudiate the policy of 1869, to which the great majority of this House were parties, and which, I believe, none of us regret."
    Now, that is not an ordinary declaration. It was made by Mr. Gladstone, to his followers, in the course of a great debate, when the fortunes of his Ministry were staked. But practically the same position was taken a fortnight later by Mr. Disraeli, who said—
    "In my opinion that question—namely, the establishment of a Roman Catholic University—had been generally decided by the nation at the last General Election, but that, totally irrespective of the national decision, events had occurred in Parliament since which rendered it quite impossible for me to listen to any suggestions of the kind, because since the last General Election the endowments of the Protestant Church of Ireland had been taken away from it—a policy which I had resisted, and which they—the Irish Catholic Members—had supported, and which, having been carried into effect, offered in my mind a permanent and insurmountable barrier to the policy which they wished to see pursued."
    The programmes of Newcastle and Derby are, I think, sufficiently compendious, but nobody has yet ventured to suggest that either the Newcastle or Derby programme should include a Bill for the establishment and endowment of a Roman Catholic University. New, we have been blamed for deserting our Irish allies, and on this particular point may I say, on behalf of a very large section of the Nonconformists of this country, we regret it is so, for as a rule we have been found fighting side by side with the Irish Members in the cause of freedom in the past history of the land. It was the Nonconformists who fought so resolutely with them in 1829, and their great leader, Daniel O'Connell, who was not in favour of sectarian education and who more than once pronounced against sectarian education, said, at a meeting in 1829—
    "I have come here as the representative, not of the intellect, for of that I am incapable, but of the warm-hearted feelings of the people in Ireland. I stand here in the name of my country to express our gratitude in feeble but sincere language for the exertions made on our behalf by our Protestant dissenting brethren."
    940
    We have always endeavoured to assist the Irish in their reasonable efforts for civil and religious freedom. Speaking as a member of the largest Nonconformist Church in this country, I would remind my Irish friends that the Methodists in 1853 absolutely refused to be led astray by the wave of religious panic which went through this country, and we declined altogether to be a party to Lord Russell's Ecclesiastical Tithes Bill. It was the same with the Irish Church Act in 1869, and later on when we had to deal with the disabilities of office in Ireland as to high offices of state, it was the same. Therefore, I am justified in saying that up to the present time there has been no real and serious difference of opinion between the English Nonconformists and their late allies on ecclesiastical questions. We do not wish to deal with this as a religious controversy at all. I was reminded yesterday by the speech of the hon. Member for Louth, that there are questions of faith which I frankly admit the Nonconformists of this country hold in common with their Catholic brothers. It is when we come to ecclesiastical methods and interpretations that we begin to differ. Why is it that Nonconformists and the Irish Roman Catholics have to part company. It is certain that, holding the views we do, we must part company. It is not because of the action taken last year by the Irish Party in regard to the Voluntary Schools Act. It is because we hold as strong convictions as those which last year led the Irish Members to assist the Anglican clergy in 8,000 villages to set their heels on Dissenters, that we feel compelled to offer to this proposal our most strenuous, and, I believe, effective opposition. We should take this ground if we had to deal, not with Roman Catholicism, but any other sectarianism. If the proposal was made to establish a Methodist University here, and the Methodists are far more numerous here than the Roman Catholics are in Ireland, our position would be just the same. We take the broad and distinct ground that no public money should be applied to sectarian uses. The second ground we take is that sectarian Universities are anomalies and anachronisms. That it is going back to an abandoned policy, to set up

    941
    a sectarian University. But my friends say, if you allow the Roman Catholics in Ireland to provide for their own theological chair and religious teaching, you are paying no public money for a Roman Catholic University. But is not that rather a delusion? Suppose you apply it to an English village, and you say, supposing the clergyman provides the whole expense for the religious education of the school we will provide him with everything else out of the public purse. I observed when the hon. Member for Bodmin spoke as to the character of such a University as he supported, an appalling silence reigned on the Irish Bench. But there is no argument, in favour of this University, which could not be applied to the establishment and endowment of a new state church in Ireland. I was looking at a letter from the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and it seemed to me that the letter meant nothing less than unadulterated Home Rule. The words he used were, "It is not what we think, it is what they (the Roman Catholics) think, that ought to decide the question."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rather object to that. What I said in the letter was that this was a matter of conscience with the Roman Catholics—that the Irish people make this a question of conscience. It is not my ideal of an educational scheme, but the Roman Catholics made it a matter of conscience, and it was a matter for them alone, not for me.
    *MR. PERKS: Then it was a question of conscience which would be equally applicable to the establishment of an Established Church in Ireland. We object to these proposals because we are strongly opposed to the clerical control of higher education in any form whatever. It is impossible to point to any modern state which endorses those principles. Take the United States of America. Where is there established out of public funds anywhere in America any sectarian Universities? Even Oxford and Cambridge we have recently seen thrown open by the authorities of the Catholic Church to their youth.
    MR. PERKS: If the hon. Member says that it was not the English Nonconformists he had in his mind, then I accept his explanation. But the hon. Member referred to a "decaying faction who had thrown themselves across the path of religious liberty in opposition to this proposal." I certainly understood him by that to refer to the English Nonconformists.
    MR. DILLON: Every one who heard me should have understood that I was referring to a decaying faction in Ireland, and that I was speaking of the Orange Society.
    *MR. PERKS: I am not sufficiently familiar with the amenities of Irish political combat to understand exactly who was referred to; but I was under the impression that the people who were referred to in this somewhat uncomplimentary language were the English Nonconformists, who have been simply endeavouring to put this question fairly before their fellow-religionists in this country.
    MR. DILLON: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. If he knew the truth, he would know that I suffer a good deal of abuse in Ireland for being good friends with the English Nonconformists.
    *MR. PERKS: I am found to say that, after listening to the hon. Member's speech yesterday, I do not think he exposes himself to that charge any longer. At all events, he did say that he held some 30 English constituencies in the hollow of his hand.
    MR. DILLON: No, no.
    *MR. PERKS: Well, under his control as far as Irish issues are concerned. But I venture to point out that he must not encourage his followers in Ireland who may be increasing or dwindling, I do not know which, by pointing to these phantom battalions over here. I trust that our own political Leaders will bear in mind that this is a subject upon which Nonconformists throughout the country have very strong feelings indeed. The hon. Member for North Armagh—one of the leaders of this decaying faction—warned his own Party last night that

    943
    they must not touch this subject without reckoning with an important section of their followers. I believe there is almost absolute unanimity between the different Nonconformist bodies on this subject. We see a great struggle impending between the clerical authority and popular power, and we expect a clear and distinct lead from those to whose political fortunes we have attached ourselves. We wish them to speak in no ambiguous phrases, and we hope that they will do as they have done in bye-gone years, resist in every form they possibly can the growing clericalism and assertion of sacerdotalism in connection with either elementary, middle, or higher education.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: The last speaker seemed to assume that he spoke for every section of English Nonconformists of England, and he delivered a sort of final judgment on the Question, not merely of a Catholic University, but also on the subject of Irish Government. He has declared himself in his own constituency as opposed to Home Rule,
    *MR. PERKS: I have done nothing in the sort. I have declared myself in favour of Home Rule, but not in favour of putting it in the forefront at the next political campaign.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: Well, I think the hon. Member's deliverance to his constituents was read by many people besides myself as an announcement that he was opposed to Home Rule, and I do not believe that that is the position taken up by the mass of Nonconformists of England. At any rate, until I have some better evidence I refuse to take either the method, the manner, the judgment, or the spirit of the hon. Member as representing any large section of English Nonconformists. The hon. Member is opposed to the idea of a sectarian University. I wonder where, in the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, he will find an unsectarian University? Take Oxford, for instance. The right hon. Member for Bodmin has said that Oxford and Cambridge are Anglican institutions. Well, I have been on the books of two of the Oxford Colleges. Before I entered the first I had to show a certificate of baptism according to the rites of the Anglican Church, while the ex-officio
    944
    Visitor of the second College—All Souls' Foundation—was the Archbishop of Canterbury. In both of these Colleges, as in every College of the University, there is an Anglican service conducted daily in the College chapel, and there it is possible to attend the roll-call instead, so strong is the general spirit of the College that many Nonconformists attend the Anglican service. And so far has this gone that many of the Nonconformist bodies of England, finding that the opinions of the young men they sent to Oxford were in danger of being unsettled, have founded for themselves Collegiate institutions in Oxford in order to preserve the separate denominational opinions of their adherents. The Congregationalists have such an institution, and the Unitarians have followed their example, because they found that, under the so-called undenominational system at Oxford, there was danger of their peculiar views being lost sight of. I am not blaming them, but, under the circumstances, who can say that the English Universities are undenominational, unsectarian institutions. Then I come to Scotland. We heard from the hon. and learned Member for East Edinburgh, an eloquent speech against sectarianism. But, I believe it is a fact, nevertheless, that every single Scotch University has attached to it a Presbyterian Faculty of Theology. The Members of that Faculty submit themselves to theological tests. Of course, it is true that the Presbyterian system of religion is a good deal concentrated on one day of the week, and it is therefore possible to so work the lectures as to avoid interference with the beliefs of the students. But, as far as I can understand metaphysics as they are taught in Scotland, they are of a decidedly Calvanistic tendency. [Several hon. Members: "No!"] Well, I said as far as I can understand them, and that narrows the limit of the assertion, but I believe it is the general impression.
    MR. R. WALLACE: There are no tests.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: There are no tests for the theological chairs in the Universities.
    MR. R. WALLACE: The Universities are perfectly secular.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: But attached to them, and an essential part of them, is a wing of the Established Church. How, then, can they be secular? And they receive endowments, out of which students are prepared for the Established Church. It is trifling with me to tell me that there is either in England or in Scotland such a thing as an unsectarian University. I am told that a University has been established in Wales of a non-sectarian character, but I venture to think that that is because no single denomination has an absolute majority in Wales. Now, come to Ireland. Where is there an undenominational University there? Trinity College is, of course, open to everybody; and someone has asked why cannot Catholics who now go to Oxford go to Trinity. But, if Oxford is Anglican, I say its Anglicanism is of a mild Primrose type when compared with the Orange hue of the Anglicanism of Trinity. We feel more bitterly, and more keenly, on religious subjects in Ireland than you do in England, and Irish Protestantism is more pronounced than English Protestantism, and it is not difficult for anybody who considers it to understand why the authorities of the Catholic Church should have made a difference between the two. Furthermore, I think it is more easy to adopt the College system as it exists at Oxford to Catholic students, than it is under the system which obtains in Dublin, where the Colleges are practically one. Trinity always has been, is, and will remain, a Protestant institution. It is true it would have been possible, if the Catholic Church had been willing, to submit a generation of its students to the risk and danger of going to an institution of that kind—it would have been possible, I say, to have captured it and make it a Catholic insituation. [An hon. Member: No.] Well, as a Protestant Nationalist, surely I am free to express an opinion. I do not know what the effect of that might have been on the Catholics, but I think it would have been exceedingly useful in the case of my fellow Protestants in Ireland, who are so fond of boasting of having a monopoly, not merely of the wealth, but also of the intelligence of the country: I say it would have been useful to them if they had been beaten in the examinations at Trinity College in fair
    946
    competition by their Catholic fellow-countrymen. We know, from examples elsewhere, what would probably happen. I remember myself that when the intermediate system was adopted in Ireland, we thought it strange that at the first examination the Catholic schools took about one-third of the honours. The system has been in force about 20 years, and now the Catholic schools take three-quarters of the honours, and the number of rewards they gain is quite up to their proportion of the population. Munster has long since beaten Ulster in the examinations of this kind, and we may judge from this what might happen at Trinity under other circumstances. But, as a fact, Trinity has been allowed to remain, and is, a Protestant institution. Then there is another University in Ireland—the Royal University—and I would like my hon. Friends who maintain the present system to consider for a moment what that institution is. There were established by this House Queen's Colleges in Ireland which were intended to be purely undenominational, and the result was ridiculous. I remember old Professor Young telling me, when he was going to deliver his lectures on the period of the Reformation at Queen's College, that he did not know what to say, because he was bound to mention nothing which was contentious; but he got over the difficulty by never lecturing on the history of Ireland after the time of Henry II. The Queen's Colleges have done effective work in medicine; but when it comes to history and philosophy and subjects into which contention must naturally enter, it is found that the work of the College has been stunted by ridiculous rules. To the Queen's Colleges was added a new University, called the Royal University. What is it? Its governing body consists of a number of gentlemen, very few of whom are actually engaged in the work of education, it being thought that by taking a body of distinguished gentlemen from outside you could avoid the conflict which must necessarily otherwise arise. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen do nothing for the improvement of education. They merely fix a mechanical curriculum. There are at the University Protestant and Catholic students, but the Catholics are scattered throughout the country, and have not,

    947
    like the Protestants, a vote from the Consolidated Fund every year. My hon. Friends talk about clericalism, and say they are afraid to see the youth of Ireland under entirely clerical guidance. The result of this system is to make the Catholics of Ireland, those of them who are enjoying University education, much more under clerical guidance than would otherwise be the case—and why? Because it is only men in orders, as a rule, who will take the small salaries which at present are within the reach of the Catholics in these Colleges; because it is they only who will show this self-sacrifice, and I venture to say that if these various Catholic bodies were brought together, as it were, into one great University, and allowed to arrange their own curriculum and carry it out with the full concurrence of the Catholic bishops, there would be much greater satisfaction than exists under the present state of things. That being so, I ask what hon. Members are afraid of? All that Irish Catholics ask is that there should be established in Ireland a University which should be open to anybody who wishes to go there. In Ireland we do not change; the Protestants who become Catholics are very few, the Catholics who become Protestants are very few, and, just as Trinity College has remained consistently Protestant, so the new University would remain consistently Catholic. We have had problems put to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, and others, as to what will be the governing body, as to who will decide vexed questions with regard, for instance, to the removal of a professor. I don't think those questions need really trouble the House. They may be used as excuses for postponing the settlement of this question, but they are not really of the essence of the subject. The Catholic Bishops have shown that, so long as a University is established with a Catholic governing and teaching body to start with, they are comparatively indifferent as to what means should be taken to secure a continuance of that state of things. They are willing to make as free an entrance for other denominations as has been insisted upon for the other Universities, and I venture to appeal, under these circumstances, to
    948
    the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the government of Ireland whether the time has not come when we should grapple with this question, and whether he will not agree that the difficulties would disappear when they are grappled with. The First Lord has done excellent missionary work, but should he confine himself entirely to missionary work, there are some people whom he will never convert. With them his progress will be as slow as the excellent Society for the Conversion of the Jews with the people whom it attempts to convert. I confess myself that I believe the people of England and of Scotland are quite indifferent upon this matter. If the Irish Secretary should come down to the House as the responsible Minister for Ireland and make a proposal, I believe the vast mass of the House would support him. There are militant people who will not allow Catholics to be taught in the way they demand, but their armies would be merely stage armies. The business of this House might be obstructed for a few weeks, but if the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to face these problems, whether upon the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin or upon other lines, he will find that he is supported in principle by nine out of ten men on both sides of the House. The details, from which so much has been feared, will disappear, for the authorities of the Catholic Church in Ireland have now met every reasonable objection which has been advanced against their proposal by even the most militant of the Gentlemen who sit above the gangway. Why, under these circumstances, cannot we have this question settled? Are we to continue to go on as at present, with Members sitting on one side saying they would be glad to see it done by an Irish Parliament, and other Members saying they would be glad to see it done here and not by an Irish Parliament? How long is this see-saw to continue? The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the government of Ireland. This is one of the most urgent and pressing problems affecting Ireland, and I venture to assert that, knowing what is right, he ought to deal with the problem and solve it.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I am sorry that I have to trouble the House upon this question, but I should be untrue to the constituency I represent, and to the vast body of public opinion in Lister, if I were to hesitate to say a word or two upon this subject. Since I entered the House, 30 years ago, I have never listened to an Address with greater pain than to the magnificent oration delivered last night by the First Lord of the Treasury. The conscientiousness and courage of the right hon. Gentleman are worthy of all commendation, and if it were possible for him to be a commander, leading a forlorn hope, or for him to be decorated with the Victoria Cross, his speech last night would entitle him to that position. I would like, however, to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said at Partick, on the 2nd December, 1889—
    "My own view," he said—"and I wish to deal perfectly frankly both with you and with them—is that we cannot with public advantage found a Roman Catholic University, and I think so because I am of opinion that it would be fatal to the cause of higher education in Ireland if the Catholics and Protestants were not brought into competition in obtaining the degrees and honours of University training. If you do not bring them into competition you might find that the Protestant or the Catholic standard was lowered to meet the temporary interests of their clients, and the cause of good education would suffer. This is the first thing we cannot give. The second thing, I think, we cannot give, is any State endowment of theological teaching."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion upon the Conscience Clause—
    "should not be compelled to attend either theological lectures or theological services."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman has been able to look through the newspapers this morning and study the great organs of Unionist opinion; I hope he has looked at the Yorkshire and the Liverpool papers, and also the organ of his Party in his constituency of Manchester. I will quote only from the Manchester Courier—
    "Any proposal on the part of the present Government to establish a Roman Catholic University in Ireland, supported out of State funds, as is suggested, would be the most fatal mistake that they could possibly make. It would rend the ranks of their own followers in twain."
    950
    It is unnecessary for me to add words to that pronouncement. But I would like to ask the attention of the House for a moment to an extract from an able article published in Macmillan's Magazine, in December last, on the subject of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland—
    "A Roman Catholic University must, of necessity, be a Propaganda, bitterly hostile, and, from its point of view, rightly hostile to the doctrines of the Reformation, which at any rate form the basis of the religion of this country, and are still established by law. Is the present Conservative Government, the most powerful of the century, and supported by the whole strength of the Church of England, prepared gratuitously to give effect to a movement, the objects of which are repugnant to the vast majority of their supporters, and to the whole English nation, and upon which, if they went to the country to-morrow, they would sustain a tremendous defeat? The demand is made, for the most part, by their avowedly irreconcilable foes. Is this Government, then, so far disinterested as to be prepared, not only to turn the unsmitten cheek to its adversaries, but itself to strike the blow?"
    An emphatic commentary upon that extract has been already afforded, when the hon. Members who proposed and seconded this Amendment and their friends hastened from the Debate last evening, to take part in a rebel demonstration—a demonstration to commemorate the attempt of their fellow-countrymen in 1798 to throw off the English yoke and to establish in Ireland Roman Catholic domination.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: The leaders were Protestants.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: You can always find a renegade Protestant. Father Murphy was not a Protestant, and the priest—
    MR. DILLON: Wolfe Tone was.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order; I must remind the hon. Member that the House is now dealing with the question of the establishment of a Catholic University.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I shall not further pursue that argument. It has been preposterously proposed that this University should be managed entirely by Roman Catholics, and yet not teach the Ultramontane doctrines of the Papacy. I suppose hon. Members are aware

