Sitting of 20 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  636
  Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Fraser Settled Chattels Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  BELFAST AND COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with-out amendment.
  MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMATION BILLS.
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Committee to be printed. [No. 293.]
  GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS [Lords].
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Sir LEWIS M'IVER reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills, That, for the convenience of the Committee, they had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL AND CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Dublin Corporation Bill and Clontarf Urban District Council Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Reports and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill, London (Clerkenwell and Holborn) Provisional Order Bill, London (Poplar) Provisional Order Bill, without amendment.
  That they have agreed to—South-Eastern Metropolitan Tramways Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, Great Northern Railway Bill, Midland Railway Bill, Portland Urban District Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendment to Amendments to—Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw Tramways Bill.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—South Staffordshire Tramways Bill Lords], Aston Manor Tramways Bill Lords], Falkirk and District Water Bill Lords], without amendment.
  That they have agreed to—Burnley Corporation Bill [Lords], with an Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act for empowering the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company to acquire additional lands; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [Lords].

  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.

  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Petitions for alteration of law, from Hoshangabad; Ferozepore; Calcutta; Bundi; Shimoga; Neemuch; Sandoway; Ludhiana (two); Nagpur; Hsipaw; Bhaisdehi; Aijal; Jalua (two); Ahmedabad; Batala; Girgoon; Bengal; Santipor;

  639
  Bankipur; Belgaum; and Muttra; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, against; to lie upon Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Old Kilpatrick: and Loudoun; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Belgrave Gate; Denby Dale; and Leicester (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the counties of Devon and Cornwall from Bere Alston Station to Calstock, and the working of a portion of the East Cornwall Mineral Railway as a Light Railway (Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION COMMITTEES (WOMEN MEMBERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th April; Mr. Jebb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause S of the Act for the county of Middlesex (Fifth Minute) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return for the quarter ended 30th June, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Thirty-second Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records and Keeper of the State Papers in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2479 to 2483 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1900–1901).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Amount which will be required in the year ending 31st March, 1901, to meet the Additional Expenditure, mainly due to the War in South Africa, Affairs in China, and for increased reserves of Stores [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 290.]
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (ESTIMATE, 1900–1901).
  Copy presented, of Revised Estimate of Charge for the year 1900–1901 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 291.]
QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— INCREASE OF BRITISH FORCES.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the grave situation in China, he will give the House full details of the considerable reinforcements of men and ships which he stated were on their way to China, in addition to the increases previously announced; and whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to further augment our naval and military forces in the Far East for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BROD- RICK,): The, reinforcements in ships which have been sent out to China since the present outbreak consist of: "Goliath," battleship; "Argonaut," "Ms," "Dido," "Marathon," "Wallaroo," "Arethusa," and "Mohawk," cruisers; "Lizard," "Bramble," and "Britomart," gunboats; besides 860 seamen and marines by transport. The despatch of reinforcements will naturally depend upon the course of events. Ten thousand men have been despatched from India, and the troops withdrawn from Hong Kong are being made up. Further troops have been placed under orders in India, and can be immediately despatched if necessity arises. Troops will be available in this country to replace any troops withdrawn.

  OHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have taken any steps to prevent the exportation of arms or munitions of war to China by British firms; and, if not, whether immediate steps will be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As the hon. Member knows, it is impossible in the present state of the law to forbid the importation of munitions of war into China from this country; but the matter seems to the Government to be extremely pressing, and to-day a Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords conferring the necessary powers.

  CONSUL GENERAL WARREN.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Warren, the Acting British Consul General at Shanghai, is now the senior representative of British interests in China, and possesses such knowledge of Chinese affairs as will enable him to deal with the Viceroys in the present crisis, the Government are prepared to give him temporary rank as Chargé d'Affaires.
  MR. BRODRICK: Full powers to take all necessary action have been given to Consul General Warren, but it is not considered desirable in the present state of affairs to make the change suggested by the hon. Member.

  YANG-TSZE VALLEY—BRITISH PRECAUTIONS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are aware that a strong opinion has been expressed at Shanghai that a powerful body of British troops together with transports should be held in readiness at Hong Kong for immediate despatch to the Yang-tsze Valley in case of necessity; and can he state what are the number of troops now at Hong Kong available for such service, and whether they are provided with sufficient transports.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government are aware that strong views are held at Shanghai and other Yang-tsze ports as to the desirability of sending ships and troops for the protection of Europeans, but there is not unanimity of opinion as to the effect of such action. Troops are now rapidly arriving from India. The officers commanding the troops at Hong Kong and Wei-hai-wei have been directed to place themselves in direct communication with the Consul General at Shanghai with a view of meeting any emergency.
  MR. YERBURGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question, as to the number of troops available and the supply of transports.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government consider the alternative of withdrawing all British subjects in this region to Hong Kong?
  [No answer was given.]

  REPORTED MASSACRE OF MISSIONARIES IN SHAN-SI.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the statement is true, which has appeared in one paper, that sixty missionaries have been massacred in Shan-si.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have seen the statement which appeared in one paper, but Her Majesty's Government have no confirmation of it, and we are in hopes that it may not be correct.

  BRITISH NAVAL FORCE ON THE YANG-TSZE RIVER.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I wish to ask whether the Under Secretary for

  643
  Foreign Affairs can state the number and class of ships on the Yang-tsze River?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sixteen of Her Majesty's ships are at present employed on the Yang-tsze and its vicinity, and are being moved from day to day to meet the constantly changing conditions. The senior naval officer is at Woosung, and is in close communication with the Consul General at Shanghai. It is not desirable that the exact positions of Her Majesty's ships on the China Station should be specified during the present critical condition of affairs.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what number of the 22,000 troops at present drawn from the India establishment for foreign service are British troops and what will be the number of British troops in India subject to these deductions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The number of British troops at present withdrawn from the Indian establishment for foreign service is about 8,600. The actual number of British troops in India, allowing for these deductions, is about 61,000.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT — SUPPOSED PLEDGE OF SECRECY IMPOSED ON CIVIL SURGEONS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is a fact, as stated by the hon. Member for Westminster in the daily press, that civil surgeons employed in military hospitals in South Africa have been required by the Army Medical Department to sign a contract not to divulge in any way what their impressions may be on hospital matters.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Civil surgeons have to sign a contract—not being enrolled or amenable to discipline under the Army Act—accepting the terms offered and the obligation of discipline
  644
  therein set out. I have in my hand a copy of the contract. The only paragraphs that bear upon discipline are as follows—
  "During the said period I will devote my whole time and professional skill to my service hereunder, and will obey all orders given to me by commissioned military or naval officers, or by the permanent medical officers of either of those services."
  And the next paragraph runs—
  "In case I shall complete my service hereunder to your satisfaction in all respects, I shall receive at the end of the said period a gratuity of two months full pay at the rate hereinbefore specified; but in case I shall in any manner misconduct myself, or shall be (otherwise than through illness or unavoidable accident) unfit in any respect for service hereunder, of which misconduct or unfitness you shall be sole judge, you shall be at liberty from and immediately after such misconduct or unfitness to discharge me from further service hereunder, and thereupon all pay and allowances hereunder shall cease, and I shall not be entitled to any free passage home or gratuity."
  That is the only contract civil surgeons have to sign, and for my part I cannot discover any foundation for the statement in question.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Arising out of the answer of the hon. Member, I desire to ask him a question which contains a correction of detail, but adds I think very largely to the force and significance of the statement to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire refers. It is this—whether it is not the case that after some letters had been published from doctors in South African hospitals they had to sign a declaration to the effect that they were not to communicate their impressions of hospital matters to the public, or that they were to take the consequences?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge to any such effect. The contract I have read is the only contract we have, and I am unaware of any other contract whatever.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On that point it may be desirable to communicate by telegraph with South Africa as to whether this declaration exists or was enforced.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no objection whatever.

  BATTLE OF THE TUGELA—COL. LONG AND SIR REDVERS BULLER— DESPATCHES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state why the explanation of Colonel Long, R.A., with reference to the circumstances under which the guns were lost at the battle of the Tugela, has been withheld from the public, having regard to the fact that Sir Redvers Buller in his despatch or communication with reference to the capture of these guns, while throwing on 'Colonel Long the responsibility of the mishap, stated that he was too ill at the time to give any explanation; and whether, in justice to Colonel Long, who has been censured without having been heard in his defence, Colonel Long's statement, which has been for a considerable time in the possession of the authorities, will be immediately published.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is not the practice to publish communications of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Redvers Buller said that Colonel Long had no opportunity to give his own account of the transaction? Now that the account has been given, why not publish it in justice to Colonel Long?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because it is not usual to publish documents of that kind. I do not know why the rule should be departed from in this case.

  SOUTH AFRICAN BLUE-BOOK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg-to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say whether any steps wore taken with a view to substantiate the statements contained in letters addressed to the Times of Natal and the Natal Mercury by private individuals previous to their insertion in the Blue-book on South African affairs just issued; and whether it is customary to publish uncorroborated newspaper correspondence in Blue-books.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): There is nothing unusual in the publication of newspaper
  646
  correspondence. The first letter is corroborated by Sir R. Buller's telegram published at page 154; the second by a declaration by Mr. Kennard, made before the Resident Commissioner of Basutoland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Do not the statements appearing in South African papers require confirmation, in view of the fact that South Africa has earned for itself the title of the "land of lies"?

  BOER TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether he has received any report from Lord; Roberts since the release of the prisoners of war at Pretoria as to the treatment accorded to them during their confinement; if he has, what is the purport of it, and when the despatches on the subject will be laid upon, the Table of the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such report, has been received from, Lord Roberts.

  REINFORCEMENTS—STATISTICS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of troops sent to South Africa since 5th June.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 12,203 officers and men.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How many were Regulars?
  MR. WYNDHAM: All, I think; but I cannot pledge myself to that.

  BOER WOMEN SENT BACK TO ENEMY'S LINES.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a proclamation has been issued at Pretoria under which such women as are believed to be the wives of men who are fighting against us are to be driven into the enemy's lines; whether among these women are any who have been rendered destitute through the burning of their farms and crops; and whether the proclamation will be enforced against children as well as, women.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No intimation to this effect has been received at the War Office.

  RESERVE MEDICAL OFFICERS—PROMOTION REGULATIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether paragraph 670, Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion, which provides that Army Reserve officers shall during their employment on Army service be eligible for promotion, applies to Army medical officers; and if this paragraph does not apply to these officers, what are,the grounds of their exclusion from its benefits.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The article in question applies to Army medical officers.

  CAMDEN FORT (CORK) GUN FATALITY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on the 15th instant upon the body of Gunner John Addis, of the South Cork Artillery Militia, who was killed on Monday by the bursting of the breech of a 40-pounder gun at Camden Fort, county Cork; whether the gun was one of four that were injured before, whether it was an out-of date pattern and had been condemned, and whether he can state what precautions are taken to test guns before artillery practice is entered upon; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the War Office will duly compensate the relatives of the deceased gunner, and also the other gunners who were wounded, one of them dangerously, upon that occasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The matter referred to by the hon. Member will be inquired into.
  MR. FLYNN: How soon shall we know the result?
  MR. WYNDHAM: We have had one report, but it is considered necessary to have an expert opinion on the gun. I anticipate receiving that report at no distant date.
  MR. FLYNN: I will put another question down.

  2ND KENT ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS— EASTER CAMP ALLOWANCE.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the War Office, by a letter written early this month, informed the officer commanding the 2nd Kent Volunteer Artillery that the allowances paid for the Easter camp would be deducted at the settlement of the special camp accounts; and whether, in view of the charges which would thereby be thrown upon the corps should they attend the special camp, he could see his way to forego the deduction of the Easter camp charge, amounting to over £400, and so enable this corps, which is up to its full strength, to attend the special camp.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As the corps was specially required in connection with a scheme of mobilisation, the Secretary of State for War has sanctioned the issue of allowances for the Easter camp.

  RIFLE CLUBS—GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCES.
  MR. GODDARD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government is prepared to facilitate the formation and success of rifle clubs by allowing fifty rounds of ammunition per man free, by granting the free use of Government ranges when not required by the Army and Reserve forces, by supplying condemned Lee-Enfield rifles for Morris tube practice, and by issuing Lee-Enfield service rifles in the proportion of one to every ten members without charge to the club.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government will allow to authorised rifle clubs ammunition at cost price up to 100 rounds per member, and Lee-Enfield rifles at cost price in the proportion of one for every ten members. The question of Morris tube rifles has not been raised by the National Rifle Association, through which the War Office is dealing with these clubs. The question of the terms on which the use of Government ranges can be given is under consideration.

  SOUTH DENES (YARMOUTH) CAMP— SISTERS OF NAZARETH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he

  649
  is aware of the fact that the only application made to visit the Camp, South Denes, Yarmouth, was that made by the Sisters of Nazareth, highly commended in South Africa; and what explanation; has been given by Colonel Commanding Brownrigg for their being turned away from the camp now containing 1,000 Roman Catholic Volunteers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am prepared to inquire into this matter.
  DR. TANNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there are 1,000 Catholic troops in this camp, and that no objection was offered by the men to the visits of these sisters?
  [No answer was given.]

  VOLUNTEER ENGINEER CORPS FOR SOUTH EAST LANCASHIRE.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that a communication was received by the War Office on or about the 18th May, inquiring whether sanction would be given for the formation of a Volunteer Corps of Engineers in South East Lancashire, including Manchester, Salford, and neighbouring towns, and that the assurance was given that over 1,000 men connected with the engineering and allied trades had promised to join and to conform with the Volunteer Regulations Act, whether any definite reply has been given; and, if not, can he state whether the necessary sanction and consent of the War Office will be granted for the formation of the proposed corps if all the necessary conditions and requirements are properly undertaken.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question is under the consideration of the general officer commanding North Western District, with whom the persons proposing to raise the corps have been requested to correspond.

  SENIOR NAVAL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY—OFFICIAL RESIDENCE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh (Earl of DALKEITH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the importance of the First
  650
  Sea Lord living at the Admiralty in order to enable him to deal with urgent matters of pressing necessity that arise after office hours, Her Majesty's Government have considered the necessity for providing a residence for him in the Admiralty buildings, or adjacent to them; and, if not, will they undertake to consider it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Government have under consideration a plan for meeting the demand for a residence for the Senior Naval Lord in the vicinity of the Admiralty, and it is hoped that it may be brought to a successful conclusion.

  NAVAL EMERGENCY COAL CONTRACTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, if he will state why coal was taken under emergency contracts for the Naval manœuvres in 1888, and why none has been taken since; whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, as sole judges of the circumstances constituting anticipated or actual war under which contractors shall be called upon to supply on emergency contracts, have decided that the military operations in South Africa and in China are not circumstances such as would constitute actual or anticipated war; and if it be the intention of the Admiralty not to carry out their emergency contracts when the state of the coal market enables them to do better without them, will he in future see that this is notified to the contractors before the contracts are entered into.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Coals for the manæuvres were included in the emergency contracts until 1899. Since then they have been brought under separate contracts, that being, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the preferable course. It has not been considered necessary to come to any such decision as that indicated in the hon. Member's question, coal for China and South Africa being provided for in the ordinary way. With regard to the last paragraph, the question of what notification shall be given to contractors is being considered.

  BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA—CHIROMO AND LAKE NYASS A RAILWAY.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, if it be impossible to assist the British Central African Protectorate with a direct grant, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to guarantee a loan for the construction of a railway from Chiromo to Lake Nyassa.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to undertake such a railway, or to guarantee a loan for its construction.

  MAURITIUS—BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA RIFLES.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the Papers with referencs to the disturbances in connection with the British Central Africa Rifles, when quartered in Mauritius, will be laid before the House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed to lay any Papers on this subject before Parliament.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had letters from Lord Selborne and the Under Secretary of State for War promising that these Papers should be laid on the Table?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I was not aware of that.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman verify my statement? I do not expect him to believe it on my word.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course I entirely accept the statement of the hon. Member, and I will make inquiries into the subject. But the matter has been further considered; and I am not prepared to say now that I will produce Papers on the subject, f do not think it would be in the public interest that I should do so.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH— GOVERNOR GENERAL'S RESIDENCE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  652
  Colonies whether it has been decided to swear the Governor General in at Sydney, and to inaugurate the Australian Commonwealth in that city; whether Sydney will also be the official residence of the Governor General until the establishment of the permanent Federal capital; and whether the inconveniences likely to arise from the Governor General residing in Sydney, while the Federal Parliament has to meet in Melbourne, have been taken into consideration.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Government of New South Wales has been informed that if the other colonies agree, Her Majesty's Government will not object to the Governor General residing at Sydney while the Federal Parliament is not sitting, but that the matter must be subject to the decision of the Federal Administration. While the Federal Parliament is sitting at Melbourne the Governor General will, of course, reside there.

  INDIAN FAMINE—CHOLERA DEATHS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the total number of deaths from cholera in the famine districts, including the native States, since the beginning of the famine.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have not yet received full statistics of cholera deaths in British districts and native States since the beginning of the famine. When cholera became severely epidemic, I asked for weekly telegrams regarding the ravages; and in my answer yesterday I quoted the totals of the figures given in those telegrams which are published with the famine telegrams in the newspapers.

  FAMINE CAMPS—MEDICAL STAFF.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the services of more than one medical man have been available at most of the largo famine camps, containing from 20,000 to 30,000 people, at any time during the famine or since the outbreak of cholera.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have not received details as to the individual distribution of medical officers and medical subordinates at the different relief camps and relief houses. The Famine Codes

  653
  contain full instructions for strengthening the medical staff in famine districts, for provision of hospital accommodation on relief works, for posting a medical officer or a subordinate qualified for independent charge to each hospital, for the duties of such medical officers. The instructions as to engaging additional medical officers and subordinates from outside the regular service, when need arises, are full and clear.

  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the excess charges on passengers' luggage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The correspondence is at present by no means complete. When it is I will consider the propriety of laying it on the Table.

  WATER GAS REGULATIONS
  MR. J. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the Report and recommendations last year of the Departmental Committee appointed in 1898 to inquire into the manufacture and use of water gas, and also to the fact that such gas, made from coke and oil instead of coal, is being increasingly and profitably produced by gas companies, whilst local authorities owning their own gas works are now debarred from laying out such plant, owing to the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction loans for this purpose until the regulations recommended for the use of carburetted water gas are laid down, the Board of Trade will take steps to frame such rules and regulations at an early date.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade cannot give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee by rules and regulations. Legislation would be necessary, and on this point I can only say, as I did in reply to a question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney, on the 25th May, that in any general legislation my right hon. friends, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Local
  654
  Government Board, would probably have a larger interest than the Board of Trade, and that I cannot make any promise on the subject.
  MR. J. W. WILSONwas understood to ask: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a great number of towns water gas is being supplied in excess of the regulation amount?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; but if the hon. Gentleman can give me any information I shall be happy to consider it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that analysis showed that in Dublin 20 per cent. of water gas was used contrary to the recommendations of the Home Office Committee?
  MR RITCHIE: I shall inquire into that.

  BRITISH AND AMERICAN COAL EXPORTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantities of coal shipped from this country and from the United States respectively during the eleven months ending 31st May last, to France, to Germany, and to other European countries.
  MR. RITCHIE: The exports of coal, coke, etc., from the United Kingdom to the countries named in the eleven months ending 31st May, 1900, were as follows: —France, 6,969,313 tons; Germany, 4,973,634 tons; other parts of Europe, approximately 19,000,000 tons. The amounts of coal exported from the United States to these countries in the same period were:— France, 26,336 tons; Germany, 2,126 tons; other parts of Europe, 136,645 tons.

  FIRE BRIGADES COMMITTEE—PREMATURE PUBLICATION OF REPORT.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Home Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the publication in The Times to-day of the principal recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Fire Brigades before the Report has been laid on the Table of the House and circulated, and if he will, as

  655
  chairman, inform the House how this confidential document has been obtained by The Times.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I have seen the publication to which my hon. friend refers, and am sorry I can give him no information whatever as to how or by whom that information was given. The last act of the Committee before separating was to pledge themselves that they would give no information whatever on the subject until the Report was printed and in the hands of Members.

  YORK POSTAL STAFF —ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF POSTMEN.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that an assistant inspector of postmen at York who, although he has passed sixty years of age, has had his period of service extended another five years, is allowed to keep a shop with a beer off-licence; and whether this is in accordance with the rules of the Department.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): When the assistant inspector of postmen referred to attained the age of sixty in April, 1899, he was reported to be efficient in the discharge of his duties, and it was decided that he might remain for the present—not for any specified number of years. As he had been in possession of the off-licence for upwards of twenty years without the knowledge of the Department, it was not, in view of his early retirement, which will very shortly take place, considered necessary to require him to relinquish it.

  LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE—PROMOTIONS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a clerk in the Liverpool Postal Department has been promoted to be a superintendent after twenty-five years service, and that sixty-nine telegraphists in the Liverpool Office are awaiting promotion to the clerks class, some of them having over thirty years service, many of them being established telegraphists at
  656
  the time the recently promoted officer was a corporal of messengers; and whether, in view of the Fawcett Scheme and the Tweedmouth Committee deciding that the Postal and Telegraphic branches of the Post Office should be placed on an equality, the Postmaster General will take steps to carry this into effect.
  MR. HANBURY: This post of assistant superintendent on the postal side of the office was filled by the promotion of a clerk employed on postal duties who was reported to be the best qualified for the position. None of the sixty-nine telegraphists to whom the hon. Member refers would have been capable of performing the duties of the clerkship-vacated by the promoted officer. The Postmaster General takes every opportunity to equalise as far as possible the prospects on the postal and telegraphic sides; but cases must always occur in which promotion is more rapid on one side than on the other.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE— DINNER INTERVALS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a number of telegraphists in the cable room, Central Telegraph Office, have boon punished for exceeding, the thirty minutes allowed for meal relief by one or two minutes; and that the plea of delay in the refreshment branch has been held unsatisfactory in the case of an officer who was supplied with bad meat, and needed the food changed; and whether, seeing that the dinner period is the only relief time permitted in; duties which are frequently of ton and twelve hours duration, the Postmaster General will authorise a relaxation of the rule.
  MR. HANBURY: No telegraphist in the cable room of the Central Telegraph Office has been punished for exceeding his dinner time—thirty minutes—under the circumstances stated in the question. When the delay has been three minutes and upwards he has been admonished; and frequent repetitions of those delays have been punished by the infliction of extra duty. But when they are proved to have arisen from causes over which the telegraphist had no control the excess time is excused. In the absence of

  657
  particulars of the case to which the hon. Member refers, the Postmaster General is unable to give any information. In his opinion no relaxation of the rule, as I have stated it, is called for.

  HARWICH POST OFFICE STAFF.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a female telegraphist in the Harwich post office has been informed that she must be transferred from that office, and proceed at her own expense to the Enfield office; whether she is able to adequately perform all the duties of the Harwich office that are allocated to the female staff; and whether the Postmaster General will investigate the case with a view to provide against the telegraphist being compelled to attend the Enfield post office, and in the event of a transfer, that the Department will bear the cost of the removal.
  MR. HANBURY: The late postmaster of Harwich had five of his relatives employed under him at the Harwich office, it is not desirable in the interest of efficient control that the staff of an office should consist to any large extent of persons who are related to one another, and it has accordingly been decided to make certain transfers of staff from Harwich to other offices. One of these transfers is that to which the hon. Member refers, and it is not proposed to alter the decision arrived at. The telegraphist concerned was wrongly informed by the present Postmaster that she would have to bear her own removal expenses. They will be defrayed up to a reasonable amount by the Department.
  MR. GODDARD: Does not this telegraphist suffer some depreciation of salary by the change?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand not.

  NORTH DEVON NIGHT MAILS.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the night mails for North Devon are sent on from Exeter by luggage train, and that owing to the delay so caused and to the refusal
  658
  of the Post Office to adopt the method of railway sub-offices more generally, letters are not delivered in the outlying country districts until late in the morning, and whether he will take steps to expedite the train service and to adopt in more cases railway sub-offices.
  MR. HANBURY: The question of improving the night mail service to country districts in North Devon is under consideration. The cost of substituting a faster train from Exeter for that now used would be considerable, and the Postmaster General fears that such an alteration would be quite impracticable. It may be possible, however, to effect some acceleration of the local services, and the Postmaster General has caused a communication to be addressed to the local railway company enquiring what would be the cost of improving the Lynton service. If any means are found practicable for improving the postal services to Lynton and Hartland they will be readily adopted.

  IMPERIAL GRANTS IN AID OF EDUCATION.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state approximately the amount which England received from the Imperial Exchequer during the financial year last ended in respect of the operation of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and the Elementary Education Act, 1897.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The amount for England and Wales was, under the first-named Act, £621,516 4s. 11d.; and under the second, £210,890 11s. 11d.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state approximately the amount which Scotland received from the Imperial Exchequer during the financial year last ended in respect of the operation of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1897.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The grants paid in respect of the operation of he Education (Scotland) Act, 1897, are:(1) the additional grant to school boards

  659
  under Section 67 of the Act of 1872, as amended by Section 1 of the Act of 1897. The total paid under this head in the financial year last ended was £44,137 19s. 9d., of which it is estimated that £24,000 was paid in respect of the operation of the Act of 1897, the remainder having been claimable under the Act of 1872. And (2) the aid grant to Voluntary schools, amounting to £12,184 0s. 6d.

  FEES IN SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWI beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the amount of the fees paid by class students in each of the Universities of Scotland; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to assent to the printing of a Return on the subject giving the details in accordance with the notice on the Order Paper for to-day.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I shall be happy to give the hon. and learned Member the replies which have now been received from the Universities, and if, after perusal of those documents, he will confer with the Secretary for Scotland as to the exact form in which he wishes to move for it, the Return will be granted.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES IN SOUTH WESTERN SCOTLAND.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to the continued irregularity of the delivery of newspapers in the South Western District of Scotland, if he will inquire into the cause, and endeavour without further delay to put matters on a better footing.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of the continued irregularity in the delivery of newspapers in the South Western District of Scotland to which the hon. Member refers, but if particulars can be given of any delays which have occurred immediate inquiry on the subject shall be made.
  SIR MARK STEWART: There are so many cases of delay in the delivery of newspapers for twenty-four hours. Is it not for the Post Office to find out these things for itself?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot answer that, as I do not belong to the Post Office, I will, however, consider the point.

  IRISH CENSUS RETURNS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will have arrangements made in the taking of the census in March, 1901, to obtain a Return of the number of persons in Ireland (being of three years of age or upwards) who speak English only or Irish only, or both Irish and English, in like manner as is required in the Census Bill with regard to the speaking of the Welsh language in Wales and the county of Monmouth.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): If the hon. Member will refer to the Returns of the last census in Ireland he will observe that they contained statistics of all persons who spoke Irish only, or Irish and English. Similar statistics will be collected and published in connection with the approaching census, in Ireland.

  MONAGHAN ASYLUM SEWERAGE, SCHEME.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Governors of the Cavan and Monaghan Lunatic Asylum made a demand last week on the County Council of Monaghan for £6,500 to carry out a sewerage scheme; and that this sum is being expended without letting or offering the work by contract; whether he can state who is superintending the carrying out of this work on the asylum premises; whether he is aware that sewerage schemes costing large sums of the ratepayers' money carried out during recent years have proved a failure in the asylum; and whether he will see that the money of the ratepayers is not allowed to be lost now, and whether a contract for this work could still be taken.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As stated by me yesterday, the Local Government Board, on the application of the Asylum Committee, have sanctioned the issue of a loan to the amount mentioned for sewerage works at the asylum, the repayment of the loan to be spread over a period of thirty years. I am informed

  661
  that the works are being carried out by the employment of tradesmen and labourers under the superintendence of Mr. Peddie, a sanitary engineer of high repute, assisted by a civil engineer as clerk of works. The decision as to the manner in which such works are to be executed is vested solely in the Asylum Committee, and there is no obligation imposed upon them to let or offer the execution of such works by contract. No other sewerage scheme has been carried out at this asylum since it was built thirty-one years ago. It would be the duty of the Local Government auditor to inquire into any expenditure of an illegal or unnecessary character in connection with the asylum.

  MASTERSHIP OK THE BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Board of Guardians recently advertised for a master for the workhouse, that a committee of the guardians selected a number of suitable men for the position out of many applicants, and that when the day of election came the question was postponed, which in the opinion of the clerk was illegal; whether he can state the name of the gentleman that the committee thought most suitable for the mastership, and if the guardians will bear the expenses of the candidates who travelled long distances in expectation of the election taking place according to advertisement; and whether he can say what coarse he intends to adopt in reference to the action of the guardians in not carrying out the election of master of the workhouse on the date fixed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The committee appointed by the guardians reported that only eight candidates for the position of master of the workhouse were qualified under the terms of the advertisement, and they recommended the guardians to issue fresh advertisements for candidates. This the guardians decided to do. The Local Government Board have no information as to the statement of opinion attributed to the clerk, or as to the matters referred to in the second paragraph. The Board do not propose to take any action respecting the postponement of the appointment, as the
  662
  guardians appear to have acted within their powers.

  ARREARS OF IRISH SCHOOL GRANTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the arrears of National School Grant for 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895 will be paid only to living teachers, or will the arrears due be paid to the next-of-kin in cases in which the teacher to whom the arrears were due is dead, and whether retired teachers will be paid arrears due.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If the money be voted by Parliament, an equivalent for the so-called arrears of school grant will, under the sanction of the Treasury, be apportioned among all teachers who were entitled to participate in the residual grant of the four years in question. In the case of those teachers since dead, their representatives will receive the amount payable. The grant will be subject to certain deductions on account of the pension fund.

  SNEEM NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the National school teacher at Sneem, county Kerry, has offered at a loss to himself the necessary site for a teacher's residence, and that the only obstacle to the erection of the teacher's residence is that the Local Government Board and the local landlord cannot agree as to the suitability of the site; and whether the Government will use its influence to compel, if necessary, the Local Government Board and the local landlord to come to such an arrangement as will allow the erection of this residence to be proceeded with.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland replied very fully to a question addressed to him on this subject on the 9th February last.* To that reply I have nothing to add except to say that no correspondence has taken place with the Local Government Board on the subject.
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., page 1056.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' CLASS SALARY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BEIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in awarding the future income of first and second class National teachers who, owing to epidemics and severity of the weather, did not receive their full class salary for the last three years and whose results fees and residual grant were lessened in consequence, the Commissioners of National Education make due allowances for those diminutions of salary.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member on referring to Clause 20 of the New Rules will observe that cases in which the Commissioners may deem it inequitable to fix the future incomes of the teachers on the basis of their average incomes for the past three years will be specially considered.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS—NEW SCALE OF SALARIES, CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTIONS, ETC.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the future scale of salaries for National teachers is omitted in the extract from the forthcoming rules of the Commissioners presented to Parliament last week; and whether he can state the future scale of salaries; whether he has observed that, by Rules 11, 12, and 13 of this extract, all assistant teachers and highly classed teachers at present in charge of small schools are degraded from the rank they previously won by good service and success at examinations and whether he will advise the Commissioners of National Education to rule that every teacher at present in the service shall continue to retain his classification, and to be described officially as of his present rank until promoted or depressed by the rules which were in force when he won that class; whether he is aware that, by the operation of the same rules, teachers in small schools are made ineligible for promotion, and thereby prevented from qualifying for the pension of a higher class to which they were formerly entitled to aspire; and if he can take any steps to remedy this alleged grievance.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The future scale of salaries is omitted in the extract
  664
  from the new code of the Commission as it has not yet been fixed by the Commissioners and submitted to the Irish Government and the Treasury. It is impossible to state the future scale of salaries except approximately. It is not true that by Rules 11, 12, and 13 all assistant teachers, and highly-classed teachers at present in charge of small schools, are degraded from the rank they previously won by success at examinations. Every teacher at present in the service will be described officially according to his position in the old class and the new grade in the Annual Register of Teachers. It is impossible to reply to the third paragraph of the question at present, as the necessary modifications of the pension rules have not yet been made.

  IRISH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION — ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, Ireland, does not contain the names of the superintendents of examinations, the Commissioners will consider the advisability of giving the names and professions of these gentlemen in future Reports.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The suggestion in this question will be brought before the Commissioners of Intermediate Education at their next meeting.