    951
    of a statement once made by Cardinal Newman, who said that—
    "No pledge from Catholics was of any value to which Rome was not a party."
    What value can be placed upon pledges, even by the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland? Did not the Roman Catholic prelates solemnly declare before the Emancipation Act that they would never interfere with the Protestant Church, then established in Ireland? Did they not, upon oath, protest against the doctrine of papal infallibility being held by their Church? It almost looks like perjury on the part of those right rev. gentlemen. I would like to quote, with reference to this Roman Catholic University, the utterances of a noble Lord who was formerly Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Marquess of Londonderry, speaking in Ulster Hall, Belfast, on the 8th inst., said—
    "As to the first question, at the present moment every College in Ireland was open to Roman Catholics. There were no tests, no hindrances. On the contrary, every opportunity was given to Roman Catholics to cultivate their own religion. The Presidents of two of the Queen's Colleges were Roman Catholics, and he believed he was right in saying that there was no College in Ireland that had not a Roman Catholic professor. He turned more especially to Trinity College, Dublin, which he always spoke of with warm respect and admiration. It was with sorrow that he noted that so many Roman Catholics refused to enter the portals of that seat of learning, for, as he had said, there was no hindrance to their doing so. Every Roman Catholic in Trinity College was at liberty not only to cultivate his own religion, but to meet his own clergy. Facilities had been given to Roman Catholics of late years, which he knew full well they did not enjoy many years ago, but there was now no honour, no dignity, no prize, which Trinity College possessed that was not open to Roman Catholics, and in cases where the statute of the College had refused scholarships to Roman Catholics, special scholarships of equal value had been invented, and had, he was glad to say, been taken advantage of by Roman Catholics."
    When I was a student of Trinity College I had as fellow students the grandsons of Daniel O'Connell. I regret that those gentlemen are not now alive to speak for themselves. If they were they would unhesitatingly declare that no one interfered with their religion in Tirnity College, and the students were as free as they could possibly be in a seminary of
    952
    a denomination of their own teachers. I see the hon. Member for South Mayo present, and I appeal to him to say if it is not his opinion that the education given in Trinity College is satisfactory to Roman Catholics of Ireland. I appeal to him whether he is prepared to place the education of the children of Ireland under clerical domination. He went down to Belfast to resist the domination of a Roman Catholic bishop at a municipal election, and I am sure his manhood is sufficient to cause him to stand up in this House and speak upon the subject. Allusion has been made to the way in which Trinity College would be safeguarded in the event of a Roman Catholic University being established. Does the House remember the words uttered by Archbishop Walsh in 1886? He said—
    "So long as that central fortress of education, that is not Catholic, was allowed to stand in the foremost position, and to occupy the most glorious site in our Catholic city of Dublin, so long would it be impossible for any statesman to deal with this great question on the only ground which can be regarded as satisfactory, or even entitled to acquiescence."
    That shows the House what would be the fate of Trinity College if Archbishop Walsh had his way in Ireland. The First Lord of the Treasury asked last night, why should Roman Catholics send their sons to a Protestant University when Protestants would not send their sons to a Roman Catholic University. The consciences of Roman Catholics would be respected in a Protestant University, and the consciences of Protestants would not be respected in a Catholic University. I think it would be desirable to have a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the doctrines that would be taught in books at this Catholic University. There is a book written by the Rev. Antonine Maurel, a Jesuit, called "The Church and the Sovereign Pontiff," which bears the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. He says—
    "On what is the Pope infallible?….Whenever philosophy, history, literature, politics, or sciences enter the province of dogmatic or moral theology or of ecclesiastical right, invent and propagate systems, facts, hypotheses, sayings tending to weaken or destroy the faith, morals, and authority of the

    953
    Church—then the Pope, divinely commissioned to guard these inestimable treasures, is obliged to.…anathematise; and his decision is immutable."
    I should like to quote another sentence from this book, and I commend it to the consideration of the Nonconformist conscience—
    "We should always be disposed to believe that that which seems to us white is black, if the hierarchical Church so decide."
    This attempt to establish an Ultramontane University was undoubtedly part of a great Papal revival, part of an endeavour to enslave the people and destroy Protestantism. Cardinal Manning, in addressing the assembled Prelates of his Church, convened at the 3rd Provincial Council of Westminster, in 1859, stated:
    "It is good for us to be here in England. It is yours, Right Rev. Fathers, to subjugate and to subdue, to bend, and to break the will of an Imperial race. England is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements, and the stronghold of its powers. Weakened in England, it is paralysed everywhere; conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world."
    One word more and I have done. I should have liked to ask the present Leader of the Opposition if he remembers writing a letter to me on the 12th August, 1874, in reply to a congratulation from me as to a Protestant speech that he had made in this House. He wrote to say—
    "You and I have reason to rejoice that the people of England are now, as they have always been, true to the principles of the Reformation. And these, in spite of what Gladstone may say, are the true principles of the Liberal Party."
    I have the honour to belong to the Orange Society. Half a million of man throughout the British Empire are bound together in that organisation; they desire no supremacy, no ascendency for themselves, but they do desire to preserve the British Constitution, which Queen Victoria, on the 28th June, 1838, in Westminster Abbey, with her hand upon the Bible, swore to maintain—that is, the Protestant reformed religion as established by law. I would be a traitor to Protestant principles—I would be a traitor to the principles of the Reformation and
    954
    the Revolution Settlement of 1688—if I hesitated to do my utmost to oppose the Amendment.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I should like to express my sympathy with this Amendment. I do not think it can be denied that there has been a great change of opinion in recent years upon this question in the great organisation of the Press in this country, that this question ought to be settled in accordance with the wishes and feelings of the Catholics of Ireland. We have heard, in this debate, of objections which did undoubtedly formerly have considerable weight with the majority of people in this country. Those objections are now, as I understand, practically removed. There was objection to the payment of public money to actual theological teaching. Personally, I confess that I should prefer that that objection may not have weight. I remember a very important article on this question, which appeared in the Spectator just a year ago. It was an article advocating this proposal, which is now under discussion, and in which the paper expressed an opinion in favour of public endowment of theological teachers. However, if that claim is waived by those responsible for Irish opinion on this question in Ireland, it certainly does remove the objection, a not altogether unnatural one, from the minds of the people of this country. Then we have the question of the preponderance of the lay element on the governing body. Sir, I see that the Irish Bishops are in favour of this preponderating element. I believe it to be the fact that not one single Irish Bishop at the present moment has had the advantage of a University education. I believe they deplore this as much as we do, and they recognise not only the loss to themselves, but the loss to the country. There is an argument which has often been alluded to, and the only one which I think has any weight, and that is that Trinity College is open to Catholics if they choose to take advantage of it. I would ask hon. Members who attach weight to this argument, to ask themselves this question. If for every divine and every non-Catholic layman at present connected with the Government and management of Trinity

    955
    College, a Catholic priest and Catholic layman were substituted, would they send us to their University? It appears to me that is an unanswerable argument in favour of Catholics of Irish University education coming under the same circumstances as those of other denominations. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman for Montrose called attention to the remarkable statement which the present Chief Secretary for Ireland delivered in this House—I think it was last year—in which he told us that he was unable to give to the Catholics in Ireland those appointments to which they would be entitled, owing to the want of higher education. I cannot help thinking that is a statement coming from a Minister of responsibility in this House, which is an appeal to the generous instincts of hon. Members which cannot long be made in vain. I always thought that the strength of our position, with regard to Ireland, depended upon our determination to grant to Ireland everything she could justly claim from us. We are not without guidance on this question, because we know the opinions of two distinguished members of Trinity College, both practically acquainted with Ireland. I suppose it would be difficult to find a happier combination of greater knowledge and greater ability than is to be found in those two hon. Members. And, Sir, we know the opinion of our own leaders on this question. We know the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury; we know the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Chief Secretary, and my honourable Friend below me, the Under-Secretary of the Local Government Board. It appears to me that we have to make up our minds as a Party whether we are going to follow those leaders or take the other alternative—viz., to follow the lead of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, and his new lieutenant, the hon. Member for Mansfield. We are reduced to one or the other of those alternatives. For my part, I shall certainly follow the principles which I believe to be the true principles of the Unionist Party on this question. I did not understand until quite lately that the result of voting on this particular Amendment, as it is before the House,
    956
    means a Vote of Censure on the Government, and I would never vote against the Unionist Government on a Vote of Censure. Still, I shall follow in my sentiments the proposal contained in this Amendment, and I shall support my leaders, whom I consider to be very orthodox political leaders of the Unionist Party, in advocating this proposal.
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. J. A. RENTOUL: Mr. Speaker, Sir, the subject that is occupying the attention of the House at the present time is one, I think, every Member of this House will admit is beset with very considerable difficulties. Those who are most strongly and earnestly, and conscientiously opposed to a denominational University in Ireland, Scotland, England, or Wales, are a strong Party in this House; those who declare that they cannot, according to their conscience, educate their children in any University that has not the atmosphere that belongs to their own particular creed, are a strong Party in this House, too, and they have strong sympathisers among those who do not belong to the religion which they profess. This Debate was commenced by a speech undoubtedly of very great ability, a speech which showed a thorough investigation of the subject, on the part of the Mover of the Amendment a speech which showed that he had gone into the whole principles of the case for the last 100 years. The central proposition of that speech was really this—
    "We will not accept the system you give us; we prefer our children to be uneducated."
    That is to say, the hon. Member has a conscientious objection, and it is so strong that he would prefer not to have his children educated at all rather than send them to a mixed University. Sir, no gentleman understands the value of a University education better than the hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Mayo, and when he comes to the conclusion that he would prefer his children to be without a University training, and if we are to believe that these are the real sentiments and convictions of the Irish people—and we have no reason to believe anything else—there is a strong case and

    957
    a strong difficulty to be met. But, Sir, there are those in this House who believe that it is for the best interests of the people of this country, of all creeds and classes, that there should be mixed and undenominational education, that undenominational education is actually an advantage by bringing students into contact at an early age with those of other religious denominations. Considering this subject for myself, and apart from what view is held by my constituents or my Leader in this House, I should like to say, with reference to any schools or colleges which I ever attended, that I never was at a single class in my life in which there were not Roman Catholic pupils. That being so, I consider, and those who belong to my creed consider, that it was a great advantage to us to be trained so, and we confess that on that account alone bigotry is impossible to us. Under any circumstances it would be impossible for us to entertain the sentiments entertained by some Members of this House, and openly expressed by some Members of this House during this Debate. If bigotry is a wrong and bad feeling, if it is an unworthy feeling, is not the system that tends to remove that bigotry from Catholic and Protestant alike a great benefit to any country to which it is applied? That is the point of view from which we approach this subject. One thing has struck me in this Debate, and that is the amount of wholly unnecessary instruction we have received from both sides of the House. Almost every speaker has taken it for granted that the Members of this House were ignorant of how Cambridge, Oxford, and Trinity are conducted, and that it was necessary to explain every detail of the whole educational system, both secular and theological, in this Kingdom. We had some statements that struck us as remarkable, and to which we could not give assent. The Seconder of the Amendment, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, said that no man could be called to the Irish Bar without going to Trinity College.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg pardon. I did not say that no man could be called to the Irish Bar without going to Trinity. I said it was essential for a Member of
    958
    the Irish Bar to take classes at Trinity or Queen's. Both were equally objectionable, but in any case one must be taken, and in my case it was Trinity.
    MR. RENTOUL: The hon. Member will recollect that his reference was entirely to Trinity. I know too much of the system of legal education in Ireland not to be aware that no man can be called to the Irish Bar who has not taken the Law Lectures in some recognised school—Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity, or Queen's College. The hon. Member made that remark in answer to a remark from this side of the House when he was speaking of Trinity, and I desire to say that there are no disabilities against Roman Catholics in any college in Ireland. There are Roman Catholic scholars at Trinity and Queen's College, and in Cork and Galway almost half the University students are Roman Catholics.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I replied to the interruption of the hon. Member for South Belfast, who twitted me with being a graduate of Trinity College.
    MR. RENTOUL: I am away from that point long ago. I was going on to speak of the Queen's Colleges as centres of education. These Queen's Colleges were established in 1849. They were established with the consent and strong approval of a large majority of the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. Member knows that, whatever other churches may do in the way of changing their creeds, one church does not change, but remains firm to the old beliefs. Whatever, therefore was right to be done in 1849 is perfectly right to be done in 1898. Having approved of the establishment of the Queen's Colleges in 1849, surety an unchanging Church will find a difficulty in showing that, what was right then is wrong now. We think it would be deplorable that we should be deprived of the companionship in college of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. Speaking for myself, I made the acquaintance of a very large number of the most lasting and steadfast friends I have known during my College days, who are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is

    959
    known to this House generally that when the Presidentship of Queen's College became vacant I pressed upon the Liberal Government the claims of an old fellow-student, Dr. Fyfe, for the Presidentship—and he was both a Roman Catholic and a Home Ruler—because I considered he was the man who ought to be appointed. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division spoke about tests, but, Sir, there are no tests against Roman Catholics in any College in Ireland. There is no College in Ireland at the present time that has not Roman Catholic students, and I would venture to say there is not a class in a single College outside Trinity College that has not Roman Catholic students amongst its members. There was no legal disability at all—there never was any, as regards the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. They started with Roman Catholic professors at the very beginning. Now, what I refer to this for is that if this is so it would be perfectly impossible for me to vote against this Amendment to-night, I do not look upon the Royal Colleges as Universities at all. There is only one University in Ireland, and that is the Dublin University. But I may say, in passing, that the decrees of the Queen's University have their weight in other countries. Now, so far as the educational requirements of Ireland are concerned, I stand in exactly the same position as the hon. Members opposite themselves. Now, what was the reference which was made with regard to the Protestants of Ireland? The hon. Member, I think, for East Mayo, said that there were a large number of Protestants in Ireland in favour of a Roman Catholic University. There is no use in deceiving ourselves, or in trying to deceive others. The Unionist Party in Ireland, as a whole, are almost to a man against this University. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Of course, that statement cannot, probably, be tested, but I think that one might venture to say that a Unionist Member who resigned his seat and went before his constituents on this question would very easily discover the truth of my statement, and that can be done now or at any other time. We need not deceive ourselves, therefore, with regard to that. But what I want to impress upon hon. Members opposite is this—that that does not change or affect the merits of
    960
    the question at all. My experience leads me to say that there are probably no Unionists in Ireland who are in favour of this demand. That is my experience and that is my belief. But the contrary has been stated, and in order to back that statement up, a reference was made to the Presbyterian Church, and to the President of the Queen's College, Belfast. I have lately talked this subject over with Dr. Hamilton, the President of that College, and he said he was not in favour of a Roman Catholic University, although he would go a length in that direction to which very few other men would go. Now, what is the fact with reference to the Presbyterians? Why, when this Amendment was put on the paper, the Parliamentary Committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly met. That committee has power to meet at once, and to express to this House the views of the Church on any great questions, the principles of which have been settled beforehand. The moment this Amendment was put down on the paper that Committee was called together, and in the name of the Presbyterian body they sent a long telegram expressing their strong and unchangeable hostility to the proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo for the establishment of a Roman Catholic University, or to the domination of any class or creed. I want to bring these facts before the House to clear the air, although they do not touch the principle of the case at all—it is altogether apart from anything that is wanted to be said in reference to this matter. But, since I have referred to the Presbyterian Church, I want to say that it is the chief reason why I desire to take part in this Debate, because I believe that already every argument has been used on both sides that can possibly be used on this question. In fact, during the whole of this day, I do not know that I have heard anything new at all. I do not know that there was anything much new to be said after the first four speakers addressed the House on this subject, because I think they covered the whole ground. I do not think I need give the House any opinion of mine, because it has had that over and over again—years ago, but I want to give the impressions which this Debate has made upon my mind as a listener—and I want

    961
    to do that in connection with the Presbyterian Church to which I belong. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is not in his place, nor is the First Lord of the Treasury. I am inclined to believe that neither of these gentlemen knows of the existence of such a Church as the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I am led to that opinion by certain facts, and by one fact that came to my notice this very day. Application was made in reference to the position of Medical Superintendent of a lunatic asylum. There are 23 Medical Superintendents of lunatic asylums in Ireland, and the Presbyterians hold one-third of the entire medical degrees. What is the fact of that one case which I take as a test as to the manner in which the Presbyterian Church is known? Of the 23 Medical Superintendents there are 17 Presbyterians, five Roman Catholics, and one Nonconformist, and yet the Presbyterian Church holds 13 of the Liberal Unionist seats. From these facts I judge that the First Lord of the Treasury and the whole Government to which he belongs do not know of the existence of such a Church as that. Now, that being so, I want to state what is our position with regard to this University question. Hon. Members opposite say that they demand this denominational University as a matter of conscience. Well, if that is so they will allow us to have a conscience also. They believe in denominationalism; we believe in mixture. That is not the opinion of to-day or yesterday. That has always been the unchanged opinion of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. They have been steadfast with regard to University education ever since they believed it was better for their young people to mix with their fellows of all shades of opinion, and the Presbyterians are just as much following the dictates of their own consciences in opposing this Amendment as hon. Gentlemen opposite are in demanding it, because I would ask members of the Catholic Church in Ireland not to believe that the opposition of the Presbyterian Church is anything but an honest and conscientious opposition. Now, in reference to the opposition of the Presbyterians, what I want to say is that whilst the Presbyterian
    962
    Church does oppose this denominational system being introduced into Ireland, yet at the very moment that a Bill is brought forward for establishing a Roman Catholic University in Ireland the Presbyterians will be compelled to ask for a Presbyterian University; it will be impossible for them to do anything different. Remember the Church of Ireland has Trinity College, Dublin, so she is provided for. Although we are not more than one-sixth of the Roman Catholics in number of population, we nevertheless will be, in all probability, sending always as many representatives to the Universities as the Roman Catholics. At the present time we are sending six or eight times as many, and if that is so—if we can show this House that we have a very large number of students requiring a University education, then, in the event of the demand for a Roman Catholic University being acceded to, we should ask for, and it is perfectly certain that the fair play of this House would give us, a University of our own. The First Lord of the Treasury cheered when it was said that the demand would be made that a University should be given to the Presbyterians, as if three Universities in an island with a small population, each teaching a different religious creed, was too much. Well, there are four in Scotland, but they are undenominational. You might as well say that because there are three Queen's Colleges in Ireland we have as many Universities as Scotland, but that is a totally different thing. Altogether, Sir, the impression which the Debate has made upon my mind is this: that if the First Lord of the Treasury chooses to go on he could carry with him a large number of supporters on that side of the House. He would carry with him the 85 Nationalists, which would be 170 on a division, and those 85 would doubly make up his loss on this side of the House. I conclude from this Debate that this Bill will be unquestionably passed by this House, and I have no doubt that the House of Lords—considering what the composition of that Assembly is—will also pass it because it has the utmost confidence in the hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. The next

    963
    thing that strikes me is that this whole Debate, and this whole demand, is against the spirit of the age; that it is not in accordance with the conduct or action of any single European nation; that it is a step backwards, a step in the wrong direction. There is not one solitary argument used in favour of this University that does not tell up to the hilt in favour of Home Rule. It is the same argument exactly. They say, "We are a majority of the people; we want to separate ourselves from the English." The Government say, "We won't allow you to separate yourselves from the English." That is exactly the position. The arguments used against Home Rule are used against, this University. One thing that I would press upon the hon. Gentlemen opposite is this: that the degrees of a sectarian University will have no value whatever outside Ireland. When a man goes abroad, it is then that he wants his degree; it is then he wants to lean upon his degree as a test of his ability and power. In his own country his education is known, and a number of people there might be about to employ him knowing his capacity; but it is when you go abroad that you want your degree to be of advantage to you. I ask what earthly advantage would be a degree of this new Irish University? The Queen's College degrees were just beginning to become valuable when that institution was abolished. There is not another instance in the whole world of a working University being blotted out of existence—only this. That is the manner in which Irish degrees were treated when they were beginning to be of some value. There is another thing that one notes in connection with this Debate. There was the ex-Chief Secretary, the Member for Montrose, who spoke of the preponderance of Protestants that were in offices in Ireland. I want again to refer to that, because it is a preponderance in favour of the Irish Church. There are a great number of Presbyterian churches in Ireland, and that is one Church which is in a shocking minority, but they have a large number of degrees because they have made use of existing Universities. I ask the House to recollect that one illustration I gave, with
    964
    regard to the medical superintendents of lunatic asylums. I mention this because there is one vacant at the present time. That being so, the hon. Members opposite are not deprived of offices, owing to the want of Universities. That is perfectly clear, if we take the case of Presbyterians in this respect. Now, Mr. Speaker, the object for which I took part in this Debate at all was to tell the House, in the freest and most emphatic manner, what the House is being let in for in this particular direction. I am authorised by the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to tell the House emphatically that if the present demand of the Irish Catholics is granted there will be a similar demand from the Presbyterians of Ireland—a demand which the House cannot resist, and a demand which it ought not to resist. Therefore, we shall have three Universities in turn in Ireland—one, the old one that has long been historical, and two new Universities which will be entirely valueless for a great number of years, and Presbyterians will be driven to England. Therefore, I want to say that, if this is granted, the Presbyterians of Ireland will most reluctantly be driven to demand a similar concession.
    SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I stand somewhat in an isolated position. I am an Irish Member; I am an Irish Protestant, and I am a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, and in that threefold character I think that I am bound to state at once that I am in entire accordance with the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo. Now, I do not intend, if I can possibly avoid it, to weary the House by going over any of the details, which have been so ably and so eloquently put forward, I will say on both sides, during the course of this most important and interesting Debate. I view this question altogether from a practical point of view. I know from experience that Ireland has set its heart on obtaining a Catholic University, and I know that Ireland is essentially a Catholic country. Three-fourths, at least, of the population of Ireland are Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholics throughout the world are remarkable for their devotion to their

    965
    religion. I know also that at present there are only two Universities in Ireland, Trinity College University and the Royal University. I can refer to my own experience when I, who lived within the walls of Trinity College, who spent, perhaps, the happiest years of my life in Trinity College—when I was in that college it was quite true that there were some few men of very great genius and ability inmates of that college, who were Catholics. In those days it was a most pathetic circumstance that those men, who often outran their Protestant fellow-students and their Presbyterian fellow-students were excluded from all the emoluments and all the pecuniary advantages held out by that rich institution, and the only terms on which a Roman Catholic in those days—and they are not very remote—could obtain either a scholarship or a fellowship, which are the great prizes in the University of Dublin; the only terms upon which he could do so, no matter what his genius—whether he was a Newton or one of the greatest statesmen ever produced—were his taking the Sacrament of the Church of England—a Sacrament which he could not take without violating his conscience, otherwise he had no chance or power of obtaining those emoluments. It is quite true that friends of mine who were Catholics stood beside me in examinations, and saw me obtaining prizes and scholarships to which their answers entitled them perhaps better than mine. In 1873 that was changed, and the great difficulty of those tests was removed, but that is only about a quarter of a century ago, and the traditions of three centuries hang round that college. I here assert, and defy contradiction from any hon. Member opposite, that in its features, in its surroundings, in all its conditions, Trinity College is an essentially Protestant institution. Take up the Trinity College Calendar of this very day, and I believe I am correct in saying that there is not a single Roman Catholic Fellow on the books of that college. There was lately one—a most distinguished man, I admit—who was one out of a body of some 40 or 45—Mr. Starkie, who has lately been appointed President of the Queen's College, in Galway. The great prizes of the college and the fellowships consist of a Provost with an in-
    966
    come of over £3,000 a year, and a magnificent residence. Seven senior fellows have incomes of £2,000 a year in a poor country like Ireland, and in a poor city like Dublin; and the incomes of the junior fellows range from £1,200 to £200 or £300 a year, according to their various grades. All these great prizes are now held by Protestants. In a practical assembly like this, in an assembly loving justice and fair play as the English House of Commons has, I believe, always done, it is absurd for a moment to contend that Trinity College is otherwise than a Protestant institution. I have the greatest veneration for Trinity College, and in anything I say I speak in language of the profoundest respect of the great men it has produced from time to time, men who, under the fostering care of the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, have achieved such success. But I say that, as the facts bear out, the doors of Trinity College are practically closed against my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. It is quite true that probably six per cent. or eight per cent. represents the entire body of Roman Catholics in Trinity College. The hon. Member for East Mayo has said what no one can controvert, and throughout Ireland there has been an extraordinary consensus of opinion in favour of the Measure which is foreshadowed in the Amendment. He referred to various meetings, and I would venture to supplement them by the mention of one or two. On the 26th of January there was a great meeting in the county and City of Cork, a meeting composed of Roman Catholic clergy and Roman Catholic laity, and, I believe, of several Protestants also. At that meeting they endorsed the declaration which had been unanimously arrived at at the great meeting of the Mansion House of Dublin, to which the hon. Member for East Mayo has called the attention of Parliament. General Sir Thomas Denny stated that the declaration of the Mansion House had been endorsed by nearly all the public boards in Ireland. I will take an extract from the Times newspaper—the highest authority, I believe, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite; I do not take it from any local paper, but from the column headed "Ireland," in the Times. I am dwelling on this point

    967
    because my belief is, the hon. Members of this House who are Englishmen, and Scotsmen, and Welshmen, have no idea of the feeling that prevails in Ireland on this question. To people living here in London the Irish newspapers are very little known or very little read. There may be had copies in this House of the more leading daily papers in Ireland, but as a general rule they are not seen by English, Scotch, or Welsh Members, whose only means of ascertaining public opinion in Ireland, beyond what is expressed from the Benches in this House, are very often the brief and imperfect summaries given in the leading London papers. I wish, also, to call attention to a most remarkable meeting, held in Limerick on the 14th January last, and to the speech delivered by Bishop O'Dwyer. I speak of him with reverence, though not a member of his flock; I speak as a Protestant who holds the doctrine and dogmas of my own Church as absolutely, as faithfully, and as loyally, as any hon. Member who now listens to me. He is one of the most eminent members of the Catholic prelacy, most remarkable in this respect, that he has always been a Unionist, in contradistinction to most of his brethren, who are in favour of Home Rule. What did he say at the remarkable meeting summoned for the purpose of considering this very question? He frankly and freely avowed the disadvantages from which the priesthood of Ireland suffered through the loss of a University career. In his own case, he had felt it. It was stated in this Debate that none of the Irish prelacy had had the advantage of degrees, and here we have this eminent Bishop stating that he felt the loss of having had no opportunity of a University career. He said—
    "It would be his wish, and the wish of Irish Catholic bishops, that the priests should take their place in the front rank of education, and it was not their fault, but the survival of the penal laws, if they were not allowed to do it."
    That is an argument which cannot be too much emphasised. Why should not the priesthood of the religion of the majority of the Irish people have the advantage of a University degree? Of course, I am now assuming what has been assumed through the whole of this De-
    968
    bate, that some advantage is to be derived from a University career. Of course, my argument would vanish into thin air if it is contended on any side of the House that in this 19th century we could get on very well without a University at all—without any education, except what the primary schools can offer. But a University education and a University degree is of value. I ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as fair men, and men of common sense, what can be thought of a country where the priesthood have no opportunity and means of arming themselves with a university degree? I pass on to that meeting in the Mansion House, and I speak with some confidence because I happened to be present myself. The Attorney General for England will understand the advantage of being able to give legal evidence, and not the evidence of hearsay. That meeting was held in the Round Room of the Mansion House—a building nearly as large as the Albert Hall. It was crowded to the very brim, if I may use the expression. And who were on the platform on that occasion?—who were the speakers? There was the Most Reverend the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Walsh. There was Lord Powerscourt—and my right hon. Friend opposite knows who Lord Powerscourt is. He is a typical Irish landlord, and a typical Irish Unionist. He is a resident, occupying one of the principal places in Ireland, about 12 miles from Dublin. He is a Protestant of Protestants; and at that meeting in the Mansion House he made, in my hearing, a most eloquent speech on behalf of granting a University in which the Catholics of Ireland without fear of shaking their conscientious convictions could graduate. Who else was at that meeting? Lord Walter Fitzgerald, a scion of the house of Geraldine, a house that for centuries has been remarkable for devotion to Ireland, was present, and a most sympathetic letter was read from his brother, Lord Maurice Fitzgerald, who at the present moment is the representative of that great house of Geraldine in Ireland. Who else was at that meeting? Lord Emly, who spoke strongly in favour of a Catholic University. It is quite true that Lord Emly is