  IRISH MONITORS' EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. FIELD(, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the results of the examinations for monitors, held in April last, have not yet been communicated to the candidates, and when will they be informed of the results; and what is the cause of the delay, seeing that over three months have now elapsed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The results of the examinations in question will be made known without delay,

  IRISH CONVICTS—MULDOWNEY AND FINIGAN.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the cases

  665
  of two prisoners named Muldowney and Finigan, of Croughwell, who were convicted in Sligo and have been about seventeen years confined; and whether he will review their cases with a view to recommending His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to grant their discharge.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The prisoners named in the question were convicted of murder at the Sligo Assizes in August, 1884, and sentenced to death. The sentence was subsequently commuted to one of penal servitude for life. Their cases were under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant in August of last year, when it was decided that the law must take its course. The case of convict Finigan was again under consideration in November, with a like result. As respects the second paragraph, it is not my province to act as suggested. Any application or memorial praying for a mitigation of sentence should be addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, in whom alone is vested the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
  MR. DILLON: When will these cases come up again in the ordinary course for reconsideration?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot say; but if a memorial is presented they are immediately reconsidered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does not the Lord Lieutenant act on the advice of his Chief Secretary in exercising the prerogative of mercy?
  Mr. G. W. BALFOUR: No, Sir; he does not.

  IRISH MARKSMEN AT BISLEY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a team selected from twenty Irishmen representing all Ireland has won the Elcho Shield at rifle shooting; whether these men are prevented from competing for the Queen's Prize because the law prohibits Volunteer corps in Ireland; and whether he proposes to enrol Volunteers in Ireland or establish rifle clubs where all who so desire may have an opportunity of learning rifle shooting.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am aware that the Elcho Shield has been won this year by an Irish team. The second para-
  666
  graph correctly assumes that legislation would be necessary for the establishment of Volunteer corps in Ireland. The question of the formation of rifle clubs should be addressed to the War Department.

  POLICE REGULATIONS AT QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether passengers arriving at Queenstown from the United States are asked by a policeman for their names and destination, and these duly noted; whether similar information is taken at Liverpool, Southampton, or any other British port at which American passengers are landed; and if not, why it is obtained at Queenstown, and passengers landing on Irish soil treated differently to those arriving in great Britain.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the question. The information is freely given by passengers and has only once been refused during the last twelve months. The practice has existed for twenty years. I am unable to say whether similar information is taken at ports outside Ireland.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of all rules and orders made or issued under or in consequence of the Local Government (Ireland) Act since last year's Return.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Yes, the further Return referred to will be laid upon the Table.

  MAYO ASSIZES—CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the failure of a motion on behalf of the Crown, made last Tuesday at the Mayo Assizes at Castle-bar, to commit Mr. William O'Brien for contempt of court; whether he is aware that, so far back as October, 1882, legislation for the curtailment of the power of arbitrary committal for contempt of court

  667
  was promised in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of the day; and whether, having regard to the remarks of the Chief Justice of England in April, 1896, and to the fact that one man has actually suffered imprisonment for 743 days for that offence, the Government will take steps for the introduction of legislation to define the power of judges to commit for contempt of court, and to render that power subject to appeal.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: With respect to the first paragraph, the article published in the journal named the Irish People, in reference to which the application was made, was, in the words of the judge, calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a pending criminal prosecution and to interfere with the fair course of justice, but the failure of the application was due to the fact that though this journal had for months previously been advertised throughout the county Mayo as edited by Mr. William O'Brien, that gentleman, to the astonishment, I think, of everybody, denied on oath that he was editor in the ordinary sense, and repudiated all responsibility for the contents of the paper. As respects the second and third paragraphs, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did not the learned judge express his regret that he could not grant costs against the Crown?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am told that that is not the case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He said he had no statutory power.

  CASTLEBAR POST OFFICE.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state whether a site has yet been purchased for a post office in Castlebar, county Mayo; and, if so, what progress has been made with regard to the erection of the proposed building.
  MR. HANBURY: The site for a new post office at Castlebar has now been decided upon, and arrangements will be made for building as soon as possible.

  CORNALARAGH POSTAL DELIVERIES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters for some time past have been irregularly delivered in the townland of Cornalaragh, county Monaghan, near Carrickmacross, and district; and whether, seeing that a house to house delivery in this neighbourhood has been long promised, he can state why this promise has not been carried out.
  MR. HANBURY: Inquiry shall at once be made as regards the postal delivery in the townland of Cornalaragh, and as good a service shall be afforded as the circumstances warrant.

  GREAGHLONE LETTER BOX.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the letter box at Mr. Francis Lambe's, Greaghlone, Carrickmacross, county Monaghan, has not been visited by a postman for several days past; and, whether he can explain the reason of this, neglect, and if he will take steps that this state of things will not occur again in this thickly populated district.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that, owing to a local misunderstanding, the letter box at Greaghlone was not cleared for some days recently. Direetions have been given for the box to be cleared regularly in future, and at a later hour than formerly.

  PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN—ORNAMENTAL WATERS, TREES, ETC.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any step has been taken to ascertain the cost of providing a lake in the Phoenix Park such as is provided to enhance public enjoyment in Hyde Park and St. James's Park, and what are the respective areas of these three parks.
  MR. HANBURY: An estimate is being prepared, but important questions arise as to the source from which water should be taken and on other points which cannot be settled without some delay. The Board of Works are looking into the subject thoroughly. The area of the Phoenix Park is 1,752 acres. The area of Hyde Park is 360 acres, and of St. James's Park 93 acres.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would ask the keepers of the London parks to furnish the keeper of Phoenix Park with a list of the ornamental trees and shrubs grown in St. James's Park and the Green Park, and give authority for any expense that may be entailed in providing for the planting of similar trees and shrubs in Phoenix Park.
  MR. HANBURY: A list of the ornamental trees and shrubs which have done well in the London parks shall be sent to the Board of Works, who will decide how far they are suitable for the Phoenix Park also.

  SNEEM PIER.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have built a pier at Sneem, county Kerry, at a cost of £1,500, and that a goods store is a necessity on or near the pier for the protection and storage of goods; whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, the trading companies calling at the pier, and the people of the locality wore prepared to erect this store, and that the erection of the storehouse was prevented by Mr. Warden, the local landlord; and, can he state what steps the Government will take to compel Mr. Warden to allow the goods store to be built for protection of goods and use of the trading public.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): The Congested Districts Board, in 1898, built a quay at Sneem, at a cost of £1,158. The Board proposed, in Ma}7, 1899, to erect a shed on the quay for the accommodation of the public, but decided to take no further steps in the matter on learning from Mr. Warden that the owners of the property adjoining the quay contemplated building a store themselves. No representations have since been made to the board on the matter. The Government have no power to take any steps such as suggested in the last paragraph.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what objection Mr. Warden has to the Congested Districts Board building a store?
  MR. PLUNKETT: We do not know that Mr. Warden has any objection. We have received no representations from the district.

  IMPORTS OF RUSSIAN EGGS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the importation of Russian eggs into Ireland, and their subsequent exportation as Irish eggs to. England; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to this system, and take steps to prevent its continuance.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The attention of the Department has been drawn to the recent representations in the public press as to the alleged importation of Russian eggs into Ireland, and their subsequent exportation as Irish eggs. The matter is being inquired into.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these eggs, do not reach the House of Commons?
  MR. PLUNKETT: That is the duty of the Kitchen Committee.

  AGRICULTURE—THE WARBLE FLY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether his Department has issued leaflets to stock-owners containing instructions to prevent the warble fly from harassing and injuring cattle; and whether he intends to introduce legislation making it a penal offence for stock-owners to omit taking simple precautions to prevent the suffering caused by the warble fly to cattle and the loss to the sellers and buyers of hides.
  MR. PLUNKETT: A leaflet has been issued by the Department containing instructions how to prevent the warble fly from harassing and injuring cattle. I do not think this pest can be dealt with by legislation.

  HAGUE CONFERENCE—RATIFICATION OF CONVENTION.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Convention, signed at the Hague, has been yet ratified by the Powers of

  671
  Europe; if not, when is the Convention expected to be ratified.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ratifications of Great Britain, France, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Spain, and the United States are at present in the custody of the Netherlands Government, but the date of the ratification has not yet been definitely settled. It will probably be early in September.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the Leader of the House now state anything definite as to the business on Tuesday, and also when the Supplementary Army Estimate will be in the hands of Members? It ought to be in our hands a considerable time before the statement is made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Tuesday I find it is impossible for my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies to have the Papers in the hands of Members in sufficient time to discuss the Colonial Office Vote. My original arrangement would, therefore, appear to be satisfactory—namely, to take the Colonial Office Vote on Tuesday next.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhen shall we have the Papers?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope they will be in the hands of Members on Monday morning.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Papers requisite to discuss the Foreign Office Vote cannot be in the hands of Members in time for the discussion on Tuesday, and therefore I will not put down the Vote for that day. It will in all probability stand first on the last day of Supply, probably Thursday week. I will put down after the Colonial Office Vote the other Votes in Class II. My hon. friend the Under Secretary for War hopes to have the terms of the Supplementary Estimate in the hands of Members on Monday, but, in any case, on Tuesday.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will there be any opportunity of discussing the Ashanti Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That will come after the Colonial Vote, as usual.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., without Amendment.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 292.]
  Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 292.]
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Older [this day] for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Poor Removal Bill, Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill, without amendment.
  That they have agreed to—Amendments to Land Charges Bill [Lords], without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to County Courts in Ireland." County Courts (Ireland) Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to registration in Provincial and Diocesan Registries." Diocesan Registration Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to relieve Members of County Councils and other Local Authorities from disqualification by reason of absence in certain cases." Members of Local Authorities Relief Bill [Lords].

NEW BILLS.
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) EXTENSION.
  Bill to extend the provisions of the Medical Act, 1858, ordered to be brought in by General Laurie, Mr. Rothschild, Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree, Colonel Wyndham Murray, Mr. Middlemore, and Sir James Fergusson.
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) EXTENSION BILL.
  "To extend the provisions of the Medical Act, 1858," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854, 1873, and 1888, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, and Mr. Yoxall.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS AM ENDM ENT BILL.
  "To amend the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854, 1873, and 1888," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]
  TEACHERS OF MUSIC REGISTRATION.
  Bill for the registration of Teachers of Music, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Sir Henry Bemrose, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Alban Gibbs, Sir William Houldsworth, and Mr. Provand.
  TEACHERS OF MUSIC REGISTRATION BILL
  "For the registration of Teachers of Music," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 30th July, and to be printed. [Bill 309.]

  SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS IV.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £787,503 (including a Supplementary sum of £95,434) be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the
  674
  Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  MR. O'MALLEY: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of bringing before the Committee the unsatisfactory condition of primary education in Ireland. This House has given, and rightly given, a great deal of its time and attention to the question of education in Great Britain, and it will be admitted that vast progress has been made for the last thirty years towards educational perfection in England, Scotland, and Wales. Old methods and old systems have given way to new methods and now systems, and although the change has been slow, it has been sure and steady, and to-day the British people of all grades, and especially the poorer portion of the people, enjoy an excellent, if not a perfect, system of education. I believe that England is. still behind the Continental countries in educational matters, but from year to year this House gives effect to legislation in the direction of improving it, and it may be said with truth that to-day the people of England, Scotland, and Wales have little to complain upon this question. But, Sir, how stands the case of Ireland? That is the question I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee, and I ask for its indulgence while I attempt to do so. I have seen what has been done for education in these countries within the last thirty years—old ideas and systems, as I have said, giving way to new ideas and systems; but in Ireland I have seen, during all those years, old-fashioned ideas and old-fashioned and stupid systems maintained and adhered to with, I may say, surprising tenacity and obstinacy. The same books that were in use in the so-called National schools when I was a boy are in use there to-day. One set of school books, one system of examination, one narrow set of ideas, one narrow groove. It is true that in their new rules just laid before Parliament the Commissioners have some important and satisfactory changes; but while the countries of the whole world have been for years alive to the necessity and importance of education, the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have remained ignorant or indifferent to the necessity and importance of having the people of Ireland properly and intelligently educated. But,

  675
  Sir, I do not purpose discussing in detail the out-of-date and stupid National school system of education in Ireland, nor shall I criticise the new rules. There is one phase of it, and one alone, that I want to dwell upon to-day, and that is the policy of the Commissioners of Education in ignoring the advantages of the bilingual system of instruction in those parts of Ireland where the Irish language is in general use and may be said to be the home language. Hon. Gentlemen in this House who know anything of the Welsh educational system, or who have acquired other languages than their own, will recognise the necessity and the advantage of the bilingual system, and although its importance has been urged, and strongly urged, upon the Irish Educational Commissioners, this old-fashioned and obsolete body ignore the representations made to them on this matter; and therefore, Sir, we are compelled to bring this all-important and vital subject for the proper education of our people before this Parliament. Hon. Members may be aware that this Irish language question has engaged and is engaging the anxious attention of the people of Ireland. It is a most important question, and the sooner Parliament realises that fact and deals with it the better.
  We look at this question from two standpoints. We believe that as a separate entity, if I may say so; as a separate and distinct nationality; as a Celtic people, we should speak our own Celtic language. I shall not go into the policy and the methods adopted by this country in the past in penalising the Irish language, but the Irish people are now determined to restore that language as far as it is in their power to do so, so that future generations of Irishmen will be able to speak their own language just as the people of Wales to-day speak their Welsh tongue. This Parliament can help in that direction, and this Parliament is bound to recognise and respect—if it acts constitutionally—the wishes of the Irish people. That is our first standpoint. The second standpoint from which we view this question is the urgent necessity for properly educating our children in those Irish-speaking districts where Irish is the home language. The present system is altogether wrong in principle and most pernicious in its effects. It is utterly im-
  676
  possible to acquire a proper knowledge of the subjects taught in those schools in the Irish speaking districts unless the bi-lingual system is adopted. I want that fact to be thoroughly realised by the Committee, and to enable the Committee to fully appreciate it, perhaps it will allow me to quote a few passages from the report of Mr. Leggard one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in Wales. I believe efforts have been made to teach the Welsh children through the medium of English, but it has been fully recognised of late that that system was a hopeless failure, and now I believe that the bilingual system is universally adopted in the Principality. What does Mr. Leggard say in his report for 1898?
  "No system can really flourish unless it is supported by national sentiment and unless it has won the affections of the people. In the case of Wales, it is clear, I think, that education has got a real hold of the popular sympathies, just as it has in the northern part of Great Britain.
  "It would be well to bear in mind that in some of the Welsh-speaking districts the children never hear a word of English outside the schools, and so the English language is something quite apart from their daily life and interests, and is merely a vehicle for school lessons. … Should it not be frankly recognised that English is a foreign language, and that it should be taught by the best methods of teaching foreign languages? Welsh children should not merely learn bookish English, but they should be encouraged from the infants' school upwards to talk in the foreign tongue about things that interest them—their homes, their games, their pet animals; and when a vocabulary is acquired simple rules of grammar will gradually be deduced, and the children will be trained in due course by speaking correctly to write correctly. Instruction in English on the lines I have indicated should help Welsh children to appreciate better their own mother tongue. …
  "For Welsh-speaking districts such explanatory instruction (on other subjects beside reading) should in the earlier years of school life be to a great extent given in the vernacular, and the children will thus be able to assimilate what they hear. This they cannot do while they are puzzled by the unfamiliar sounds of an unknown tongue."
  Mr. L. J. Roberts, one of Mr. Leggard's colleagues, in his report for the same year, remarks—
  "The use of bilingual reading-books systematically throughout a school helps to do away with the difficulties of the Welsh child. He gains self-confidence, he sees delicate varieties of meaning which he could not otherwise grasp, his taste for reading in both languages is developed, and the mere practice of comparing the idioms of two languages is itself a valuable mental exercise."

  677
  Mr. Jones, another colleague of Mr. Leggard, says in his report—
  "The future of Welsh education is very promising, and the Welsh people have now placed within their reach educational advantages which were undreamt of at the beginning of the century."
  Can that be said of Ireland? I ask again: Can that be said of Ireland? and if not, why not? That is the question.
  I now come to a report by Mr. Darlington, another Welsh school inspector. Mr. Darlington says—
  "I feel strongly that reading as at present taught is not doing as much as it might do in the direction of stimulating the general intelligence of the scholars. The fact that in teaching a Welsh child to read English we are really teaching him the use of a foreign language is at present not sufficiently taken into account, and one feels too often that a mechanical fluency in reading English is accompanied by the vaguest possible notion of the sense of the passage read. The use of bilingual readers has done much to make the reading lesson a more intelligent exercise. Still more satisfactory results are obtained in schools where the practice of oral translations forms a regular part of the reading lesson."
  These reports, from which I have given only, a few extracts, are taken from the general report of Mr. Leggard, the Chief Inspector. Mr. Leggard concludes his enlightened and interesting report in these words—
  "I will only say in conclusion that the state of elementary education in Wales is full of encouragement, provided those concerned with it do not rest contented with their achievements in the past, but endeavour to make steady and united progress in the future."
  I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that there should be no further necessity for me to argue the point as to the advantages of the bilingual system where English is not the home language. I have quoted from the reports of several Welsh school inspectors in support of my case, and now I shall quote from a solitary Irish Commissioner—Dr. Starkie, who stands alone, or almost alone, in the wilderness of prejudice, ignorance, and antediluvianism which surrounds the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. Dr. Starkie, in a speech last February, used these words—
  "The National Board had made a disastrous blunder in thrusting on a Gaelic-speaking race a system of education produced after a foreign model and utterly alien to their sympathies and antecedents. The attempt was unsound (he continued), both philosophically and practically. The Board were guilty of narrow pedantry in neglecting as worthless the whole spiritual life of the pupil, and the multitude
  678
  of associations, imaginations, and sentiments that formed the content of his consciousness. To this unhappy blunder may be attributed the want of initiative and independence, and distaste of knowledge, which so hamper the industrial development of Ireland—qualities so alien to the quick sympathies and alert intelligence which are the most salient characteristics of our race."
  It is quite refreshing to come across an Irish official with such broad, enlightened, and patriotic views. As far as I know, there is only one Nationalist on this educational board—Archbishop Walsh, and not only is he a Nationalist but he is a man of great culture, and he is a strong advocate for the bilingual system. Who are the other Commissioners? The present members are the following—

  Nominated in

  Lord Morris

  1868

  E. G. Dease, D.L

  1880

  W. L. Newell, LL.D., C.B., J. P.

  1886

  J. Malcolm Inglis, J.P.

  1887

  Sir Percy R. Grace., Bart, D. L.

  1888

  James Morell

  1888

  G. F. Fitzgerald, F. T. C. D., F. R. S

  1888

  Sir H. Bellingham, Bart., D. L.

  1890

  Center Hon. Christopher Palles, Lord Chief Baron

  1890

  Rev. Henry Evans, D. D.

  1890

  Sir R. Blennerhassett, Bart., D. L.

  1891

  Judge Shaw

  1891

  Rev. Hamilton B. Wilson. D. D.

  1892

  Archbishop Walsh, D. D.

  1895

  Stanley Harrington, J. P.

  1895

  W. R. J. Molloy, J. P.

  1895

  Edward Dowden, LL. D., D. C. L.

  1896

  Rev. J. H. Bernard, D. D., F. T. C. D

  1897

  Center Rev. Mervyn Archdall, D. D

  1897

  W. J. M. Starkie (Resident Commissioner)

  1899

  In that list of twenty gentlemen, I venture to say that with the exception of Dr. Walsh there is not a man amongst them who is not a Unionist. They are men who have a horror of every Nationalist sentiment, who are steeped to the lips in bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance, men who see in this Gallic League movement, the Scarlet Lady of Rome or a Republican Ireland. These are the gentlemen the Government of this country entrust the education of the Catholic and Nationalist people of Ireland to! Is it any wonder that the Irish people hate your modes of governing their country?
  Well, Sir, school inspectors have strongly recommended the use of bilingual systems in several parts of

  679
  Ireland. The Bishops of Ireland have recommended it. Cardinal Logue, the head of the Irish Episcopacy, is a missionary in the work. Over 200 school managers—representing over a thousand schools—Protestants as well as Catholics, have petitioned the fossils in favour of it. Public bodies, such as poor law guardians, county councils, district councils galore, have passed resolutions in favour of it. In fact, Sir, practically the whole of Ireland is most earnestly in favour of the bilingual system; and I suppose it is because they are in favour of it that the Commissioners are against it. Such is the way we are governed in Ireland.
  I am now, Sir, going to toll the Committee what, I suppose, I should have told it in the beginning of my observations: that we have still in Ireland a large number of people who speak only the Irish language, and still a larger number who speak both languages—Irish and English. Along the coast from Donegal, round west to Waterford, there are at least 30 per cent. of the people speaking the Gaelic tongue. I hold in my hand a table showing the population in 1891— the last census—of eleven counties, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Limerick, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, and Waterford. The total population in these eleven counties in 1891 was 2,004,193, or nearly half the population of the whole of Ireland. The number of Irish speakers as given in the census list was 638,821, so that the percentage of persons speaking Irish in 1891 was 32. The total number of children in the primary schools at that time was 308,269, and 32 per cent. of that number would give 95,734 children as speaking the Irish language in 1891. That is under the estimate, because a great many of them will not admit that they speak Irish. In many of these counties Irish is the home language—that is, the children never hear a word of English spoken except while they are in school. I know this to be a fact, for throughout the whole of Connemara, my own constituency, the people invariably talk to each other in Irish. Is it not monstrous to think that these children are handicapped in life by this stupid unilingual system, which not only leaves the children uneducated, but positively works mental and moral destruction upon them? I daresay the superior Englishman will only see another
  680
  sentimental Irish grievance in this. Be it so. Your attitude will only add another link to that long chain that binds, not England and Ireland in loving brotherhood, but adds a link to that chain that binds the people of Ireland and the people of the Irish race in a bond of hatred and ill-will to your infernal system and methods of governing our country.
  The Chief Secretary is reported to have stated in this House, four years ago—
  "He could not see that it was desirable to artificially stimulate the study of Irish. If there was a national desire to do so, he would not stand in the way of it. There were, it is true, districts in Ireland where the national language was the language of the people, and where that was the case it was probably true that the best way to teach the children was to teach them in the language that they naturally spoke."
  These were his words, and I thank the Chief Secretary for having uttered them. I hope he will see the necessity of pushing these sentiments into effect. What has he done to satisfy the national demand? Does he want further evidence before he is satisfied that there is a national demand? The Irish Members to a man support this claim. But of course they do not count. Does Cardinal Logue count? Do the Bishops of Ireland count? What of the 200 managers that memoralised the Commissioners? Do they not count? What of the public bodies? Do they count? I will give the right hon. Gentleman something that may perhaps count—that certainly should count. I have here a. resolution from the Central Executive of the National Teachers' Association, and with the permission of the House I will read it—
  "That as practical educationists we heartily endorse the statement made by Dr. Starkie, the Resident Commissioner of National Education, in his speech at Glasnevin on the 19th February last, that the National Board was guilty of a disastrous blunder in thrusting upon a Gaelic-speaking race a system of education produced after a foreign model and utterly alien to their sympathies and antecedents. In order, therefore, that tardy justice might be done to tens of thousands of children in the Irish-speaking districts, we hereby demand that in all places where Irish is the home language pupils shall be taught to read and write Irish from their first entrance into school," etc.
  I will quote one other authority. At the National Teachers' Congress, recently held,

  681
  the following resolution was unanimously passed—
  "That we cordially recommend all National teachers to use their opportunities on behalf of the preservation of the Irish language. Being an important aid to a proper elementary education throughout the country, and its use in instruction being recommended to teachers by the Commissioners of National Education, we deeply regret the want of provision for the instruction of teachers, and request the Commissioners and the managers of the training colleges to have professors of Irish in those colleges. That while not desiring to reduce the extent of the programme for a certificate of competency to teach Irish, we believe that in the matter of text-books the programme could be considerably improved. We are also strongly of opinion that the programme for pupils should he so altered as to extend over five years, be more suitably graduated, and be freed as much as possible from impractical matter. That in all places where Irish is the home language, the pupils shall he taught to read and write Irish from their first entrance into the school," etc.
  I shall trouble the Committee with one more quotation. Father O'Leary, the parish priest of Castlelyons, co. Cork, writing in the Freeman's Journal of last Tuesday, in reply to Lord Russell of Killowen, who unfortunately is one of the very few educated Irishmen who do not see eye to eye with us in this matter. Father O'Leary puts the case admirably, and I shall only quote a few lines from his argument proving the evil results from the unilingual system. Father O'Leary says—
  "I will ask his Lordship to accompany me in spirit while we pay a visit to a 'National School' situated in one of the Irish-speaking districts of this country. There stands the teacher. He never speaks a single word of Irish to any of his pupils. Look at the faces of the children, especially those whose home speech is Irish unmixed. They are like French children who never spoke a word of English, placed in an English school, and forbidden to speak a single word of French. There is a fixed, dull, closed-up expression on their faces. Examine them in their lessons. They repeat syllables of words, but you can see at once that the words are not for them the expression of ideas. Ask the meaning of a word. They repeat the syllables of the meaning exactly as given at the head of the lesson, but for them the meaning has no meaning. Ask for the sense of a sentence. The answer is dead silence. A parrot is not capable of giving the sense of phrases which he utters. Follow those children home. Hear them plunge into their native element. The dull, fixed expression disappears from the face at once. All the varying beams of keen intelligence shine forth at every word and at every turn of expression. The following day they put on again the mask of dulness."
  682
  If the right hon. Gentleman, and if this House is not satisfied with the volume of public and enlightened opinion which I have referred to, upon the necessity and urgency of introducing a bilingual system in certain districts in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman and this House will never be satisfied with any further evidence on the matter, unless, indeed, they got some outward and visible sign of the indignation and disgust that will fill the breasts of Irishmen if their reasonable and moderate claim is not soon recognised. But I do not despair that this House here to-day will mark its appreciation of our just claim in this language question. The speech of one moment from those benches opposite would be worth more than all our speeches put together. I hope we shall have some speeches from those benches in our favour to-day. I would appeal to the Committee to listen to us for once while we make our most moderate claim. We have heard a good deal in the last few years of your having robbed us of two and a half millions a year for many years. That may have been to your material advantage. But in robbing us of our native language you have robbed us of that which has not enriched you, but has made us poor indeed. In conclusion, I say, give us back our language. Revise your educational systems in Ireland, so that our children, in those Irish speaking districts that I have referred to, shall be enabled, as Welsh children are enabled, to acquire a proper knowledge of English, which is now more necessary than ever for their equipment in the battle of life. Do something genuine and substantial to promote and encourage the revival of our Gaelic tongue in our primers and intermediate schools. It will cost you little or nothing to do so. And if you now respond to the universal and passionate demand of the Irish people and of the Irish race, although you will be doing but simple justice, you will be going a long way towards making reparation for the countless wrongs your country has inflicted upon Ireland. Sir, I move to reduce the Vote.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to second the motion which has been made by my hon. friend in the admirable speech which he has just delivered. I confess that I regret that there is such a scanty attendance in the

  683
  House, because it is impossible to conceive a subject which more deeply interests the people of Ireland than the one which is now under discussion. Sir, Ireland takes a keen interest in this question, because Ireland believes that the whole future of the Irish race may be said to be largely bound up with this question. In the whole history of English misgovernment in Ireland I believe there is no such glaring instance as this of flagrant disregard of the unanimous public opinion of the country and of obstinate stupidity in a disastrous course. This matter concerns the people of Ireland vitally, because it concerns the education of the great mass of the poorer children in Ireland—that is, those who will be the future Irish nation. Now, Sir, allow me, without repeating any of the arguments used by my hon. friend in moving this motion, to state in my own words as concisely as I can what the case is we desire to present to the House. Roughly speaking, it is estimated that there are some 700,000 Irish-speaking people in Ireland, and it is estimated that there are some 70,000 Irish children attending the National schools who do not know one single syllable of English. Now, Sir, for these 70,000 children there is no provision whatever.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there are 70,000 children in Ireland at the present time who are unable to speak a word of English?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I say it is estimated that there are 70,000 children attending these National schools—perhaps I put it a little too far in saying that they do not know a syllable of English— who know little or no English, and whose home language is Irish.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: According to the census of 1891 the total number of Irish-speaking persons in Ireland was only 31,121.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I still maintain that the figures I have given to the Committee are correct. But, after all, it is a question of degree; and if the right hon. Gentleman supposes that his figures are right and the figures supplied to me
  684
  are wrong, how far will that bring him in refusing? Because if it is only a question of 36,000 children, or of 30,000 children, or of 20,000 children, still the case would be a monstrous one if no provision whatever is to be made for the proper teaching of these children. But it is not merely that there is no special provision whatever for the teaching of these children, whose home language is Irish, but there is no provision whatever in other districts, where Irish is not so much spoken, to enable Irish to be taught as a remunerated subject in school hours. The case which we make is this: that in all places—I speak not now of children who cannot speak a word of English—but in all cases, in all districts where the home language is Irish, the children from those homes going into the National schools should be taught to read and write their own language, and should be taught English through the medium of their own language; and in the second place that Irish ought to be taught in all schools of Ireland as a remunerated subject in school hours wherever the circumstances of the school, in the opinion of the managers, warranted it. That is the demand, stated as concisely as I think it is possible to state it. Let me ask now who makes the demand. Sir, I believe it would be impossible to find a demand made with more complete unanimity from the people of Ireland than this one. In the first place, let me point out that the demand has been formally brought before the Board of National Education in Ireland on a memorial from the managers of 1,200 National schools in the Irish-speaking districts. It is supported, as my hon. friend has mentioned, by the declarations of the Irish bishops. I may be allowed to repeat what the Irish bishops have said. This is the unanimous resolution passed by the Catholic bishops of Ireland—
  "We strongly recommend that in the primary schools in all Irish-speaking districts the instruction should be bilingual, English being taught through the medium of Irish. We also regard it as most desirable in the primary schools of other districts that the Irish language should be taught to the children in the third and the higher classes wherever the managers of the schools deem it advisable, and the parents make no objection."
  And in addition to the unanimous declaration of all the Catholic bishops in Ireland, there are members of the Protestant Episcopacy who take the same

  685
  view; and some of them—one of whom has recently passed away (I mean the late Dr. Greaves)—take a most passionate interest in this question. Almost all the public-elected boards in Ireland have made similar expressions. Corporations, county councils, district councils, town commissions, urban and district councils, who have spoken—and many of them have spoken on the question—have given expression to the same view. There is also the unanimous declaration laid before the Board of National Education from the clerical managers of the schools in the province of Connaught, which is the province chiefly concerned in this demand. Then there is the declaration which has been alluded to by my hon. friend, made by the executive of the National Teachers' Association—that is to say, the men who are engaged in the practical work of teaching in the schools, and who, so far from raising any objection, desire that this concession should be made, and that Irish should be taught in their schools. The same demand comes from the National Teachers' Congress, held the other day in the city of Derry. The Irish Members of Parliament are unanimous in supporting this demand. I do not know whether there is any individual Irish Member of Parliament who has any objection to Irish being taught in the National schools, but I have never heard of one; certainly it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Irish Members of all parties in this House take the same view. Perhaps the most remarkable testimony that this view is a sound one has come from the ranks of the National Board itself. Dr. Starkie has been alluded to, and my hon. friend has quoted some of his words. I am not going back upon them now, although perhaps I may have again to allude to them before I conclude; but I would point out that this demand conies from the most responsible Commissioner of the Board of National Education in Ireland, backing up the unanimous request from every public body and every representative of public opinion in Ireland. And, Sir, I can quote the Chief Secretary as a friend to this demand. My hon. friend quoted a declaration which the Chief Secretary made some years ago; but this very session the right hon. Gentleman, if I am not mistaken, in answer to a question across the floor of the House, made a
  686
  most friendly declaration. He did not perhaps go the extreme length that some advocates of the Gaelic revival in Ireland go, but he made a most sympathetic-answer, because he said first he fully believed that where Irish was the language of the children their education could be more fully carried out through the medium of their own language.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That, no doubt, refers to children who come from Irish-speaking homes. In the second place, the Chief Secretary went on to say—
  "While I could not undertake to artificially stimulate the study of Irish, yet if there is a widespread demand for its teaching I would not stand in the way."
  Therefore, Sir, I think I am justified in quoting the right hon. Gentleman himself as a friend to the demand which is now made. Now, Sir, I think I have said enough to show that it would be quite impossible to conceive a demand more influentially put forward and more universally supported in Ireland than this demand which we put forward to-day. It is supported by every class of the population; it is supported by the hierarchy and the clergy of not one, but, I believe, of all denominations in Ireland. It is supported by the managers of the schools, by the teachers of the schools, by the elected representatives of the people, whether in this House or in the public boards, throughout the country, and I think I am justified, therefore, in my assertion that no more influential demand was ever made in this House. Having stated what the demand is, and why we are making it, let me consider whether the demand is in itself reasonable, moderate, and based upon precedent, and whether it is not really one which, from an Irish point of view, should be considered in the general interest of the country. Is it reasonable. The present system of teaching in the Irish-speaking districts has been proved by bitter experience to be useless, and that is the explanation of the alarming proportion of illiterates which obtains? in many districts of Ireland. The whole experience of this attempt to teach English through the medium of English to children who come from Irish-speaking homes has been to show that these children, after they leave school,