    969
    a Catholic, but in politics he is a pronounced Unionist. At that meeting also I find was the O'Connor Don, a man who was an ornament to this House, who, though he differs from me in his political views, I regret is not still a member of this House. He made a most exhaustive speech, and used argument after argument to show the absolute necessity, as an act of justice, for this University. As to the other names, I pass over my old colleague the MacDermott, a man of mark and position in Ireland, and come to Sir Henry Bellingham, Sir Percy Grace, Sir Walter Nugent, Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, Sir Christopher Nixon, Sir Francis Guise, and Sir Gerald Dease. Now, when you hear of a meeting like that, with Catholics and Protestants on the same platform, when you see Home Rulers and Unionists of mark and position, when you see those who are sometimes sneered at—sneers in which I do not participate—as "Castle Catholics," coming forward and advocating this University measure, is it too much to ask you English and Irish and Scotch Members of the House of Commons to pause before you extinguish the hopes of the people by rejecting this moderate and reasonable demand? What does it all come to? It merely asks that a University should be established. My hon. Friend the Member for Down made a complaint, and, though I am not a Presbyterian myself, I quite sympathise with him; I think the distribution of the loaves and fishes among the Presbyterians by the Government has been of the scantiest character. Unquestionably, the cause of progress and of liberality owes much to the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, and undoubtedly I regret that my hon. Friend, as representing the body of Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, does not see his way to give the weight of his support to this reasonable demand I am not frightened by the threats he makes that if this House adopts the Amendment the Presbyterians might come cap in hand and ask for an endowed Presbyterian University. I can assure him that if I should have the honour of sitting in this House whenever they come forward with this demand, pledge myself, here in my place in the House of Commons, that I should vote
    970
    for it. I do not see why we should not have a Presbyterian University; there is no reason why we should not have it. They have the Queen's College of Belfast, which is not a University, and they have largely partaken of the benefits of Dublin University, and of Trinity College; but, though I do not understand the doctrine or discipline of any church but my own, I believe they would have the same difficulty as Catholic brethren in taking the sacrament of the Church of England. Now, I had a great deal more to say, but I feel there are a large number of other Gentlemen who wish to take part in this Debate. I do rest my appeal to this House on the principle of fair play. I rest it on the principle of common justice. We know, from history and experience, that men who have walked barefoot from remote parts of Ireland to the city of Dublin have afterwards received the highest honour and distinction in every walk of life. They were Protestants, whom I could name, but it might be invidious. I do not allude to any living men, but to men of historical memory; and if the portals of Trinity College had been shut to them, such men would have been lost to the country. I speak now in all sincerity when I say that the Irish are a singularly gifted race. Without the benefits of education, and without the benefits of any of those material comforts which are so essential to perfect human nature, it is wonderful what specimens of the human race, physically and morally, are turned out from Ireland. Why deprive these people of the advantages of higher education; why prevent them, on grounds of conscience, which we ought to respect, from having the advantages of a University career? No Party considerations ought to interfere with those imperishable principles which should animate every intelligent mind. Of course, I was not surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast express the feelings that he did. He was constantly going back to 1688, to the memory of William of Orange. But I believe we have passed from the day when Irish Protestants or English Protestants should be frightened by the mere bogey of Catholic domination. Every Catholic country in Europe now enjoys liberty of

    971
    conscience and liberty of action, and why should you imagine for a moment that any danger would be incurred by giving a Catholic University to the people of Ireland? The principle of it has been adopted by the Home Rule Bill of 1893. My right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose has pointed that out. Certain conditions were imposed by the Bill of 1893 as safeguards enabling the Irish Parliament to endow a University, and these conditions are now accepted by the Roman Catholic prelacy. You have, therefore, no excuse, except this excuse, that you turn a deaf ear to the almost unanimous cry of Catholic and Liberal Ireland, if you withhold that which need not even be a tax upon the Exchequer of Great Britain.
    *MR. A. LYTTELTON: I desire for my own part to say something from the point of view of an English Unionist not in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman, for that I could not vote for, but in order to express my very sincere sympathy with the general purport of that Motion. I can claim an unbiassed opinion on this matter, because if I had a son who was of sufficient age to go to a University I should not think of sending him to any other University or college than that to which all shades of religious opinion had access. But that is a mere matter of opinion. I speak on this occasion entirely from the point of view of an English Unionist who believes that the position of English Unionism is untenable, unless deference is paid to the united wishes of the Irish people on all questions in which the safety of England is not involved. In listening to this Debate I could not doubt that it has been established that the vast majority of Roman Catholics have withdrawn themselves from University education for conscience sake. This, no doubt, has been brought about by a state of things due to the opinions of hon. Members who sit in that part of the House, opinions for which much has to be said—that there shall be no endowments of re-religious thought in the matter of education. Those opinions are entitled to be treated with the greatest possible respect. But there is a greater Liberal principle than that which they hold in this matter, and it is that there should
    972
    be no abatement in a man's civil rights on account of the religious views that he holds. If it is established that Roman Catholics will decline University education unless in a Roman Catholic atmosphere and environment, then the opinion which is held by hon. Members in that part of the House, at any rate, ought to be considered. I wish to illustrate that, if I may, for one moment by this test. Last year we heard bitter protests made from that quarter of the House against the atmosphere of Anglican schools. They protested against Nonconformists being sent to Anglican schools, where there was an Anglican atmosphere, by force of law. If that opinion was held so strongly that for 60 or 70 years Nonconformists had shown a persistent resolve actually to prefer ignorance for their children than send them to those schools, would they not have a strong case for our consideration of that question? I am convinced that the evidence is absolutely clear and cogent that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have for many, many years shown tenaciously and persistently a desire to handicap themselves in the race of life rather than go to colleges in which there is a Protestant atmosphere. I won't repeat the figures ad nauseam in regard to University education in Ireland, but the same feature has been found to exist in regard to primary education in Ireland. Ever since 1814 there has been a determined desire, enforced by regulations of State, from 1814 to 1880, that primary education in Ireland, as regards the secular part of it and as regards the religious part of it, shall be kept separate. That was one of the regulations laid down by the State in 1814, and it was maintained until 1880. Notwithstanding that the whole agency of the State was used in order to effect that, the result has been that 62 per cent. of the children of Ireland are educated in schools that are exclusively denominational. We have further proof of the determined conviction of the Irish nation on this point. Not merely the Universities, but the elementary schools of Ireland furnish strong evidence that the determination on the part of the Roman Catholics to have their own religion taught in their own way is strong and persistent. We ought to cease rehearsing the old formulas which were applicable to this

    973
    matter, and look to the substance and facts of the case. In 1870, the Disestablishment of the Irish Church appeared to me to carry with it this principle, that the State repudiated its right and its claim to judge between truth and error in matters of religion, and that has been logically followed in successive measures by numerous grants in aid of denominational education. It is only asked that one step further should be taken. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, in his speech yesterday, threatened my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury—I do not wish to use the word threatened, but certainly his words approached a threat—by saying that he thought his demand would break the loyalty of the Protestants in Ireland. I can hardly believe that the loyalty of the Protestants in Ireland, which has stood the test of subsidies to intermediate education, which has stood the test of subsidies to training colleges, will be likely to break up at the establishment of a Catholic University. I am sure it would be presumptuous of me to speak with any authority against the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, but in face of the fact that the loyalty of Protestants in Ireland has stood firm up to now, against similar tests, it is idle to say that their loyalty would not stand the test of a Roman Catholic University. Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House any longer. I have a good deal more to say, but I think it is almost impossible, after this brilliant Debate, to add anything of real moment now upon one side or the other. I only took this opportunity of speaking, in order that I might express the gladness which I feel in being able to give a genuine and conscientious support to a demand which has come from Ireland. I think it is incumbent on those who sit on this side of the House, and who hold strongly Unionist opinions, to recognise, generously, a demand which comes from Ireland, however much we may be out of sympathy with it, provided that that demand can be acceded without any peril to the Empire. That is a sound principle upon which to stand, and although I have no personal agreement with the desire of a denominational University I think it would be wrong for us—wrong
    974
    at any rate, from my point of view as a Unionist—to neglect the appeal made to us by Members opposite, and not to say a word in their favour.
    MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, I will not say that the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has misrepresented, but he has certainly only partially stated, the case of the Nonconformists. It is perfectly true that they object to their children being forced to attend schools where the atmosphere is Anglican, but in order to make the case perfectly analogous it would be necessary for Nonconformists to set up a claim for the establishment of schools for their own denomination all over the land. But that is not their claim. The claim of the Nonconformists is that their children shall be sent to schools which are open to every sect, and if the Catholics of Ireland had made a similar claim there is no Nonconformist in this House who would have voted against it. I know that the hon. and learned Member sympathises with the grievances of Nonconformists, but that sympathy simply actuated him to support a Bill, by speech and vote, which aggravated the grievances which the Nonconformists feel. These speeches, full of sympathy for Nonconformists, generally come twelve months after the event.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I expressed my sympathy with the Nonconformists in the only speech I made on University education last year. I have since, in my constituency, recognised that there is a grievance on the part of Nonconformists. I have recognised, and do recognise, that there is extreme difficulty in meeting a case of that character.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the explanation of my hon. and learned Friend, but I am sorry that his sympathy was so empty as to permit him to vote against every Amendment moved from the Opposition side of the House during the discussion on the Education Bill of last year. I find myself, with very deep regret, unable to support this Amendment. I think it is the first time since I entered this House that I have ever given a vote against the majority of Irish Members on an Irish question,

    975
    and in voting against this Amendment my regret is genuine. One of the best tests of that is the fact that I have a large number of Catholic voters in my constituency, who will probably force their views at the next General Election. But I will state briefly my reasons for voting against this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Mayo, in a very eloquent speech, and the right hon. Member for Montrose, in supporting the Amendment this afternoon, claimed that Members sitting on this side of the House ought to support this demand on Home Rule grounds. That argument has been sufficiently dealt with and disposed of by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. We are all in favour of conferring the fullest powers of self-government on Ireland in regard to her domestic affairs. But when we are conferring Home Rule on Ireland, we are conferring it for better or for worse. I have not the remotest doubt that, when that Home Rule Parliament is set up, it will pass a great deal of legislation which we condemn. But so does the Imperial Parliament. During the course of the present Parliament many Bills have been passed which we think are bad in principle, and there is no doubt that the Irish Parliament will do the same. The mere fact that we are willing to confer full powers on Ireland does not divest us of the responsibility of examining every separate Irish proposition brought before the House. I do not agree that, because we are in favour of an Irish Legislature, we are dispensed from the duties of examining, on its merits, every Irish proposal which is brought before the House. It cannot be said, because we are in favour of conferring on Irishmen the power to manage their own affairs, that, consequently, we should support every proposal which emanates from the majority of the Irish Members I would point out to the House that the hon. Members from Ireland themselves have not acted upon that principle, nor has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. Last year, upon this particular question, we had a Bill for the purpose of fortifying the position of denominational schools in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose is not an English Member; in a Parliamentary sense, he is a Scotch
    976
    Member. [An hon. Member: "No!"] An hon. Member interrupts me, and says "No." I mean, of course, that he is a Scotch Member in a Parliamentary sense. Barring the brogue and the accent, he is a Scotch Member, and if the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to act upon his principles of Home Rule, he ought to have voted for that Bill, for the simple reason that the vast majority of the people of England demanded it. If the same principle is applied to England as he is prepared to apply to Ireland, then he ought to have voted for it. What happened with regard to the Irish Members? I am not advancing this in any vindictive spirit at all. In their action I think they were perfectly within their rights, but the right which they assume to themselves they must permit us to exercise. What happened with regard to that particular Bill? They knew that, so far as the Welsh people were concerned, it was forcing upon them a denominational system which the vast majority of them repudiated, and in the teeth of the vast majority of the Welsh Members they forced upon the Welsh people a system which was obnoxious to the great majority of them. If they ask us upon Home Rule grounds to support a denominational principle for Ireland, they surely ought not, on the same grounds, to have forced upon us a denominational system which we repudiated with the same heartiness as they support this. I do not see that there is any force in the Home Rule argument. When once you set up a Home Rule Parliament for Ireland, in our opinion, at any rate, there will be countervailing advantages, even from the point of view of denominational education. This University would practically divide Ireland into two separate camps. If you get your Home Rule institution in Ireland, that would, at any rate, to a certain extent, be counteracted. Men of different creeds, races, and sects would meet together round the same board, conflicting opinions would receive proper consideration, and the bad influence of dividing the people of Ireland into separate and hostile camps would be counteracted and possibly abated. Coming to the merits of the question, I should like to know what is demanded by the Irish Members, because there is a good deal of difficulty

    977
    in the minds of Members on this side of the House as to what the exact demand is. With the permission of the House I will read from the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which he delivered yesterday, two sentences. The first quotation I should like to read is the following—
    "What was the Catholic demand? What they demanded was equality with all the other denominations in Ireland."
    If that is their demand, I venture to say that there is not a Nonconformist on this side of the House who would object to it. Then he said—
    "Some alteration should be made in the present state of University education, which would place on an Irish Catholic no disability because of his well-ascertained religious opinions. They do not ask for the endowment of any form of religion."
    Unless there is something in that which does not meet the eye, I am sure no one would object to that. He said that what the Irish wanted was a University, by means of which every poor boy in the country would be in a position to secure the highest learning. If that is all they require, I am sure there is not a man on this side of the House who would object to it. There ought to be no difficulty at all in this matter. With regard to the poverty of the country, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has stated that there was not a large proportion of the population sent to College, because the peasantry was exceedingly poor. That is no answer. We have a very poor peasantry in Wales. We have a University there. It is of recent growth, and the students are mostly poor. Although the population is not one half of the population of Ireland, I find that the number of students is 1,200 in the three Colleges constituting the University there. There ought to be no difficulty at all in setting up a University in Ireland, where poverty will be no barrier to any clever child. The second point is this: the majority of the population being Catholic, I am sure if the only demand is for the establishment of a University where the Catholic creed will be on a basis of perfect equality with any other creed, I do not see that there is any objection to it.
    978
    But I feel there is something behind that. That is not what is demanded. I know perfectly well that there is amongst the Catholic peasantry quite a craving, nay, a passion for learning, which is comparable only with the greed for wealth that characterises some other nations. Our position is that that ought to be met; it is a very good symptom. An instance has been given of a peasant quoting Homer, but that is not a solitary case. There is a great difficulty in setting up a University of that character, for I feel there is something that the hon. Member has not quite revealed to the House. This setting up of a University, which is Catholic in tone, which is Catholic in atmosphere, which is really Catholic in every respect, and which is best described by the name "Catholic University," is a thing that the vast majority of the Members of this side of the House who represent Nonconformist constituencies will oppose, whether the proposal comes from the other side of the House, or from this side. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh warned the Government as to what would happen if the proposal emanates from his leaders. But I do not think there is the slightest danger. Nothing could advance the proposal of Home Rule more than a proposal of that kind. I have the greatest doubt about our own leaders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose wrote a most uncompromising essay on compromise, and he has been trampling on his own philosophy in every sentence and syllable of his speech to-night. We are rather afraid our leaders will commit themselves to a proposal of this character, which, if carried out, will simply wreck the Party, will make it a worse wreck than it is now, and beyond all hope of retrievement. I sincerely trust our leaders will do nothing of the kind. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman simply spoke on his own behalf, and did not commit the other Members of the Party. Why should not such a University as is set up in Wales answer every requirement in Ireland. I wish, in all earnestness and every sympathy, to commend to them the precedent of the Welsh University. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a University elected by County Councils—I mean the governing body was elected by the County Council. I was not surprised that a sense

    979
    of merriment passed through the House at the idea. It is not elected by the County Council, though they have their representatives there. There are 13 members nominated by the Crown, there are 36 nominated by the County Council, there are 48 nominated by the academical bodies in Wales, and there are others nominated by the head masters in intermediate schools, and three or four nominated by the head masters in primary schools. If you set up a body like that in Ireland, the board of management would be predominantly Catholic. It is not that we object to Catholic Colleges. You may have a College, the dominant voice in which is Catholic, whose members are Catholic, the majority of whose board of management are Catholic, but that does not necessarily convert it into a Catholic University. What possible objection can there be to an institution of that character? I think we have a right to protest against the petting up of a Catholic University. The object is not to give fair play and equality to Catholic students, but it is based on the assumption that it is dangerous to send students to a University where they are compelled to associate with Protestants, where Protestantism is treated as a kind of contagion, against which must be used the disinfecting influences of the Mass. We protest against that. The reason for their existence is that Protestantism is a kind of leprosy from which Catholics must be protected. They want to separate the Catholics from the Protestants. They have no right to come to a Protestant nation and ask it to vote funds for the purpose of setting up a University which is based on the assumption that Protestantism is contagious, from which Catholics must be saved. The idea is this: that we are asked to set up an institution in Ireland which no one would dream of proposing in this country. We are asked to revert in Ireland to a policy which was deliberately abandoned in England years ago. If I understand the history of Ireland aright, its greatest curse has been this division of the people into two distinct peoples, whose differences have been intensified by religious disagreements. You have two separate camps. The hon. Member for Haddington asked, yesterday, why we did not recognise these facts with regard to soldiers.
    980
    That is perfectly true. You did not want one drilling ground for Catholics and another for Protestants. If you wanted separate camps, you would have one Catholic army, one Protestant army, one Anglican army, and so forth. I am simply answering the arguments of the hon. Member for Haddington, and, if the argument is a ridiculous one, I am not responsible for it. The curse of Ireland has been these religious differences, and say it is the policy of the great prophets of Irish Nationalism to break down these barriers between Catholics and Protestants, to weld them together into one nation with a common patriotism. It is against their interests to set up an institution which renders permanent these religious differences, which gets hold of the children at a most susceptible part of their career, because the men you turn out of these Universities will be the future governors of Ireland. The proposal will separate them into two distinct and hostile camps.
    MR. CLANCYsaid he really did not know the position taken up by Mr. Lloyd George on the question. The hon. Member had admitted that a grievance existed, but had not suggested any remedy.
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Setting up a democratic university on the lines of the Welsh University.
    *MR. CLANCYsaid the hon. Member had asked what did the Irish want. The Irish Catholics wanted a University, Catholic in tone, and Catholic in atmosphere. He hoped that was plain. The hon. Member said that the Catholics of Ireland had no right to make that demand of a Protestant nation. Well, the Irish asked Parliament long ago to remit all these questions to Ireland itself, and he (Mr. Clancy) thought it was entirely inconsistent for one who, like the hon. Member, endorsed that proposal to object to a settlement of one of these questions which an Irish Legislature would undoubtedly enact. The hon. Member talked of the Irish coming to the Protestant nation for money, but the hon. Member and the Irish Members were of opinion that Ireland had been robbed by Imperial taxation, and if a million or two were voted as an endowment to an Irish Catholic Uni-

    981
    versity he (Mr. Clancy) would never admit that Ireland got a penny of British money. Ireland was practically united on this question, for the few Members at the other side of the House who opposed this demand represented only a section of Irish people, whose extreme views had discredited them even with their co-religionists. What has been charged against the election of Irish representatives to that House during the last five or six years? That they had been elected by the priests, and that the priests ruled the whole of rural Ireland. He imagined that if the hon. Gentleman had any belief in the virtue of education, in the saving properties of instructing men in the higher learning, they would readily grasp the opportunity of planting in every parish in Ireland five or six men who could hold their own with the priests. He agreed with the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury when he said that he was more in favour of higher than of elementary education, for he thought the meaning of the right hon. Gentlemen was that, after all, the world was governed by a few, and that it was better to have as many as possible comprising this minority, who would be able to make their intelligent views felt. There had been two main objections to this proposal. The first was the objection of the Nonconformists. He had not seen, during the greater part of the evening, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in his place, and he should like to hear whether that right hon. Gentleman agreed with the member for Montrose (Mr. Morley), or whether he did not. It appeared that on this point there was some anxiety amongst the ranks of the other Irish Party also. He thought he was not wrong in assuming that the majority of the Liberal Party—and he thought it had better be known to the Irish people, who had imagined there was some virtue in a Liberal alliance—were opposed to the demands of Catholic Ireland in this matter. If that were not the case, it was curious that the only speaker from the Liberal side of the House to-night who had supported the Catholic proposal in any way was the Member for Montrose. Irish Catholics held that to divorce religion from education was to teach irreligion, Atheism, and infidelity. That system has borne its fruit in crimes that have shocked humanity.
    982
    Those crimes which startled newspaper readers were committed by persons able to read and write, persons who had received secular education, but no religious education. The result made humanity stand aghast. If Irish Catholics believed all this, what impudent intolerance it was for Liberal Secularists to say that their secularist ideal alone should be carried out by the State, and that no effect should be given to the views of Catholics. If the illogical illiberality of the Liberal Party were persisted in, that Party, in the opinion of all honest men, would lose all claim to its name, its principles would be those of Cromwell, the principles of bigoted intolerance. The second main objection to the Catholic demand was that the new Catholic University would be ruled by the priests and bishops. Two replies were to be made to that. It should be acknowledged that the Irish Bishops have expressly abandoned the claim for an ecclesiastical majority on the governing body, and he, speaking as one of those who did not owe His seat to clerical force or pressure, would give a second reply, which would probably be more satisfactory than the first. Not only had the Bishops abandoned their claim, but there were plenty of Irish Catholics who would insist for themselves on lay control of the new University, and who had no notion whatever of setting up what Lord Russell had described in Dublin as a "glorified ecclesiastical seminary." The hon. Member for Bodmin suggested a democratic governing body. The Party with whom he (Mr. Clancy) acted wanted such a governing body, and, without pinning himself to the exact proposals suggested, he (Mr. Clancy) would state that any democratic system which would ensure the best educationalists in Ireland, whether priests or laymen, and irrespective of which element had the majority, would be satisfactory. Other Irish representatives, not of his (Mr. Clancy's) Party, entertained the same opinions. The spectacle presented in that Debate by the First Lord of the Treasury and by Mr. Morley was unique in the history of Parliament. There was no mistaking the fact that the Leader of the House felt that there was a body of Unionist opinion not in accord with his views, and against whom, apparently, he thinks it will be

    983
    very difficult for him, if not impossible, to carry out a Bill embodying his convictions. And what else was the speech of the Member for Montrose than a despairing appeal also to the Liberals who sat behind him? What conclusions could be drawn from this remarkable spectacle save that Parliament was not willing or capable of remedying a grievance which both these Gentlemen admitted to exist? He had listened to many Home Rule speeches in that House, but he had never listened to a Home Rule speech which would be productive of more effect than that of the Leader of the House. If a Bill carrying out the ideas embodied in that speech were not carried in this Parliament, that speech would be quoted to the end of the controversy in support of the principle of Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the grievance, and proposed a remedy which was practically accepted by the occupants of the Irish Benches, but he could not get either the Tory Party or the Liberal Party to adopt it. The right hon. Gentleman could not persuade Parliament to do what he himself believed to be justice, and the bare recital of the fact would be the most powerful argument in support of the demand that Ireland should rule itself. He (Mr. Clancy) did not know whether to rejoice or be glad at this fact. In the general interests of education he would like the proposal to be carried, but he was also an Irish Nationalist, and he rejoiced that once more this Parliament would have made it plain by that night's Debate, and by what would take place during the Session, that it was unwilling and unable to redress a proved Irish grievance, and he believed that in the long run proof of such a fact would smash Unionism to atoms.
    MR. E. CARSON: I shall not stand for any time before the House, but I think, as I represent the University of Dublin, I ought not to let this Debate close without saying a word on this all-important subject. I might very well, so far as I am personally concerned, say that the case made out by those who are in favour of another University for Ireland, as brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last night, and, to my mind,
    984
    he put forward an unanswerable and unanswered case, and I cannot conceive how any person who is anxious to do justice to Ireland should take up a hostile view without finding some reason in his own mind which certainly ought to be expressed in this House to confute the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. From those who are opposed to this motion we have had some interesting speeches. Every speaker I have heard has admitted that there was a grievance in Ireland upon this Question. That is the extent to which the sympathy has gone. But, Sir, the speeches they have made have contributed but little to the solution of that Question. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Edinburgh to tell us that he sympathises with the prelude of this Movement, to tell us that he wishes to do all that is just for Ireland. Having told us so much, he tells us that he can see no answer to offer to the arguments put forward, saying Non possumus. Sir, as a Unionist, I would say that this House has no right to use the argument Non possumus. How does the case stand? My right hon. Friend said last night that the historical aspect of the Question could throw but little light on the subject, and that it would be better to face the reality of the present time, but I think that the historical aspect throws a great deal of light upon what must be, and what can be, the only remedy for an admitted grievance. I am glad to think that in support of this proposal as Member for Dublin University, I am following out the traditions of liberality which have always been shown by that great institution, Trinity College, Dublin. Trinity College, Dublin, in the last century, when the Catholics of Ireland were groaning under coercion laws in relation to their religion, of which everyone is now ashamed, was the first great Protestant Institution, the first of the Universities, I think, to open its doors to the admission of the Catholics. In the present century, under Mr. Fawcett's Bill, it has opened all its prizes, all its professorships, all the fellowships, and, in point of fact, the governing body, to the admission of the Catholics who can attain them on their merits. Well, Sir, in addition to that, we have, as my right hon. Friend, the Member for Bodmin, who sits opposite me, has stated, founded University

    985
    after University in Ireland to try and meet the needs of the large bulk of the population in the matter of Catholic University education. You founded the Queen's Colleges, which were supposed to be, and are in reality, secular institutions. You founded the Royal University not so many years ago, which was supposed to be, and is, in reality a secular institution. In addition to that, Trinity College, Dublin, has not only opened up all its prizes to the Catholic population, and, indeed, to all denominations, but it has made efforts of the most generous character. In the case of Presbyterianism at the present moment it has allowed members of that body to come in and to instruct in their own particular religion the students who are of their religion in the University, and I believe they are willing, and they have offered, to allow exactly the same privileges to the clergy of the Catholic religion. I say all this in defence of the position Trinity College has taken up. I say all that in defence of what I have said already, that Trinity College on the question of education has always been on the side of liberality. But, Sir, when I have said that, and when I have stated the historical aspect of the Question, I must admit that all this has not brought about University education for the mass of my fellow countrymen. Sir, when I am told by the speakers opposite or upon this side of the House that this is a question of un-sectarianism, I say it is no such thing, but that it is a question of University education for the great mass of the people of Ireland. Speaking as a Member for the University of Dublin, and speaking as one who has a belief in the advancement of our people by progress and education, I say our first object ought to be to see that education is brought home to them in a form which they can accept. Sir, I often think that Members of this House who meet constantly in England do not thoroughly understand the Irish Catholics. The Irish Catholics are a people passionately devoted to their own religion. They are a people who will not accept any institution in relation to the education of their children which is in conflict with their views. And, Sir, that being the fact, and all other remedies having been tried, what
    986
    is the use of telling us that the idea of University education is the idea of secularism, when the great bulk of the Catholic people in Ireland will not accept, and could not accept, that solution? I have often thought that English Members are very prone to deal with Irish questions in the abstract. I think we have to deal with Irish questions in the concrete, and what you have to do is to ask yourselves, are you prepared to say that, because Irish Catholics will not accept the University system upon the basis that now exists, you will henceforth and for ever deprive them of University education altogether? I believe that Trinity College has done all that it is in the power of Trinity College to do, and I think that those who are with me in this matter are prepared to say that Trinity College can go no further. Therefore, I say, we are face to face with the necessity of finding some solution of this question. What was the solution of the hon. Member for Carnarvon? He told us, and it struck me as something extraordinary, that he did not object to a Catholic University set up by accident, but that he did object to a Catholic University set up by design. That is a refinement which only a Welsh Home Ruler—who is willing to allow an Irish Parliament to set up any form of University it desires, but who is unwilling to allow the Imperial Parliament to set up a University system that the Irish people desire—could put before this House. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh used somewhat the same argument. He said that he was willing that an Irish Parliament should settle this question of University education, but he said that he was unwilling that a Catholic University should be looked upon as the offspring of the Imperial Parliament. That, Sir, is the refinement that only a Scotch Home Ruler could possibly think of putting before this House. But the truth is, hon. Members, in their heart of hearts, are afraid of something or other connected with the Catholic religion which they will not suggest, and will not explain. I ask, what is the fear of this Catholic University? What is the dread of hon. Members, with reference to it? What is the great bogey of Catholic education in Ireland? The admitted dread is this: that you will lose the chance of a mixed

    987
    system of education, in the sense of all denominations coming together. But, Sir, that system has already been tried, and it has failed; and I ask those who think that Catholics ought not to be entrusted with a system of education of this kind, do they think that the Catholics of Ireland will be worse off with the enlightenment of a University education than they are now that they are deprived of it? Are they going to make any progress, so long as you give them no chance of further enlightenment? I can only say that, speaking for myself, I have no fears whatever of a Catholic University. I do not believe that the unfortunate, extreme differences of opinion on religious matters that exist in Ireland are likely to be got over by leaving there a standing grievance, which practically everybody who has spoken has admitted in this House. I believe that if those differences are to be got over, it will be by Catholics and Protestants approaching this question in a spirit of conciliation. Then, Sir, let me say one word upon the immediate matter of this Amendment. I think the hon. Member for Mayo may be satisfied that we have in this Debate had the fullest ventilation of this question in this House that we have yet had. While many of us on this side are prepared to support the Leader of the House on this question, it would be absolutely impossible for us to vote against the Government on this occasion—not at all on the lines that so often prevail in this House—of speaking on one side and voting on the other—but because it is, of course, apparent that an Amendment to the Address is virtually a vote of want of confidence in the Government. At the same time I should like to suggest this to the hon. Members from Ireland. They must see,—and they no doubt do see—that those of us on this side of the House who think with them on this question have no easy task before us. They no doubt do see that this is not a matter in which we can rush or hurry those who think with the Leader of the House, and nothing could be more disastrous for the question we are supporting this evening than that we should in any way complicate it by so trying to hurry it that we should create dissension among the various parties who support the question
    988
    in this House. Therefore, I do suggest to the hon. Member for Mayo that, as he has had an opportunity of ventilating this question in a way it has never been ventilated before, and as he has had a declaration from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the sincerity of which I do not believe anyone would doubt, and as, moreover, he has succeeded in obtaining a sympathetic speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who also spoke under considerable difficulty, he should not press this question into such a position as would seriously embarrass many supporters of his sitting on this side of the House. For my own part, I will only say that, while I have never hesitated to put before this House and the country my views as to the importance of this question in relation to Ireland in the particular circumstance under which this Amendment comes before the House, if it goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote for the Government.
    MR. DILLON: After the strong appeal that has been made to me from the Benches opposite, and hoping, as I do, that it will not be possible for the Government to much longer abstain from taking action on this question, and feeling that a Division under the present circumstances would not truly, or nearly truly, represent the feeling of the House, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

  THE CONDITION OF INDIA.
  *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: Sir, I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. No doubt the occurrences beyond the North-West Frontier of India have received full discussion in this House, but it appears to me that the internal condition of India is a matter of even graver anxiety at the present moment. I think, for the present, the Frontier question has been settled, not by the arguments of orators, but by the logic of facts, because the people of this country, and even the Government themselves in India, now know that the policy of aggression and