  687
  rapidly lapse into illiteracy. All experience proves that the bilingual system of education for such districts is the best. I am loth to trouble the House, but I would like to read one or two sentences from a very weighty memorial which has been presented to the National Board of Education from the managers of 1,200 schools. That memorial has been treated with the scantiest courtesy, and so far as I can see has received no answer at all. These gentlemen, Protestant and Catholic alike included in the list of the managers of 1,200 schools, say—
  "The children of these districts come from Irish-speaking homes, where all the familiar converse of life, and, still more, all the higher and more spiritual ideas, are habitually expressed by their parents and elders in Irish. The first foundations, and the most important part of the mental development of the children are thus naturally made in the Irish language. We consider it to be a radical error, on the entrance of the children into school, to completely ignore the natural foundations thus laid, and to commence de novo their education in an unfamiliar language. To ignore the utility of Irish in teaching these children from the out-set, is, in our opinion, a primary blunder for many reasons. It is in itself an unnatural and irrational method of education. It deliberately puts on one side all that the children may have learned not alone of the vocabulary of common life, but of the finer shades of thought and feeling which are eminently characteristic of the Irish language. It also puts aside the spiritual traditions of the Irish language, leaving their place to be supplied by what should only supplement them, and could be made to supplement them, in Irish as well as, or better than, in English—namely, direct memorised instructions. Experience has shown that the native traditional taste for poetry and other forms of literature and for music is taken away from the people along with their native language. A still more grievous evil is that their respect for home, parents, national traditions, and the past of their own people is undermined by the present system, and thus the foundations of the civic virtues of self-respect and self-reliance, so conducive to the welfare of a people, are shaken from the commencement. It often happens under the present system that after a number of years at school young people practically lapse into illiteracy, and forget how to read and write simple English. Even of those who may seem to have profited more a large number have little better than a mechanical proficiency, and from the standpoint of material advancement are hardly to be distinguished from the class of illiterates. We believe that these defects in education will be removed by teaching the children to read and write, and utilise to its fullest capacity the language in common use among the grown people in these districts. This belief is not grounded solely on a priori reasons, but is fully borne out by the experiences of primary education in Great Britain, where for some years the Welsh language has
  688
  been employed in education in the way in which we seek to have Irish employed."
  I ought, perhaps, to apologise for reading so lengthy an extract, but the sound reasonable argument contained in it deserves the serious attention of all interested in the education of the young in Ireland. For my part I do not know what is the answer to it. Dr. Starkie, Resident Commissioner of National Education, has spoken much to the same effect. He says—
  "The cause is not far to seek why the National system has not had the full measure of success which its friends would desire for it. From the first its besetting sin has been centralisation. From the centre in Dublin the National Hoard, disregarding all differences of race and creed and local prejudices, has imposed on all parts of the country a rigid programme, perhaps ideally satisfactory, but in many cases ludicrously ill adapted to the needs of the backward districts of Ireland, and to the capacities of the pupils. As an illustration of my meaning I may refer to the treatment accorded to what seventy years ago was really the national tongue. Without committing myself to the extravagances of some of the enthusiasts of the Gaelic League, I fancy few practical educationalists will deny that the National Board were guilty of a disastrous blunder in thrusting upon a Gaelic-speaking race a system of education produced after a foreign model and utterly alien to their sympathies and antecedents. Such an attempt was unsound, both philosophically and practically. Neglecting the principle of continuity which pervades all human things, it disregarded the home training and associations of the children, and thus rending in twain the nascent intelligence, rendered all real development impossible. True education is a refining and developing of the whole intellectual life and character, and I think there can be little doubt that the Hoard were guilty of narrow pedantry in neglecting as worthless the whole previous spiritual life of the pupil, and the multitude of associations, imaginations, and sentiments that formed the content of his consciousness. The consequences of such a system are inevitable. To this unhappy blunder may be attributed the want of initiative and independence, and distaste of knowledge, which so hampers the industrial development of Ireland—qualities so alien to the quick sympathies and alert intelligence which are the most salient characteristics of our race."
  I saw yesterday in The Times a most interesting letter from Mr. Edmund Gosse, in which he speaks of the Irish language in this way—
  "Irish has been in literary use for centuries, which has held the thoughts of generations of great men, which has preserved a poetry of singular mystery and tenderness. Whether we read Irish or not—for my part I am with the Saxon majority—that tongue has been for centuries an unseen but priceless appanage of

  689
  British literature. The language of Ireland has been blossoming there unseen, like a hidden garden of roses, and, whenever the wind Has blown from the West, our English poetry has felt the vague perfume of it."
  It is interesting to know that even the most vehement opponents of the study of Irish, such as Dr. Atkinson and others like him, still admit that children coming from whore Irish is the familiar language ought to be taught English through the medium of Irish. Dr. Atkinson went before the Commission as the great opponent of the Gaelic revival, and yet he used these words—
  "These children should be taught Irish, and they would learn it with very great advantage because they speak it from their childhood …If they spoke it, then it would be right to teach them in their own mother tongue. It is wrong to children not to teach them in their mother tongue … If they know Irish better than English coining into the school, let their education be Irish. If the child thinks in the Irish language, let him be taught in the Irish language."
  Surely I have said enough to show that the demand which is made is in itself a reasonable one, and that it has the support of the most eminent educational authorities in Ireland. Let me ask for a moment whether the demand is without precedent. We are not asking for anything strange, extravagant, or unheard of. As a matter of fact, we are asking for that which is to-day possessed by Wales, and not more than is possessed by the Highlands of Scotland. I want to know by what constitutional theory can this demand, put forward by practically every class and creed in Ireland, and proved to be reasonable in the opinion of skilled educationalists, is to be refused, and why an irresponsible body of men nominated by the Crown, or a majority of them, is to insist in excluding this Irish language from our schools in spite of the universal desire of the people of Ireland? What we ask for to-day is less than exists in Wales. In the Welsh Code for 1900, it is set forth that the Welsh language is one of the subjects which may be taken up if it suits the circumstances of the schools, and the managers approve. Then, in the standard of examinations on elementary subjects there is dictation from Cymric reading-books. In Welsh translations from English, the written examination may be in both English and Welsh, and there is history reading both in Welsh and English. Further, I find
  690
  that English is to be taught bilingually. Special provision is also made for the training of the teachers in Welsh, and in their examinations they are obliged to be able to read Welsh and recite Welsh poetry. Under the head of history, the teachers must show a knowledge not only of English history, but of the history of Wales prior to the union with England; and further, submit to a test of their knowledge of the history of Wales generally. I want to know why all this should be given to Wales and denied to Ireland. All that we ask is that the bilingual system of teaching should be set up in Irish-speaking districts where the children come from Irish-speaking homes, and that in other districts Irish may be one of the remunerated subjects taught, if the managers so desire it, in the school hours. The Scotch Code makes almost precisely the same provision. In the Gaelic-speaking districts, that is, in the counties of Inverness, Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, and Sutherland, an extra pupil-teacher is allowed in respect of bilingual teaching, and provision is made also for the teaching of Gaelic in the training colleges. It seems to me that a demand put forward as this has been, and supported by all classes of the people of Ireland, proves to be reasonable and based on the precedents of Scotland and Wales, and that the contemptuous rejection of that demand by this nominated, irresponsible, and intensely anti-national Board is a most monstrous thing, which the House of Commons ought not to tolerate for one instant. There is another aspect of the question which appeals to us Irishmen, however it may appeal to English Members. At this moment—and there is no use of the Chief Secretary underrating the feeling of the Irish—an intense and passionate movement exists in favour of saving the remnants of the Irish tongue for the Irish people of the future. It is natural, because to all Irishmen, whatever their class, or creed, or politics, who are proud of their country, of its history, of its traditions, when in the old times, almost alone among Western nations, Ireland held aloft the lamp of learning and cherished the truths of religion, this neglect of the ancient tongue of their forefathers must seem an unpardonable wrong; and I say in a special way to

  691
  all those who love the songs and stories and folk lore of Ireland, to all those—
  "Who love a nation's legends,
  Love the ballads of a people,
  That, like voices from afar off,
  Speak in tones so plain and childlike,
  Scarcely can the ear distinguish
  Whether they are sung or spoken "—
  to all such who treasure poetry, the romance and the music of their country, as things which give individuality and character to their race, and almost a soul to their nation—to all such men, this wanton attempt to destroy the Irish tongue must seem an outrage and a sacrilege. The injury to Ireland is a material and a moral one at the same time. This system undoubtedly dwarfs the intellects and stunts the minds of the young children of Ireland, on whom will depend the future well-being and prosperity of the country. It deprives them of all knowledge of a glorious past, and shuts them out from the slightest glimpse of the poetic and romantic literature, and it places upon them the humiliating badge of inferiority. This authority in Ireland must not be permitted to do this wrong, and we are here to appeal to every independent Member of the House to aid in preventing this wrong being perpetrated in future. We appeal in an especial way to those kinsmen of ours of the Celtic race who are here from Scotland and Wales. We ask them to assist us in putting an end to this wrong, and in helping us to do for our country what they have succeeded in doing for their own—to protect the ancient tongue of our forefathers, in which is enshrined so much of the glorious heritage that has come down through the centuries to Ireland from her sages, her poets, her scholars, and her statesmen.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £787,403, be granted for the said Service." — (Mr. O'Malley.)
  MR. RENTOUL: This is in no sense, in my opinion, a political question, but one which we may discuss quite freely, although we may take different views upon the subject; and I must say that with the views which have been expressed upon the opposite side of the House I disagree in every particular. That being so, I desire to put before the Committee the reasons which have led me
  692
  to the conclusion at which I have arrived. The hon. Gentleman who moved this motion said everything that could possibly be said in its favour from that side of the House, and, although the seconder of the motion made an eloquent and most powerful speech, he did not add much, if anything, to the arguments already urged by the hon. Gentleman whom he supported. The mover of the motion made an attack on the books used in the schools of Ireland, and in that respect I entirely disagree with him. I have studied those books as a boy, and have since compared them with the books used in English schools, and I have come to the deliberate conclusion that there are no books anywhere which are better than those used by the National School Board of Ireland. There are several of the Irish school books which could not possibly be beaten for the purposes for which they are designed. But the question before the Committee is the question of the Irish language, and I only refer in passing to the books, and I say that I have not been able to agree with the observations with regard to them made by the hon. Gentleman. Coming to the Irish language itself, I think the bilingual system is an excellent one, and to learn two languages perfectly is far better than to learn half a dozen imperfectly. For a man to be able to speak two languages is a very great advantage; it broadens his mind, and enables him to enlarge his knowledge and acquire other subjects. But are two languages, properly learned, possible for the poor people of any country? Are there any countries where the working classes learn two languages? [A VOICE from the Irish benches: Yes— Wales.] In many parts of Wales it is true that Welsh is spoken as the mother tongue, and the people as they grow up acquire English; but take France or Germany, or any other Continental country. Are the poor people of those countries able to speak two languages? Docs such a thing exist anywhere?
  MR. DILLON: Yes, in half a dozen places.
  MR.: T. M. HEALY: What about Antwerp?
  MR. RENTOUL: I should certainly like to see that assertion proved, and Antwerp does not prove it. Those

  693
  who have lived among Continental nations will admit they have never come across anything of the sort. Yon may go through the city of Paris, or Berlin, or other Continental cities from end to end before you find two mechanics who have really learned more than one language, and it is not for us in this House to make statements which are not borne out by the facts. [Interruption from the Irish benches.] Hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity to prove the statement they make; but surely it is only fair that a man should be allowed to express his opinions with regard to the teaching of a language, even if they do not coincide with those of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not believe it is possible for the working people of any country to learn two languages, and I have not come across any who have. They have neither the time nor the inclination. But supposing it were possible for two languages to be taught, would it be wise for the Irish people to make the ancient language of their country the second one? Do the Irish people who send their children to expensive schools in Ireland make the Irish language one of the languages to be taught to their children? They have them taught French or German, but do they have them taught the Irish language? And is it wise to try to encourage the lower classes in a study of a language which the higher classes themselves have not learned and do not teach their children? If it were possible to learn any number of languages one would be very glad to have Irish taught as one of them; but the time for learning spoken languages is limited, and the number of languages one can learn is limited, and human intellect is limited, everywhere except among Irish Nationalists. Now, speaking of this particular language, we know that men and women of the better classes do not have their children caught Irish [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I ask what member of the Irish party in this House is having his children taught Irish? I am very far from making an attack upon the Irish language. The hon. Member for East Mayo alluded to a man who spoke of Irish literature as disgusting and abominable. That is certainly the last charge I would make—for one reason, that I am not sufficiently familiar with Irish literature to make such an attack—nor do I think that any good is done by making an attack of that sort, especially as all
  694
  Celtic scholars admit that the ancient Irish literature is much richer and more beautiful than the literature of any of the other five Celtic languages. We know that there are historical documents in the Irish language of the highest possible order, and poems—epic, lyric, and didactic—of unrivalled beauty and marvellous pathos: but there is a difference between teaching a language to a whole people and preserving the ancient documents of that language. Is anyone taught in Italy to speak the Latin which was spoken in ancient Rome? Yet it is not as a dead language, but as a living one, that hon. Gentlemen wish Irish to be caught. The mover of the motion spoke, in reference to the teaching of the Irish language, of its value. If he refers to its value to philologists, no one disagrees with him: but if he refers to its practical value, then I assert that it has hardly any value. It seems to me that the practical value of a language depends entirely upon the number of people who speak it.
  MR. DILLON: Then Chinese should be the most valuable language in the world.
  MR. RENTOUL: I am glad to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman upon that point. Only some two years ago a movement was started by many leading men in London to try and get Chinese taught even in preference to French or German, because of its greater commercial value. Of course, if a language is only to be learned for mere sentimental reasons, and not for reasons of travel, trade, or other practical purposes, we can well understand that a language which is spoken at the top of a mountain in Russia by about 150 people altogether would 'be the most valuable of languages, because it is one of the rarest and most peculiar. Speaking of European languages, would any man wish his children to be taught Portuguese in preference to French or Italian or Spanish? And yet Portuguese is an excellent language. Is not the feeling of all men who have to do with the study of modem languages to go in this direction when they say that the more a language is what they call a world speech or umgangsprache language, the more is that language one that ought to be learned? Discussion is often carried on as to whether German or French is the more valuable language—that is,

  695
  which affects the larger number of people? If a man is to have only one language, I think it is clear-to everyone that the most valuable language he can have is English, and next to that is French, because French will serve you in a greater number of the countries of the world than any other language except English. Except for sentimental reasons it would be absolutely valueless to teach the Celtic language in Ireland. The value of a language depends not merely on the use you can make of it not in your own country, but of the use you can make of it when you leave your own country. [Laughter.] I must say that I fail entirely to see what is in the minds of hon. Members. If I were going to travel I would certainly very much prefer that my own; language was English rather than Portuguese. Portuguese may be a better language from the grammarian's point of view than English, but it would not serve me one-twentieth as much as English would do. If a language is to serve the purpose for which it was intended—namely, that men may convey their ideas to the men whom they meet — necessarily, the greater the number of people who speak a language the more the value of that language to men who are going about the world and doing the business of the world. The mover of the motion spoke of the value of the Irish language. But what real value has it? If he wants the people of Ireland to learn a Continental language he will recollect how much they would be handicapped from the entire absence of books for teaching French, German, or Italian, or any Continental language through the medium of the Irish language. It has been argued—I do not know whether it was referred to in this debate—as one strong reason in favour of teaching the Celtic language that the Jews, who are passionately attached to their own religion and nationality, teach the Hebrew language as well as the language of the country in which they are placed. That is easily explained. They never teach colloquial or cursive Hebraic. They teach the language of their prayers and of ecclesiastical documents, but they do not teach their children colloquial Hebrew as they teach them French or German. So that if any argument is to be drawn from what the Jews do, it would prove that the Irish people should teach their children Latin,
  696
  that being the language of the prayers and ecclesiastical documents of the Church of the large majority of the people of Ireland. The first question to settle is, what is the purpose for which you desire the second language? Is it for sentiment or for practical purposes? If it is for sentiment, can Ireland in her present commercial and financial position afford to sacrifice practical utility to sentiment'? If the second language is wanted for practical purposes, then comes the question, what do other nations do which have an ancient language still lingering among a few of the lower orders of the people and yet have as the real language of the people some imported tongue? What do practical and prosperous peoples do in such circumstances? Take the case of the Belgians. Their ancient language is Flemish. They do not teach French through Flemish, they do not teach Flemish at the expense of French. I had an opportunity, when in Belgium not long ago, of hearing a number of classes examined, and I was told that there is a desire there on the part of educationists to relegate the Flemish language to the category of ancient history, and to make the French language the speech to be used in the country. We know that the Belgians are, perhaps, the most practical people in the whole of Europe. We are told that there are no people so successful according to their numbers, or who make so good a use of life's opportunities generally. That is the experience of highly practical men in connection with an extremely energetic people, and the example of the Belgians is very much in point when Irishmen are discussing this question not from a political but from a purely practical point of view, as showing what is best for the country in its practical interests. If Irish were spoken as much as English in America, Australia, and other countries where Irishmen go, I should certainly think then there was something to be said for making Irish the language of the country. I do not suppose Irish is a worse language from any point of view, but I look at this question from the practical side, and we cannot get over the fact that Irish is not spoken elsewhere. A good deal has been said about the advantage of teaching English as far as possible through Irish to the pupils in Irish schools. I may be in an extreme minority in this matter—I fancy that the Chief Secretary is probably against me—but

  697
  that would not he my aim. If I were to-morrow going to loam a foreign language I should prefer to be taught that language through itself, and to make what effort I could to understand it. I believe I would arrive at a knowledge of that language quicker in that way. The hon. Member for South Donegal seems to be highly amused by that statement, but after all, a great many Members of the House have done exactly what I have said. Numerous Members of the House have gone to foreign countries without knowing the language at all. They did not go to lodge with an English family to learn French, or German because they were English-speaking people. No; they plunged into a foreign house altogether, and picked up the language as well as they could, that being the quickest way in which the language could be acquired, so that by only teaching English through Irish in the schools in Ireland yon would not adopt the quickest mode of acquiring a knowledge of English. The people of Ireland, as regards their relation to the Irish language, are of three classes: first, those who do not know Irish, which is nine-tenths of the people; second, those who know and speak both English and Irish; and thirdly, some thirty or forty thousand who know only Irish. The first class had better leave Irish alone; the second class had better cultivate the English, and the third class had better learn English by mixing with English-speaking people. The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote made what appeared to me to be a very extraordinary statement. He said that the teaching of the Irish language would bind the Irish abroad more closely to the Irish at home. No doubt he believed that was an argument, but I could not for the life of me see how it could possibly affect that question. For example, the Irish people who are scattered abroad in America and Australia do not know the Irish language. How the teaching of Irish as their mother tongue to the people of Ireland could draw them closer to the Irish people in America who do not know that language, and never desire or try to learn it, I fail entirely to understand. Indeed, it seems to me the very opposite would be the result. As a matter of fact, very few people in Ireland speak Irish alone. Very few indeed are dependent on the Celtic language, and very few of the peasantry
  698
  are proud that they speak the two languages. The tendency is rather the other way—rather to deny that they know the Irish language than to admit that they do know it. Since so few people speak the Irish language in Ireland would it not be a monstrous thing to fetter the educational energies of the country by trying to revive a language which, if it once became the sole language, would be of the greatest disadvantage to the people of Ireland in their intercourse with other nations? Wales and the Welsh language have been referred to. But in Wales the Welsh language is spoken by the bulk of the people. Almost every Welsh Member addresses his constituents in Welsh. What Irish Member addresses his constituents in Irish? In Wales it is simply the question of keeping alive a living language, which the bulk of the people and nearly all the educated classes can speak and read; but in Ireland it is the question of reviving a language that is practically dead. You might as well try to make Latin the spoken and living language of Italy along with Italian. This idea of reviving the Irish language is an idle dream. Scholars may explore the treasure-houses of its literature, but it never can and never ought to be the language of the whole people. Lord Russell of Killowen is always a useful man to quote on your side, but he is not useful to quote on the other side. In this particular instance, as he is so strongly on my side, I may refer to a statement he made lately which has been published in all the papers. Speaking at a meeting of the Gaelic League he said the attempt to revive the Irish language was foolish from every possible point of view. My hon. friend asked—Is not this demand reasonable? I say, No, it is not. That is the point on which we differ at the very start. There are many demands which the Irish people could make with regard to education with which I might not be able to agree, and yet I would not say they were unreasonable. It docs not seem to me to be a demand that will ever be entertained by the Government. It may be discussed on antiquarian grounds in the House, but it is not one that will over be carried into force. I think it would be a very bad thing for the people of Ireland. The gentleman who opened this debate said that some of us opposed the Irish language because we thought that

  699
  if the Irish people were to learn the Irish language Home would have more power over them. I cannot see how for that reason Rome could have more power over them, seeing that Rome does not know Irish. If Irish were the language of Rome I could understand it. We are not discussing a question of religion, but a question of language on its own merits, no matter how it might bear on any particular cause. It seems to me that one of the best possible tests of sincerity in this matter is to ask, what do hon. Gentlemen opposite do in the case of their own families? What does an educated, enlightened Irish Nationalist do in regard to his own family? That is the test of the whole thing. What has been done in his own education in this matter? The value of a foreign language, especially French, to anyone who has the opportunity of going abroad is immense, and if, though it would not be perhaps practicable, a demand were made by the Irish Nationalists in this House for a further sum in order to encourage the teaching of the French language I would be with them. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Donegal knows the difficulty which travelling abroad involves. He knows perfectly well that even his immense knowledge of the Celtic language does not serve in the slightest degree. he knows try well how one of his countrymen—shall I say one of his own colleagues?— some time ago wanted to leave his luggage in the cloak-room at a railway station in Italy. This gentleman did not know Italian: he knew simply English and Irish, and a little Latin learned solely in graveyards. He procured the attendance of the station-master by the use of the word generalissimo, which he saw signed to a printed notice, and which he took to mean station-master, and he thought that the intelligent station-master would be so fond of the ancient language of his country that he would understand Latin. The traveller on the arrival of the station-master pointed to his luggage and said "Requiescat in pace," and then, pointing to himself, said "Resurgam." By this device ideas were exchanged—the luggage was "to rest in peace" till the traveller "rose again," or, in less poetic words, "came back to claim it." A little Italian would have been very valuable to the traveller, but not Celtic. In that case the Irishman knew the
  700
  Celtic language, but not the language of the country he visited. I would advise my hon. friends opposite, instead of demanding to foist an impracticable language on the people, to turn their attention to other matters which would do a great deal more for the people. I would remind them that certain districts to which the hon. Member referred, where the Irish language is almost exclusively spoken, are also the poorest in Ireland. Was that in favour of the Irish language or against it? There are a great many districts in Donegal where a great many people speak the language, but does that save them from the poverty that exists in that country? I would feel myself in a far more happy condition if I wore able to support hon. Members from Ireland in something that would be for the good of the country, instead of having to take part in a debate year after year on an entirely worthless and foolish demand by gentlemen very few of whom understand or speak five sentences of the language about which they indulge in a long and empty and ludicrous debate.
  MR. BRYCE: I hope hon. Members from Ireland will not object to a Member from another part of the kingdom taking part in the debate for a few moments. The question they have raised is one of very wide and general interest to all parts of the United Kingdom. The question really has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It might have been a political object, or had some political influence and importance sixty or seventy years ago. I believe that Daniel O'Connell used to address large mass meetings in Ireland in the Irish language, and I rather think that the great gathering on the battlefield of Clontarf was to have been so addressed; but we know that now you could not find anybody speaking Irish alone within fifty miles of Clontarf. I do not think any newspapers are published in Irish. [AN HON. MEMBER: There are three newspapers.] Are they daily newspapers? [AN HON. MEMBER: Weekly newspapers.] A weekly newspaper nowadays is apt to be more in the nature of a magazine. There are no daily newspapers, and I have never heard of a vernacular press. [AN HON. MEMBER: Daily papers have columns in Irish.] I am glad to hear that. I was not aware of it. The vernacular press

  701
  has, at any rate, never been supposed to be in any way a cause of political agitation. The other remark I want to make is that this is not a question of promoting the Irish language at the expense of the English. I do not understand that that is for a moment intended. The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been directed to that point, and is therefore quite irrelevant. I do not think the Chief Secretary supposes that it is intended the teaching of English shall be in any way sacrificed to the teaching of Irish, or that anyone who does not use Irish as the home tongue shall be taught Irish in the schools unless be desires to learn it. It is not suggested that anywhere except in the Irish-speaking districts should the teaching of Irish become a regular part of the school work. Of course, obviously it is for the advantage of the children that they should be able to speak and read and write English. English will open for them a wider career in life than Irish possibly could. I believe that the Welsh Members think—and so far as I know, the Irish Members also think— that English will be positively better taught and understood if taught through Irish. I am not going to argue this question as a matter of national sentiment, or what you would call the sentimental value of language. Personally, I am under the influence of that sentiment. I own that it would seem to me a great misfortune if the ancient Celtic languages were altogether to disappear. I would be sorry to see Irish disappear and should have the same regret were Gaelic or Welsh to vanish. I know that in France there is the same wish not to let the ancient languages die out. There is a desire to keep the Breton and the Basque, and there has been an important revival of Provencal. One of the finest poems France has produced in the last fifty years is a poem, "Mireio," written in the old Provencal language. Therefore there is a great deal to be said for keeping the old language. At the same time I am bound to say with all respect to the distinguished Irish literary man who wrote an interesting letter to The Times a few days ago, that I do not think there is much prospect at this time of day of our succeeding in making the ancient Celtic language a vehicle for modern literature. It is a dangerous experiment to try to turn an ancient
  702
  classical language into a modern one as respects either syntax or vocabulary. The genius of a modern people is too different from that of the ancients. The experiment has been tried in Greece, and modern Greek is not nearly so natural and self-consistent a language since they have endeavoured to make it classical and to bring in the old classical forms of expression. They would have done better to develop a good modern language out of their Romaic. However, I shall not attempt to argue this question upon these sentimental considerations, because although they appeal to some of us very strongly, and although I have the warmest sense of the splendour, the brilliance, and the imaginative power of the ancient Irish literature, an imaginative quality quite unique, and with a wild charm of the Western sea that is all its own; still I think these are arguments that do not appeal to everyone here; and if we have got a strong practical case—as I believe we have—for teaching the old Celtic languages, I would rather argue it on that basis and put considerations which may appeal to persons like the hon. Member who has just sat down. I come to the practical question, and that is this: can anything be done—usefully and practically done—to meet the demands of the Members from Ireland? My excuse for interfering in the debate is that I once had some experience on this subject. I had, thirty-four years ago, the honour of being assistant commissioner of a Royal Commission which was to examine into the endowed grammar schools of Wales. I had to make inquiry there as to the best way of dealing with a large number of Welsh-speaking boys in order to teach them both English and their own language. The testimony was that you teach English better and stimulate the general intelligence more if you use Welsh as well as English in the teaching, and if you teach Welsh as a cultivated language side by side with English. I dare say some of the Welsh Members present can give in their own experience a better illustration of this than I can. However, the Welsh clergymen and schoolmasters whom I consulted were all agreed that the bilingual system not only taught the children English better, but was useful in other respects. It is easy to see why that should be to, because when you take a child and begin to teach it another lan-

  703
  guage in addition to its own language the child is obliged to transfer thought from one set of words to another, and in doing so is obliged to get a much move exact idea of the meaning of words, of the genius of a language, and of the nature of the transference of thought than it is possible to get in one language only. That is what we all do in learning Latin. We are obliged to turn our thoughts which we form in English into the form which the same thoughts would take in a different language, and that is one reason why I think no kind of instruction is more valuable than the writing of Latin prose, and the same thing applies in the case of English and Irish. Now I come to the hon. Member for East Down, who asked why we should begin to teach children a language which might be of no use to them. He asked whether there were any countries in Europe where the people speak two languages. Why, it is hard to find a country in Europe in which there are not many people using two languages.
  MR. RENTOUL: I said the mechanics and working classes.
  MR. BRYCE: There are a great many parts of Europe where the working classes speak two languages. In Belgium a large number of people of the humbler class speak Flemish and French; in Denmark a large part of the peasantry speak German as well as Danish, and in France many of the population speak two languages. In Germany there are large districts where the national language of the population is Slav, but where many also speak German, and it is the same all through the Austrian Empire. In Hungary and Croatia and Dalmatia there is a large bilingual population.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: And in the Italian Alps.
  MR. BRYCE: And as my right hon. friend reminds me, it is the same all through the valleys of the western part of the Italian Alps, where both French and Italian are spoken. The same thing is also true in Spain.
  MR. RENTOUL: And Yorkshire.
  MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member thinks that the language of Catalonia or Galicia differs no more from classical
  704
  Castilian than the Yorkshire speech differs from classical English, he is much mistaken. The hon. Member for East Down says he cannot see why two languages should be taught when English is the language to be used. I would remind the hon. Member that the proposal is to teach English through the medium of the native language. The question is whether you should not make the best possible use of their native language. The hon. Member's idea is that you ought to teach English through English, which means that you are to address a child in a language which he does not understand. The truth is that it is a great piece of good fortune in training the minds of children that they should have a language already which they can use to enable them to compare the English, and they will not learn English any more slowly or any less thoroughly if they are taught it through Irish than if that language is neglected. Irish ought to be taught not as a vernacular, but as a literary language. You ought to have reading books in Irish, and the children ought to be accustomed to translate the Irish reading books into English and vice versa. In the training colleges in Scotland and in Wales special instruction is given to the teachers who are going to teach in the districts where Welsh or Gaelic is the common tongue to enable them to use Gaelic or Welsh as the vehicle of instruction. This ought to be done in Ireland also. I submit, therefore, that the demand which the Irish Members make is a very reasonable and moderate demand As for Celtic philology, that is rather a matter for higher secondary schools and universities, but I may point out that the larger the number of people to whom instruction is given in Irish, the more prospect is there that in after life some of them will avail themselves of it to study the language scientifically and to make use of the abundant and rich materials which exist for the study of ancient Irish history and Irish literature, materials which have been very sparingly and inadequately used so far. Many years ago I happened to spend a summer vacation in Ireland, where I obtained lessons in Irish—lessons which, to my regret, I have now forgotten—from the son of an Irish peasant who had developed a remarkable talent for philology, and who at that time promised to become—(he died long ago, before that promise could be fulfilled)—one of the

  705
  ablest philologers in the United Kingdom. The instance of that man makes me believe that if we were to give the Irish-speaking population a chance of studying Irish as a literary language we might have a much larger number of persons studying Irish history and literature; and I think that it is an object with which everybody in this House who takes an interest in history and literature, whether he be an Irishman or not, will deeply sympathise. I must apologise for having detained the House so long, but without venturing to express an opinion upon the precise rules which ought to be made to meet the wishes of the Irish Members, I do think that they have made out a case for a much wider teaching of Irish then now exists, and I would suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should go fully into the subject. I think we are particularly fortunate in having a Chief Secretary who is himself a man of high literary ability and attainments, and who has, I feel sure, every sympathy with the study of Irish literature. If the right hon. Gentleman feels any doubt as to the best way in which this can be done, I hope that he will refer it for inquiry to those who have practical knowledge of the subject either in Wales or in Scotland, who are themselves men of educational experience, and that he will endeavour to induce the Commissioners to frame a scheme which will go far to meet the complaints made to-day, and thus turn the opportunities which Ireland offers in this matter to far better account.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I find myself in such distinct agreement with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that I have hardly any criticism to offer to his very valuable contribution to the debate, except in one particular. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has fully realised the nature and extent of the demand which has been made. The hon. Member for Waterford began his speech by saying that the whole future of the Irish race was bound up in this question. I think that statement alone will indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that he has somewhat minimised what is now being asked for. I think the right hon. Gentleman will hardly be prepared to say that this is a question involving the whole future of the Irish race. The reason why the hon.
  706
  Member for Waterford dwells so much upon this question, involving the future of the Irish race, is because he believes that the large mass of the children in Ire-land speak the native language. When the hon. Member for Waterford quoted statistics upon this point, I interrupted him in the middle of his speech, because I thought the numbers which he gave to the Committee on this subject were extremely misleading. I have here an extract from the Report of the Census Commissioners of Ireland. From table 155 it will be seen that in 1881, 64,167 persons were returned as speaking Irish only, and that in 1891 the number so returned was 38,121, or 26,046 less than in 1881; also, that in 1881 the number of persons returned as able to speak Irish and English was 885,765, and that in 1891 it was 642,053, or 243,712 less than in 1881. It is perfectly clear that if the number of children affected by the changes asked for is confined to Irish-speaking districts it will not be anything like what the hon. Member for Waterford appears to imagine. The problem is not, therefore, such a very extensive one, and it must also be remembered that the numbers are diminishing at a very rapid rate. What, then, is the existing state of affairs? Since 1883 there has been a note in the Code of the Irish Commissioners which declares that where there are Irish-speaking pupils in the school a teacher acquainted with the Irish language should, wherever practicable, be employed, and that inspectors are at liberty to employ the vernacular if they think it desirable to do so. That note has been in the Code ever since 1883, and if it be true that, notwithstanding that, a knowledge of English has not been imparted through the vernacular, I think the managers must bear the larger share of the blame. The teachers are not appointed by the Board of Education, but by the managers, and, so far as I can see, there is really nothing in the old Code or in the new rules which have lately been issued to prevent the teaching of English through Irish. The hon. Member for Connemara has complained of the constitution of the Board of Education, but if anyone looks at the list of names upon that Board he will see that it includes some of the most distinguished men in Ireland, and for the hon. Member for Connemara to say that he does not know more than three or four

  707
  of them is to argue himself unknown. If it he true that there is nothing to prevent bilingual teaching, we must hold that if there is any difficulty about it it is largely due to the fact that the matter has not been pressed at all because the managers do not care about it, or because they were not able to find teachers who could speak Irish. I now come to the question of what it is that is being really asked for. It is very important that we should answer this question very clearly and precisely. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford threw a certain ambiguity over the question as to what the demand really was. If I am to judge from the pamphlet sent to me by the Gaelic League, the demands which are made are—
  "(1) That in all places where Irish is the home language pupils shall be taught to read and write Irish from their first entrance into the school, and that a knowledge of English and other useful subjects shall be imparted through the medium of Irish."
  That is the point to which my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen alludes. The second demand is—
  "That in all places where Irish is not the home language it shall be lawful to teach Irish as a remunerated subject within school hours, and at the earliest stage at which children are capable of learning it."
  Now if Irish under that Code was a remunerated subject it would become a compulsory subject, and it means that wherever the managers in either an English or an Irish-speaking district think fit Irish might be made a compulsory subject. We ought, therefore, to keep these two demands strictly apart. As regards the first demand, which asks for something which now exists in Wales, I cannot see any great harm in it; on the contrary, I think from the educational point of view we ought to grant it, for I believe it would have good results. I entirely agree with all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen upon that point. The hon. Member for East Down gave a very misleading analogy when he said that when anyone went abroad in order to learn a foreign language he was careful to go into a country where only its own language was spoken. But a man travelling abroad for this purpose is very different from poor ignorant children going to school. So far, then, I find myself quite in agreement with the demand put forward, and I believe that it would be better for the
  708
  English itself that it be taught through Irish. As I have already said, I do not think that there is anything in the rules of the Commissioners, either in the new rules or the old rules, which would preclude this from being done. In the new rules there is nothing of a positive character upon this subject, and if the Commissioners see fit to propose a rule of a more positive character assimilating the rules in Irish-speaking districts to those in Welsh-speaking districts I should not oppose it. But as far as I am concerned, I have no actual power in the matter beyond making suggestions, and I cannot promise whether they will accept my suggestions or not. I may point out that Irish is now, and will be in the future, an extra subject taught out of school hours, and I think that is a very desirable thing, and I should be very sorry to see it omitted. The hon. Member for Waterford has Spoken of a strong national feeling in favour of a revival of Irish in order that it may become the national language of Ireland.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I did not say that at all.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I thought the hon. Member's remarks tended in that direction, but if I am wrong I apologise. If it is to be suggested that Irish should be a compulsory subject, whether in Irish-speaking districts or not, as far as I can see, the result would be to re-create Irish as the national language of Ireland. That I believe to be an impossibility, and I am not prepared to encourage it. Notwithstanding the numerous resolutions of public bodies and the expression of opinion from the benches opposite, I wish to point out that there is not in any private schools a real demand for the teaching of Irish as a compulsory subject. I do not find on the part of parents who send their children to secondary schools a demand that Irish should be compulsory. In the higher colleges in Ireland is Irish a compulsory subject? I can find absolutely no trace of anything of the kind. Take the case of Queen's College, Galway. In 1897–98 there was only one student who attended the lectures on Irish; in 1898–99 nobody attended, and no one has attended this session. The fact is that there is no real, genuine, spontaneous desire in Ireland to revive Irish as the national language. I am glad of this, for

  709
  it would be a retrograde step, doomed to failure. These remarks I merely make by the way, because it seems to me that the important question, after all, is whether it is desirable that the bilingual system should be applied also to Ireland. Personally I have no objection to bilingual teaching in Gaelic districts, although I foresee great difficulties in the way of providing teachers competent to instruct in the vernacular. I do not think, however, that very much time should be spent upon teaching children to write Irish, but I hold that where Irish is the home language it would be better that instruction in that language should be given.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I do not think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. Although he has declared himself in favour of the first part of our proposal, I may point out that he did not tell us of any means by which his sympathy can be carried into effect. It is idle to throw upon the managers the responsibility for not having this bilingual system of teaching put into force. The whole scheme is devised upon lines which render it impossible for school managers to get teachers who can teach that system. There is not one word in the curriculum to compel teachers to learn Irish, and no reward is offered to them for doing so. The whole question is absolutely ignored in the training colleges. What we want to know is whether the Commissioners of Education are going to encourage the teachers to learn Irish, and to impart a knowledge of Irish to such pupils as may desire to learn it. I do not want to make any attack upon the Commissioners of National Education, and I do not agree with the attacks which have been made upon them. I believe the Commissioners are being hampered by other difficulties, and the reason why they have not a better system is the fault of the Government. I know the gentleman who presides over the National Board would never have delivered the speech he did upon the question of teaching Irish if he had not the assent of his colleagues, and if he had not believed that his words might' have some effect when the rules were revised. I do not share the view that there is no strong national demand in Ireland in connection with this question. In my opinion no movement has made such pro-
  710
  gress during the last ten or twelve years as the teaching of the Irish language. I remember when it was a rare thing in the city of Dublin to hear a man speaking Irish; now it is common to hear men conversing in Irish, who learned it either by their own industry or through some Gaelic association, and without having had any particular assistance from any educational source. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that no attention seemed to be given to the teaching of Irish in the colleges in Ireland. But how can Irish be taught in the colleges if you do not begin with the junior pupils in the primary schools? Surely it is not at college that the study of Irish should be commenced, and it is not likely that any number will devote themselves to Irish when no inducement of any kind is held out to them. The right hon. Gentleman throws the responsibility on the managers of schools for not having teachers who can teach in Irish in the Irish-speaking districts, but I know very well that managers would be extremely glad if they were able to get teachers who would be able to teach children through the medium of Irish. But they are restricted to teachers trained under the National Board. They have no choice. The moment a manager appoints a teacher not classed by the National Board the grant to the school ceases. The managers have not a free hand, and there is no endeavour made by the Commissioners to prepare teachers in Irish, which is the natural language of a great proportion of the people. I have been in districts in the west of Kerry where you could not find half a dozen persons who could speak English. I have seen the children in the schools, and it was positively painful to hear them reading pages of English not one word of which they understood, and then the moment they found themselves in the playground they addressed each other in Irish. These children could not explain what they were reading, and if you addressed them in English they would not understand what was said. Surely the Commissioners cannot contend that they are carrying out the trust placed in them as long as there is a large number of children in such a condition as that. I would say that the hon. Member for East Down was in himself a deplorable example of what the system of national education

  711
  can do in Ireland, for there was neither sentiment, nor soul, nor nationality in his speech. He might have belonged to any nationality in the world. Education from his point of view is education that will enable a person to get on in the world, and which has neither traditions, nor memories, nor sentiment, nor soul. The hon. Member spoke of its being a disadvantage to the children to be taught anything at all of their own natural language, and, according to him, it would be better if they were transferred to a portion of the country where they could speak only English. That is not the view of persons who have studied this question, and that is not the opinion of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was sympathetic, and we could expect nothing more from him, so far as giving an expression of opinion, than we had from him this evening; but a more pious expression of opinion on the part of the National Board that English may be taught through the medium of Irish will have no practical result unless an effort is made to provide that that opinion is carried out. The teachers must be prepared, and there must be some inducement held out to them to learn Irish. It is not a remunerated subject now, and the teacher is supposed to be such an enthusiastic lover of the Irish language that when the work for which he is paid is done, and when his duty to the State and his pupils is discharged, he will gather the pupils around him and deliver his soul to them in Irish. The teachers must have an extraordinary amount of enthusiasm and zeal if they take up this subject after their ordinary work is done. Surely the National Board ought to be able to devise some means to reward teachers for a knowledge of Irish in districts where it is essential for carrying out their work. Then, as to the other demand, I would inform the Chief Secretary that he entirely misapprehends the position if he thinks that the Gaelic League or any hon. Member in this House has the slightest intention of displacing English and getting the people of Ireland to speak Irish only. Lunacy has not increased to that extent. What we demand is that in districts where the children hear nothing but Irish in their homes they should be taught English through the medium of Irish, and that in addition to teaching them English some effort should be made at the same
  712
  time to give them a literary knowledge of the Irish language. The Chief Secretary spoke of placing schools in Ireland in the same position as schools in Wales as regards the national language. He will not do that by a mere expression of opinion, or by a mere permissive authority on the part of the National Board, that if teachers know Irish, and can teach it, the Board have no objection. We want something more. We want the books in use in the schools in Irish-speaking districts to be Irish books, just as in Wales the school books are in Welsh. The National Board know perfectly well that the note they have placed in their Code can have no effect. Teachers will not devote their time to teaching Irish after ordinary hours without pay or reward. That is not putting us in the same position as Wales. Welsh is a remunerated subject in Welsh schools, and the school-books are printed in both Welsh and English. Let the right hon. Gentleman place us in that position, and the whole of our demand will be conceded.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Frequent reference has been made in the course of this debate to Welsh experience, and perhaps, therefore, it may not be unbecoming for a Welsh Member to say a few words on this question. I would venture to say that all my hon. friends from Wales heartily concur in the reasonable and moderate request which has been put forward by the Irish Members. The Chief Secretary has, I think, exaggerated to some extent the nature of the demand that has been made. I will not enter into the question whether his assurancesare sufficiently satisfactory; that is a question for the Irish Members; but I am heartily glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does intend practically to apply to Ireland the system that prevails in Wales, and that should prevail in Ireland also.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: All that the Irish Government can do in the matter is to suggest the change to the Commissioners, and to sanction it when it is proposed.
  MR. LEWIS: I can only hope, then, that the Commissioners will take the same enlightened view of the question that the right hon. Gentleman takes, and that his great influence will be used to introduce

  713
  into Ireland a similar system to that of Wales. As far as the Welsh system is concerned, we can speak in the highest terms of the success that has attended it. The, Welsh language is an admirable educational instrument. The difference in idiom, construction, and forms of expression are much greater between the Welsh and English languages than between English and French or German, and it adds enormously to the mental culture of a child to be taught a language which is as essentially different from English as is Greek or Latin. The fact is that modern European languages are too much on the same plan; but when we come to the Celtic languages the difference between them and the Teutonic languages is so immense that they improve very greatly the mental faculties of the children who study them. I might quote the Report of the Central Board of Education in Wales in confirmation of that view, which states that the bilingual training involved in the parallel study of two languages so dissimilar as English and Welsh must be of marked value to the pupils. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that Irish was not largely taught in the colleges and universities of Ireland. I will tell him why. The hon. Member who spoke last offered a perfectly adequate explanation of that. You do not begin at the bottom, and you cannot expect this kind of instruction to come from the top. We have Welsh taught in our elementary schools in Wales, and we have it taught now, not only in the intermediate schools, but also in the university. I may mention also a fact that may be of interest to hon. Gentlemen, that Welsh is even recognised in the local examinations of Cambridge University as a specific subject. Looked at simply from the point of view of its educational value, one could not possibly find for Welsh children a better vehicle of instruction than their own tongue, and I see no reason why the same process should not apply in every respect to the Irish language. The hon. Member for East Down asked hon. Members from Ireland on this side of the House whether they taught their own children the Irish language. All I can say in regard to that is that twenty or thirty years ago in Wales the Welsh language was considered a rather unfashionable and even a vulgar language, and people in the upper ranks of society were rather more ashamed of it
  714
  than otherwise. What is the case at present? Why, peers and M. P.'s and people belonging to other ranks of society take the greatest care to have their children taught the language of the country. Well would it be if that were the case in Ireland; because, after all, the language of a country is one of the shortest ways to the hearts of its people. A few weeks ago I travelled in Brittany, and in diligence and railway carriage I often conversed in the Breton language as far as I could. The Welsh and Breton languages are much more similar than the Welsh and Irish languages, and by conversing in the Breton language I found my way at once to the hearts of the people. Their faces lighted up with interest and admiration when they found a foreigner speaking a language which they supposed was their own, but which was the language of a country beyond the seas as well. I saw in a leading journal this morning the following statement—
  "To provide for the efficient teaching of Irish in the Ireland of the present day would be to subsidise the study of a dead language under great difficulties and without any of the advantages of the cultivation of classical literature."
  The gentlemen who write for the newspaper from which I have quoted are all men of great ability and great culture, but there was never a greater mistake than to say that the Irish language is a dead language. I hope it is no more a dead language than is Welsh. Perhaps we in Wales have had certain advantages. Our Sunday schools have kept the Welsh language alive, and at the present time a larger number of people speak it than in any previous period in the history of Wales, and a greater number can speak it and write it grammatically than ever before. I should like to refer to another statement in the newspaper from which I have already quoted. It is as follows—
  "Neither in Wales nor in Brittany have the consequences of fostering the Celtic dialects been such as to encourage enlightened men to labour for the artificial creation of a similar state of things in Ireland."
  I will tell the House how the Welsh language was "fostered" early in this century, and, I believe, also very considerably into the latter half of the century. It was the custom in Wales

  715
  to give what was called a "token "—a very heavy wooden billet—to a boy who spoke the Welsh language in a day school, and he was obliged to carry it on his back as a token of disgrace until he had found some other boy who had broken into the Welsh language also, and then it was transferred to him. I know perfectly well that the Irish language has been discouraged in similar and, perhaps, more cruel ways than that in the past, but I think we have now arrived at a state of things when the Philistinism which Mathew Arnold denounced so fiercely is passing away. We have now arrived at a more enlightened state, and we now recognise that the languages of the smaller nations have their part to play in the economy of the world, and that it is not right to trample them out of existence. I think the Irish child ought to be taught to respect the language of his hearth and home, and ought to obtain a grammatical and literary knowledge of that language. It is true we have in Wales a large number of magnificent publications in the Welsh language, £200,000 worth of Welsh books being published every year, and so far as modern literature is concerned, undoubtedly we will not yield the palm to any branch of the Celtic race. But in ancient literature we must acknowledge that Ireland is richer than most countries, although little is known of it at the present time, and even that little is only known to the cultured few. I hope the day is not far distant when every Irish child will be taught his own language in his own elementary school and will be able to read the classics of his own land, and then we may see Irish scholars taking a deeper interest in their own language and conferring fresh honours on it. I did not intend to trespass so far on the patience of the Committee, but I must say I was to some degree inspired by the magnificent peroration of the hon. Member for Waterford. After all, a language is a precious possession of a country. I put it to English Members, supposing the English language was in the same position, supposing, instead of being the language of the world, it was the language only of the Home Counties; does any one suppose that they would not cling to it, although it was only the language of the few, and perhaps of the despised few? There are other than mere material considerations. You cannot measure every-
  716
  thing by a cash value, but you can attach even a cash value to the training of the mind, and believing as I do that the study of the Celtic language by the children who speak it in their homes is a valuable method of training the mind, I heartily support the motion.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: We have all listened with great interest and pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member. For Irishmen it is a great thing to know that there is at all events one part of the world in which the Celtic: tongue is so cherished and so vigorous. The statement of the hon. Member about the punishment inflicted on the Welsh children in days gone by for speaking their own language comes quite home to us, because not so long ago children in Ireland who spoke Irish were immediately punished. The speech of the Chief Secretary was, on the whole, unsatisfactory. I have no fault to find with its tone, and I have no intention of falling foul with the right hon. Gentleman on that score. But his speech was exactly the same sort of speech to which we have listened for years. This question of the encouragement of the Irish language has been raised on these benches as long as I can remember, and although the present Chief Secretary was a little more conciliatory and slightly more sympathetic in his remarks, his speech was exactly the same as the speeches of his predecessors. It loads to nothing of a practical nature. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he sympathises with us. We are much obliged to him. Then he tells us he has no power to give practical effect to his sympathy; that he has no power to deal with the Commissioners or to make any change whatever in the scheme under which education in Ireland is administered. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a very easy way of giving effect to his good wishes. All he need do is to bring in a Bill making the encouragement of the Irish language in the Irish schools not only permissive but compulsory. If the right hon. Gentlemen would bring in such a Bill even at the present period of the session, I can promise him it would be passed in three days. Therefore there is no ground for the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. The right hon. Gentleman laid some share of

  717
  blame for the condition of the Irish language in Ireland on the attitude of the managers of Irish schools. As far as I know, there is no body of men more anxious that Irish should be properly taught in the Irish schools than the managers. The Irish hierarchy, who I presume may be trusted to speak for the Irish managers, have emphatically pronounced the opinion that the Irish language ought to be encouraged. Not many days ago we saw an interesting statement signed by the managers of National schools in Con-naught, in which they unanimously expressed the desire that the Irish language should be encouraged in the National schools, and in my own constituency the managers are also unanimously in favour of this movement. So far as the managers are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is nothing in the rules of the Board of Education to prevent the study of the Irish language. The great difficulty, in my mind, is that, under the old rules, and still more, under the new, there is no inducement given to Irish teachers to teach the Irish language in their schools. They are supposed to teach it out of school hours, and they get no remuneration for it. That is much worse than no system at all. The right hon. Gentleman made a strong point when he said that educated people in Ireland do not insist on their children being taught Irish. Well, the reason of that is exceedingly simple. There is no opportunity for teaching children of the upper classes in Ireland Irish, and no assistance is given by the Government for teaching Irish in the lower schools; and under the intermediate system the study of Irish is not encouraged. The result is that there are practically no grammars and other books for teaching Irish. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, as an instance of the small interest taken in the Irish language, that there was only one student of Irish in Queen's College, Galway. That case is an unfortunate one, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that very few Catholics in Ireland will send their children to be educated in Queen's Colleges. The right hon. Gentleman has reiterated his sympathy with this question, but I hope he will go further, and, instead of having it brought up year after year in this extremely unsatisfactory fashion, that next year he will be in a
  718
  position to introduce a measure, supposing the National Education Board do not take proper steps meanwhile, to encourage the study of the Irish language. I have no cause of complaint for the very cautious manner in which the right hon. Gentleman gave us some of the reasons for the faith that is in him. He told us it was monstrous to attempt to revive a dead language. Thank God, Irish is not yet a dead language, although at the present moment it is in danger; and that is one of the reasons why the Irish Members want some means taken by which it will never become a dead language. The point which the right hon. Gentleman overlooked, and which is persistently overlooked in this House, is that the people of Ireland are determined that the Irish language shall be assisted, and as far as possible revived. This is a repetition of the whole question of ninety-nine years ago, that the people are determined to be governed in accordance with their own wishes. The people of Ireland are unanimous in their desire for the revival of the Irish language, and no matter what arguments, based on so-called justice and common sense, may be brought against us, we are determined to maintain our position. I am not, however, afraid to meet hon. Gentlemen on the grounds of practical common sense. One hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any country in Europe where more than one language was spoken by working men. There are, as a matter of fact, so many countries in Europe whore they speak two languages, that the difficulty is to find a country where only one is spoken. The hon. Gentleman was particularly unfortunate in his reference to Switzerland, because in most districts in that country two languages are spoken by all the people, and in many, three. In the neighbouring country of France, in every single Department, two languages, at least, are spoken. In fact, there are more patois and dialects spoken in France than in any other country in the world. For instance, in the South, Bernaise and French are spoken; in the West, Breton and French; in the East, German and French in Alsace-Lorraine; in the North-East, Walloon and French.
  MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: Are these taught in the schools?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I never was at a school there, and I cannot tell; but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can say, of his own knowledge, that they are not. I go to Belgium, where I have lived, and there Flemish is taught in the schools in the same way as French—the two languages go on side by side. Then take the case of Hungary, which is peculiarly interesting, because we Irish are constantly reminded that there is so much that is generally characteristic in the history of the two countries. In different parts of Hungary Magyar and German are spoken; Magyar and Roumanian, Magyar and Polish, Magyar and Russian, Magyar and Czech, Magyar and Croat, and in every one of these districts they get on extremely well with the two languages. Another point in connection with Hungary is of extreme interest, and that is that not so very long ago, not two generations ago, the Hungarian language was forbidden, and the official language of the Diet and the courts of law was Latin; and if any other language was spoken it was either German, Wallachian, or a Slav dialect. The Hungarians fought the battle of their language in the same way as they fought their political battles, and now all over Hungary Magyar is spoken, although seventy or eighty years ago it was said to be a dead language. An hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House talked of the difficulty of reviving a dead language, but the great advantage in regard to Irish is that it is not a dead language. It is spoken by, at all events, half a million of people in Ireland, and there is no difficulty whatever in preserving it, if the Government will only give us some small assistance. I am very sorry to say that I cannot speak Irish myself. I have not had the opportunity of learning it, as I do not come from an Irish-speaking district; but I take a great interest in this question on literary, historical, and national grounds. I do not suppose that the last of these grounds commends itself to our opponents. But I represent a constituency where there is a very large Irish-speaking population, and I should be wanting in my duty to them if I did not intervene in this debate in behalf of the Irish language. The Chief Secretary objects to the programme laid before hire by the Gaelic League. He says it is too
  720
  extensive, and not of a practical nature; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the League speaks for the people of Ireland. The sentiment which is behind the Gaelic League, and from which they derive their great influence, is spread all over the country, and is daily increasing in strength and volume. Their first proposal is that there should be the teaching of the Irish language in the Irish-speaking districts. The right hon. Gentleman agrees to that, although he says that he has no power to give effect to it. But I hope he will discover before next session some way of giving effect to it. The other proposal is that Irish should be made worthy of study by the teachers in the Irish schools, so that they might be better fitted to teach it to their pupils, and that they should be given an opportunity of teaching it to pupils in other than Irish-speaking districts. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not adopted a more sympathetic attitude in regard to that point. I think it will not be necessary, at the present stage, that the teaching of Irish should be made compulsory in the non-Irish-speaking districts; but the people of Ireland have a fair right to claim that when they wish their children to learn Irish they should get teachers qualified to instruct them. I do not think that is an impossible demand. I would like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question with which, after all, the people of Ireland do not feel sympathy. It is emphatically a national question, and representatives of every school of politics and creeds have expressed themselves in favour of it, from the hierarchy down to boards of guardians. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider this matter seriously, as a question which recommends itself to the Government on grounds of policy, if for no other reason. It is a question that can very easily be settled, and it would be judicious and wise on the part of the Government to do so. All we ask is similarity of treatment with the other parts of the United Kingdom, and that the principles of Unionism should be put in force. Before the last general election we heard a great deal about the equality of treatment of all parts of the United Kingdom, but we did not hear so much about it afterwards. Another election is approaching, and the Government should give some proof of i their desire to afford equality of treat-

  721
  ment in Ireland with that of the people in Wales and in the Highlands of Scotland. The people in Ireland will be very easily satisfied on this point. Probably there may be some trouble in certain parts of Ireland, unless some steps are taken to meet the feelings of the people in this matter. At all events, the feeling is strong enough to make the carrying on of the National School system a matter of difficulty, unless the teaching of the Irish language is conceded. I appeal to the right hon. gentleman, however, on much higher grounds than that. The government of the British Empire is committed to many educated and intellectual men, and no higher duty can fall upon them than the encouragement of the mental training and culture of those over whom they rule. Behind this question of the Irish language there remains that of cultivating the minds of the Irish people by enabling them to enjoy the beauties of their historic literature, their poetry, and their native traditions. On these high, and perhaps ideal, grounds it is the duty of the Government to support the teaching of the Irish language. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the English Government has in other countries done very much to encourage and preserve native languages. In New Zealand the Maori language would have died out long ago had it not been for the action of the representatives of the British Government, who had books published in the Maori language, and the Maoris were taught to read and write in their own tongue. The same may be said of the language of Samoa, and many other places which, either permanently or temporarily, have been brought under the British Government. Surely if it was worth while to preserve the language and literature of the Maoris it is much more worth while to preserve the language and literature of Ireland. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman once again that this is a most important question, that there is an immense amount of popular feeling for it, and that it would be wise for the Government to concede something to that feeling.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a rule that when any question is brought forward by the Irish Members and resisted by the Government, that
  722
  resistance is based either on the ground that the demand will cost money, or that the result will have some effect on the Act of Union. Now, Nationalists in Ireland, or most of them, can already speak English, and they detest the system of English government quite heartily enough already, so that it cannot be suggested that a knowledge of the English language or acquaintance with the abuse which is cast on the name and fame of Ireland, on its literature and its religion, has in any way increased the attachment of Irishmen to the system of government established in that country. Consequently it is absurd to suggest that any further culture or extension of the knowledge of Irish would in any way militate against the continuance of the existence of that system. So that we may dismiss from our minds the idea that the Government would receive any help for their case from the fact that the Irish speak English. Indeed I can conceive that if we only used the Irish language our detestation of the English would never have been half so great as it is, because we could never have understood what was said. I take as an instance of the reason which exists for our detestation the sentiment expressed in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Down. As I understood him he put his case altogether on the fact that English is a practical language, and that what we have to do with is the practical affairs of this life; and in hard and bitter language he complained that we and our teachers encouraged nothing but sentiment. I am always glad to get information, and I bow before the pundit opposite; but, if there is a great deal of practical advantage to be got from the knowledge of the English language, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman is so much better equipped in that respect than our poor selves, why should he not turn his great genius to some better account than looking for an English County Court judgeship? We always find the Government putting up on these occasions some one to express their real sentiments who is on the cadge for a job. The line taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is used on every occasion as the merest utensil of the Government, and who is put up as a so-called independent Member to express his own opinions, but who, of course, speaks the real sentiments of the

  723
  Government, is really one of the reasons why I say the knowledge of English possessed by Irish Member's occasionally adds to our detestation of the established system of government in Ireland. Even so, the fact that the hon. Gentleman's English is so admirable, is supported by his statement that nothing was more valued by him in his domestic home and in the educational circumstances of his home, than "The Spelling-book Superseded." As I thought, that was the measure of the Philistinism of the hon. and learned Member. As a vehicle of knowledge, of learning, and of the higher thought, the hon. and learned Gentleman recommends to all his friends and following the constant use of "The Spelling book Superseded"! He has told us that Irish was absolutely unknown abroad. I will not go back to the days of the Comarba, who made the Irish tongue familiar from Norway in the North to the Mediterranean in the South. There are names in Norway of churches called after Irish saints; and Irish saints are venerated in every little hamlet in Germany, France, and Italy. I will not go back to these ancient days, but I will come to a later period when French generals and the Emperor Napoleon found no difficulty but great value in using a few words of the Irish language, especially when they were backed up by the bayonets of the Connaught Rangers. No doubt the Irish language was necessary in South Africa when the Irish Fusiliers sprang to their heroic deeds. At all events, we are living in the year in which we have been graciously permitted, both for ourselves and our soldiers, by Her Majesty the Queen to wear the shamrock; and we have been favoured in the same year by the gracious visit of Her Majesty to Ireland. That has not cost the English a single halfpenny; and in a similar economic frame of mind it would not have added the burden of one sixpence to the Educational Estimates of this country if the demand now asked for from those Irish Benches had been granted. I think I have demonstrated two facts—first, that the knowledge of English does not increase the love of English Government in Ireland; and, second, that the teaching of Irish to the children of Ireland would not add to the expense of the English Government. There is no expense at-
  724
  tached to that demand. How, therefore, can you on that ground resist a proposal put forward in the name of at least three fourths of the people of Ireland? Supposing the Government were dealing with an island in the southern seas which they were anxious to retain, and they found the entire, people of that island had put forward an humble demand that they should be allowed to use their tongue, which was in sympathy with the religion and sentiment of the country, would anyone say it would not be wise on the part of the Home Government to consent and tolerate it? Take Jersey, where the French language is still spoken in all its native purity, and where the French language is taught in the schools at the expense of the local rates. Would it not be considered madness if the Government which is established there adopted the same attitude towards the people of the Channel Islands as that which is taken up by certain persons here? I think that attitude is especially injurious upon the part of those who come from districts which would not be affected by this demand. Why should they raise any objection with regard to us? They say it is for our good, and that we should be wasting our time. Surely if we want to waste our time it is no affair of theirs. We do not take any money out of their pockets. We leave them in the enjoyment of the "Spelling-book Superseded." Why they should desire that the bishops of Ireland should be flouted, or that the people of Connemara, Donegal, or Kerry should be deprived of the knowledge of their ancient tongue, I leave to the wisdom of greater men than I. I was in Donegal some little time ago, and I heard children reading English, and they could read it perfectly; but when I asked them the meaning of the commonest words they did not understand them—they did not even understand the ''Spelling-book Superseded," and the British Government, forsooth, maintains that system of education as if it was in some way appropriate to bolster up the Act of Union. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said—and I think it was somewhat mean for a man of his talents—" We throw no obstable in the way." Quite so; but what does he do? He further says, "It is not any fault of ours at all; it is the fault of the school

  725
  managers." The managers do not pick out whom they choose to teach the children. This was the system which the Catholics established for themselves. They established Catholic colleges for the training of teachers, and the Protestants have done the same thing; and then the true instinct of the Presbyterians, which is to pay nothing if it can be avoided, was discovered, and it is they who are really running the whole show. The training college for teachers in Dublin at the present moment is the training college for the Presbyterians. The right hon. Gentleman having established that system, and having provided that the teachers shall have no training in Irish, and shall not have the moans of getting hold of it, and as the school manager must take one of these men who are called "classed," says, "You can get whom you like." It is nonsense; we demand something more. It is something to bewail in any country that one should not know the meaning of the names of the rivers and town lands and common things which affect the life and history of the country, more especially when in many places—and not only places, bat personal names—the easier and shorter names have been changed and demoralised into what they now are. May I ask this of the bread-and-butter test Gentlemen: do you not teach Anglo-Saxon in one of your colleges? I understand that there is in one even a chair for Sanscrit, but I am not aware that anybody now asks for tea and sugar in Sanscrit. That, I understand, is the new test, but I wish to put it on a higher level than a question of a tea and sugar policy. It is a portion of the national life of the country, and it is a loss by the people of Irish music through the loss of their native language. Irish music has perished among the Irish people because it was set to Irish songs, which were sung at the fireside, and when the language of the land passed away there were no English words set to this music. We know a great deal about Irish music, but supposing Moore had not written three-fourths of the songs, Irish music would have disappeared. Does the Government owe Ireland no compensation for having destroyed her music, her monasteries, and her woollen manufactures? I do not suggest it even as a matter of sentiment, but as a matter of right. We do not ask for a costly thing, we do not ask for an
  726
  additional bawbee; but is it not worth while to placate the sentiment of the country? It is not a case which assails the Nonconformist conscience; it is not like the great University question—there is no undue contact with Rome. There is no going back to what have been called the glorious days before the Union. I wonder sometimes that the English do not feel that this is their duty. Irish Members are constantly told that this is a Unionist Parliament, and that in all things in connection with local affairs this Parliament is willing to give them absolute satisfaction. We do not ask for the time of Parliament; we do not ask for a Treasury Bill, or any other which would occupy five minutes consideration. The whole thing could be done by a rule which does not even require Parliamentary sanction. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said—and this is what makes the British Government a matter so hard to explain—that he was not responsible; it was all the National Board. What is that Board? In the first place, in a country three-fourths Catholic, the constitution of the Board requires that half the members should be Protestants. One would imagine that the Government, having put down its hand, would say that the National Board should be in consonance with the complexion of the country; but they first stuff the Board with half their own kind, Protestants, and then they bring in a few weak-kneed Catholics as stuffing for the others. There was a vacancy upon the Board, and, as I said yesterday, there was a scheme to fill that vacancy with a judge, and they put in Mr. Justice Gibson.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: That was not our doing; it was the action of the National Board.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why does not the Government play the game with the cards upon the table? What is the use of making such an observation as that? It deceives nobody. I repeat what I said yesterday, that an Irish judge has quite enough to do to attend to his judicial duties, and I respectfully submit that he has no right on a Board of Education. He was not put there to see that educa-