  989
  of disregard of the rights of others has been a disastrous failure. When listened to the glowing periods of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and his ingenious eulogy of the Forward policy in India, and when I compared it with the bloodshed and ruin which followed that policy, I could not but think of Dead-Sea fruit, which is beautiful outside but dust and ashes to the teeth. The fact is, that a policy which is not founded on righteousness is nothing but a whited sepulchre—fair without but within tilled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Now, Sir, I propose to-day to deal only with the internal condition of India, but I refer to the external question for one reason only, and that is that I wish to draw the attention of the House to one point of Russian policy—a point which did not receive very much attention in the course of the discussion in this House, but which bears directly on the internal condition of India. The point is this, that in all their schemes for an attack upon India, the Russians have looked for help from within. Their only real hope of success depends upon this, that, when they are confronted with the "Thin red line" on the border, behind that "Thin red line" there would be a rising of the population in support of the invader, which would cut us off from our base and overwhelm us by its mere weight. That is the hope that has been at the bottom of all the schemes that Russian Generals have put forward for an attack upon India. On the other hand, if we have the support of the people of India, as we had their support in the worst times of the Mutiny, we shall have an ultimate line of defence that can never be broken through. I say, therefore, that in the feelings and the attitude of the people lies for us either the greatest danger or, it may be, the greatest safety. Now, we have heard a great deal in former times about the key of India. At one time it was thought that the key of India was at Herat. Then we heard that it was at Merv, then in London, then at Candahar. Sir, it is at none of these places, far less at Chitral or Malakand. The key of India is to be found in the contentment and prosperity of the masses of India. The key was securely kept in the possession of the Marquess of Ripon when he was Viceroy
  990
  of India, and it will be an ill day for us and for India when, either from heedlessness or misunderstanding, we allow the key to drop out of our hands. Therefore, I say, let us not deceive ourselves upon this matter. This is a question of the very existence of our Indian Empire. But, Sir, I have no wish in this matter to appeal to fears. I wish rather to make an appeal to the justice and the prudence and the humanity of the Government and of this House. The fact is that the people of India have, during the past year, suffered from almost every possible calamity—famine, plague, war, and earthquake—and these sufferings have been aggravated by the very measures taken for their relief. Those measures, such as segregation for the plague, were, no doubt, necessary and well-intentioned, but, unfortunately, they involved fresh hardships to the suffering people because they invaded the domestic privacy which, to Orientals, is almost dearer than life itself, the consequence of which is that the people have been distracted and almost driven to despair. Under these circumstances, what is now wanted so much are words of sympathy and acts of sympathy from the authorities to the people of India, so that their minds may be soothed, and that they may bear up under their trials and afflictions. This is really as regards the people of India no time for anger or for severity. It is, therefore, with the keenest regret that I have observed the measures of repression, which the Government have thought necessary to take, and we learn that still more stringent measures are being prepared.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): What measures does the hon. Member refer to?
  *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: The providing of punitive police, the very severe Press prosecutions, the imprisonment without trial, and the very extensive changes in the criminal law which will make it almost impossible for anybody to discuss the Measures of the Government.
  MR. SPEAKER: All these matters are the subject of another Amendment on the paper.
  *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I was only replying to the question of the noble Lord. Sir, I do beseech the Government to pause and to give the people another chance, and, at any rate, not to exercise more severity than it is absolutely imposible to avoid. With the permission of the House, I should wish to read a few lines from a letter which I have just received from an old Indian friend of mine. He is a retired Indian Judge, who, after a long and distinguished career, is devoting the remainder of his days to works of religion and charity. This is what he says of the condition of the people, speaking, I may say, not in anger, but in sorrow:—
  "The times here are very dark. The people have suffered fearfully. Above all, the Government has changed its character. It is not the same British Government which I have known all my life, and which I served so long. I do not know how long this will last. But mark the words of an old man; this will do no good to your rule or to India. Not even during the Mutiny were things so bad as they have been in the Deccan during the past year."
  These are the words of a faithful friend and old servant of the British Government, and I believe these words are strictly true. I believe that these measures of repression, directed against freedom of speech, and against the liberty of the Press, will do our rule in India no good, and the reason is this: that these measures are directed chiefly against the educated classes, under a complete misapprehension of the feelings and objects of those classes who really are our very best friends in the country. If the House will bear with me I would wish to state a few facts within my personal knowledge, to establish the two following propositions: First, that the educated classes are firmly attached to British rule, by the solid conviction that with it is bound up the only hope of a happy future for India; and secondly, that these measures of repression are a mistake, because they are directed against our best friends, and that a policy of sympathy and forbearance is the only safe and beneficial policy. The other day the hon. Member for West Edinburgh pointed out the difficulty under which the Secretary of State for India is placed. It is very difficult for him to learn the real facts
  992
  and to maintain an impartial control in any matters directly affecting the interests of the official classes. Recently, the Secretary of State was misled with regard to the attitude of certain tribes upon a very important matter. He was assured that these tribes welcomed the military occupation of their mountain strongholds. It was very soon found that this was a delusion, and a delusion which led to much bloodshed and ruin. Will not the noble Lord take warning from this unhappy experience? The central fact as regards the tribes beyond the frontier is their passionate love of independence, and the central fact as regards the educated classes in India is their solid attachment to British rule. Any attack upon them, which is founded upon the assumption that they wish to weaken or upset the British rule is a delusion, and must necessarily lead to very unhappy results. We all know that the educated classes of India are very intelligent—no one doubts that; and they know perfectly well that India could not stand alone. They know perfectly well that the alternative to British rule is Russian rule, or the still worse fate of anarchy. Therefore, the educated classes cling to British rule, they have accepted it as their national government, and their great object is to strengthen British rule by keeping the Government informed of the feelings of the people, and showing the Government how they can retain the approval and affection of the masses. It is objected that they criticise the action of the Government. Well, I say that, in criticising the action of the Government, it is with the object of warning the Government of danger ahead. We all know that a foreign Government must always be working very much in the dark. They are driving along a, dark and unknown road, and the man who warns them of any obstacle or pitfall is a friend, and not an enemy, and should be treated accordingly. Then, Sir, when I say that these educated classes of India are to be trusted, I may be asked with what authority I make that assertion. In reply to that, I think I may say, without any fear of contradiction, that I have been for many years enjoying the intimate confidence of the leaders of the educated party in India,

  993
  and I am certain that the views I have stated faithfully express their feelings. In the heat of controversy, sometimes hard things may be said, but I do not think that any hon. Member supposes that I wish for anything except the prosperity and the welfare of our Indian Empire. I myself, and my family before me, have served the Indian Government since the beginning of this century, and I only wish to do my best for those people among whom I have lived for so many years, who have never shown me anything but very great kindness, and with regard to whom I feel the greatest anxiety to-day, not because there is any wish to do them wrong, but because by these repressive measures we are only strengthening feelings which cause grave trouble to our very best friends in India. My second proposition, Sir, is that a policy of sympathy and forbearance is the only good and safe policy. The best way of getting rid of disaffection, if such exists in India, is to promote affection among the people, and that that is by no means impossible is shown by the career of Lord Ripon as Viceroy, who created among the people not only contentment, but enthusiasm for British rule. The fact is, our only serious rival is Russia, and the way to strengthen our position in the eyes of the people is by emphasising the difference between Russian methods and British methods. The great benefits that are given by the British rule are recognised by the Indian people. Freedom of speech, the liberty of the Press, and higher education, which, as the Leader of the House so happily said yesterday, is of even more importance than elementary education—these are the great and inestimable boons which the British people have conferred upon India. They are gifts which Russia could never bestow, and I beseech the Government not to impair them in any way by measures of severity at such a time as this. I often wonder that the British people do not take more national pride in the great Indian races, which are gradually awakening under the touch of Western thought and action. The Indian people are full of virtues. May I quote the words of one of the greatest rulers that
  994
  ever reigned in India—I mean the great Akbar?
  "The Hindus are religious, affable, cheerful, lovers of justice, able in business, admirers of truth, grateful, and of unbounded fidelity; and their soldiers know not what it is to fly from the field of battle.
  That was true then, and I say it is true now. We are all very proud—and justly proud, of the valour and endurance shown by our British troops, and I say that with all the more pleasure because the Gordon Highlanders, who have so distinguished themselves in the recent campaign, were raised in the glens of the county which I have the honour to represent. But I think that the Indian soldiers, likewise, have justified the words of the great Akbar, and have been in no wise behind their British comrades. Sir, I do not propose further to take up the time of the House, but I would appeal to the noble Lord, and ask him whether it would not be wise and humane, in dealing with a race at the same time so docile and so intelligent and now so suffering, to exercise an abundant forbearance. I would ask the noble Lord to hold out the olive branch to these people, and give an opportunity to clear away misunderstandings and revive the old feelings of mutual regard. I would just mention one thing which contrasts so strongly with the leniency that has formerly been associated with British rule—I mean the heavy punitive police force imposed at Poona, which strikes the innocent with the guilty. Surely it is not too much to hope that that may be removed. The force was put on in consequence of the lamentable and disastrous murders there, but the author of those murders has, I believe, confessed, and has been found guilty and sentenced to death. It would seem to have been a mere attack of solitary fanaticism; it does not appear from the evidence that there was any conspiracy in the matter, and, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will see his way to now remove this punitive force. Then there is the case of Mr. Tilak, a Member of the Legislative Council. Mr. Tilak is a scholar and a man who has done good services as an educationist and as a legislator. Perhaps the noble Lord may see his way to mitigate the severe sentence that was

  995
  passed upon Mr. Tilak by, at any rate, remitting the penalty of hard labour which condemns him to prison dress and association with the lowest class of criminals. Then there was the case of the Natu brothers, who have now been in prison for six months without trial; cannot the noble Lord see his way now to release them? But, Sir, above all, I would ask the Government to postpone any change of the criminal law until quieter times, when the people can be dealt with in a calm spirit. I am quite certain that a new departure in the way of legislation would be viewed with the greatest alarm throughout India, and I would ask the noble Lord, if possible, to postpone these changes, and to see whether they are really necessary. The noble Lord, in dealing with the Frontier difficulty, if I may be allowed to say so, has shown an open mind and a conciliatory spirit. I would hope that he would adopt the same attitude with regard to these questions of internal administration, because I believe that to adopt conciliatory Measures will do a very great deal to calm the present unhappy feeling in India. With regard to these questions of internal administration, patience and forbearance are needed even more, possibly, than with regard to Frontier questions, and the consequences will be more far-reaching.
  Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Question the words—
  "And we humbly pray that Your Majesty, looking to the miseries patiently endured by the Indian people from famine, plague, poverty, and other afflictions during the past year, will graciously direct that special forbearance be shown towards them, and that careful inquiry be made into their present condition in order to restore confidence among the suffering masses, and thus prepare the way for healing Measures tending to bring back peace and prosperity."—(Sir Wm. Wedderburn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The hon. Baronet has appealed to me to express on the part of the Government some consideration and sympathy for the suffering which the Indian people have undergone during the past fifteen months; but the speech of the hon. Baronet is almost exclusively directed to another Amendment which stands in the
  996
  name of another hon. Member, and is not now before the House. He has devoted a great part of his speech to matter which would have been relevant upon the other Amendment. Now, so far as the great mass of the people of India are concerned, the Government of India, and I, as representing the Government of India, have done our very best during the past fifteen months to alleviate the misery and distress in India. I doubt whether ever before such efforts were made for the alleviation of distress as have been made during this period, and, as an illustration of the way in which the work has pressed upon the Civil Service of India, I may mention that several valued officials have actually died at their posts. Of course, we have heard no reference to this tonight; I have never known the hon. Baronet do anything except to minimise the efforts of the Indian Government. We have had famine in India over an area inhabited by 64 millions of people, and, besides that, we have had the plague in Bombay. But we have heard no word of this from the hon. Baronet to-night. He has directed his attention only to Poona; and it is not even for the people there that he is concerned, but simply for three or four friends of his own. Well, it is with those three or four friends of his that we have had to deal. And why? Because they had done everything in their power to thwart the benevolent measures designed by the Indian Government. There is undoubted evidence that there was a dangerous conspiracy at Poona, and the outcome of that conspiracy was the murder of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Agent. The hon Baronet has expressed the hope that I shall be able in some way to imitate the acts of Lord Ripon. Well, I do not doubt Lord Ripon's good intentions, but everybody who knows anything about India to-day knows that Lord Ripon contrived to raise a racial feeling in India, and from that time to this no question in India is judged on its merits, but simply as a question between race and race, and one of the difficulties we have to face is to try and allay the race feelings which Lord Ripon's Administration aroused. Then the hon. Baronet says that the best friends of British rule in India are the educated classes. Well, I think the great bulk

  997
  of the educated classes are friends of the Indian Government; but how about some of the leaders with whom the hon. Baronet associates, and of whom he thinks so favourably—do they show that by their words or by their deeds? There was a meeting in London the other day in connection with a movement of which the hon. Baronet is the head, and a resolution was moved by an educated native, attributing all the evils from which India had been suffering to the unrighteous and iniquitous system of the British Government.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: Hear, hear!
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Of course, Sir, the hon. Member opposite is an opponent of British rule, and I can well understand that he objects to our Administration, whichever side be in power; but I do not understand how the hon. Baronet, who has himself been a member of the Indian Civil Service, accounts for the language used by a friend and associate of his own. It is a certain class of educated natives who make use of their position to instil grotesque falsehoods into the rising generation of India, that are doing so much mischief. I say the hon. Baronet must do one of two things. He must either assimilate his language inside this House to his language outside the House, or he must leave us to judge him by what he says outside, and not inside the House. So far as the masses of India are concerned, I am glad to say that there is not in them the lack of confidence which the hon. Gentleman seems to think exists as regards the intentions of the Government. We have still to struggle with the plague, and I think that of all the evils and dangers with which we have to deal the plague is the most serious. I hope and believe that, by removing certain malignant influences which have aroused a, keen opposition to the measures by which alone the plague can be stamped out, those measures will be effectual in Bombay. As regards the famine, I have, in concert with the Viceroy, appointed a Commissioner, who will go through the Provinces, who will compare the various methods adopted by the
  998
  different Governments, and will make a Report, which will be of very great value, as to how far the people of India are now better or worse able to meet famine than they were before. In the same way as to inferior administration, the Government are only waiting for a quiet time to consider various proposals for the purpose of freeing people as far as possible from the pressure of indebtedness. I hope we shall be able in course of time to set up some sort of local banks for the assistance of the natives. We will also consider whether we cannot apply some principles generally by which the alienation of land will be made less easy than it is at present; we will try to see whether it is not possible that something like the principle of the Deccan Ryots Acts may be applied to the whole of India. I mention these matters to show that, the Indian Government realise that it is desirable to look into the economic condition of the people, and that they will not fail to do so. With regard to the special appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made in the case of Mr. Tilak, I am informed that the Governor of Bombay has had special inquiry made with regard to his health, and that his health is fairly good; that he is not obliged to perform hard labour, and that he has a special diet. As regards the case of the brothers Natu, I have no doubt that the Indian Government will have in mind the considerations which have been mentioned by the hon. Baronet. I think, Sir, I have shown that the Indian Government are prepared not only to express sympathy with the sufferings of the mass of the people of India, but as far as it can to adopt Measures which I trust will lead to the amelioration and the strengthening of their position to meet any difficulties which may arise in the future.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no intention whatever of disputing the proposition of the noble Lord, that the Government of India is doing its very best to discharge the duties and the enormous responsibilities that fall upon it; but I must take the earliest opportunity of protesting against the

  999
  gratuitous, wanton, and wholly uncalled-for language used by the noble Lord about my noble Friend Lord Ripon. There was no occasion whatever for that attack. It did not arise in the least from the speech of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, and when the noble Lord makes a rash and random proposition, such as that Lord Ripon's conduct was the source of racial antagonism—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Hear, hear; so it was.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The noble Lord may hold that view, but he should not express it in that rash and random way.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Why not?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Because it is not in the least relevant to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and the noble Lord ought to have brought it forward in a deliberate manner, and in connection with some subject, so that we should have been in a position to defend Lord Ripon, if, indeed, he needed defence. Sir, there are plenty of things to be said against the excessive language which the noble Lord has permitted himself to use; and if the noble Lord in a full House and on a relevant occasion will repeat the language he has used to-night, he will find that he will not escape a punishment something similar to that which he received the other night.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  DISTRESS IN MAYO.
  MR. DILLON: I have just received a telegram from Westport, county Mayo,
  1000
  stating that a meeting in connection with the distress in that district has been dispersed to-day by a large force of police, under a district inspector of police, without notice or proclamation. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can give any information to the House in reference to this subject.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I have not received any information on the matter. I had a telegram from Westport to-day at two o'clock, and up to that time no disturbance appears to have occurred. If the hon. Gentleman will repeat his question to-morrow I hope to be able to give him, some information.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

  NEW BILLS.
  Bill to provide for the Inspection and Registration of Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Edward Gourley, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Scott, Mr. Fenwick, Colonel Denny, and Mr. Clare. Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 11th May.
  Bill to amend the law relating to the rating of hereditaments containing machinery, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Strachey, Sir William Coddington, Mr. Batty Langley, Mr. Oldroyd, Colonel Mellor, and Mr. Cawley. Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 11th May.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.)

Preamble
Their Lordships met at a quarter past four o'clock.
NEW PEER.
Sir William Wallace Hozier, baronet, having been created Baron Newlands of Newlands and Barrowfield in the county of the city of Glasgow, and of Mauldslie Castle in the county of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Sheringham and Beeston Protection Bill [H.L.]; Todmorden Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]. Presented and read a first time.
Bideford and Clovelly Railway Bill [H.L.] Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented; read first time; and referred to the Examiners.
Dundee Suburban Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to amend the Public Record Office Act, 1877, and ask your Lordships to give it a First Reading.
  Read 1a.

  BILL TO AMEND THE LAW OF BAIL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to bail, and ask your Lordships to give it a First Reading.
  Read 1a.

  MILITIA STRENGTH.
  *THE EARL WEMYSS AND MARCH: There is a notice standing in my name on the Paper for to-morrow with reference to the Militia. I have reason to believe that the end I have in view will be best met by not bringing that subject forward in the form of a specific Resolution, but by calling attention to the matter, which I purpose doing instead. The essential parts of the Resolution refer to the importance of maintaining the Militia at its established strength. Instead of a formal Resolution, I shall call attention to the subject.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAYS.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to present to your Lordships a petition of a public meeting in Harlesden against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  *LORD STANMORE: I rise, my Lords, to move for copies of any correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Belgium, relative to the meeting of a Conference on the subject of sugar bounties. My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name this evening, I wish, in the first place, to disclaim any premature curiosity to know the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I have not the smallest intention to inquire what is the nature of the pecuniary assistance which Her Majesty's Government is disposed to

  839
  advance to the Sugar Colonies, and I do not intend to make that inquiry for two reasons, which appear to me very sufficient. The first is that it is only natural, and indeed right, that the Government should desire not to make any disclosure of what their intentions are until the time comes for their proposing them to the House of Commons with the other financial Measures; and the other reason, if somewhat less argumentative, is, I venture to think, equally conclusive. It is this: that however persistent my inquiries might be, or however fluent and persuasive the language in which they were put, instead of being much the reverse, I am sure my noble Friend at the head of the Government would not tell me. I wish also to disclaim any intention of making any inquiry as to the nature of the instructions which may be given to those who may be charged with the conduct of the representation, of England at this Conference, if it takes place. I am content to rest them in the hands of the Government. What I do ask for are Papers which shall give us some official information of that which we have all heard privately—namely, whether an invitation has been given to Her Majesty's Government to enter into a Conference on this subject, and, if so, what are the terms of that invitation, and the terms of the answer which has been given to it? That is my Motion. I have been told, I do not know with what truth, that, besides that invitation and that answer, Her Majesty's Government previously put forward an invitation for a similar Conference. I do not know whether that is true or not, but, if it is true, perhaps my noble Friend at the head of the Government will not object to that being included in the Papers. The terms of it may be of importance. That is the scope of my Motion, and I am not sure that I should have made it at so early a period in the Session had it not been that I have been requested, on behalf of a very large number of Her Majesty's subjects in the West Indies and in Mauritius, to take the very earliest possible moment for expressing publicly in this House the gratitude which they all feel to Her Majesty's Government for the expression of sympathy which they have used with regard to the hardships of the Sugar Colonies, and for the promise of aid
  840
  which they have given; but, at the same time, I am bound to add that, with that expression of gratitude and thankfulness, which is perfectly sincere, they all universally expressed their opinion—an opinion which I confess I share—that no doles, however lavish, no grant, however generous, can effect more than a temporary termination of the suffering they undergo. It will be sufficient to tide over the period of change from the one industry to the other, but as a permanent cure it will be totally useless. They almost all agree in their one panacea. Rightly or wrongly they all regard the abolition of foreign bounties on sugar as the only measure which is likely to do them good. As to how that may best be brought about, this is not the time for discussion; other opportunities will come up for its discussion. I do not intend to enter upon that subject now, nor is it of much importance to me. If the bounties be got rid of I do not suppose any one of those concerned much cares how it will be effected. We have the assurance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Government will not allow the West Indies to be ruined, and, therefore, we presume they will take what they consider the most effectual means to bring about this result. But before I sit down there is one thing which I do wish, if possible, to impress upon your Lordships—I would say to impress upon Her Majesty's Government, but I think Her Majesty's Government is fully aware of the fact at present—it is this: that all-important as the economic aspect of this question is, that is not its only aspect, and perhaps it is that aspect which has had given to it even more than its fair share of consideration. I wish to urge you all to take into consideration the political and social aspects of this question, aspects which are of the highest importance, and of equal importance to the economic aspect. What is the language of Her Majesty's Commissioners? You may be quite sure that their language is guarded, careful, cool, judicious, there is nothing rhetorical or exaggerated about it; but if you look at their Report it practically tells you that if the sugar industry of the West Indies is destroyed before any other industry takes its place, the consequences will be not only to ruin all those who are immediately interested,

  841
  but to ruin all those who depend upon them—the ruin not only of rich men and planters, but of the labouring class as well. The Report also slates that it will mean the cessation of schools, that it will prevent the making of new roads, and the keeping up of the present ones. It will mean that you will not be able to keep up an efficient police force; all this means, if you put them together, a state very little short of anarchy. Then there are many people who say that these interests are small, and that it docs not much matter, but I believe the principle is the same whether the interests are large or small. I believe we are equally concerned. But suppose a similar state of things existed with regard to the East Indies, suppose that some external action threatened there a similar cessation of all the springs of Government, and all the outcomes of civilisation: what we should do in such a case would be, in the first instance, to see what could be done to remedy it, and to see what was the practical usefulness of the Measures proposed to us rather than what was their theoretical character. I think I have said enough to justify the Motion which I have made, and I will not say much more on it, because I feel that the interests of the Sugar Colonies are safe in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that they are not to be ruined. My noble Friend at the head of the Government told us two years ago, when corresponding with the United States, that we had no intention of giving up the West Indies, but it is very, undesirable that a growing feeling of unwilling disloyalty should be springing up there. I say "unwilling disloyalty" because I believe they are essentially loyal and desirous of maintaining their connection with this country. On Friday there was sent to me a report of a great meeting held in Jamaica, the language used at which showed unwilling disloyalty. One of the largest proprietors there made a speech in which he spoke very feelingly of his connection with the British Empire, and of the regret he would have in giving up his own beautiful home, but he ended by saving that sentiment was strong, but starvation was still stronger, and, looking at the advantages they would derive from an intimate connection with the
  842
  United States, he was not prepared to say that such a connection was not desirable. I have spoken of "the Sugar Colonies," not of "the West Indies," and I have done so purposely, because there has been great ambiguity. I do not feel sure as to what is intended: whether it is meant among the Sugar Colonies to include Mauritius or not, or whether the assistance which Her Majesty's Government holds forth is to be extended to the West Indies only. I should like to ask whether Mauritius is to receive part of the pecuniary aid which the Government contemplates giving, and, if not, why not? I may, perhaps, venture to say that I know a little about Mauritius. I was for some years its Governor. I have pecuniary interests there which are to me not unimportant, and which have kept me in touch with the Colony to the present day. I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that it is as exclusively dependent upon the sugar interest as any island in the West Indies, and that, unlike many of the islands in the West Indies, it has no means of replacing its sugar cultivation by any other cultivation. It is too far south to grow cocoa. Coffee flourishes there in the hurricane season, and every year you have in that season great torrents of rain, which prevent any good crop. The minor industries there are dependent solely on the sugar industry. By far the greater part of the population are dependent on the sugar industry, and if that industry were to come to an end suddenly all those Indian labourers would be thrown out of work, and I confess the state of things there would then be very serious indeed. As it is, for a long time Mauritius maintained itself while the West Indies suffered, and it is only the grant of these later bounties that has affected the Indian market which Mauritius supplies. There is a direct case of cause and effect. Only last night I had a letter from one of the greatest planters, and perhaps the most respected man in all Mauritius. He wrote to me, stating that every ship that left for Madagascar carried away some proprietors or employees, or persons connected with the sugar interest, and, he said, "they go with hatred in their hearts, and cursing the name of England." Well, it was not pleasant to read that, however undeserved it may be, and I

  843
  hold that Mauritius should share with the other Sugar Colonies the bounty which is to be given, because they have suffered, and still suffer, from this cause. I am afraid I have already detained your Lordships too long, but I do hope that this question, when it is considered, will be considered in no Party spirit. It is essentially a national and not a Party question. The question before us is whether it is to be considered in the manner in which Mr. Chamberlain at Liverpool told us it was to be considered, namely, that the Colonies were to be looked on as part of ourselves, and that the sea only separates us as the highway separates us from our nearest neighbour, or whether they are to be looked at in the spirit of the old Romans who cared little how they oppressed or plundered a province, if the capital was kept in good humour. I now move my Motion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I am not surprised at the interest my noble Friend has felt and expressed in this very important question, but I ventured to tell him, when he spoke to me privately at the beginning of the Session, that I thought we had not reached the period at which it was possible for Her Majesty's Government to speak freely on this question, and I am afraid that that reserve is actually justified by the facts of the moment. There are two reasons why I cannot give to my noble Friend any full reply upon this matter.
  LORD STANMORE: I did not ask for one.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I understood the noble Lord asked several questions. I did not imagine that they involved no reply. However, I will merely state the reasons why I am unable to follow my noble Friend through his interesting remarks. He asks for Papers with respect to a meeting of the Sugar Conference. I can only say the correspondence is not completed, but as soon as the correspondence is completed I shall have the greatest pleasure in laying before the House the Papers referring to remedial Measures which the Colonial Secretary has announced he contemplates with regard to this matter. It is obvious I can-
  844
  not speak with respect to them until the announcement has been made by the Colonial Secretary in another place. After that period we shall be very happy to discuss with my noble Friend, either in the way of criticism or otherwise, whatever he thinks ought to be debated on this matter, but I do not feel that I can now go into the question. It is almost impossible to pursue a mathematical calculation when all the factors are unknown, and it is equally impossible under similar conditions to make a Parliamentary speech. Under these circumstances, I will only say that when the moment is more favourable, I shall be delighted to go into this question with my noble Friend.
  LORD STANMORE: Is Mauritius included?
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say.
  LORD STANMOREthen withdrew his Motion.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL SCHEME.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have given notice to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to withhold her assent from the scheme for the management of the Berriew School, in the county of Montgomery. My Lords, the reasons why I propose to ask that the scheme for this school be disapproved by this House are capable of statement very briefly. In the first place, my Lords, the school was founded in 1652, and from that time to this it has always been a Church school. There is not any period in its history at which it could be stated that it was out of the hands of Churchmen, or that the teaching in it was not of a Church character. The scheme rests, therefore, upon the words in the Act of Parliament, which bind, of course, the Charity Commissioners, that, in order to prove that a school belonged to the Church, there must not only be an uninterrupted use, but there must also be express words in

  845
  the original foundation proving that the founder intended the school to be so used. There are no such expressed words in the foundation of the school, but the school was founded in 1652, at a time when all the worship of the Church of England was proscribed, when any words of this kind would have been contrary to the law, when, in fact, if there had been inserted in the original will these words the will would have been liable to be altogether set aside Therefore it is clear that the founder could not possibly have inserted such words, however much he may have desired to do so. But he indicated his intention very clearly by the provision he made for the management and working of the school, for he handed over this foundation to Trustees, prominent amongst whom were two ejected clergymen of the Church—two men who had been ejected from their livings, one of whom, we find afterwards, was actually accused of using the Church of England Service contrary to law. It would have been difficult to show his intention more clearly than by choosing for Trustees such men as these. I shall return to this point presently. I was going to observe that, when we come to the regulations made for the working of the school, we find a very clearly expressed declaration of what the school was intended to be. These regulations are probably about the year 1690; at any rate, they were within 50 years of the foundation of the school. These regulations, amongst other things, order that—
  "The master is to teach and instruct the children of the said parish in reading, writing, and learning, in and after the way, order, and method now, or some time since, used in the school of Ruthin, in the County of Denbigh."
  The school of Ruthin was at that time one of the leading schools, and was for that reason taken as a model. That school was unquestionably a Church school. There has been a scheme proposed to take that school away from the Church, but four years ago this House decided against that scheme, and held that the school was a Church school. In that case the ground was not quite the same as in the present instance, inasmuch as it was not stated that there was nothing in the original foundation which attached the school at Ruthin to the
  846
  Church, but it was stated that there had been a breach of observance, that it had not always kept within the rules which had been originally in force there, and this House had to decide, obviously enough, whether or not such breach of observance was of such magnitude and had such an important effect upon the school that it had lost its Church character, because it is obvious that an interruption of observance for a year or two would be a different thing from a very long interruption. This House decided that Ruthin School was a Church school. It was the model as a Church school, which this school of Berriew had to follow. Still further, the school, from the original foundation, had always been held in a building which stood partly upon the ground of the churchyard, upon consecrated ground, and as such, was of necessity looked upon as a Church school, and there it remained until the school was so dilapidated that it was necessary to restore it. When it had to be rebuilt, it was necessary to come to the Bishop for a faculty for rebuilding, on the ground, not contested at the time, that it stood on the consecrated ground of the churchyard. Here is a school where the conditions of a Church school are fulfilled in every respect, except the one technicality—namely, that being founded at a time when it was not legal to require the school to belong to the Church the founder did not insert any words which would have that effect. That he should not have inserted these words was a very natural action on his part. My Lords, these facts, it seems to me, when you put them together—namely, the date of the foundation, the character of the Trustees, to whom the foundation was first entrusted, and the history of the school ever since down to the year when it was brought before the Court of Chancery, and was then treated undoubtedly as a Church school—these facts, it seems to me, are enough to justify me in asking this House not to rob the Church of a school which has belonged to it so long. I have one thing further to say. There is the precedent of what was done just five years ago, in the case of Bark Island School. This school came before the House on a scheme which rested on precisely the same ground as the scheme I am referring to, inasmuch as there were no words in

  847
  the original foundation assigning the school to the Church of England, but this House decided that the fact that the school had been a Church school ever since was sufficient to entitle the Church to retain the school. It seems to me that it is a fair precedent to quote when I ask you to do the same thing for this school as was done for that school. We cannot afford, my Lords, in these days to part with Church schools if we can help it. The school at Berview is not a very important school—there is no doubt about that—but still it belongs to the Church in all principles of equity as far as I can see, and I think, to be consistent, this House ought to treat this scheme as it treated the Bark Island School scheme five years ago. These, my Lords, are plain reasons why I ask your Lordships to address Her Majesty in the terms of my Motion, and I do not want to take up your time by going into further argument, because I think that the case as I have presented it to you is quite sufficient to justify the proposal that I make to the House. I feel that it would be rather hard that on a mere technical point such as this the Church at Berriew should lose a school which it had been using and working for so long a time. I hope that your Lordships will not think I am unjust in claiming that what is so evidently Church property should not be taken away without very much higher reason than has yet been given for it.
  THE EARL of KIMBERLEY: I observe that the noble Duke is here, and I thought that perhaps the President of the Council would have said something about this Morton, but as he does not appear to have any intention of making any remarks upon the Motion of the most rev. Prelate, I will trouble the House with one or two observations. We are quite accustomed to Motions of this kind, and we know very well what their fate usually is in this House—they are generally carried. On a previous occasion the most rev. Prelate will remember last year some statement which he made—(perhaps the most rev. Prelate will kindly give me his attention for a moment, as I am referring particularly to some statement he made last year)—with reference to a school scheme. The most rev. Pre-
  848
  late made some remarks as to the school connected with the scheme being a Unitarian school, and it has since been entirely avoided by those who are interesteqd in that school, and a letter which was published in the newspapers, of which I have a copy here, appears to make it absolutely ever for the statement made by the most rev. Prelate, and I conclude that the most rev. Prelate admits that that was the case, as I believe I am right in saying that he returned no answer to that letter. I do not, of course, for a moment impute any intention to the most rev. Prelate of misleading this House. No doubt he was misinformed, and it may happen to any of us to be misinformed upon a point which arises concerning a Bill or Measure before the House. But, my Lords, I draw this conclusion from what then happened; that it is extremely inconvenient that these matters should be decided by the House in what I may call an offhand manner, upon what are really ex parte statements, which we have no real opportunity of going into, and the value of which we are unable to estimate. Now, I do not profess to be well acquainted with the circumstances of this scheme; all that I know about it is gathered from the document which has been placed in my hands, but I find in that that the statement of the most rev. Prelate, as far as I can judge, does not seem to be borne out by the document which is, I suppose, of considerable importance in the matter. The House is very well aware that the Charity Commissioners are bound to preserve the denominational character of the school, only in the case when there are express directions by the founder or regulations clearly made by his authority within a certain time after his death, and, of course, the most rev. Prelate did not contend that there were any express words by the founder, and he does contend that there are certain regulations. Well the most rev. Prelate will forgive me for saying that he did not read the whole of the regulations, he read that portion of them which says that the mode of teaching these children is to be arranged. To instruct the children of the inhabitants of the said parish in reading, writing, or other learning or education, and in and after the way, order, and method now or some time since used