  727
  tion was properly conducted, or that the proper subjects were taught; he was put there as the sentinel of the British Government to prevent Irish history and the Irish language being taught in the schools, and then the English Government, when they have packed the jury, say they are not responsible. It is absurd to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman can put upon the shoulders of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland the responsibility which belongs to the British Government itself. Everybody knows that in Dublin Castle, if the smallest wish were expressed for anything which a Government Department wants, they would have it the next afternoon. How is Ireland managed? A few dinners at the Castle, a few Orders of St. Patrick, a few knighthoods, and a few advances in salary. There is not a man in Ireland honestly attached to the system. The landlords stand up for you because of their rents; if they were sure of their rents under a Nationalist Parliament they would join us in a moment, especially if they could see their way to 5 per cent. extra. All the official class are on the make. They are not satisfied with their salary, they want an advance, and when they get that they want a pension, and when that is provided they want promotion for somebody else. I wonder if there is any one in the world who despises the Irish more than a Chief Secretary for Ireland. I would like to see the diary of an Irish Secretary, stuffed with the letters he has received, and the applications for advances, baronetcies, and promotions, and the miserable intrigues that are carried on in order to obtain these things, with the great majority of the Irish population standing sullenly aside and looking on with absolute contempt and derision of the whole system. Does the right hon. Gentleman say he could not have Irish taught? He could do it by telephone. Call up the Education Board: "'Are you there, Education Department?' 'Yes, your honour.' 'Have Irish taught in the morning. ''Yes, your honour,'" and it is done. Why can it not be done? Because it would have to go through the whole list of the right hon. Gentlemen's appointees, and you would find that everybody wants something else. Independence of character in the official classes is entirely absent. There is no freedom of thought, except among the poor class. The rich are
  728
  either running after invitations to dinner or the Order of St. Patrick. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that our views cannot be met. I want to know the reason why. You have got the Army, Navy, and Volunteers to uphold your system. You have the tax-gatherer coining round to collect the taxes, and we should still be paying £3,000,000 too much, and for what earthly reason our views cannot be met, except the bottom hatred that prevails against everything Irish in the minds of our rulers, I cannot see. But it is because you refuse to accord to us these small matters, which you say are more matters of sentiment, but which are the just demands of our country, that the connection between the two countries is, and will always continue to be, one of hatred and mistrust.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): I wish to say a few words in this debate, because the question on which we shall divide is one which might make a man appear to be voting against his convictions. I entirely associate myself with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who appears to me to have approached this matter in the most sensible and practical manner. I went into these districts, for the purpose of satisfying myself upon this question, and my mind is fully made up upon it. I can give the Committee one curious instance of the necessity of teaching in bilingual districts through the medium of the Irish language. Some of my friends were anxious to introduce the Gorman system of agricultural credit, and in these districts we found it absolutely necessary to teach that, system through the Irish language. We had to employ an Irish organiser and have our leaflets translated into Irish. That is a good practical illustration of the bilingual teaching which many of us are anxious to see. Coming to the question of what can be done and what is best to be done, what are the facts that prompt hon. Members opposite to say that a minority of the Commissioners of Education have overruled the majority in the matter of teaching the

  729
  Irish language? I am informed that the matter has never come before the Commissioners at all except in the shape of resolutions in identical terms from a large number of public bodies. The only way that it seems to me that the matter can properly come before them is through the managers, and no manager, I am informed, has made any request to the Commissioners upon the subject; when they do it will be quite time to rate the Commissioners upon their inaction. The Commissioners, in the meantime, have adopted a new rule that within the limit of the curriculum the managers shall arrange the programme of their schools to suit the needs of the locality within which that school is situated. That is a very sensible endeavour to do away with that rigidity of programme and over-centralisation to which the hon. Gentleman who opened this debate made reference. The object of this rule is to introduce that elasticity into the programme which, I take it, we all desire. Many hon. Gentlemen coming from those districts will be able to say better than I, but the impression I gained in many of those districts was that the people themselves were not strongly in favour of Irish being taught. Those of us who have travelled in America are aware that a large number of emigrants have been prejudiced owing to their want of familiarity with the English language, and in some districts it is believed that the bilingual system may lead to less teaching of the English language. We do not agree with that, but that is in the mind of the people. Another difficulty is that the managers say they cannot get Irish teachers. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that that difficulty would be easily overcome by the training college. I do not myself think it would, because it seems to me that the English-speaking teacher who had merely acquired a smattering of Irish, which is all he could acquire in a year, would not be much use in conveying to the minds of children the English tongue through the medium of the Irish language. What we want to abolish is the system of people teaching through a language with which they themselves are not familiar. The teachers should be Irish speaking in order to do what we wish to see done effectively. An hon. Member had complained that Irish had ceased to be a remunerative subject; it always was an extra subject,
  730
  and can only now be a remunerative subject by being an extra subject. I do not now wish, to occupy the time of the House further, for many hon. Members I know have come over from Ireland especially to debate this question, and therefore I only say in conclusion that, although this debate has no doubt done good, I believe that this question can be very much more easily dealt with by public opinion in Ireland. I believe the Chief Secretary in the speech he has made will have largely influenced the managers if they are not already converted to that view.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was personally interested in this question, as in the county of Donegal, one of the divisions of which he represented, there were no fewer than 60,000 Irish-speaking people. It had frequently been said in the House that there was a larger percentage of illiterates in South Donegal than in any other constituency. If that was so it was absolutely due to the system of education which did not enable Irish-speaking children to be educated in the English language through the medium of the Irish language. He could not help thinking that the English Government had by that system perpetuated as far as they could the brutal proscription of language which remained on the Statute-book from former times. The habit of teaching children who could only speak Irish through the medium of English was so humorous that if it were not wicked it might well form part of the travesties of Mr. Gilbert. It was a curious thing that in this district, which through the operations of the English Government had been practically denied education, there were, when Ireland had a control of her own in educational matters, men who were famed throughout Europe for their scholarship. They founded monasteries on the Continent of Europe, and in England they founded Durham cathedral. The children of Donegal were now denied learning through the vile system of the English Government. The Chief Secretary had been told again and again of the evils which the system produced. By a stroke of his pen he could completely alter the system. All he had to do was to say that there should be Irish-

  731
  speaking teachers, and that English should be taught through the medium of the Irish language. It was a subterfuge to say that it was the fault of the managers of the schools. It was nothing of the kind. Managers had a most limited selection, and the number from whom they must select were not necessarily Irish-speaking teachers. He remembered that recently in the Transvaal one of the great grievances was that the Uitlanders were not allowed to address the Volkraad in their own language; but in Ireland the English Government did not allow Irish-speaking children to be taught in their own language. Could they not do in Ireland exactly what they had done in Wales? What was the great difficulty or distinguishing feature which precluded them from giving to the Irish-speaking people a chance of succeeding in the race of life? He confessed there was nothing more melancholy than to see, as they might in some parts of Ireland, men and women who could neither read nor write—splendid specimens of manhood and womanhood. They contrasted with all their ignorance and illiteracy most favourably with the Stock Exchange "bulls" and "bears," who could both read and write. On these grounds he hoped the hon. Gentleman would make a comprehensive change in the system. It could not but be said that so long as the system lasted and children were taught in school in a language different from their own vernacular, they were really proscribing the education of an entire race of people. They were denying them learning just as they endeavoured in former days to turn the Catholics to Protestantism. Although illiteracy had been truthfully charged against the peasants of Donegal, he felt that it was one of the meanest and vilest charges ever uttered, for the illiteracy had been forced on the people who had not only the greatest desire for learning, but also a natural capacity for it. What was asked was that all Irish-speaking children should be given teachers with whom they could communicate and should be taught in their own language. He had placed the question of the Irish language on a practical basis, but at the same time there were matters involved which wore not of a merely material character. "Man doth not live by bread only." While these people had been shut
  732
  out of all the benefits and chances of promotion in life, there was inflicted on them a still more grievous calamity—they were shut out from the intellectual delights to be found in the fields of knowledge which proper education would confer. What was asked would not increase the expenditure of the Government. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Commissioners to give the people the benefits of education through the medium of the Irish language. Of course, the right hon Gentleman dominated the Irish Commissioners and they would give the greatest consideration to any advice he would give. To deny to the people of the Irish-speaking districts teachers who understood the language was to carry out a barbarous penal system. They asked for an act of the very purest justice. His own constituency in Donegal had been proscribed from education long enough, and he hoped the English Government would now grant the request that was made.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid the right hon. Member for South Dublin had conveyed to the House an absolutely wrong impression in suggesting that if knowledge of the Irish language was not imparted it was the fault of the managers of the schools and not of the Government. Within the last three years the number of marks at examinations for Irish had been decreased, while the number of marks for Greek had been increased, and this notwithstanding hon. Gentlemen opposite twitted them by calling Irish a dead language. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was right in saying that he had made a few friends on that side of the House. The reason was that he had won for himself the hatred of many of the officials of Dublin Castle, and the hatred of the community in Ireland who disliked everything that was Irish. That was the reason why they thought something more of him on that side of the House. He could quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary. They looked forward to the day when the Chief Secretary should be an Irishman, but he thought there would be no necessity for the present Chief Secretary to learn Irish. They

  733
  looked forward to the day when the officials would have alone the desires of the Irish people at heart. They did not ask hon. Members opposite to put their hands in their pockets for one sixpence; they merely asked to be allowed to carry out the wishes of the Irish people in regard to this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman refused this very small boon he would refuse what was the wish certainly of three-fourths of the Irish people.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANfelt bound, as knowing the intensity of the feeling amongst bishops, priests, and people in favour of the contention the Irish Members were putting forward, to give some brief expression to the views he knew to obtain among the people. The most rev. Bishop O'Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe, was an ecclesiastic of high attainments and high culture, and he was one of the most devoted friends and earnest advocates of the principle being contended for that evening. The priests were men who spoke the Irish language, but there were numerous schools in his district taught according to the system of the National Board, which, instead of expediting education, was an obstacle and an obstruction. The most rapid way in which one could get a language, and the ideals represented by the language, into the minds of boys and girls was to explain them to them in a language they understood. It was simply cruel to hold young people back from the degree of advancement they would gain in coming time if they were rightly treated. They were told the present system was due to a desire on the part of their beneficent British rulers to give the young people a chance of an early start in life, to make their way in the world when they left their native soil. If it was the well being and advancement of the Irish people that were desired by the English Government, that desire could have been shown in many ways, but it had not been done. The claim for a Catholic University might be taken as a test. If the Government wanted to cultivate the flower of Irish intellect, genius, and scholarship, they could have acceded to that fair and reasonable request of the Irish people of all creeds and classes. There were no doubt a few bigots who made a
  734
  little noise, beat drums, and pretended to be much greater and more powerful than they really were. But they were a mere handful and a small minority. They had, however, succeeded in frightening the British Government, which professed not to be afraid of any race or people. The Government were afraid of the Orange drum, which had been beaten in Ulster, but why not in this matter have regard for Irish sentiment? Why not show some sense of gratitude? Although a long story it was a true story, and not a legend, that Irishmen educated and Christianised a great part of England. In their great schools the Irish gave free education and free food to the students who came across from England. In the great city of Armagh there existed one of the great Irish schools to which students came from England to learn knowledge and civilisation. What better could Ireland do for England than make Christians of Pagans, and make ignorant people intelligent? But what reward did they get? They had this national system, which was not carried out, devised, or designed according to the views, wishes, or feelings of the Irish people. It was a foreign institution; a foreign spirit ruled it from first to last; and it was high time the Irish people rose in revolt against it. There was now a revolt in Ireland against this cruel system, and it need not be imagined that it was a little sentimental outburst, coming up like a flower, which would wither away again very shortly. It was the commencement of a great national movement, and the movement was growing, increasing, and strengthening every day. Young men and women were joining Gaelic classes who had never heard Irish spoken before, and they were learning the Gaelic tongue with enthusiasm. He knew young people who had never heard Gaelic spoken in their own homes, but who were now teaching Gaelic classes in Ireland. That showed how the movement was growing, and he claimed for it the fair play and sympathy of a cultured and enlightened people. Everybody knew how it broadened a man's intellectual power to learn another language; if he knew but one tongue he was cabined, cribbed and confined in his search after knowledge. There were many arguments which might be advanced in favour of this moderate demand of the Irish nation. He had no doubt the

  735
  English rulers had hoped to kill out the Irish language; they thought it was doomed to death; but it was fated not to die. England was always robbing Ireland of one thing or another, but this was something the English did not want for themselves, and yet would not allow the Irish to have. Irish lands were confiscated, Irish manufactures destroyed. Ireland was robbed of her Parliament, and the English did their best to rob her of her religion, but in that they were defeated. She was plundered by over-taxation, but after all these grabbings and takings she asked only for fair play for her young people in keeping alive and cultivating their mother tongue. He pleaded that no obstacles should be thrown in the way, but that the movement should be helped and encouraged. England would be no poorer or worse for it, but Ireland would be much happier. At present the language was one of the relics of the past; Ireland's ancient history was bound up with it, and she would not part with it. He was thankful and proud to have lived to see the day when there was a great movement in that direction, and a revival of Irish feeling in that respect, and he was confident that the movement would thrive, prosper, and succeed. Some speakers had treated the subject as though it was desired to banish the English language from Ireland. No such proposition or suggestion had been made. It was a gross misrepresentation to pretend to the English people that that was the object of the movement. It was essential that the Irish people should be able to speak the language spoken on the great continent of America among that friendly, free, and sympathetic people. It was also necessary that they should know the English tongue when they went to the great new Commonwealth which had just been constituted and formed by the people of Australia. It was, therefore, absurd to make the suggestion to which he had referred. No harm would be done to any English interest; England would lose nothing by it. Whatever concession the Government might make, the Irish people were determined to keep this subject going until their object was attained. It was not necessary for him to argue the matter further, but he felt bound to lot his voice be heard on the subject, as otherwise he would feel he had not done his
  736
  duty. The speech of the Chief Secretary had been sympathetic, and if he would pluck up heart and go a little further, he would win for himself a grateful and kindly feeling on the part of the Irish people. The nation meant to alter the condition of things under which numbers of Irish people never heard a word of Irish in their lives, and every word of sympathy and help in that struggle would be repaid with affectionate and friendly feeling by the people of Ireland.
  MR. DALYsaid the directions he had received during the last few days were to the effect that the people of his constituency were anxious that the Government should introduce the teaching of the Irish language into the schools. To his own knowledge, in the district where he came from, in which English only was spoken, he could assure the Committee that there were a great number of classes where Irish was being taught. He was rather disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, for he had always been under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was accountable for the entire government of Ireland. If any hon. Member put a question in the House about education they would put it to the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary had stated that he had no power over the Education Board, and yet he answered for them in this House. Such an argument was entirely inconsistent with the office which the Chief Secretary held. Therefore he was greatly surprised at the statement which had been made, for the right hon. Gentleman had tried to place the entire blame upon the shoulders of the managers of the schools. If a manager of a school in Ireland wanted a teacher who could teach Irish, where was he to get that teacher? There were no training colleges, to teach them, and if a teacher were appointed who understood Irish probably an inspector would be sent from this country to award marks for the teaching; of a subject about which he knew absolutely nothing. It was a very remarkable fact that, in the west of Ireland, where the Irish language was so largely spoken,. out of 1,300 schools no less than 1,164 of them were anxious that Irish should be taught in those schools. Could there be anything more conclusive than that fact?

  737
  The right hon. Gentleman had been met by arguments from the Irish Members which could not be controverted. The speech of Dr. Starkie, the new Resident Commissioner, had been placed before the Committee. The Chief Secretary had just made a speech, and he scarcely knew whether the right hon. Gentleman was for or against their demands. He stated that he had no power with the Commissioners of National Education, and yet he had to answer for them in the House of Commons. All the same, he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman stated to the Commissioners for National Education that it was his wish that they should introduce the teaching of the Irish language in Irish-speaking districts, that statement would take away a great deal of the soreness of the Irish people upon this question. It was very remarkable that while the Irish people could not get permission to have their own language taught in their own schools, the Welsh people obtained that concession long ago. There were only about 2,000 Jews in Ireland, and yet their language was fostered and allowed to be taught. The Jews were allowed this privilege, and yet the Irish were not. This was another Irish grievance which had been put forward so often in this House with the same inevitable result. The Chief Secretary said that there was no desire on behalf of the Irish people to have their children taught the home language, but he was quite wrong. There was a convent where he came from where the children were sent to be educated, and one of the subjects taught there was Irish. He knew that thirty-five young ladies from that convent competed at the intermediate examinations last year. Those children came from the most respectable class of people in Ireland, and if the parents of those children were not anxious that their children should learn their native language, was it likely that they would; send them to schools where Irish was taught? This was a very strong argument, showing that Irish parents of the most respectable class were anxious that their children should understand and be able to converse in the tongue which the British Government had done so much to remove and stamp out in Ireland. The Commissioners of Education had put in kindergarten, singing, and other matters
  738
  to be taught, but the Irish language was not there. Although the right hon. Gentleman had stated he had no power over the Commissioners, he believed that if the Chief Secretary only gave that body a hint they would not be very long before they acted upon it, and he was sure that by so doing he would earn the gratitude of the Irish people. It was not the slightest use delaying this matter, because the Irish language would have to be taught in the Irish schools. The people of Ireland were determined to know their native tongue, and the right hon. Gentleman might as well at once give the Commissioners instruction to do something which would eventually have to be done.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Whilst listening to the sympathetic speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, for some time I could not tell whether he was for or against us, but when he denied responsibility for the policy of the Education Board in Ireland that satisfied me that he was not to be trusted in the matter. When the Chief Secretary denies responsibility for men whom he has himself appointed I decline to accept his denial of responsibility. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to remove this disability? I certainly have seen no action at all on his part in this direction beyond a few words of sympathy, which, as far as we are concerned, means nothing at all. We intend to test the genuineness of the sympathy of the Chief Secretary upon this question. We want him to carry out the same system which has already been granted to Wales. I feel it my duty to state that I believe there is a conspiracy existing between him and the Education Board against our native language. If the right hon. Gentleman means to put himself right with the Irish people lot him tell us plainly that he means to carry out in Ireland the bilingual system which is already in operation in Wales.
  MR. FIELD(, St. Patrick): There are a couple of points which, to my mind, have not yet been advanced in this debate. This is the only opportunity afforded us in this House on the Estimates of criticising the action of the

  739
  National Board of Education. It has always been a puzzle to me why certain gentlemen are called the National Board, because I have always regarded them as an anti-Irish Board, and I think even the dual occupants of the Treasury Bench this evening can hardly contradict that statement. It is because they are anti-Irish that they have this extraordinary objection to the teaching of the Irish language. Any literary man who has studied this subject must know perfectly well that a language is distinctly a part of the nation, and a great scholar once said that the nation which loses its language loses the best part of its existence. If that is true of other nations I can hardly understand why it should not be applied also to Ireland. To my mind, that is precisely the reason why the National Board of Education do not desire to teach the Irish language in Ireland. I have had some experience in this matter, although I do not pretend to be a profound Irish scholar. I have spent some time in Connemara, and I know that the children who used to attend the schools there were only taught English, and the Irish language was discouraged as far as possible. Not only this, but it was made absolutely penal to speak the Irish language. That was an absolute fact. I was told it by hundreds of people in Connemara, and in that district there was actually a penal law against speaking the language of the people. I challenge any hon. Member to contest my statement and to inquire whether such a thing ever took place in Connemara. I regret to find that these old bad traditions are apparently still a working factor in the minds of the National Board of Education. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether we have not arrived at a different stage of civilisation, when we ought to be more in accord with the spirit of the times, and when we ought not to revert to the old bad system of coercion. What is the raison d'être of constitutional government? It is that it should be administered in the spirit of the community it governs. We have now a manifestation all over the country in the shape of a Gaelic revival, and it is one of the most vaunted of constitutional maxims that public opinion ought to be the breath of the law. But in this matter the spirit of the law is absolutely opposed to popular opinion. Why do I say
  740
  that? Only last night an enormous meeting was held in the Round Room or Rotunda—the largest hall in Dublin. It was a public protest on this very question. I received an invitation to attend, but was obliged to decline it because I had to come to the House of Commons. Cardinal Logue wrote a letter which was read at that meeting, and letters were read from other public men, and a resolution was passed calling on the Irish Members of Parliament to resist the proposals of the Commissioners until they had been amended by making provision for bilingual education in Ireland as in Wales. There is a manifestation of public opinion in Ireland, and here to-night we have the Chief Secretary telling us that he has no control whatever over the so-called National Board of Education, and that even the House of Commons has no power, although the taxpayers of Ireland provide the funds whereby education is carried out. That would not be allowed to exist in any other constitutionally governed country in the world. If the Chief Secretary wants philosophic, educational, or literary reasons why the bilingual system should be adopted in Ireland, he will find them in a short practical pamphlet issued by the Gaelic League. I have been requested by the branch of the League to which I belong to speak in this debate. The other evening we had a meeting in the town hall of Blackrock. I was in the chair, and the enthusiasm evinced at the meeting was something extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that there is no spirit among the people as regards this movement, but in Black-rock the urban district council—formerly a Conservative body, but which has lately assumed a Nationalist complexion—has put the names of the streets in Gaelic, so that we are Irish still, notwithstanding the efforts of the National Board; and it seems to mo that if the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would approach this question in a philosophic spirit, they would recognise that fact. I want to argue this question not from an extreme Nationalist point of view, but from an educational, practical, common-sense point of view. I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman: is it a wise thing to provoke friction between the people and the National Education Board, when there ought to

  741
  be co-operation in the fullest sense of the word? That is not a proposition that will be contradicted even by those who hold the opposite view on this question. Our people are very much in earnest, and unless the demand of the Irish Members is assented to the attendance in the schools may possibly be reduced, which would be an unmixed evil. I have always been in favour of carrying out the clause for compulsory attendance at schools, because, unless the children attend school regularly, there cannot be any educational progress in the country. Some hon. Members opposite—possibly the Chief Secretary, and undoubtedly the majority of the National Board—think this is a sentimental question. Granted that it is. But you want the children to attend school, and anything that would bring about friction and lessen the school attendance would be nothing less than a national evil. In conclusion, I will only say that the National Board—which is a nominated Board, which does not represent the people, and which is out of touch with popular opinion—is the worst body you could have to carry out what is called national education, and if the Chief Secretary declares in this House that he is unable to control the Board, then I think it is time it was brought under the control of somebody. Mr. Butt once declared that the worst system of government was government by irresponsible nominated Boards, and I think this Board of Education ought to be elected, or at any rate responsible to the elected representatives of the people. There can be no question of such importance to the community at large as the question of education, and yet in Ireland we put the whole management of the education of the country into the hands of seven gentlemen who are responsible to nobody, and over whom the taxpayers have no control whatever, and who have chosen by their unwise action to introduce friction between the people of Ireland and the system of education in that country. I hope the arguments I have advanced will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I have endeavoured to put them forward in a reasonable way, and without introducing any extreme political tinge, because I think this is a matter we ought to approach in a calm spirit of considera-
  742
  tion, for there is nothing more important to a community than its system of education.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am not satisfied with merely giving a, silent vote on this motion. Speaking as the representative of an Irish constituency and also as an Irish Protestant, I wish to express my entire agreement with most, of the arguments I have heard from below the gangway. It seems to me that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Treasury bench treated the question in a very ingenuous manner, for while both of them expressed strong sympathy with the general object of the motion, they each endeavoured as it were to divert the mind of the Committee from what the real issue is. The Chief Secretary endeavoured to convert this question as to the teaching of Irish in National schools in Ireland into a question of far greater and wider application. I do not understand that the object of this motion is to substitute Irish for English as the spoken language of the Irish people. That is a much larger question which can be dealt with if ever it arises. The question we have to consider to-night is the Vote for the National Education Board. The right hon. Gentleman while expressing sympathy with the object of the motion tried to shirk all responsibility and to throw it on the National Board. I am not going to say one word with reference to the component members of the Board. For many of them individually I have the highest respect, but the fact that Protestants and Catholics are equally balanced on it indicates to mo that it is a Board not for the purpose of considering what is best in order to promote the education of the country, but what is best to enable the balance to be maintained without any great outrage to either side. It is quite a fallacy to say that the Government or this House has no control over the National Board. But the House of Commons has to vote the money for the Board, and on this motion the House of Commons have to take the responsibility of deciding on which side the merits of the question rest. Therefore it is vain for the right hon. Gentleman to say in one breath that he is quite in accord with Irish Members below the gangway, and then in another

  743
  breath that he is utterly powerless to further his own view. I also think that the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture was not very ingenuous, because he seemed to convey to the Committee that the Board of Education in their new rules had initiated something which was in the direction aimed at by this motion. In that he was quite under a mistake, because the insignificant note to which he referred is merely the repetition of a note which has appeared in the rules of the National Board since 1883. What then becomes of the entire argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture? He endeavoured to smooth down the hon. Members below the Gangway—which is not very easy to do—by stating that the National Board had initiated a new rule which would probably lead to what was desired by hon. Members, but he must not have been aware that that was a mere repetition of a note which for seventeen years has appeared in the Code, and which has led not to the promotion but to the gradual extinction of the teaching of the Irish language in the National schools. What is the real issue? It is not the absurd idea that at the end of the nineteenth century the 4,500,000 inhabitants of Ireland should at once begin to learn Irish, and that all our business and all our litigation should in future be carried on in Irish. That is not the intention of any rational man. The object and intention is to teach the rising generation Irish, and through Irish to teach them English, and to educate their minds in order to fit them for the struggle of life. That is the question at issue, and also whether it is to be done in the manner which is commended by the hierarchy of Ireland and by 1,200 managers of schools and which was voiced at the meeting at the Rotunda last evening. What could be more reasonable? The demand is that in all places where Irish is the home language pupils should be taught to read and write it, and that other useful subjects should be imparted to them through the medium of Irish. It appears that the number of Irish speaking people in Ireland is at present 630,000, who reside principally in the West, within a line drawn from Donegal—whose claims have been so eloquently expressed by one of its representatives to-night—down to Waterford, and the
  744
  question is whether in these districts every facility should not be given to the young people to be taught through the medium of Irish. I recollect once when travelling in Kerry I stopped at the village of Sneem. I went into the National school, and on one side were drawn up about forty little boys, their bright black eyes and dark hair rendering their nationality unmistakable. On the opposite side was an equal number of boys not quite so dark. I asked the teacher what it meant. "Oh," he said, "these boys to the left can only speak Irish, and those to the right can speak English, and my plan is to teach the Irish-speaking boys through Irish, and also to endeavour to teach the English-speaking boys some knowledge of the Irish language." That is the style of thing I would like to see prevailing in all National schools in Irish-speaking districts. What a lamentable thing it would be if the Irish language, for want of encouragement, was really to become a dead language! The language of every country is an historic asset, and how sad and lamentable it would be if, through the neglect of the Government of the country, a language which by common consent and tradition embodies in itself poetry and matters of historical interest, were to be wholly lost. If that language were to become a dead language where it is now the language of nearly a million of people, what responsibility would rest not merely on the Government, but on the representatives of that people! I think we are bound to use every exertion to keep alive that language. What would we not give to have languages which are dead revived again! What would we not give if the great Latin language were a spoken and written language again! What would we not give if the language of the magnificent sublimity of Socrates and Homer were alive again! Anyone who does not try to arrest the decay of a language is in my opinion guilty of a great historical crime. We seek, therefore, that the National Board should be compelled to make this change, and that English should be taught in Irish-speaking districts through the medium of Irish. Is not that the obvious way to teach the youth in these districts? If you want to teach an Irish boy English you

  745
  must teach him through a language he understands and in which he thinks. Otherwise he will only learn English like a parrot, by rote. In old libraries are to be found Latin grammars in which not only the grammatical part but also the explanatory part is in Latin. That idea is exploded now, because it was found to be such an enormously difficult way of teaching the language. Now, in all Latin and Greek grammars the explanatory part is in English, and the grammatical part in the language which it is sought to teach. For the Irish-speaking districts the grammatical part of an English grammar should be in English and the explanatory part should be in Irish. It is vain and absurd to try to relieve the National Board from responsibility on the ground that they cannot get teachers to teach Irish. I deny that altogether. We know that in everything—educational as well as commercial—the demand always creates the supply. Do not tell me you cannot get plenty of Irish teachers. In fact, in my boyhood days there were several what were called "hedge-schoolmasters" in Tipperary. I remember myself learning the Lord's Prayer in Irish, which was, I suppose, what made me such a good Christian. When I heard the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs, to whom we all are indebted, I had in my recollection an old teacher who endeavoured, when I was very small indeed, to instil into me a knowledge of the Irish language, and if I had had the opportunity afterwards I am not at all sure that I would not have been able to orate much better in that language than I can ever hope to do in English. Then the other part of the demand is equally reasonable—namely, that a knowledge of the Irish language should be made a necessary subject of examination, and put at least on a level with the dead languages. I am a great admirer of the dead languages. I studied them very much, and I would not give up my knowledge of them for any earthly acquisition. Many people find great difficulty in learning Latin or Greek, but give a young Irishman an opportunity of learning the language of his own country, of reading the legends of his own country, full of heroism, and full of that spirit which still breathes in the pages of immortal Homer, and you will not only elevate his character,
  746
  but make him a better citizen than he is at present.
  MR. DILLON: This has been an extremely interesting debate, and for more reasons than one. For myself it has been exceedingly interesting because it affirms a prophecy I made two or three years ago in this House, when we listened to a less sympathetic speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—a prophecy that this was a genuine national movement, and would spread. It has spread and increased in strength so largely that he will find it a more popular movement than he even now seems to think. I desire to say in regard to the speech delivered to-night by the right hon. Gentleman, that, although he undoubtedly exhibited considerable sympathy with the cause we advocate, he minimised and underrated the importance of the question. He commenced by finding fault with the hon. Member for Waterford because the hon. Gentleman spoke of this question as involving the whole future of the Irish race in its higher and spiritual sense. Now, I think that language is justified, and that the considerations involved do seriously affect the whole future of the Irish race. Although the right hon. Gentleman has shown a considerable advance on the subject tonight—and I recognise the sympathetic tone of his speech—I think he has still failed to understand and appreciate the full bearing of this question, and the value placed upon it by those who are advocating it in Ireland. This is a question which is not at all exhausted when we deal with the considerations as to teaching the children in Irish-speaking districts the use of their own tongue, and instructing them in the English language and various subjects of education through the medium of their own tongue. That is a pressing and urgent question; but it is small compared with the great subject of the value of the language itself, and all that is contained in it, to the spiritual condition of the Irish people. Before dealing with the more practical part of the question, I desire to say that I hold diametrically opposite views from those expressed by the hon. Member for East Down. He thinks that in encouraging the Irish language we are engaged in a foolish and mischievous task, and he gave us the

  747
  reasons for that opinion. First of all, he laid down the doctrine that the value of a language was to be estimated by the number of people who spoke it, and that without any qualification whatever. And he went on to say that if a language was spoken by few people it was practically valueless. I would point out that by that canon of criticism Chinese is by far the most valuable language spoken by the human race. See where that proposition carries us! If the value of a language is to be estimated by the number of people who speak it, then the Greek language is the most valueless, because the number of people who spoke the language of Homer never exceeded two or three millions. According to the hon. Gentleman's argument the Greek language was contemptible, and ought to have been wiped out in favour of the Persian language. To come to the Latin language, which spread all over Europe and some parts of Asia, the same argument could have been used with even greater force in the days of the supremacy of the Empire of Rome in favour of the obliteration of the language of Greece, because the latter was only spoken by a despised, an insignificant, and a conquered nation. And yet that language and literature have carried down the stream of time the most precious portions of our civilisation. They remain, and will not be dislodged even by the hon. Member for East Down. We are more indebted to the spiritual power of the language and literature of that little conquered people of Greece than to the great Empire of Rome itself. I need not point to the history of the Hebrew race. According to the argument of the hon. Member for East Down, the Bible and the language of the Hebrews, who were a conquered race, would come under the same law as the language and literature of the Greeks. The fact is that the whole course of history shows us that the greatest spiritual lessons of mankind and the greatest literatures have sprung from small peoples and from languages spoken by a comparatively insignificant portion of the human race; and that there is no comparison between the value of a language and the number of people who speak it. Therefore there is no force in that argument. The hon. Gentleman, and I must say to some extent others who have spoken from the Government Benches, seem to think that
  748
  they have settled this question when they look upon it from a purely utilitarian point of view. But I utterly repudiate that criterion of judgment. I say that while it is perfectly legitimate to argue this question from a utilitarian point of view, you cannot exhaust it and arrive at a proper judgment from that single standpoint. The hon. Gentleman opposite talks about trade, and says that no language is of value except English, then Chinese, and next German or French. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] I understood him to say that Chinese was one of the most important languages if we are to be guided by the amount of trade. But that is a principle which we cannot and do not accept. We base our demand for the preservation of, and fair play being given to, the ancient language of our people on higher considerations than mere utilitarianism. We hold that we have a right to reinstate the Irish language and literature in the place of honour from which they were driven in the days of conquest and persecution; because we believe that if you interrupt the intellectual life of the people, if you tear them out by the roots, as it were, and plant them down in the midst of an alien civilisation, and. of a race with whose traditions and history they are unacquainted and entirely out of sympathy, you will effectually dwarf their intellectual growth and injure the moral fibre of the entire race. Viewed from that point, the subject is one of infinitely greater importance and deeper and more philosophic weight than the right hon. Gentleman seems to recognise. What is the history of the Irish language? Down to the time of the famine the Irish language was the habitual speech of the south and west of Ireland, and, although I do not believe in any of the figures on the subject taken at that time, at least three millions of the people of Ireland used the Irish tongue as the habitual means, of social and commercial communication. All the small gentry in the part of the country I come from spoke no other language. At that time there was a great movement in Ireland to revive the literature and songs and music of Ireland, and there were in Dublin scholars who from their various acquirements could bear comparison with those of any other country in Europe—Currie, O'Sullivan,