  849
  in the school at Bark Island in the county of Denbigh. But the most rev. Prelate did not read the remainder—"or in and after the same way, order, and method." Those are words from which I should not have been ingenious enough to extract the conclusion that the regulations prescribed that education should be a Church question. "In and after the way, order, or method of teaching" appears to be contemplated; nothing whatever about religious instruction. I do not wish to lay very much stress upon that, but I merely allude to it as showing the difficulty there is of deciding matters of this kind in an off-hand ex parte manner. Now, all these schemes have gone before a body expressly appointed by Parliament to decide them, with due regard to the limitations of the statute under which they act. That body may almost be said to be a quasi-judicial body, and it seems to me to be neither decorous nor desirable that the decision of such a body, which must be supposed to have been arrived at impartially, should be set aside in the manner in which they are set aside in this House upon statements which the House is not able to thoroughly examine, and I wish merely on this occasion to offer a suggestion which may or may not be acceptable to the House. It would be highly desirable that all these schemes, when in any way opposed in this House, should be referred to a Select Committee, which Select Committee should examine carefully what are the grounds upon which the Charity Commissioners come to the conclusion at which they arrived, and that Committee, having carefully examined all the facts, would be able to make recommendations to the House, which, of course, the House would act upon or not, according to its view of the Report of the Select Committee. I venture to make that suggestion, for I think that the proceedings which have previously taken place under these circumstances of setting aside in this manner the schemes carefully considered by such a body as the Charity Commissioners is not one which is desirable. These are not matters of course, in the slightest degree, of Party warfare—they are matters of administration which we all desire should be carried into effect with due regard to all interests concerned and with strict regard to the statute
  850
  under the Charity Commissioners Act. If that be so, then at any time that any school or institution has been reserved for any particular denomination, everyone will be desirous that the Act of Parliament should be strictly carried into effect, and that the wishes and intentions of the founder as clearly ascertained and expressed shall be respected. That is all that I desire. I think there is very great ground for careful inquiry into the matter, and I desire to make the suggestion I have already put forward, so as to avoid the difficulties and divisions which take place upon the subject, which I think may be easily obviated, if the House would look into the matter in the manner which I have indicated.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I did not rise, my Lords, immediately after the most rev. Prelate, because the scheme which the House has now under consideration is not one for which the present Education Department has any responsibility whatever. The scheme was one which was brought before the Education Department in the year 1894. A petition was presented, praying that the scheme might be laid before Parliament, and in the ordinary course that would have been done, and the matter would have been decided in that way the next Session, but, owing to some mistake or a wrong impression, the scheme was not so laid before the House, and the opinion of the Law Officers of both Governments was taken upon the matter, and, in consequence, a Bill had to be introduced and passed through both Houses last Session, annulling the scheme which had been improperly approved by the Queen in Council, and enacting that it should be laid as usual before Parliament. I therefore thought that it would be more proper that the noble Lords opposite, who were responsible for this scheme, should have the opportunity of saying anything which they might have to say before I rose to state the view which I take upon the subject. Not having, as I said before, any responsibility for that scheme, I am bound to say that I am very unwilling on this occasion to assume any. It is impossible for the present Education Department to say, if it had come under

  851
  their consideration and not before the consideration of their predecessors, what representation might have been made to them, or what Amendments they might have suggested should be made in the scheme. I can very well understand the reason why no remonstrances were addressed to the late Education Department, because probably it was felt that in its existing condition, those remonstrances would not have been attended to; but circumstances being altered now, I do not think it is possible for us to assume any responsibility whatever for the scheme. As to the statement which has been made by the most rev. Prelate, I must say that I think it is to be regretted that the facts which he has brought before your Lordships' House do not appear to have been laid either before the Charity Commissioners when they were framing the scheme, or before the Education Department, when it was approving the scheme. It would have been, I think, more satisfactory at all events that that should have been done. As it was, as far as I understand it, there was no local opposition—no statement was made to show either the Charity Commissioners or the Education Department that this was a Church school, and it was dealt with in both Departments practically as an unopposed scheme. I entirely agree, and I have said it before in this House, that I think the procedure in a great many cases under these Acts is extremely unsatisfactory. I think the state of the law is extremely unsatisfactory, and I think that the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord opposite, that such schemes should be submitted to the examination of a Select Committee is one which, in most cases, or in many cases, might be followed with very great advantage. I entirely agree with him that, in the case to which he referred, which was passed by the House last Session, that decision was arrived at upon statements which had been made which it was quite impossible fully to examine or to reply to at the time, and some of which have certainly appeared to have been founded upon a very erroneous foundation. But, I think, as to the actual scheme which is before us now, the facts are extremely simple, and no examination by a Committee would bring forth anything which would be likely to change the opinion and view
  852
  which would be taken of the case on either side of the House. I have very little doubt myself, and, in fact I do not think the most rev. Prelate has contended that, under the words of the Statute, this is a foundation which the Charity Commissioners were bound to regard, or could legally have regarded, as a Church foundation, but also I do not think it would be denied on the other side of the House that, practically up to the present time—up to the date of this scheme, it has been a Church school. And for this reason, that the religious education which has been given in it, has been an education in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. It has been under the management of members of the Church of England, and under the present scheme no doubt it would become an undenominational school, and be placed under the management of an elective body who, in all probability, in the county of Merioneth, would not be members of the Church of England. I cannot conceive that any inquiry by a Committee could materially alter that statement of the facts, and the case would only come up again before your Lordships' House to be decided, whether under the circumstances it should be maintained as it is at present, as a Church school, or whether it should be converted into a denominational school. I do not think there was any alternative for what the Charity Commissioners did. They were put in motion by the general Education Committee of the country, and if they had attempted to preserve this foundation—its religious character—the general committee would have had nothing to do with the scheme. Yet if it had been brought before the Education Department as at present constituted—it is probable—I do not say it is certain—that we should have insisted upon certain conditions, which would have made it less distasteful to the Church Party, and those provisions may, or may not, have been accepted; but as the scheme is before us now, there is no possibility of amending it. It must either be passed as it stands, or rejected as a whole, and having no doubt whatever what is the opinion of your Lordships' House, that a school of this character, which, although not technically under the 19th Section of the Endowed Schools Act, has

  853
  been practically, up to the present time, a Church school, should have that character completely altered. I do not think there would be airy use for the examination by a Select Committee, and, under the circumstances, I am unable to offer any opposition to the Motion of the most rev. Prelate, which is no doubt in entire accordance with the course which has been taken by this House in former and less well-ascertained cases than the present one.
  LORD COLCHESTER: Having had something to do, my Lords, with the administration of these Acts, I wish to say a word or two, because I think the great difficulty in such cases is to make the scheme other than it is, and I certainly most heartily agree with the view taken by the most rev. Prelate. I believe the whole of these difficulties have arisen owing to the duties imposed upon the Charity Commissioners by the Welsh Education Act. Under Section 19 of that Act, the Charity Commissioners had the duty imposed upon them of maintaining the character of denominational schools without reference to the governing body, but there was a discretion in the Charity Commissioners to introduce Church of England teaching, if requested to do so. That was repeatedly done in cases not strictly possible under the 19th Section, where the governing body happened to be quite undenominational, but where there were very strong circumstances which showed that a strict interpretation of the 19th Section might have worked some injustice. Now, by the Welsh Education Act, that power is taken away, and I think it was a most unfortunate change, and had it gone to a Division in the House, I should certainly have opposed it. I think it is always open to the objection that it is very indefinite in any case, and is an evasion of the spirit of the law. But that unfortunate limitation of the powers of the Charity Commissioners to judge whether or not Church teaching might be inserted, has placed this House in the very great difficulty of not knowing whether it ought to accept a scheme because it would impose an injustice, or adopt a scheme which would not meet the justice
  854
  of the case, and it is much to be regretted that this limitation was put upon the powers of the Charity Commissioners.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not rise, my Lords, with the slightest hope of obtaining a decision contrary to that which the most rev. Prelate asks. Still, I feel it right to make a few observations, because undoubtedly these are questions which are regarded in the locality where they arise from a very different point of view to the point of view from which it is regarded in your Lordships' House. Out of 380 electors in the parish in which this school is—who, therefore, are a great deal interested in the school—340 petitioned against the Bill which had to be introduced, and which passed into an Act, to enable the scheme to be set aside—340 out of 380; that is a tolerably strong expression of opinion. The most rev. Prelate has said that this is a Church of England school, but I think that one of the objects of the Endowed Schools Act was, that, where the intention and object of the founder of a school was educational rather than religious, it was intended that the schools should be more widely thrown open than they had been, at a time when, perhaps, almost all the inhabitants were members of the Church of England. That, of course, is an altered state of things. I do not know that there is any reason to suppose that the founder of this school, if he were alive to-day, would have desired that the school should be continued on the lines upon which it continued for so many years. The most rev. Prelate has alluded to the fact that the clergyman was appointed among the trustees. But the testator appointed seven trustees—two only were clergymen. He did not direct that the clergyman, for the time being, of the parish, or anything of that sort, should be one of the trustees. He simply names two clergymen and five laymen, and he gives no instructions with respect to the character of the education. The whole matter is left entirely to the discretion of the trustees. Now, I believe that the present trustees are in favour of this scheme; as far as I am informed, the only dissentient is the vicar of the parish. Everybody

  855
  interested wants the scheme, except the smallest possible minority, and one can perfectly well understand the reason. Whereas the income of the endowment is £80 a year only, it is proposed by the scheme to double that income by a contribution from public funds. That is what renders the scheme necessary; and when it is known that that proposition had been made, and, as I believe, approved by all the trustees, as I have already said excepting the vicar, and by the vast majority of the inhabitants of the parish, I do not for a moment doubt the competence of your Lordships' House to reject the scheme. When the noble Duke says that the facts are admitted, I must draw his attention to this, that the most rev. Prelate stated one fact which I do not think is admitted. The most rev. Prelate said that the school was built upon the churchyard. I am informed that there is no evidence that the original school is built upon the churchyard. The existing schoool is no doubt so built, and upon it is inscribed, "Built by so-and-so," or words to that effect, and no doubt a faculty was obtained for that, but there is no evidence on that point, and therefore, so far as that is concerned, the case of the most rev. Prelate would fail. Therefore, my Lords, it does not seem now that the facts are so completely admitted as has been suggested; but, my Lords, my objection to the most rev. Prelate's proposal is this: that in reality it enables a vote of this House entirely to set aside the scheme of the Endowed Schools Act. The scheme of the Endowed Schools Act was that the schools should all be thrown open. The Charity Commissioners can only formulate a scheme which makes an open school, excepting in cases which the Legislature has earmarked as denominational—namely, those where the founder has founded them as denominational by the original instrument of foundation, or by some regulation made within 30 years. The Legislature said that in all other cases the schools should be thrown open. The Act provided that the schemes should be laid upon the Tables of both Houses, but I imagine that that was to see whether the terms of Parliament had been properly carried out, and not to enable one House of Parliament to destroy the scheme of the
  856
  Act and turn, into denominational schools schools which the Legislature has said are not to come within that category. That is my objection to the proposal of the most rev. Prelate, and I confess that I wonder whether it is to the advantage of the Church, in a question of an endowment of this description, that local feelings should be aroused, as it undoubtedly has been aroused, by a proposal such as the one now before your Lordships' House. It is not one which only offends Nonconformists—there are Church people who are strongly in favour of this scheme, and who will regret very much its rejection by your Lordships' House. Under these circumstances, although I do not propose to say anything further, I thought it right to put these observations before your Lordships, because it seems to me that although there are precedents for it, we are entering upon a practice which practically ruins the Endowed Schools Act, and is a departure from what I regard as the intention of the Legislature.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I only wish to say a word in consequence of the view which the noble Lord has taken of the Endowed Schools Act. I remember that Act passing through this House, and I certainly never understood then, or have had it suggested to me since, that it was an Act for giving in a case of endowments, lending preponderance to the educational element, and that the element of religious teaching should be treated as being of no consideration. No such idea was ever suggested, and I do not think that the explanation of that Act which the noble Lord has just given to us is one to which, on consideration, we shall be disposed to adhere. He makes the power which is given to this House of refusing schemes absolutely futile and useless, and entirely superfluous. He says that that power is for the purpose of seeing that the Charity Commissioners have obeyed the Act of Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I said that it was within the Provisions of the Act of Parliament, that there might be local objection to schemes quite apart from these religious schools to some of the Provisions in those schemes.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: The duty of securing that the Commissioners have obeyed the Act of Parliament is cast upon the Committee of the Privy Council, and there is a special process—a judicial hearing—in order to determine whether that has been the case or not; but if the Committee of the Council has determined that the scheme is in accordance with the Act, then comes the decision of the two Houses of Parliament. Now, it appears to me that a more reasonable way of looking upon the enactments of that Statute is this, that every scheme must fulfil certain conditions, or, rather, that it will be rejected unless it does fulfil certain conditions. Some of the conditions are named in the Statute, and one of them is that it shall be satisfactory to the Houses of Parliament, to the House of Lords and the House of Commons; and these conditions are quite as important, and ought to be enforced with as much determination as the other conditions which are mentioned specifically in the 19th Clause. My Lords, I feel that it is important that we should adhere to that mode of interpreting the power and the duty which Parliament has placed upon us, as, otherwise, I think our agency will be entirety useless and superfluous. Whether we ought to act in that way in any particular case, is, of course, a matter which rests upon the circumstances of the case. In my belief, the object of the Act, and the object of this provision, was to prevent educational reform being turned into machinery for ecclesiastical confiscation. There has always been a tendency in that direction—a tendency to make the necessity for educational reform a plea for transferring the endowments from the Church of England to another Church, which is of a more theoretical and ill-defined character, but which I will call the unsectarian Church, and I do not see why the unsectarian Church should have that particular privilege of plundering its more wealthy neighbour. I wish to say there is a good deal of reason in what was said by the noble Earl, the other side. I think it would be much more satisfactory if the facts on which we act could be examined by a Committee, and tested by them before they came to this House. This is not unreasonable, but if
  858
  you do that, you must alter the Statute—as 40 days will not be enough under those circumstances. And that is a serious difficulty. I should be much more satisfied if these schemes could be laid before a Select Committee before the House delivers judgment upon them, by which means we should avoid the not very edifying amount of contradiction which we have on these occasions. In the meantime, it seems to me that this is clearly a case where there has been an attempt to alienate an endowment which has, ever since its foundation, belonged to the Church, and I think that this is one of the occasions in which the power of this House should be exercised.
  The House then divided:—Contents 53; Not-contents 16.

  REVISING BARRISTERS' COURTS— POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Order of the County Council of Northumberland constituting the polling place of Ashington Colliery, one of the places at which revising barristers shall hold their courts: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  M. Lansdowne.

  E. Lathom. (L. Chamberlain.)

  E. Derby.

  E. Denbigh.

  E. Winchilsea and Nottingham.

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Cadogan.

  E. Belmore.

  E. Harrowby.

  E. Beauchamp.

  E. Amherst.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Wharncliffe.

  E. de Montalt.

  859

  E. Carrington.

  E. Crewe.

  V. Sidmouth.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Clinton.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Churchill.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Wigan. (E. Crawford.)

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Belper.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

  L. Sudley. (E. Arran.)

  L. de Vesci. (V. de Vesci.)

  L. Northington. (L. Henley.)

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BILLS.
  Ordered: That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee—Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  860

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Colville of Culross.

  HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords, following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  D. Richmond.

  D. Saint Albans.

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Ripon.

  M. Breadalbane.

  E. Lathom. (L. Chamberlain.)

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Mount Edgcumbe.

  E. Belmore.

  E. Harrowby.

  E. Bradford.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Strafford.

  E. Kimberley.

  E. de Montalt.

  E. Cranbrook.

  E. Ancaster.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Churchill.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Ker. (M. Lothian.)

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Rowton.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Welby.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  The Lords following, namely:

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  With the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

  SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to explain the Act as to Suffragan Bishops—was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and read a first time.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.