  749
  O'Kelly, and others, who have hardly left a successor. These men, had they lived in a normal condition of things, would have been founders of schools, and I venture to say that had it not been for the famine and the vile persecution to which the language and literature of Ireland were subjected, these Irish scholars would have now hold as high a position in the learning of Europe as any of the great scholars who now stand in the forefront of philological learning and folk-lore. But what happened? The National movement was more or less identified with the study of the language, folk-lore and music of Ireland; and the whole of the men then engaged in Irish studies were isolated, divorced from support, and viewed with evil suspicion by the Irish Government. The great seats of learning in Ireland discouraged Irish scholarship and started a crusade of | the most atrocious character against the Irish leaders. That is a part, and a most vital part of this question, and I could undertake to show that all the great seats of learning in Ireland, including Trinity College, boycotted Irish learning and Irish scholars, so that to become an Irish scholar was synonymous with starvation. And so the last great race of Irish scholars died in a state of the most miserable poverty—a scandal and a disgrace to the Government of the day and to the seats of learning. What was the consequence? In the days when we were young we could not learn Irish; there was no opportunity for doing so; and those who took any interest in the subject were condemned to the cruel humiliation of seeing the whole traditions of Irish scholarship pass away to Germany and Franco. To-day's Times newspaper is filled with admiration at a German coming over to Ireland and publishing a great work on the Irish language, and it goes on to say that "more had been done for Celtic studios by a few Gorman scholars from the time of Zeuss down to the present day than by all the vain chattering of Irish literary societies." That only exhibits the gross and savage ignorance of the Times in regard to the Irish language and literature; and I venture to say that if Zeuss had been living to-day he would have been the first to condemn that insult to Irish scholarship. Zeuss did, no doubt, a great deal, but nothing compared with O'Kelly,
  750
  O'Sullivan, and others, who, had they lived in Germany or France, would have been honoured, and their lives made comfortable; but because they lived in Ireland, and were Irishmen, wore starved and made scarecrows of, to prevent other Irishmen following in their stops. When the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure without the intention of inflicting pain upon us, pointed to the fact that Irish was an unpopular subject of study in the higher colleges and universities of Ireland, he forgot why that was. It was because to be an Irish student, an Irish scholar, was enough to shut to a man every avenue of success in Ireland, and because, owing— to its shame be it said—to the bigotry of Trinity College, which has in its library some of the finest monuments of Irish literature and art in the world, and of the other great learned bodies in Ireland, and to the persecution of the Government, Irish scholars of a past generation, giants as they were, were condemned to poverty and misery, and had to trust for their living to a few private patrons. That is the reason why Irish is not a popular study in the great seats of learning in Ireland. That is the A B C of this question, without which all that is involved in it cannot be understood. The language and literature of Ireland—which, by the admission of the greatest European scholars, is the richest, most valuable, and most varied of all Celtic languages and literatures—has been, down to our time, subjected to a persecution unparalleled in the history of our race. They have been banished from our universities, banned in our intermediate colleges and schools, and proscribed in the primary schools. That policy was the idea of the Government of the day. It was alleged that the study of the antiquities and history of Ireland was calculated to foster the national spirit, and they banned them both. That is the full explanation of why there should exist a certain lack of popularity, as has been the phrase, for Irish studies in the higher seats of learning. But in these modern times a new movement has sprung up. Like many other movements, it has sprung up from the people themselves. When the language was banned by all the great and wealthy societies like Trinity College, and outlawed by the Government, these associations sprang up among the people themselves,

  751
  and commenced, in a small way for many years, to try and bring the language and literature of Ireland to the front. When I was a student I was one of the very first to form the old Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language. We did not make much progress to start with, and received absolutely no encouragement from the Government or the seats of learning. But the movement has grown and has been taken up afresh by the Gaelic League, who have aroused the strength of the Irish people in favour of their own tongue and literature. I congratulate that league on the success of their work, because it is due to them that this debate has been so prolonged, and that it has been supported by the vast majority of the Irish Members. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the practical bearing of this question he said he was in sympathy with the Gaelic League as regards their first claim—that in Irish-speaking districts Irish should be used in teaching English; but he said he had no power. I was acquainted with that. I knew that the National Board of Education was perfectly independent, except that the Lord Lieutenant may refuse to sanction new rules. That is the extraordinary thing. I do not know if in the whole civilised globe you can point to a body of men who have control over the education of the country, and for whom a Vote of £12,000 a year is passed, but over whom Parliament has absolutely no power. The Minister of Education in this country has control over the sums voted by Parliament, and is responsible to the people; but it is not so in Ireland. What are we to do % The most irrational thing would seem to be to endeavour to cut off a small portion of the provision for public education in Ireland, and I point out the absurdity of that. The Government deal in all kinds of absurd devices to dodge round the difficulties of the situation; but if the Government were to get the Irish Members together in Grand Committee we could settle all these matters from year to year. The reason why these matters are so perniciously arranged is that the views are consulted of High Churchmen in England, Nonconformists, and other people who do not know the facts of Ireland. That is what has destroyed Irish education, and has rendered it impossible for us to get the education of Ireland on a sound basis. To show
  752
  the extreme vitality of the old language, a Danish professor, who went down to the west of Ireland a year ago, and lived among the people to study the old language, records this most remarkable fact. He went down and lived among the peasantry of Arran, and he says after living there for a short time he was able to write down 4,000 words "which I have heard them use in their everyday life." I venture to say that if any gentleman interested in linguistic studies goes down to Somerset or Kent he will not find 500 words used by the people in daily conversation. Yet in Ireland this gentleman asserts he put down 4,000 words. What do you substitute when you go teaching the English and banning the Irish language? You give them a vocabulary of 200 or 300 English words, with the meaning of which they are not acquainted, and is it any wonder that you make them stupid? You first reduce the vocabulary enormously, and the vocabulary you give them is not understood by the people who speak it. I only allude to that to show how enormously important the question is with regard to the intellectual equipment of these Irish-speaking peasants. The truth is that there has been a deliberate attempt to destroy the Irish language. The result is to keep these children in a state of ignorance and stupor, and we have to sit hero night after night and year after year and listen to the taunts which are levelled at the illiteracy of our people, who have been kept illiterate by the State policy, and largely by this infamous campaign against their native tongue. This system has again and again been condemned by Government officials, but still the studied, dogged policy of the Board has been to ban the Irish language, and that has been carried on by successive Boards, supported by successive Chief Secretaries. It seems to be desirable to right it, but how is it to be carried further? We do not know. The Chief Secretary has no power and the Board refuses to move. I have no hesitation in characterising that as adding insult to injury. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is desirable to point out his own powers in the matter. I notice that he always seems to enlarge upon the difficulties. First of all, he made out that there was a difficulty in getting teachers. I am not surprised that

  753
  there is after what I have described. Knowledge of Irish has been made the badge of inferiority and the object of oppression. How could there be a supply of teachers? There is no room for the study of the Irish language in the training colleges. It has not been encouraged in any way. It has always been given the cold shoulder, and how can you expect to get teachers when in the training colleges the subject is banned? It is nothing short of an outrage that at the training colleges of the State the Irish tongue should be completely ignored. The Gaelic League have displayed admirable activity in pushing this question as they have done. I am informed that there are 250 teachers who are conversant with the Irish tongue, but they get no engagements. But why are steps not taken to teach the Irish language in the training colleges? If it was made a subject ranking with the teachers among other subjects, would not the demand of a certainty create the supply in a short time? Does the right hon. Gentleman forget the memorial of the managers, representing well over 1,000 schools? As I understand the programme at present, there is no room for teaching Irish. What is the use of managers making provision for teachers of the Irish language if the Irish colleges have thrown it out? There is really no footing in the Irish schools for the Irish language, and I do not see how there could be a supply of teachers if the subject is not put upon a level with other subjects. We know perfectly well that in the Education Code the subjects that are to be taught are carefully set forth, and that Irish is put into the background, and that until quite recently, when some slight change was made, there was no encouragement. Therefore it is not fair to cast upon the managers the blame for a state of things which is the outcome of a long, continuous, and deliberate conspiracy to put the Irish language down. But there will be no fault hereafter if the teachers are forthcoming. I now turn for a moment to the question of the second demand of the Gaelic League. I think there is a good deal of vagueness in the nature of this second demand. The right hon. Gentleman said he took the second demand to imply that Irish should be made compulsory in all schools whether parents liked it or not. I do not think the matter is placed so high
  754
  as that, nor have I ever gone so far. I think it would be an absurd thing; but, of course, in all movements like this there are enthusiasts, I know that there are persons in Ireland, with whom I differ, who suggest that we should take to the Irish and abandon the English tongue altogether. I do not go that length, nor do I believe that any great body of the people would agree to enforce Irish upon unwilling people. I would never be a party to it, and it has never been put forward. Neither of these reforms would be forced upon the schools; they would be introduced at the discretion of the managers. It is not to be supposed that a manager would force upon an unwilling school a subject that was distasteful to the people. As I understand it, it is a claim to restore the native language to a place of honour in all schools in Ireland, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Education, that, unless I am greatly mistaken, there never will be peace in Ireland until that is done. I conclude with the statement that my deep conviction is that until Irish language and Irish literature are raised to a position of equality with other subjects, in all the primary, and secondary schools of Ireland, this agitation will never cease. We do not want to enforce it on any unwilling body of men, but we do insist, and we shall continue to until we succeed, upon the fact that the language and literature of our country shall occupy a position of honour in the primary and secondary schools and university collages in Ireland. We want a university where Irish shall occupy a place of honour. We ask that the scarcity of teachers shall be met by the study of Irish literature and the Irish tongue, which shall lead on to chairs and fellowships, so that the students may have an opportunity of living; because students cannot live on suction, and if you tell a young man in Ireland that if he devotes himself to the study of Irish he must starve, you pursue a policy of proscription and persecution, which is a policy which we will never sit quietly under. We do not wish to attempt the impossible task of banishing the English tongue from Ireland, and depriving ourselves of the advantage of speaking that tongue, but we do insist upon the right of those who teach the Irish tongue being placed upon an

  755
  equality with the teachers of other subjects, and we insist and demand that Irish scholarship in the future shall not be treated as it has been in the past as a badge of inferiority and contempt; but, on the contrary, that the Irish language and literature of the country shall be so treated that men may devote their lives and labours to that study, without having their footsteps dogged as the footsteps of Sheridan and O'Connell were dogged by the spectre of starvation.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed satisfaction at the fact that the hon. Member for East Mayo disclaimed the extravagances which no doubt would cast some little ridicule upon this movement, and had not added to its strength. Irishmen could not be asked to give up speaking the English language and separate themselves from the great civilisation of the world which it represented. That was the most grotesque proposal that could be contemplated, and it had brought many persons to doubt the sincerity and reality of the movement in favour of the Irish language. Neither did he look forward to the production among present-day literature of a work in the Irish language; but for all that he maintained that there was reality and reason behind this movement. There were instances in the present century of a language almost dead having been revived, notably in the case of the Zcech language in Bohemia. So that the proposal to revive the Irish language was not without precedent. He was old enough to have seen a very great change in Ireland. He remembered in his childhood when the Irish tongue was a great deal more spoken than it was to-day. In this connection he had a very curious experience in California. While in California he was the guest in, Los Angelos, of a gentleman born not far from Athlone. This gentleman described how when a boy he saw a youth wandering through the market place in Athlone, but no one who met the boy understood a word he said, and whether he dropped from Heaven or came from some other region was a matter of doubt. This gentleman went up to him and found that the strange tongue was the Irish language. That would show how the native language had died away in Ireland. While in
  756
  Boston he was presented with an address, he thought in poetry, but he candidly confessed that he did not understand a word of it, because it was in the Irish tongue. The curious thing, however, was that some of the gentlemen who read the address to him and who composed it were men of Irish descent who had never been in Ireland. He also heard a lecture on the Irish language at the Royal Irish Academy by a German philologist—a most interesting lecture— and in recent years some of the highest authorities on the Irish tongue had been men of German birth. He was familiar with the bread-and-butter argument, which he did not entirely disclaim, but he recalled the labours of Professor Max Müller and the statement that the whole science of philology had been revolutionised by the discovery of Sanscrit, which was of still less bread-and-butter value than Irish. He wondered if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had read the essay of the Professor on the science of language. He understood that Sanscrit remained the ancient classical language of India, the value of which was not only as a key to the Indian languages of to-day, but also as the great link which bound together the Aryan languages of Europe and the Semitic languages of the East. Sanscrit played an important part in the study of philology, which was one of the greatest and finest of the now sciences of the age, and in the same way the right of the Irish language to survive and to be encouraged might be based alone on philological grounds. His hon. friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs had spoken of how his knowledge of Welsh enabled him to reach the inner hearts and minds of the Breton people. He might shew how the Irish language could act as a sort of rough interpreter between people of different nationalities. He met a gentleman in Los Angelos who left Ireland when quite a boy. He heard a fragment of conversation that passed between that gentleman and a shepherd who was tending sheep outside of Los Angelos. The shepherd spoke Basque, and that was another of the great Celtic family of languages. His friend was able to carry on a certain amount of conversation with that Basque shepherd from the north of Spain. The renaissance in connection with these languages was headed by

  757
  some of the keenest and greatest intellects of the present day. There was one famous person, a Breton writer, who, although one of the greatest living masters of French prose, did everything in his power to encourage the Celtic revival among the Breton people. His hon. friend had not in the least exaggerated the depreciation and discouragement with which certain studies were visited between 1860 and 1870 in Ireland in Queen's College, Galway. The whole spirit of that unhappy period in Irish history was against the study of Irish. He was not without hope that this debate would bear good fruit, and he would like to impress on the Chief Secretary the fact that it was not enough for him to take up a position of neutrality on this question. The Irish language had been so discouraged and looked down upon that something like a serious effort was required to bring it back to its just and proper place in the education of Ire land. Coming to the second, and, to some extent, the more important branch of the question—the part which the study of Irish took in the education of Irish children in English as well as in Irish—he said the Chief Secretary had recognised that in the bilingual regions the study of English would be very much facilitated by the use of Irish as a medium. There was some striking testimony on that point, some of which had already been quoted. He understood that the Member for Waterford had quoted the remarkable speech of Dr. Starkie, and therefore he need not repeat it. There was passage after passage to prove that the result of trying to teach Irish-speaking children English through an English speaking teacher was that the unfortunate pupils forgot Irish, and did not learn English, so that really there was a double disadvantage. They deprived the child of anything like a scientific and grammatical knowledge of his mother tongue, and at the same time they did not supply the hiatus by a knowledge of the English tongue. A great deal of stress was attached in that House to the vast amount of illiteracy in Ireland, but the explanation was simple. Taking the throe counties where illiteracy was highest—namely, Kerry, Donegal, and Galway—which were also the counties where Irish was still largely spoken, the
  758
  number of those returned as illiterates and as speaking both languages very closely approached each other. In Kerry the number of people who spoke both Irish and English was 69,701, and the illiterates 58,744. In Galway the number who spoke both languages was 107,029, and the illiterates 87,573. His explanation of this was that the children who went to the schools forgot their Irish while they did not learn English. He believed there were official statements to show that a large number of the best trained educationists of Ireland were of opinion that the want of teaching Irish-speaking children by the Irish medium was largely responsible for the vast and tragical amount of illiteracy in these counties. Thus by the mere fact of their inability to learn English they became illiterate. Apart, therefore, from questions of philology and literature, the teaching of children by the medium of Irish and through an Irish-speaking teacher was an urgent, a vital, and a crying necessity of education in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had urged that the duty of encouraging the study of Irish lay not so much with him as with the managers of schools, and that the managers had not shown as strong a desire in this direction by the engagement of Irish-speaking teachers as might have been expected. If that statement were true the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to say that he had shifted the responsibility from his own shoulders to that of the managers, and that pressure ought to be brought on the managers of schools to supply Irish-speaking teachers. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite right in his statement of facts? He had before him a terse statement of facts prepared by the president of the Irish League in London. He said that 188 school managers, representing 1,075 schools in Irish-speaking districts, had signed a memorial in favour of the training and sending down of bilingual teachers. The memorial was addressed to the National Board of Education. He understood that, as a rule, a teacher was trained in a training college. If a teacher had a colloquial knowledge of Irish there ought to be the means in the training college of making his colloquial knowledge grammatical and scientific, so that he could go down and teach the children. One of the objections raised on this question was that if they sent a teacher

  759
  to a training college to be taught Irish he would be in the same position, because he would be learning Irish as a foreign tongue. That was not the proposal. The proposal was that the teacher sent to the training college should have a colloquial knowledge of Irish, which could be turned into a grammatical and scientific knowledge. He thought they had a right to demand the assistance of the Government not merely on the grounds of science or literature, but by way of meeting a crying evil in the education of Ireland. It would be the duty of the Gaelic Society and of other societies interested in the question to put pressure, wherever and on whomsoever pressure was needed, in order to bring this question to a practical issue, and to give the people of Ireland the same advantages as the people of Wales, and even the Hebrew children dwelling in Ireland, enjoyed at present.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the hon. Gentleman had spoken of his desire for the increased study of the Celtic language. He ventured to suggest to him that if the Irish language was to be made the subject of study it must be as a matter of higher education in the universities and not in the primary schools. The discussion had turned on two subjects. The first was whether there should be bilingual education—in other words, whether the Irish language should be used in Irish speaking districts as a means of education. The second demand was that Irish should be encouraged as a separate and distinct branch of learning. Upon the first of these questions he was in entire sympathy with hon. Members from Ireland, and he gathered that the Chief Secretary was of the same view. It was quite obvious, from an educational point of view, that if it was desired to impart instruction in English or in anything else to a boy brought up in an Irish-speaking home, it could be done satisfactorily only by addressing him in the language with which he was familiar. He trusted that as the result of the debate effective steps would speedily be taken to carry such a desirable proposal into practice, and that the bilingual system of instruction would be established in the se parts which were characterised as chiefly Irish-speaking districts. But when one came to the
  760
  question whether Irish should be made a separate and distinct branch of study, that was a different matter. It was not so much a sentimental as a practical business question connected with primary education. Was there time to teach Irish as a separate and distinct branch of education? He conceived not. Effective attention could not be given to a second language in addition to the other subjects which it was necessary boys should be taught. But supposing there was time for a second language, the practical question arose whether it should be Irish. With the greatest possible goodwill to the Irish language, he honestly did not think it would be a business-like operation to teach boys in non-Irish-speaking districts the Irish language. If they had the time and talents to acquire a separate language, French or German would be much more useful to them. From that point of view he could not support the contention that Irish should be taught as a separate and distinct branch of learning; in the primary schools of Ireland. Reasons had been advanced why the Irish language should be revived, one of the se reasons being that the English language was effete, and that it was unfit to express the great, original, and beautiful ideas of the writer of the letter in which this plea was advanced. He wished that that gentleman had been present and heard the speeches of the Irish Members that night: he would not then have been able to complain of the weakness of the English language. When it was said that the English language was effete, and that the language of Shakespeare was not suitable to convey the beautiful and original thoughts of a man, he had some suspicion that it was not so much the language as the thoughts that were at fault. The question really was a purely educational and business one, and when they had the openly-expressed conviction of the Chief Secretary that for educational purposes it was desirable to insist on the bilingual instruction, they had got as far as they were likely to get with advantage. The debate which had taken place would probably do a great deal of good in enabling the Government to insist upon increased efficacy in the bilingual process of instruction, and with that Irish Members should be content, as it was not possible to push the question further in the direction they had indicated with

  761
  any advantage, either educationally or commercially, to the people of Ireland.
  MR. CREANcomplained that Members aid not fully realise the demand of the people of Ireland. They did not desire to insist upon Irish being taught to all children; it was to be optional for the se attending the schools whether or not they received the instruction. The people had a right to demand the particular studies they wished to have taken up, and the reasonable demand they now made should not be denied. If the English people demanded with the same unanimity as the Irish people had done the encouragement of any particular study, neither the House of Commons nor any Board subordinate to it would dare to withstand that demand for even twenty-four hours. Were the Government going to deny that which would raise the social standing of the Irish people in the world? Why was not a similar course adopted in regard to Scotland and Wales? What reason was there for treating Ireland differently from the se two countries? Fifty-seven per cent. of the people on the western seaboard of Ireland were Irish-speaking people, and why should their native tongue be treated in this way? If the House of Commons had not the power to compel the National Board to adopt a different policy in this respect, the sooner a Bill was brought in for the purpose the better. That fossilised Board should be done away with, and a representative Board established which should be responsible to the country, and then the people would be able to get that education which would raise their social and educational standing, and make them what they should be and were before the English nation took them in hand—namely, as intelligent and as educated a people as were to be found in any civilised country on the face of the earth.
  DR. TANNERas representing the district possessing the largest number of Irish-speaking people, supported the demand now being put forward. There were places in county Cork where as many as 92 per cent. of the people were Irish-speaking, and to whom, therefore, this matter was one of
  762
  very considerable importance. He had again and again come across cases in which the children did not understand what was attempted to be imparted to them by National school teachers who were not versed in the Irish language. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was supposed to "boss" the National Board, but, apparently, the National Board "bossed" the Chief Secretary. It was merely another case of the tail wagging the dog instead of the dog wagging the tail. The hon. Member for York had urged that French or German, rather than Irish, should be taught in primary schools. But who ever heard of any boy learning French or German systematically, and in such a manner as to be able to speak the language, even in the great public schools of England? The classes in which the se languages were supposed to be taught were usually the romping-grounds in which the boys made game of the masters, French or German, as the case might be It was, therefore, absolutely ridiculous to suggest that French or German could be taught in the National schools. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for East Down should run down the teaching of Irish, seeing that he had been at Queen's College, Galway.
  MR. RENTOULsaid there was a Chair of Celtic at Queen's College, Galway, but there were no students, and the professor ultimately died in the workhouse.
  DR. TANNER (continuing)said that Irish was deeply studied in most of the universities in Germany, many of the very best scholars coming from that country, and it was time something should be done in Ireland itself. Was there always to be this vendetta? Was it simply because it was Irish that it was not taught? Was there some malign underhand influence at work? Was the object to crush out the language? If that was the case the purpose would never be achieved, as the movement in favour of this demand was growing day by day. At the present time numbers of people who had never given much attention to this matter were now taking it up heart and soul, and although the right hon. Gentleman might affect to despise the

  763
  minority in the House of Commons, he would not be able to despise the aspirations of a united people to preserve their beloved and living language.
  MR. FLAVIN: I would not be doing my duty if I did not express my opinion on this subject in company with my colleagues on this side of the House. Two hundred and seventy qualified teachers of Irish are now available in Ireland. But, apart from that, we have a number of the higher classes in Ireland who are qualified to teach Irish. The Gaelic League have done me the honour to elect me one of its vice-presidents. I regret that I was not able in my younger days to learn Irish, but within the last two or three months, I am not ashamed to say, I have received my first lessons in the Celtic language, and many of us wish that such opportunities had been available in the past. It is said that this is a very mischievous movement for labouring men. I know a case of a labouring man who is an honorary member of the Gaelic League, and who, when his day's labour is over, gives his services gratuitously in teaching Irish to the boys and girls of his neighbourhood. I think the time has tome when the Government should make some concession in this matter. I do not believe there is a single parish in the county of Kerry in which public meetings have not been held in favour of the bilingual system of education. I believe the discussion to-night will do good yet; and the Irish Members have done their duty nobly in pushing forward the claims of the Gaelic League.
  MR. SHEE: On very few subjects has there boon displayed such intimate knowledge in reference to the question at issue, or with the facts connected with the movement, as has been shown in the course of this debate. The hon. Member for Mid Cork referred to the fact that in his constituency there are 14,000 Irish-speaking people, and claimed that that was a higher number than in any other. Although I represent a constituency in the centre of the south-west of Ireland, the number of Irish-speaking people is double that of Mid Cork.
  DR. TANNER: What I said was that 54 per cent. of my constituents speak Irish.
  MR. SHEE: In West Waterford the total population is 35,000, and the number of Irish-speaking people is 28,000, or 75 par cent. and there is a very great desire on the part of all these people to be educated in their own language. I am afraid I cannot coincide in the praise given to the speech of the Chief Secretary. I think a too liberal interpretation has been given to it. As I understand it the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to concede bilingual teaching, but only to concur in any action of the National Board of Education which will permit the use of Irish in Irish-speaking districts for the purpose of enabling pupils to get a knowledge of English. That is an altogether different thing from a bilingual system of education. The demand is, that not merely shall instruction be given in English through the medium of Irish, but that Irish shall be taught as an independent subject. I believe that the Chief Secretary has not said one word in the direction that he is prepared to encourage the teaching of Irish in the schools as a separate subject; and if that is true it is apparent that a malign influence is at work and a desire to prevent the education of Irish children in their own language. A protest should be made from these benches against the scheme of the Government, and I hope that that protest will be made effective I have boon in the House for five years, and for the first time during that period I have received pressing invitations from my constituents to be in my place during this debate. That is only one of the evidences of the fact that there is a very widespread desire that this subject should be treated as one of importance, and that the Government should, with all the energy at our command, be urged to bring about what we aim at. If the right hon. Gentleman has no power at present to do what we want, he has the whole strength of the Government at his back, and there is nothing to prevent him from enforcing his opinion on the Board by a Bill of one clause. There is no parity between the question of the study of French or German in schools and that of the study of Irish. It is not a question of compelling

  765
  any child to learn Irish, or the parents of the children, or the managers of schools, to provide for the study of the Irish language; but simply of enabling the children to be taught in Irish, if they and their parents wish it. I am sorry at the narrow view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, but we have been accustomed to attach too much importance to the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government on these occasions. Although he declared there is no political element in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman takes a very narrow view of it. His
  view is steely cold, and his attitude cannot be described as sympathetic. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has gained a little education this evening, and that when he addresses the House on this subject again he will be able to adopt a more sympathetic attitude.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 228.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the Committee will agree with mo that it would be futile, at this time of the morning, to inaugurate a discussion on the new scheme of primary education in Ireland. Up to the present we have discussed only one point, and the broad scheme has not been discussed at all. We are in an unfortunate position with reference to these now rules. As a matter of fact, we have not yet had them in full. We have had what may be described as a summary of the rules, but even that was only put into our hands a few days ago. I make no accusation against the Irish Government in the matter. I think they desired to give us the information as early as possible, but still we did not receive it as early as we ought to have received it. It has been practically impossible for us to gather opinion in Ireland in reference to this new scheme in the few days that have elapsed since the summary was published, and to imagine that we can usefully initiate a discussion now on the new scheme of primary education in Ireland is absurd. A number of very grave questions arise in connection with the scheme which affect not only the general interests of education in Ireland, but also the position of the National teachers, which we naturally ought to protect, and it would be impossible at this hour to adequately discuss them. I would repeat to the Government a suggestion which was made in connection with the subject of Intermediate education in Ireland yesterday—namely, that ample opportunity should be given to us to discuss this question also. I would make an earnest appeal to the Government to give us an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity of discussing what amounts
  768
  to a revolution in the system of primary education in Ireland. If we get that undertaking I would be in favour of taking no discussion on the new rules to-night. I do not think we have sufficient information to enable us to usefully discuss-them. The discussion could not be reported, and would not give any satisfaction to the classes interested in this subject in Ireland. We are discussing not a political question at all, but a change in the whole primary system of education in Ireland. It is essential that this discussion should be taken under conditions which would render it useful and effective, and I would most earnestly appeal to the Government to give us an assurance that an adequate opportunity will be afforded us to discuss this revolution in the system of primary and intermediate education in Ireland. I would suggest that we ought to adjourn the discussion, on the primary education changes, and wait for that adequate opportunity when we will have sufficient information about the changes in our possession to enable us to discuss them reasonably. I have always found that the First Lord of the Treasury has been anxious to take a reasonable view, and, so far as consistent with his position, to meet the convenience of Irish Members. I would press upon him that our claim is reasonable, and might fairly be met. A discussion taken now would necessarily be imperfect, and inevitably followed by further discussion later on. I would put it to him that it would be to the interest of the Irish Members, and of general education in Ireland, to accede to our request.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I had hoped that opportunity might have been found for discussing

  769
  what I recognise is a most important question, but I am aware that another topic will occupy the attention of the Committee. I also recognise that possibly this is too early a stage on which to take a useful discussion of the rules, which have not been in operation for any length of time, and are not in the hands of hon. Gentlemen. I have no doubt that when the next session comes round hon. Gentlemen will have the advantage of a more intimate acquaintance with the wording of the rules, and some experience of how these rules have been working. Under these circumstances I admit there is a great deal that is reasonable and impressive in the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. I cannot make a definite promise for next session, but I do admit that the subject is of great importance, and one on which hon. Gentlemen from Ireland may well be anxious for an opportunity of expressing their opinion; and I shall be glad to do everything I can, at a more convenient period, to give every facility for that discussion. With that assurance perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now allow us to take the Vote.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The point is this, that these new rules have to be on the Table for a certain time, and it is within the province of any Member to raise a discussion upon them then. I think that a whole evening might be adequately devoted to the discussion of the new rules on primary and intermediate education. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not in a position to give a definite pledge for next session. Possibly not; the next session may be the first session of a different Parliament. If I understand his statement aright, subject to that limitation, he recognises that my request is a reasonable one, and that such adequate discussion as I have indicated will be granted. If so, I would express myself as satisfied.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What the hon. Gentleman has asked for is practically that the discussion should occupy a whole night. I will do what I can to prevent the intermediate education rules being discussed at the fag end of the evening. The new rules for primary education would come on in the ordinary course.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report this Resolution to the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: There are other Votes on the Paper; and I did not understand that these would not be taken. According to the prevalent idea this is the last occasion on which we will have the Irish Estimates in Committee. But if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give us an opportunity to discuss the other Votes on the Paper we might report progress. The next Vote deals with the industrial schools, in which profound interest is taken in Ireland. If the motion to report progress is made I shall oppose it.
  MR. A. J. BALPOUR: It is possible, of course, that some further opportunity might occur before the present session closes. But I do not know that it is very probable, and I cannot hold out any pledge. If the hon. Gentleman desires any further discussion to-night I will meet his wishes; but I am very unwilling to ask the Committee to sit up late.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman could hold out to us some hope that some time would be given before the end of the session to discuss this Industrial School Vote. I do not say that a whole evening should be devoted to it, but if he would give us some opportunity we might adjourn now. It would, however, be better to have some discussion now than none at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made a statement early in the session in regard to this Industrial Schools Vote, and I understood that he undertook to look into the matter to see whether some amelioration of the circular in regard to Industrial schools could not be made. We have not had an opportunity of learning his views on the subject. If he could make some statement on the position now we would

  771
  be thankful to him, and it may be that it would obviate the necessity of any lengthened discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to this Vote being taken, provided the discussion is not too long; and therefore I will not now move to report progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS III.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete a sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has not answered my question. Would he state the result of the inquiry that he promised to make earlier in the session?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman refers to. It is possible that I may have promised at an earlier period of the session that I would look further into the question of whether anything could be done by legislation this session in connection with pauper children. But there has been no opportunity of introducing or even of considering any such legislation.
  MR. DILLON: I must say that I am amazed at the statement of the Chief Secretary that his further experience of the working of the circular in regard to the industrial schools has been favourable. All I can say is, that according to the information at our disposal, the experience of the se responsible for the industrial schools has been more and more unfavourable in regard to it as time goes on. The history of this transaction will be in the memory of many Members
  772
  of the House. The whole action of the Chief Secretary has been most singular in this uncalled for interference with a system which was working well—an interference, too, in such a way as to run counter to the unanimous opinion of Ireland, and to upset and threaten with destruction a system which has done an, enormous amount of good in Ireland. This circular was issued on 1st October, 1898,and I raised the question in the House for the first time in February,1899. On that occasion the Chief Secretary referred to the O'Conor Don and some other authorities as inferentially approving of the circular. But he will remember himself that shortly after that debate a most influential deputation, of which the O'Conor Don was a member, waited upon him, and pressed upon him the enormous injury which was being inflicted upon the industrial school system by that circular. The theory of the circular is, that a child in Ireland, before it is admitted into an industrial school must be in some way contaminated. The only information we could extract from the right hon. Gentleman in previous debates as a reason for his extraordinary departure from practice was that certain children were admitted to the industrial schools who would be excluded under a more stringent interpretation of the Act. Mark what was done. For eighteen years the industrial schools system was working in Ireland, and until the right hon. Gentleman came into office it had been the accepted system of the country and had worked untold good. Juvenile crime was almost annihilated by this system and the spirit in which it was worked, and even if the right hon. Gentleman were right in his interpretation, although think he might be a little more modest, seeing that it was the established practice for eighteen years, he ought to have left well alone. When he was convinced by his legal advisers that the magistrates were giving a rather too liberal interpretation to the Act, he could either have left the system —which he found working admirably— alone, or he could have introduced a one clause Bill to amend the Act, and bring it into harmony with the system. He, however, issued his circular, the effect of which I will explain to the Committee The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make out that the O'Conor Don took

  773
  the same view as he did as to the policy and intention of the Act. On Tuesday, 28th November, 1899, a large and representative deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in Dublin, for the purpose of laying their views before him as to the Lord Lieutenant's circular. Amongst the se present was the O'Conor Den, and, in the course of a lengthy speech, he said—
  "It was he who introduced the Industrial School Hill into the House of Commons in 1867, and succeeded in having it passed into law is 1868. About fifteen years ago a, Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the Act. Every result then known with regard to the working of the Act was made known to that Commission, but fifteen years passed after the Report was made before any change came. Last year a circular was issued which, whatever it was intended to do, had the effect of making a considerable alteration in the administration of the Act. It would be sworn that if the Act was administered in the future as it had been lately the effect would he disastrous among the schools of the country. The intentions of the Act of Parliament were not the interpretations which the magistrates were placing on the circular. He did not hold that the circular forced the interpretation which was being put upon it. They had taken the view that destitution alone was no longer any element for committing to industrial schools, and that they were to inquire into the antecedents of the children, and satisfy themselves that if the children were not sent to school they would fall into crime. That was not the intention of the Act. It was intended also to provide for children who, by the destitution or incapacity of their parents, might fall into crime."
  That is the opinion of the O'Conor Don. Mark now what the dispute is. According to the circular, a child must be proved to have disreputable or criminal parents, or he must be an associate of criminals—that is to say, contaminated—before he is to be given the saving grace of the industrial schools system in Ireland. The principle of prevention has been altogether destroyed by this circular, and we are no longer permitted to assume that a child found in a state of destitution and without sufficient guardianship is likely to fall into crime. That is no longer a sufficient ground to commit according to the circular. Now see the result. When in a previous debate it was asserted that the right hon. Gentleman was dictating to magistrates in Ireland, he said he had no such intention, that the circular was not in the nature of an order, and was only a reminder of the view taken
  774
  by the authorities as to the true interpretation of the Act. Certain magistrates, having obtained the information from the right hon. Gentleman that the circular was not intended to coerce, very properly, as I think, continued to commit children as they had done for eighteen years; but the Chief Secretary immediately discharged them, and the discretion of the magistrates was defeated. The bishops of Ireland have taken this matter up, and take the view that we have presented to the Committee. We have been bombarded with complaints from the managers of these schools, pointing out the serious loss, and, in some cases, even the utter destruction, which will follow if the system is persisted in, and therefore we are bound to take every possible opportunity of bringing this gigantic evil before Parliament. In preparation for this debate the hon. Member for Waterford, having had the great gravity and importance of this matter brought under his notice, issued a circular to the managers of these schools, asking how the system would affect them, and received several replies from very responsible persons. The Rev. James Hamill, P.P., corresponding manager of St. Patrick's Female Industrial School and the Sacred Heart Industrial School, Belfast, writes as follows—
  "We have now thirty vacant places in the Sacred Heart School, although Belfast swarms with children who are fit subjects for admission. The practical result of the circular will be, in a short time, the closing of many of the schools, and the rendering of the remainder less able to continue the work they have undertaken."
  I need hardly say that before the circular was issued the difficulty was to find places for the applicants. Sister M. do Sales McGeeney, of the Lurgan Industrial School, writes—
  "Our school is going down since the issue of the recent circular. In a few years our school, built at great expense, and still in debt, would be empty. Considering how few schools exist in the north, this would be a great misfortune to the poor."
  That brings me to another point. These schools have been built by religious communities at great expense, and it is really monstrous, where local charitable resources have been called into play, that this circular should not only ruin the

  775
  schools and injure the poor, but render the se magnificent buildings useless for the purposes for which they were erected. I do not believe that in the whole world there was such an admirable industrial system as in Ireland. It was a pleasure to go through the schools, the children were so well cared for and so cheerful and happy. The manager of the Sunday's Well School writes—
  "It seems quite evident that if children similar to the se who have been formerly committed are now deprived of the safeguard of industrial schools, they will of necessity become criminals, for a starving child will steal."
  Then the manager of one of the great Dublin schools writes—
  "The numbers in the schools are so fast going down that a very few years, perhaps not more than four or five, will put an end to most of them. And the pity of it all! The schools are there—have been an acknowledged success—but they are to be shut up, the children made, perhaps, paupers or criminals of, in preference to changing the words of a legal document. What an enlightened age we live in!"
  I really think that language is justified. All these schools have, as I have said, been instrumental in almost abolishing juvenile crime in Ireland. Sister Jones, of the St. Joseph's Industrial School, says—
  "Committals have virtually ceased since the issue of this mischievous circular from the Castle authorities to the magistrates in October, 1898, and consequently we have always several vacancies. At present there are twenty-three, and that number is likely to be doubled before the close of the year. Of course this is a serious financial loss, as the general expenses of the establishment must be kept up the same."
  From Clifden, Sister Mary Reville writes—
  "Should the present restrictions on admission to industrial schools continue to be enforced, the country schools, especially the se in our mountainous districts, will very soon be wrecked. If the police are to judge the fitness of the applicant for admission, and not the magistrates, it can easily be seen how this fact must thwart the benevolent intentions of the first framers of the law, which hitherto worked so happily in Ireland."
  The manager of Newtonforbes, Longford County, writes—
  "We are going down in numbers rapidly. Certified for 145 children, we have twenty one vacancies, and are likely to have as many more
  776
  before the year closes. To balance this we have no prospects of fresh committals. We consider the Castle circular has proved most detrimental, so far as the committal of children' clause is concerned. Some children have already been discharged by the Chief Secretary, after having been in the institution for short periods, and no reason for such action was made known to us. We have done much to farther the interests and welfare of our children, and have spared no expense to fit them for the future in every way. We have spent over £12,000 of our funds (not Government money) to erect buildings for the accommodation of our children, acting under the belief that the institution was never to fail. How is this enormous sum to come back to us, now that there is no better prospect in view than the total destruction of our industrial schools? It is a startling consideration."
  I might go on multiplying these cases, but I stop there. I am astonished that the Government should persist in this circular. What is the object? Is it, deliberately against the whole public opinion of Ireland, to wreck a system which any Government ought to be proud of—a system whose object is to take children off the streets of the cities and towns of Ireland and put them into schools where they are trained to earn their bread under the care of self sacrificing women and men who for the most part work for nothing, and devote the whole of their lives to this mission, and afterwards to plant these children out under happy conditions so as to give them a chance in life? If this system were left alone these children would become self-respecting and self-supporting members of society; but if it is wrecked the children will be permitted to run about the town serving an apprenticeship to crime. A more insane policy I never heard of. The Chief Secretary dropped a hint to the deputation which waited upon him, and also in the debate in the House, that he thought under a lax administration of the law an undue burden had been thrown on the Treasury; that is to say that under the strict letter of the law some of these children ought not to have been received into the industrial schools, as they had been a drain on the British Treasury in a total sum of a few thousand pounds. I put the question, what is to become of these children, and where are they to go to? If they are the children of parents whose circumstances are such that they ought to take care of their own children but wickedly do not, the law should

  777
  compel them to do so; and if the law is not strong enough for that at present, let the law be strengthened. But if the parents have been reduced to poverty, either through misfortune or sickness, and have no means to support their children, why should not these children be put into industrial schools instead of allowing them to wander about the streets to be placed in the workhouse, whore they get the workhouse taint? The result of this circular is that the income of some of the industrial schools has dropped £7,000 or £8,000 a year. The only object of the circular seems to be to save the capitation grant of 5s. for each child. I contend that there was no expenditure in Ireland which was more profitable, and I appeal on that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because by striking at the tap-root of crime in the country there was a saving to the Government of the expenditure of imprisoning these children in after life. Therefore, I maintain that the policy of driving the se children to the streets for the purpose of saving a few thousand pounds is most narrow and foolish. There is not the least use in concealing the fact that the policy is to drive the children into the workhouse, from which they will be boarded out, and their expense charged on the rates, and thus saved to the Treasury. Now the workhouse child has a horrible mark for life, as any one can see who goes into even the best workhouses in Ireland, and contrasts its condition with that of a child in an industrial school conducted by the unions.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As the hon. Member himself remarks, this question has already been very fully discussed in the House, and I am rather surprised that he-has raised it again this evening. He began by quoting a speech of the O'Conor Don on the occasion when a deputation waited upon me in August last. I rather believe that the O'Conor Don himself then stated that he did not think the magistrates had given that interpretation to the circular which it is now said they put upon it. The circular set forth that many of the places in the industrial schools which ought to be occupied by the poor children for whose benefit the Industrial Schools Act was
  778
  really intended, children, namely, who, if not taken out of their surroundings, would grow up in vice, were now filled by children who suffered from destitution, and destitution only. The proper objects of the Industrial Schools Acts were therefore kept out of the schools by the latter class. That was the whole case. The system was carried on in a manner that was entirely illegal, and the circular was one of many which was issued with the object of preventing these illegalities. The hon. Gentleman says the system went on for eighteen years; that is absolutely contrary to the fact, and in proof of that I would refer to the Report of the Commission which was appointed in 1882, of which the O'Conor Don was a member. The Report states that it is certain that the Industrial Schools Act is regarded as an institution for poor and destitute children rather than for the children of the criminal classes. A number of children, according to the Report, were sent to these schools who did not come within the purview of the Act, and were sent there mainly on the ground of destitution; and there could be no doubt that there were many children who wore sent to industrial schools in Ireland who would not be sent in England, with the result that it was apprehended that many children who were proper subjects for these schools were left in the streets. That is the system which the hon. Gentleman says has given satisfaction in Ireland for eighteen years, and he actually suggests to me that I should have the law changed to correspond with the practice instead of having the practice changed to correspond with the law. It comes to this, that the industrial schools of Ireland should be used for the relief of destitution, and that the general taxpayer should be called upon to pay. That principle is not adopted either in England or in Scotland. Let me say a word with regard to the circular. The hon. Gentleman says that the grant-in-aid of the industrial schools in Ireland has been reduced. That is not the fact, because the grant was £100,000 last year, and it will be the same this year. It is true the attendance has been reduced by the circular, and it would be very strange if it had not, because a great, number of the children who ought never to have been admitted have been cut off

  779
  The result will, I hope, be a corresponding increase in the number of committals of children of the class for whom the industrial schools are intended. I will give the Committee the figures. Before the circular was issued the number of children committed for begging attending these schools in 1897 was 924; in 1898 it was reduced to 676, and in 1899 to 232. Of children admitted for causes other than begging, who were properly sent to the industrial schools, the number in 1897 was 486, in 1898 562, and in 1899 723. In the face of these figures I think I am justified in concluding that the object of the circular has been achieved, and that these illegalities will no longer take place, and that there will be a considerable increase in the commitals of the children for whom the Act is intended.
  SIR THE MAS ESMONDE: The figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman hardly bear out the statements in the letters which have been received from the managers of industrial schools in Ireland. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at his figures, but the se responsible for the administration of the industrial schools system in Ireland declare that the numbers have shown a very considerable falling off. It is perfectly impossible to discuss this question at this hour of the morning, and under such oppressive atmospheric conditions. We have in connection with this matter an instance of the magnificent manner in which Irish affairs are administered. We have only got two days for Irish Supply, and we are supposed to be satisfied, although there are many matters of importance which have not been discussed at all. I wish to ask the Chief Secretary one question. I was a member of a deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman on this question, and he informed us that he would make an inquiry as to whether any injury had been inflicted on the industrial schools by the operation of this circular, and that if any injury were inflicted he would see whether it could not be remedied. It would be very interesting if he would inform us what was the result of that inquiry. The Chief Secretary stands on the strict letter of the law, and I assume he has taken legal advice on the
  780
  matter, but here is the opinion of an eminent legal authority. He says—
  "The Lord Lieutenant has no authority to review the decisions of the justices. I attach no weight to the threat that steps will be taken for the discharge of children sent to the schools by order of the justices. In my opinion the 11th Section should be interpreted in a large and liberal spirit, and this becomes little short I of legal obligation, having; regard to the interpretation put upon the Act and acted on for thirty years. On the faith of this interpretation of the statute, and its judicial exposition by the justices during this long period, schools j have been erected at great expense, and j mortgage debt incurred, bestowing many blessings on the destitute poor. That all this should be now altered by an executive circular seems to me an injustice and intolerable wrong. The true and large interpretation of the statute is largely supported by the 20th section, which provides for the managers of schools permitting a child to lodge at the dwelling house of his parent. This is certainly not confined to children committed under the 14th section, or to a child whose parent is in prison. It indicates an intention to include a large class who have no visible means of subsistence, i.e., the destitute poor. In my opinion it does include them. The Irish Act purports to extend the English Industrial Schools Act, 1866, to Ireland, from which the 11th section is taken. By the English Act and by another section 'refractory' children are included. I recommend that in every case the absence of visible means should be proved."
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Commission which sat in 1882 in justification of his action in issuing the circular, but the circular was not issued until sixteen years afterwards, and it is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have to go back such a number of years to justify his action. The circular was a most unfortunate one. The Act was doing great good in Ireland, and I am very glad the matter has been raised.
  DR. COMMINS: One thing strikes me as very curious in regard to this circular. The interpretation of the law belongs to the Bench, not to the Executive, but this is a matter in which the Executive Government is overriding judgments of the Bench which have been accepted for sixteen years. You would not find a parallel for that in England. Even supposing the magistrates were in error, it was a mistake which hurt nobody. Such action as that taken by the Chief Secretary in Ireland would not be possible

  781
  in England. Would it be tolerated for one moment in England? Not at all. Why was not one of these magisterial decisions taken into the Court of Queen's Bench, instead of an interpretation of, the Act being given by the issue of an Executive Minute? By the course pursued we have had the judicial and executive functions confounded.
  MR. AUSTIN: I wish to make reference to a case that has occurred in my constituency, the circumstances of which must appeal to the sympathy of the Committee. The Chief Secretary had mentioned that the Act was designed for the saving of children, who, if not rescued from their surroundings, would grow up in vice, but I failed to see from the observations he dropped that there was any intention on his part to carry out that object. In the autumn of 1899 a family in Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, were deprived of the breadwinner. That family consisted of six children and the mother, who was delicate, and had no means of supporting them. In the ordinary course of events the mother went to the parish priest, and he took the necessary steps to obtain the admission of the children into the Limerick Industrial Schools. There was no objection at first, but Dublin Castle suddenly sent down an order to have the children removed from the industrial school, and sent back to Abbeyfeale, where all they could do was to wander about the streets. That order roused a great deal of indignation in the public mind, and the magistrates, with the concurrence of the resident magistrate, sent an order for the recommittal of the children to the Limerick Industrial Schools; but another order came down from Dublin Castle ordering their discharge. The parish priest wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, but with no effect. I cannot see for a moment where the operation of this Act as now administered is to be of any benefit. Here was a family with no provision for their support, who were decently brought up, and whose father had been a mechanic. The application for their admission to the
  782
  industrial school had boon fully considered by the magistrates and the resident magistrate, and about which no objection had been taken by the inhabitants of the town, who were fully cognisant of the whole circumstances of the case. But they were sent out into the streets by a telegram from Dublin Castle. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after all the remonstrances that have been made by magistrates and others, will take some steps to allow these poor children to be sent back to the Limerick Industrial Schools instead of to the workhouse.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope this debate will now be brought to a close and the Vote taken. I was not unwilling that the discussion should be initiated, but it has now proceeded for an hour.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If it were earlier in the evening, the subject is one of such great interest in Ireland that it ought to be discussed more fully. I recognise, however, that under the circumstances the discussion is now of little or no value, and I do not see any object in prolonging it.
  MR. DILLON: In order to obtain a division, I beg formally to move that the Vote be reduced by £10.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,757, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. FLAVINasked if the Chief Secretary had anything to say in regard to the Abbeyfeale case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUEsaid he had taken the advice of the Law Officers on the case, and had been told that it would be illegal to send the children to an industrial school.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 229.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gibney, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Blake, Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brigg, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, James

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Parnell, John Howard

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pinkerton, John

  Charnning, Francis Allston

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Commins, Andrew

  Hogan, James Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Shee, James John

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Daly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's Co.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Daiziel, James Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Dillon, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Leod, John

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Ffrench, Peter

  Maddison, Fred.

  Captain Donelan.

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bill, Charles

  Fergusson, Rt. H. Sir J. (Man.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Keswick, William

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Flower, Ernest

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lowles, John

  Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Purvis, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. K. (Kent)

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Pin. Chas.Tthomson

  Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. K (Taunt'n)

  Morgan, Hn. F (Monmouthsh.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Mori ell, George Herbert

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath.

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Rutherford, John

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon Col Edw. J.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wyndham, George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong,

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Gibney, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, James

  Caldwell, James

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Mall'ey, William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parnell, John Howard

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pinkerton, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Commins, Andrew

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Shee, James John

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q. C.)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Dillon, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  French, Peter

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Captain Donelan.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. R. Wm.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Keswick, William

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lowles, John

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)

  Faber, George Denison

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Finch, George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wyndham, George

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flower, Ernest

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Forster. Henry William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsbire)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Two of the clock, till Monday next.

The Earl of Strafford sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
London (Marylebone) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
    KINGSCOURT, READY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.
    GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
    Reported, without amendment.
  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.
    MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments.
GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 196.)
  EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 201.)
    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 202.)
    Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Report from the Joint Committee that the said Bills ought to be allowed to proceed; the proceedings of the Select Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 204.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1890.
  Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway in the counties of Devon and Cornwall from Bere Alston Station to Calstock, and the working of a portion of the East Cornwall Mineral Railway as a light railway.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty fourth Report of Her Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
  Thirty second Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 30th June, 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS —ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2479. Argentine Republic (Agricultural and commercial condition).

  No. 2480. Argentine Republic (Buenos Ayres).

  No. 2481. Chile.

  No. 2482. Greece (Finances).

  No. 2483. Austria-Hungary.

  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Minute by the Board of Education: sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the county of Middlesex (fifth minute). Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 194.)
  COUNTY COURTS (INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed. (No. 195.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross.]) (No. 197.)
  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Balfour). (No. 198.)
  OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 199.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 200.)
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 4:—
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): It is not quite certain to what burghs of barony and burghs of regality the Bill would apply, and the object of the Amendment standing in my name is to make it clear that it does not apply to any burghs which are not included in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 1, line 24, to leave out from 'burgh of regality' to end of clause, and to insert' police burgh and any other burgh within the meaning of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to which that Act applied from its commencement."'—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides the method by which burghs may sue and be sued, and the Amendment standing in my name makes it possible to sue in other ways and not to force them back on this clause. It is a matter of agreement, and I do not think there will be any opposition.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 9, page 3, line 36, to leave out 'shall' and to insert 'may.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with the reasons which may disqualify a man from retaining his seat as a councillor. Sub-section (a) provides that a person shall not be disqualified by reason only of his having any share or interest in any lease, feu, sale, or purchase of land, or any agreement for the same. Some of the Scottish burghs have large property which is known as the Common Good, and owing to the absence of a disqualification such as this in the early days of the century a good deal of the property of the burgh was made use of. I think it is better that those words should not remain in the clause, and that if a man has a lease of land from the burgh it should disqualify him for a seat.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 13, page 5, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (a)."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have thought it better to delete the greater portion of this clause, and to substitute words which, in the opinion of my Department, are clearer and preferable as a matter of drafting, rather than attempt to amend the clause as it stands. I do not think there will be any opposition to the Amendment, which gives burgh councils more power to declare as to the way in which a seat shall be vacated.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 14, page 5, line 38, to leave out from end of line to end of clause, and to insert 'until (1) he voluntarily resigns; or (2) his disqualification has been determined by an election court under and within the meaning of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890, on a petition presented within the time specified by said Act, by the town council or by any four or more electors, or, in the case of disqualification alleged to exist at the time of nomination or election, by any candidate opposing him at the election, provided that the last-mentioned Act shall be held to apply to the said petition and procedure thereon, provided that in the case of any continuing disqualification it shall be competent to present such petition at any time while the disqualification subsists; and provided also that if in the opinion of the election court any disqualified person has in the knowledge of his disqualification made an oath or declaration de fideli, or taken his seat in the town council, it shall he in the power of the Court to impose on him a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, which fine shall be paid to the town council, and applied in such manner as they may direct; or (3) a resolution declaring his office vacant has been passed by the town council at a meeting of which notice shall be given to the councillor in question and to the other councillors of the burgh at least three days before the date of such meeting; provided that the said councillor shall be entitled to appeal against any such resolution by lodging a note of appeal within fourteen days after the date of such resolution in manner provided by Section 339 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; and provided, further, that no such appeal shall entitle the said councillor to vote and act as a councillor while the same is pending."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23:—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Huntly, the object of which is to place persons who are ratepayers within Royal burghs on exactly the same footing as ratepayers who reside within police burghs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 23, page 8, line 10, after 'another' to insert 'or their residing more than seven miles beyond some part of the municipal boundary.'"—(The Earl of Camper-down.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am prepared to accept this Amendment. It is an entirely proper one, and does not in any way touch the Parliamentary franchise. It gets rid of an anomaly which has caused a great deal of hardship, and I accept it on the condition that if it is objected to in another place—I hope it will not be, but it is quite possible—in such a way as to imperil the Bill, I shall not be considered bound to stand by it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with casual vacancies. It is the custom in Scotland for casual vacancies in town councils to be filled up by co-optation, but it is thought that when they occur at the beginning of the municipal year, immediately after an election has taken place, they should be filled by a new election. The Amendment standing in my name gives power for such a procedure to be adopted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 36, page 12, line 18, at end of clause to insert 'provided that any vacancy so occurring may, if the town council so resolve, be filled up ad interim as soon as may he by a special election by the electors, and such election shall be held as nearly as may be under the provisions of this Act, and the returning officer at such election shall, subject to the approval of the town council, fix the date of the election, and shall fix the dates for the issue of all necessary notices and for lodging and withdrawing nomination papers, so that the intervals between such respective dates shall be the same as in the case of ordinary elections under this Act.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 60 agreed to.
  Clause 61: —
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that in the event of the provost being prevented at any time from fulfilling, or failing to fulfil, any of the duties of his office on account of illness, absence from home, or from attendance at any meeting or any other cause, such duty shall be performed by the senior bailie. The clause as it stands is, however, too wide, as it would put the senior bailie on all the committees and trusts of which the provost is a member. The object of my Amendments is to limit the business for which the senior bailie should act in the absence of the provost simply to municipal affairs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 61, page 17, line 31, after 'office' to insert' under this Act or the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 62 to 87, agreed to.
  Clause 88:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with the ease of an official of a burgh who has made away with the funds, and provides that the deficiency shall be charged against the particular rate to which the funds belong, which are the matter of his misconduct. It is obviously a right clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 88, page 24, line 25, after 'levied' to insert 'or funds managed.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 89 to 101 agreed to.
  Clause 102:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to add a proviso to this clause
  594
  for the sake of making sure that we are preserving the existing law in certain burghs whose council have the power of appointing one of their number as dean of guild.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 102, page 29, line 10, at end of clause to insert 'and in any burgh where under the existing' law it has been the custom of the town council to appoint a councillor to perform the duties and functions formerly performed by the dean of guild in such council, or in any dean of guild court of such burgh, the council may continue to make such an appointment, and the whole provisions of this Act relating to the appointment, tenure, vacating office, and supply of vacancies applicable to a bailie shall be applicable to the councillor so appointed.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 103 to 108 agreed to.
  Clause 109 amended, and agreed to.
  Clauses 110 to 115 agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I now move a new clause to make sure that the rights of counties in certain properties which they have, such as waterworks and the like, shall not be affected by this Bill. I am myself not quite clear that the clause is required, but two or three of the counties in Scotland have made representations that unless this clause is inserted they will run the risk of being deprived of their property, and on the whole I think it is wise to insert the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, 'Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the rights, powers, or authorities of any county council or district committee of a county council or local authority of a county or a district of a county under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; or prejudice the provisions of Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, as amended by Section 44 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  New Clause agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 203.)

  INDIAN EXPENDITURE—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to accept the recommendations of the Commission; and to move for copies of any correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Treasury on the subject. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission were that they were to inquire into the administration and management of the military and civil expenditure incurred under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council, or of the Government of India, and the apportionment of charge between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of India for purposes in which both are interested. I, however, propose to confine my remarks to-day to the second head of the order of reference—namely, the apportionment of charge between the two Governments, and of that apportionment almost entirely to the charge on account of Her Majesty's forces serving in India. The history of this question is rather a sad one. For twenty-five years successive Governors General of India in Council and successive Secretaries of State for India in Council have protested against what they considered to be the excessive charge which has been put upon the revenues of India on account of Her Majesty's forces serving in that country, but with little or no result. They protested against these charges under two heads—firstly, on the pure arithmetical calculations upon which the charges were founded; and, secondly, on the ground that certain equitable considerations which ought to have been taken into account in settling how much India ought to pay had not been so taken into account. Twenty years ago I was asked to preside over a small Commission to inquire into the subject. I had the assistance of two able and distinguished public servants—Sir Thomas Seccombe, of the India Office, and Sir Ralph Knox, of the War Office—and the Government, in appointing that Commission, undoubtedly intended, judging from the words Mr. Stanhope used in the House of Commons, that we should settle the whole of this vexed question, after sitting ten years we determined
  596
  unanimously what the charge to be paid by India should be on the arithmetical basis, and the result of our work was a reduction of the charges against India of £1,000,000 sterling. We then approached the question of the equitable considerations, and requested that we should know what was the opinion of the Government of India on the subject. We asked the noble Viscount the present Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cross), who was then Secretary of State for India, to confer with India, and in March, 1890, my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, who was then Governor General, sent an elaborate despatch home giving in full the opinions of the Government of India in respect to the equitable considerations which should be taken into account by the English Government in fixing these charges. I may mention, as somewhat important, that Lord Roberts was then Commander-in-Chief in India, and therefore the opinion of the Government of India came fortified by the opinion also of Lord Roberts, than whom no man is more capable of giving an opinion upon the question. That despatch was not communicated to the Commission over which I presided till the autumn of 1891, more than twelve months after its receipt in this country, and then it was sent accompanied by two letters—one from the Secretary of State for War stating that, although not objecting to the despatch being sent us for consideration, he was not prepared to accept our opinion upon the matter; and the other from the Treasury, stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also not prepared to accept any opinion which the Commission might express on this despatch. That, of course, put any consideration by us of the equitable claims of India out of the question. I declined to proceed with the matter, and so far as my Commission was concerned the matter dropped. I had some communication at that time with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goschen, and I suggested that a different kind of body should be formed to take these matters into consideration. There was, however, as your Lordships know, a change of Government in 1892, and nothing was done till 1895, when Sir Henry Fowler, then Secretary of State for India, appointed the Commission to the Report of which I now beg to call your Lordships' attention. That is the history of this question. I think it is

  597
  unfortunate that Sir Henry Fowler, in appointing the Commission, overweighted it by adding the obligation to inquire into the whole question of Indian expenditure. They had to go into very minute statistics from the year 1860, and it is no wonder that they were two years taking evidence and throe years more making their Report. My noble friend Lord Welby has been blamed for the length of time which the Commission took in making their Report; but it must be remembered that they had to master all the details of the financial machinery of the Government of India in England and India, as well as the progress of expenditure during the last forty years. I now come to the Report of the Commission. There was a Report signed by a minority of three—Sir William Wedderburn, Bart., Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, and Mr. W. S. Caine, which I have read with attention; but I will confine myself to the Report of the majority, and it is interesting to consider of whom the ten members composing it consisted. The Chairman, Lord Welby, is well known to your Lordships as having for a great many years occupied with great ability and distinction the office of Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, and has been rightly placed in the position he now occupies in your Lordships' House in consequence of that distinguished service. The next member was Mr. Leonard H. Courtney, who, as your Lordships know, was a very able and distinguished Secretary of the Treasury. The next was Mr. W. L. Jackson, who was also a very distinguished Secretary of the Treasury. The majority also included Sir E. W. Hamilton, at present a very high Treasury official; Sir Ralph Knox, Under Secretary for War; Sir James Peile, a distinguished member of the Indian Council; Sir Andrew Scoble, who was also connected with India; Mr. G. L. Ryder, a gentleman holding high office in the Treasury; and Mr. Buchanan and Mr. (now Sir) Robert Mowbray, two independent Members of Parliament. Your Lordships will see that no less than five out of the ten members who signed the Report of the Majority were either actually serving or had served in the Treasury; one was actually serving in the War Office; only two had any connection with India, and there were two independent Members of Parliament. It is to be noted that two members of the
  598
  Commission, Sir Ralph Knox and Mr. Ryder, prepared the case of the War Office in answer to that which was laid before the Commission on the part of the Secretary of State for India in Council. Although the constitution of the Commission might be taken exception to on behalf of India, I take no such exception. I am perfectly satisfied with the impartiality and ability of those who served; but at any rate the English Government cannot say that there was any bias in favour of India in the composition of the Majority. Moreover, the two independent members of the Commission—Mr. Buchanan and Sir Robert Mowbray—made additional Reports, which were more favourable to India than the Report of the Majority. The main recommendations of the Report were, first, a plan for settling any questions which might in future arise as to the charge for troops, English or Indian, lent by either Government to the other. I will not go into the details of that plan, but it seem to me to be a very reasonable one, and likely to prevent the recurrence of those unfortunate disputes which have taken place between the two Governments on former occasions. There is, however, one difficulty in regard to this. It is easy enough to lay down certain cases in which there could be no direct and substantial interest to India on the one hand, or to this country on the other; but when it comes to be a question of doubt the point is, who is to decide the question? The noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Cross, when he was Secretary for India, and Sir Henry Fowler, when he held a similar position, came to the conclusion that the decision might be left to the two Governments respectively. But other high authorities, including, I believe, the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, think this would not be a proper arrangement. The second recommendation was a plan for settling smaller matters of dispute by arbitration before some judicial authority who would decide after hearing both sides. I am not particular as to what arrangement is made. What I do hope is that some plan based upon these two recommendations of the Commission will be accepted by the Government in order that these disputes may be put an end to. Your Lordships must know how unfortunate it has been that educated natives in India, who are studying these questions, should

  599
  find that the Governors General, the Secretaries of State, and other high authorities have constantly asserted that India has been treated unjustly in these matters, and that no reasonable answer can be produced on the other side. The third recommendation of the Commission was that the arithmetical arrangement which was settled by the Commission over which I presided—£7 10s. per effective man—should be maintained. I trust that this will be accepted by the Government. The fourth subject is the equitable pleas raised on behalf of India, and these mainly depend on Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 25th March, 1890, to which I have referred. The summary of that despatch, given in Lord Lansdowne's evidence before the Commission, was that—
  "Indian foreign policy is really determined by Imperial rather than by Indian considerations."
  and—
  "The Indian Army serves for Imperial as well as for Indian purposes."
  As regards the first plea what better authority can there be than that of Lord Lansdowne in his despatch, which is signed also by Lord Roberts? He said—
  "Millions of money have been spent on increasing the Army of India, on armaments and fortifications, to provide for the security of India, not against domestic enemies, or to prevent the incursions of the warlike people of adjoining countries, but to maintain the supremacy of British power in the East. The scope of all these great and costly measures reaches far beyond Indian limits, and the policy which dictates them is an Imperial policy. We claim, therefore, that in the maintenance of the British forces in this country a just and even liberal view should be taken of the charges which should legitimately be made against Indian revenues."
  That opinion, given on the authority of Lord Lansdowne and his Council, of which Lord Roberts was a member, seems to me to settle that matter, and I do not find in the Report of the Commission any sufficient answer to this plea. The second plea—namely, that the Indian Army serves for Imperial as well as for Indian purposes—it is hardly necessary to argue in view of the fact that Indian forces are now engaged in South Africa and in China. I hear that the Secretary of State for India stated to-day in another place that 20,000 men in all have left India either for the Cape of Good Hope or for China. The
  600
  Commission suggested that these two-pleas should be considered when the capitation rate is revised, but they recommended in the meantime an immediate and substantial relief to the revenues of India of about £300,000 a year. Speaking for myself, I wish that the question could have been finally settled, but I think those who have been urging the question may be content by seeing their main arguments accepted. For my part I am quite ready to accept the Report of the Commission as I should any other arbitration, but with the reservation that India should receive proper consideration for the great delay in the settlement of her claims. I believe that in arbitrations the date for the payment of the award is usually fixed in regard to the date at which the matter in dispute could have been settled if both parties had exercised reasonable diligence in bringing; forward their cases—no one can say that India has been in default in this respect. But the Treasury had Lord, Lansdowne's despatch stating India's case before them in 1890, and the question might have been settled in 1893. Now it cannot be settled before 1901, and therefore I contend that the award, on all equitable principles, should take effect from 1893. I do not think it is too much to ask that eight years arrears of this £300,000 should be paid. It is a mere trifle. Those eight years of arrears amount to £2,400,000, and if £2,400,000 of the Indian debt was taken over by this country it would only create a. charge of about £66,000 a year upon the British Exchequer. I hope Her Majesty's Government may be able to give your Lordships' House an assurance that at last equitable treatment will be given to India in this long-standing controversy, and that it will be announced at once. The condition of the finances of India must be very serious owing to the famine, and if some such treatment as I have suggested is carried out by the Government I feel sure that it will be exceedingly well received in India.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of any correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Treasury on the subject of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  LORD WELBY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this question should have fallen into the hands of my noble friend, for not only has it fallen into the hands of a noble Lord whose authority on Indian matters is second to none, but, if I may say so without presumption, it has fallen into the hands of one whose government of India is marked as a model of prudent and wise financial administration. I am pleased to hear my noble friend support the recommendations of the Commission. I feel that the fact that Lord Northbrook endorses and supports those recommendations will have great weight with Her Majesty's Government. The Commission over which I had the honour to preside, like most Commissions, was not unanimous, but I think I can show your Lordships that on the practical points which are now under consideration the Commission was unanimous. It is often the case that in questions connected with the immense Empire of India, men who take a keen interest in the claims and in the needs of India sometimes forget the claims of the British taxpayer. The opinions of these gentlemen are entitled to every consideration, but for practical purposes we must endeavour to hold a just balance between the claims of the Indian taxpayer and the claims of the British taxpayer. The minority of the Commission, so far as the recommendations go to which Lord Northbrook has alluded, far from differing from them, endorsed them, their only complaint being that they did not go far enough. Therefore, I think I may venture to say that, in regard to these particular recommendations, the Commissioners were unanimous. The noble Lord has alluded to the somewhat wide scope of the terms of reference to the Commission, and I venture to trouble your Lordships with one or two remarks upon that point. It is a matter of great interest to Parliament to know that on an independent inquiry a favourable verdict has been given upon the financial administration of the Indian Empire during the period since it came under the direct control of Her Majesty. That period divides itself into two parts. There is, first of all, the period from 1861, the time when financial equilibrium was restored, to 1884. Before that time the taxes of India were largely increased to meet the demands of the Mutiny, but at the end of that period I think it may be said that they had fallen to the level of the taxes before the
  602
  Mutiny broke out. That was the result of remarkable economy both in regard to civil and military administration. The history of financial administration in India between 1861 and 1884 was very remarkable, and is paralleled in very few countries in the world. I now come to the second period—that from 1884 to 1896. I stop at 1896 on account of the famine that followed. From 1884 to 1896, owing to the fall in exchange and the demands for military expenditure, the taxation which had been remitted was reimposed. It should, however, be mentioned that, but for the fall in exchange, the natural growth of the Indian revenue was so satisfactory that after the increased demands for military expenditure had been met there would have been left a considerable surplus applicable to the reduction of debt. In following out this review the Commissioners were struck by the satisfactory natural growth of revenue, showing, on the whole, a healthy state of things in the Empire; but it appeared to us that the increase was not more that might naturally be expected in the case of a growing Empire. I come next to the most important question of debt. The debt of India at the close of the Mutiny was what is called an unproductive debt. In the interval between the Mutiny and the date to which I have carried the review—namely, 1896—not only did the growth of that unproductive debt entirely cease—a great contrast to the closing twenty years of the administration of the East India Company, when the debt increased by leaps and bounds—but before 1896 that debt had been reduced by 25 per cent., although in the interval expenditure of no less, than £23,000,000 had been incurred in war and in those famine demands which are, in a sense, unproductive. Therefore, I submit that the result of the financial administration of India since India passed under the direct control of Her Majesty is such as should give satisfaction to Parliament. Further than that, the Indian Government class certain of their services under the head of commercial services which do earn a revenue. On each of these heads the Commission was able to report that the result was fairly satisfactory. The Post Office and the Telegraph have both become paying branches, and when we came to the large expenditure on irrigation we were able to report that that very

  603
  large system of works, which is of immense importance to India at all times, does not impose any charge whatever on the Indian taxpayers. Passing on to the railways, I think the result is very remarkable. Although the manner in which the accounts are drawn does not show the figures favourably for a commercial result, the Commission found that, if the cost of military lines and lines simply made for famine protection, which ought to be carried to a separate account, were deducted, the commercial railways of India were paying their way, and that the Indian people had the benefit of them without a farthing of burden being placed on the present taxpayers. The Commission came to the conclusion that the financial machinery was sound, well organised, and effectively controlled. The Commission, as my noble friend informed your Lordships, did not come to its inquiry with any foregone conclusion in favour of India. It was composed largely of officials, and officials are conscious of one another's infirmities. The Report of the Commission deserves weight because it is unbiassed and unprejudiced. During the forty years that India has been under the rule of Her Majesty, her financial administration has been entrusted to faithful stewards. The system under which the finances of India are administered is sound, and one in which the Parliament may fairly have confidence. We ventured to call the attention of Her Majesty to two points: one of them was the large growth of the non-effective service. The Commission, however, pronounced no opinion upon it, knowing well that in the case of a tropical climate the non-effective service must naturally be heavy; but the growth of this service did strike us as serious, and we considered that the Indian Government ought to subject the regulations relating to that service to careful actuarial examination, so that the public might be assured that there was no extravagance. I hope the recommendations of the Commission, so far as they come from the majority, will have the favourable attention of Her Majesty's Government. I go considerably further in one respect. I do not think the audit system of India will over be complete or perfect until the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General is completely established. The chief desire of the Commission was to remove all plausible, or perhaps even good, grounds for complaint on the part
  604
  of India. On one point we were met by the fact that the Imperial Government pays, without asking any return from the Colonies, the whole cost of the Colonial Office. I do not think the India Office is on all fours with the Colonial Office, but I think the India Office can fairly consider that they are not treated the same as the Colonies if not a farthing is contributed by the Imperial Exchequer to the cost of the India Office. I think it is desirable to remove any such impression which should arise in the minds of the people. I need not enter at length into many of the other points. I think we were justified in recommending that the Imperial Government should pay half the cost of the garrison of Aden. If ever the Empire was organised as a whole, Aden would be an Imperial fortress to which the whole Empire would contribute. That being the case, it is only right that half the military charge of Aden should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer'. In regard to one point we entered upon a rather adventurous course. We put ourselves up to be criticised by attempting to suggest geographical limits within which India might have a separate and distinct interest in military expeditions, and the Commission deserve a certain amount of credit for their boldness if for nothing else. I think a very great end will be gained, and every reason will be given for India to be satisfied, if it is provided that the Imperial Government will not impose a contribution on India except with the assent of India, or until the previous assent of Parliament had been obtained. There is one other subject to which I, as an old Treasury official, attach the greatest importance—namely, that of putting an end to administrative disputes. I know of no other method by which they can be put an end to except by the appointment of an unbiassed and unprejudiced man, in whom both parties have confidence — a man of judicial rank —who should hear both sides and give a decision which should be final. I think both parties would accept that decision, and it would have this further advantage, that the two parties would agree without going to arbitration unless they had a very good case. Although the recommendations of the Commission fall short in many respects of the desires of the Indian Government, and certainly of the people of India, their adoption would go far to remove just grounds of

  605
  complaint, and grants such as are recommended, which are based upon reasons and are in their nature to a great extent permanent, would be of greater value than those occasional and spasmodic grants which Her Majesty's Government are asked to make in cases of pressure.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord who has just sat down commenced his observations by expressing his gratification that this subject has fallen into the hands of the noble Earl who called attention to it, and who has had so very wide an experience of the administration of Indian affairs. I wish to associate myself entirely with the noble Lord in those remarks, and I would even go further and say that it appears to me that the evidence which was given by the noble Earl before the Commission, has led to perhaps the most valuable part of the Report which your Lordships are now considering. The noble Lord expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would accept the Report as the decision of a competent and a judicial tribunal. So far at any rate as that part of it is concerned which deals with the history of the finances and the administration of India, I have no complaints whatever to make, and I certainly am prepared to accept entirely the opinions which they arrived at. The Commission also expressed their opinion that the general administration of India is not expensive —that law and justice in India are self-supporting, and that the non-effective expenditure upon pensions and upon furlough pay, etc., is not excessive as compared with that upon Imperial and diplomatic services, and similar services rendered in our more important Crown Colonies. I think the Commission might even have gone further; they might have said that perhaps there is no country in the world, considering the vast extent of its area and of its population, which is as economically administered as is the Government of India. The noble Earl who moved the resolution complained that the reference to the Commission perhaps somewhat overweighted them. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for War a few years ago expressed to your Lordships his opinion that most Royal Commissions appointed in this country in their proceedings were guided with great care and with great deliberation. I certainly can-
  606
  not say that anything but the utmost care has been devoted by this Commission to the consideration of this Report. I think they took evidence for upwards of two years, and they were something like three years in considering what should be their Report. If it took that Commission five years to consider and report upon the reference which was submitted to them, I do not think your Lordships will think Her Majesty's Government wholly unreasonable if they say that they have not been able to consider the whole of that Report in all its bearings in the three years since it was presented. It has seemed to us, and I think the noble Earl will agree with me, that the most important point in the Report of that Commission is upon the question of the apportionment of charge between the Imperial Government and the Indian Government, and it is to that question that Her Majesty's Government have in the first place devoted their attention. They have not as yet carefully considered the suggestion which is made for the purpose of a reference to settle all questions of the payment for Indian troops when they are employed beyond the frontiers of India; they have not considered in detail the suggestion that a tribunal of arbitration should be established to consider questions of difference between the Government of India and the Imperial Government, and between the India Office, the War Office, the Treasury, and the other Departments of State with which the India Office are brought into communication. But all those matters are receiving very careful attention, and I will go thus far—I will say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord the chairman of the Commission that the publication and the knowledge which is brought to the people of India that there are going on in England disputes and discussions between the public offices is, as the noble Lord describes it, little short of a scandal. We in this country thoroughly understand what is the meaning of a dispute between two Departments of the Government—each Department is naturally doing the best for its own views and its own interests; but it does not commend itself in that light to the people of India. They are led away by the impression that the Imperial Government is trying to take an advantage and to deal illiberally with the people of India. That, I quite agree with the noble Lord, is something which we

  607
  ought to do all that we can to diminish if not to put an end to altogether. Now, my Lords, what are the points upon which these differences of opinion arise? They are, for the most part, in connection with those undertakings of the Imperial Government in which India is supposed to have, and I think has, an interest, whether it is direct and substantial or whether it is only a comparatively small interest—they are questions in which India undoubtedly is to some extent interested. For example, the noble Lord will recollect that the Government of India agrees to pay a contribution towards the expenditure on our consular and diplomatic service in China. It agrees to pay a contribution towards the consular and diplomatic service in Persia. It agrees to pay a subsidy towards the cable which runs from Zanzibar to Mauritius, and there are certain other small consular services to which the Government of India makes contribution. Those are the most frequent cases of friction between the Departments in this country, and I for one should have been more glad if the Commission could have seen their way to make some suggestion which would enable us to get rid altogether of these subjects of difference which are constantly arising between the Departments at home; and I cannot help hoping that when we are able to give full consideration to this Report we may see some way in which we may avoid these disputes in the future. Then the noble Earl drew your Lordships' attention to certain other charges which are laid upon the Government of India, and he expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government might in every case refer those to arbitration. I think he suggested that it should be a judicial arbitration carried on by one of Her Majesty's judges. The noble Earl on the Woolsack may have something to say upon that. I am not sure whether he would be disposed to hold that the functions of the judges should be extended to such cases as that. But I may point out to your Lordships that, although we have not called in the services of any of Her Majesty's judges, we have called in the services of several very distinguished Members of this House and of the other House to consider and to arbitrate on differences which have arisen between the Departments. For example, the noble Earl the late Prime Minister, Lord Rose-
  608
  bery, took into consideration the question of the apportionment of the charge for Her Majesty's Navy in Indian waters, and he came to the conclusion that for ten years at least £117,000 was a proper contribution for India to make. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in this. House—who, although he is not a judge, has, I think all your Lordships will agree, a judicial mind—was good enough to consider what should be the amount that should be paid by the Indian Government towards the mail service between this country and India, and for at least five years that question has been removed from any possibility of conflict between the two authorities. Her Majesty's. Government are quite prepared to extend the principle of arbitration. I do not think that we could go quite as far as I understood the noble Earl to wish—namely, that there should be a permanent tribunal.
  LORD WELBY: I did not suggest that.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: As I understand, the noble Earl says he did not suggest that. At any rate I can say that the Government agree with the noble Earl in the desire to refer as far as-possible all the larger questions of dispute which may arise between the Imperial Government and the Government of India to competent arbitration. Then, my Lords, the noble Lord who presided over the Commission whose Report your Lordships are considering expressed his opinion—which is to be found in the Report of the minority, and which I know he holds very strongly—that it is desirable that the practice of auditing in India, should be assimilated to the practice of auditing in England. The recommendation was not one to which the noble Lord was able to secure the adherence of all his colleagues, and as it has not been put forward with the weight which would attach to the names of the majority of that Commission I cannot hold out any hope to him that Her Majesty's Government will give it very serious or very favourable consideration. I should, perhaps, point out to the noble Lord, though he is probably aware of it already, that in India the audit is carried on continuously;, the Comptroller and Auditor General's officials are in every department, they can check and disallow any item which in

  609
  their opinion ought not to be charged, it is recoverable immediately, and the charge comes home for the sanction of the Secretary of State in the course of a very short time; and, in addition to that, it is the practice in India to carry on a test audit, which I think the noble Lord himself admits in the Report is of very great value, and a test audit, as your Lordships know, is a practice which docs; not obtain in England.
  LORD WELBY: I think it does.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am content at any rate to rely upon the Report of the majority of the Commission that the sufficiency of the audit in India is not questioned by them, and that they consider it to be well organised and. efficient. The whole gist and sum, I may say, of the contentions of the Government of India to which the noble Earl has referred during the time when the noble Earl, now the Secretary of State for War, was Viceroy of India, was that India is entitled to liberal treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government and the Imperial Parliament—liberal treatment in the apportionment of the charges between the Governments; and I think I understood the noble Earl to say that in his opinion the capitation grant of £7 10s. is one to which he is not prepared to demur. I think his only point was that when the question of the capitation grant comes to be revised he would plead for liberal treatment for India at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I have nothing to say in opposition to either of those propositions. My Lords, the resources of India are not small. India in the past has been a very wealthy community. Its people individually may be poor, but its revenues are large. The times have to a large extent altered, and at the present moment India is labouring under a series of calamities which enlist the sympathies not only of every member of your Lordships' House, but of everybody in this country and throughout the Empire. Her Majesty's Government are as much alive to this as any other members of the community, and I can assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord who presided over the Commission that Her Majesty's Government do intend to accept the recommendations of the noble Lord as regards the amount which, in their opinion, ought to be contributed by
  610
  the Imperial Government towards the revenues of India. That amount is, I think, £293,000, but the noble Lord will pardon me if I point out to him that his Commission made an error which somewhat vitiates those figures. They have in estimating half the cost of the maintenance of the establishments at Aden put it down at £108,000. Now the moiety, as a matter of fact, is Rx. 108,000. Well, the good old days when ton rupees were equal to a sovereign, unfortunately, are days that are bygone, and at the present rate of exchange the noble Lord will see that that Rx.108,000 ought to be £72,000, reducing the total amount which the noble Lord thought ought to be contributed by Imperial revenues to Indian revenues to £257,000. Now, my Lords, I am not prepared to pledge myself to the particular items and the particular heads under which the noble Lord wished that this contribution should be made. This I can say on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that they are willing to accept the recommendations of the noble Lord's Commission, and to give at least £250,000, and probably more, towards the relief of the revenues of India. I trust that this will meet with the approval of the noble Earl, and show him that Her Majesty's Government are desirous of meting out not only equitable treatment but liberal treatment to India, and if he will give us time I hope that we shall be able to go a long way towards meeting the other recommendations which have been so ably put forward by the Commission of which the noble Lord was the chairman.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no desire to keep the House whilst I make anything like a detailed examination of this very interesting Report. With regard to the large portion of it which relates to the past expenditure and management of finance in India I can only echo what has been said by others. I think it must be extremely satisfactory to all those connected with Indian affairs to see that a Commission composed largely of what I may call British Treasury experts have pronounced so complete an encomium on the management of the finance and expenditure of India. That I think is a very valuable thing to have effected. But, my Lords, I would rather to-night deal with some of the other parts of this Report. I admit

  611
  at once that I do not think it at all unreasonable that, after the Commission having taken five years to produce this Report, Her Majesty's Government should have a reasonable time to consider how they should act upon it. I never have taken, and I do not now by any means entirely take, the view that India has been unfairly treated by this country. It is very natural indeed, and very proper, that Viceroys who go out to India should espouse the cause of India in matters in dispute between them and the Imperial Government, but I confess I do not think that their arguments have always been sound, and such as could be really acted upon. I am sorry to see that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War is not here to-night, because I wished to refer to that despatch which my noble friend who introduced the subject read to your Lordships. The whole gist of the important paragraph—the last one quoted in this Blue-book—is—
  "That millions of money have been spent on increasing the Army of India, on armaments and fortifications to provide for the security of India, not against domestic enemies or to prevent the incursions of the warlike people of the adjoining countries, but to maintain the supremacy of British power in the East. The scope of all these great and costly measures reaches far beyond Indian limits, and the policy which dictates them is an Imperial policy."
  I do not agree with that statement. It may be Imperial policy; India is part of the Empire, and it must share in the policy of the Empire as long as it remains part of the Empire. I have never considered that there was any force in the complaint that India is obliged to provide a large military force at great expense to guard her frontier against external enemies, and that she should not have to maintain that force, because, forsooth, that is not an Indian interest. In all I say I trust I assume—I am bound to assume—that our presence in India is an advantage to the Indian people. Assuming that, I do not see that India on account of her connection with us is, as a rule, exposed to any dangers which she would not have to meet if she were entirely independent —nay, more, my opinion is that her position would be one of far less security than it is now if she had no connection with this country. There seems to be an idea on the part of those who administer the affairs of India in India that the military
  612
  forces in India are only required for domestic purposes against the tribes on the frontier. Is there not a Power beyond the frontier—would that Power cease to exist and be a danger if we were to cease to hold India? Would the ambition which is generally attributed to that Power—and which I attribute to her in no sense of finding fault, because the ambition is a natural one, and it is because it is a natural one that it is a. dangerous ambition to India—does anyone suppose that if this country ceased to be connected with India and India was left to protect herself she would be exposed to no dangers from the great frontier Empire which is actually almost on a boundary with her own possessions? My Lords, I am not by any means wishing to attribute any extraordinary designs to that Power, but I say that no one who found himself then in the position of having to administer Indian affairs with such strength as India itself would possess would for a moment neglect that danger beyond her frontier. Therefore I do not admit to the full extent, at all events, the argument used in that despatch. I think that in the past there has been some reason to complain, because it was formerly a policy which I agree with the noble Marquess opposite, the Prime Minister, is a policy which may now be considered to be, if I may use the expression, played out. It was formerly a. principle of our policy that India was so deeply interested in the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire that in any case where that Empire was endangered you might fairly consider that it was a great Indian interest. Well, possibly in the past it may have been so; but if anyone looks at the condition of the world now, they will see—at least this is my opinion—that it is not very likely that in the future India will be called upon to aid this Empire in any great enterprise for the purpose of maintaining the Ottoman in Europe. With regard to the other matters, I think the Commission dealt very fairly with them. It attempted to lay down, and I think laid down not without success, a catalogue of those parts of the world in which India is specially interested, and of those other parts which, though to a certain extent in the neighbourhood of India, may not be considered of special interest to it. I do not think that you could make by an Act of Parliament

  613
  such a catalogue binding upon both Governments, because, in point of fact, the world does not remain at a standstill, and what might be perfectly and entirely; right when Lord Welby's Commission reported may possibly, as changes in the East are not altogether unknown to us, be hereafter anything but right. Speaking generally, however, I think the Commission arrived at a very fair decision; but what I do not at all like (and I do not think the noble Earl who has just spoken held out any hope that such a course would be adopted) is the suggestion of the appointment of a permanent arbitration Commission, presided over probably by a judge of great repute, which should determine disputes between the Indian Government and the Government of this country. That, in my opinion, would simply come to this that because we find some difficulties in doing our duty between India and this country and accommodating our disputes, therefore we are to have recourse to a system of delegating the government to some eminent judges. Now, I have a very great respect indeed for judges when they are performing duties pertaining to them, but, in my opinion, in matters political, as a rule judges are no more the best people to determine great political questions, depending on the relation between great communities, than I should be to decide a Chancery suit. That, I think, is not the least reflection on the judges; but in order to come to a fair determination on questions affecting great political issues it is essentially necessary to have had some political training. I agree also with the noble Earl that that does not by any means exclude having recourse to a system of arbitration in particular cases, and those cases may not be unfrequent. I am very glad to think that a very tiresome question, not of very great importance, but one which was hung up a great deal too long, with regard to naval expenditure, was determined by the late Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery. I am also extremely glad that so competent a man as Lord Morley was able to decide another question to which the noble Earl referred, and I do not think that these two noble Lords were at all less competent to act in those matters than the eminent judge who might preside over a tribunal, which, as it seems to me, would be something only just below the
  614
  Crown itself. It would stand apparently above the Government, possibly above Parliament, indeed it would have a kind of supremacy which I look upon with considerable misgivings. It is no doubt a very simple contrivance, but I do not believe that that simple contrivance will solve the difficulties. I repeat that there are a great many questions which, instead of being left for a long time matters of warm dispute between the India Office and the Imperial Government, might be very well submitted to the arbitration of one or two sensible men who could be trusted to come to a sound decision. But whilst I have the greatest possible regard for India and also for the great Government which so ably conducts the affairs of India, yet I hold that in the ultimate resort the Parliament of this country, led by the Cabinet of this country, must be supreme. It is upon that that must ultimately rest the decision of all matters, and in my opinion any attempt to pass by the Government of the country, and to pass by the Parliament of the country, must inevitably fail To guard against too constant interference in Indian affairs you have provided for the Secretary of State for India a very valuable body—the Indian Council; and it has hitherto been the practice, I am happy to say, to avoid as far as possible making Indian affairs a matter of sharp political controversy in the House of Commons. I hope that that will long continue, though there must be exceptions, of course, when great questions are at issue from time to time. I should like to refer to one matter which no doubt is always one of the main matters of dispute —the amount to be paid by India for the services of Her Majesty's Army in India. Here I think also that there is some misconception. We are constantly told, and it is considered to be a most powerful argument, that India is a reserve for the Empire; but what is the fact? Is it the fact that India is a reserve for the Empire? I happened at one time to hold the office of Secretary of State for India when it seemed likely that we might be engaged in a great war beyond our frontiers. The first step we had to take was to mobilise a portion of our Reserves in this country, and we were well aware that every single man in our Reserves would have had to be sent out if that great war had eventuated. Of course the

  615
  existence of that Reserve was of the very utmost importance, because by it alone should we be enabled to place a sufficient force in India when occasion arose. If the Indian Government had to maintain an additional number of troops equal to that Reserve, it would entail a very large expenditure. Indeed I may say that so far as our military force suffices for the objects in view, the whole of our Army at home—the efficient portion of it—is practically a reserve for India in the case of danger; and it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, that we should regard India also as a reserve on occasions where our interests are threatened in the far East, or it may be, for instance, in Egypt. But when you come to the question whether India shall pay for such expeditions, then I must say I should always be inclined to take what is termed a liberal view of the position of India. There are cases, I think, where India ought to bear a portion of the expenses, but I think we ought always in considering these questions to deal with India in a very liberal and generous spirit. It is a great thing for us to be able to lay our hands on those troops, and to use them when occasion requires, and I do not think we ought to be too stiff with regard to the financial question as to who is to pay for their services when they are taken out of the country. My Lords, there are a number of smaller questions upon which I will only say that I think the recommendations of the Commission are well worthy of attention. I should not like to pledge myself (although it does not very much signify what my opinion may be) to each and every one of those suggestions. They seem very valuable suggestions, and I have no doubt they will receive very careful consideration by the India Office and by Her Majesty's Government. I have very little more to add in the matter. I think that it is highly expedient that there should be no prolonged and acrimonious disputes between the Departments with regard to Indian affairs, and I am quite certain that no one will yield to myself in the strong desire always to support the authority of the Government of India, the authority of the Viceroy, and to deal with our fellow-subjects of the Indian Empire not only in a wise, but in a generous spirit, which I believe to be at the same time the sound and good policy of this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know that I have any special reason for interposing in this debate, because, on the whole, I concur very much with the sentiments that were addressed to you by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I am glad that the India Office, under the guidance of the Commission, has been able to make pecuniary arrangements which will be satisfactory to those who have charge of the administration of India. But I entirely concur with the noble Earl opposite in repudiating the idea that India has any reason to complain of the treatment which she has received at our hands. I am very glad that this should be a generous and liberal treatment. It is very desirable not only on account of our political position, but also because the mass of the people of India are a much more struggling and suffering race than the mass of the people of this country. But I think that, with whatever qualifications in favour of liberality and generosity, we ought to look upon it as an adjustment and balancing of burdens between the tax payers of the two countries. People talk as if this expense was Imperial, and, therefore, expense that we ought to undertake without considering whether it falls more upon us than it does upon the Indian Exchequer. That seems to me an unsound doctrine. We ought to bear the common burdens of the Empire as far as possible according to an equal and equitable rule, always remembering that we are dealing with a weaker community whoso sufferings at times—and we have had recently terrible examples of it—are singularly severe; but it is a question of the British taxpayer against the Indian taxpayer, and you must observe justice between the two. There is also another—as it seems to me—fallacy in arguing this Indian question, which has been pushed too much forward, and that is that we are bound to bear a certain number of expenses on behalf of India, because, as a matter of fact, we have borne them on behalf of many of our colonies. I cannot see the cogency of that argument at all. "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" We have, partly from policy, partly from reaction on the great American conflict, and from other reasons, been exceedingly generous in our dealings with the colonies during the

  617
  last fifty years, but I do not think that fey that we incurred an obligation to apply precisely the same rule to every other case that came up for judgment, or that we are bound to discharge this or that claim on the part of India because we have discharged another on the part of our colonies. I would not admit that argument at all. We have to deal with the colonies on the equitable ground; and, remembering always the obligation of liberality and generosity, there is no special call for expenditure which comes upon us because we occupy an Imperial position. It is quite true that it depends on this country to make the expenditure which will defend both India and the colonies, but India does not incur the claim of allegiance as a matter of favour and consideration to us. The less there is of that quasi-sentimental language, and the more we adhere as far as circumstances permit us to do so to the strict rule of justice, the less discontent there will arise. My Lords, we have not gone very far yet into this Report, and at present really the financial burden is one that presses most upon us; but if you consider for a moment you will see how complicated and difficult the relations of India and this country in financial matters are. There is that fortress of Aden; we are told now that we are to take either the whole or the great part of the expenditure on the fortress of Aden. But, if India did not exist, of what possible use would the fortress of Aden be to the British Empire? And I must say that I think much of the expenditure which is thrown upon this country in regard to Persia is subject to the same objection— that it is for India, and for India only, that a certain class of those expenditures in Oriental countries are incurred, and therefore India ought to bear her fair share. What is now happening in the East brings home to us very much how heavy the burden of defending our position in the East may come to be, and we may have in the future to ask whether others besides this little island at this end of the world are not concerned in the maintenance of that great fabric of Chinese trade which has nourished so many parts of the Empire. I will not press into ground which is not open to us yet, but I will only urge upon those who have to deal with this question that we are not dealing with a bottomless purse
  618
  when we are disposing of the resources of the British Empire. we are bound not to put on others any obligation which they cannot bear; but we may find that, without injustice to others, we cannot accept the exclusive burden which we take as part of our claim to Empire, which belongs to our British ascendency, but which, after all, is borne not for any special advantage of our own, but because it is part of that great fabric of beneficence and of peace which it has fallen to us by the action of history to bear as the British Empire. My Lords, I only rose to say these few words, because I think there is a tendency—certainly not in the language of the noble Earl, but I think there is a tendency—to lean too much to the sentimental side and too little to what I might call the business side. "Short accounts make long friendships," and the more perfect justice we endeavour to observe, the more we shall avoid that greatest of all calamities—any difference of opinion with our great Indian Empire.
  On Question, agreed to. Return ordered accordingly.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this is a Bill of a legal, and therefore I think I may say of an almost entirely technical character. Its object is to remedy certain inconveniences which have been found to exist in the administration of executory estates in Scotland—to meet inconveniences arising from the fact of executors not possessing certain powers which have been conferred by statute upon trustees. The object of the Bill is to confer upon executors who derive their title directly or indirectly from a testator powers which have been conferred on gratuitous trustees by various Acts from 1861 to 1898. The Bill was drawn some years ago by a competent practitioner, and has been revised both by him and by a committee of practising lawyers. It has been generally approved by the Department over which I have the honour to preside, but up to this session it had not been found possible to give time in the other House of Parliament for its consideration. It

  619
  has now passed through the other House of Parliament with the general consent of the Scottish lawyers who have seats in that assembly. It has been favourably reported upon by various legal societies in Scotland—namely, by the Society of Writers to the Signet, whose amendments have been incorporated in parts of the Bill, and also very favourably indeed by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. It has the approval of the Treasury on the ground that it will facilitate administrative convenience. The only particulars in which this Bill is different in structure from the Bills which have been before Parliament in former years are contained in the second clause of the Bill. The Faculty of Procurators approve of the Bill as it now stands. I think that some members of the Faculty of Advocates are not so well satisfied with the change, but I have the assurance of the present Lord Justice General that he has come to approve of the Bill in its present form, and I hope that without material change it may pass your Lordships' House. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Heneage.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he was surprised that the noble Lord had moved the Third Reading, as he had received from the noble Lord the assurance—as he understood it—that the Third Reading would not be taken until Monday. He hoped, not only for the sake of this particular matter, but in the interests of the conduct of business in this House, that the motion would not be persisted in in face of the understanding to which he had alluded.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that as his credit, too, was at stake, he must explain that the only question raised between the noble and learned Lord and himself was whether it would be more convenient that the noble and learned Lord should move his Amendment on the Report stage yesterday or on the Third Reading to-day. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that as the Tithes Bill was down for Second Reading on Thursday it would be more convenient to take the Report stage of this Bill formally on Thursday, and that the noble and learned Lord' should move his Amendment to-day. That was all that took place. If this were only a matter of convenience between the noble and learned Lord and himself he would not object to postponing the Third Reading; but there were several noble Lords present who had come down specially for this Bill, and he therefore could not take upon himself to withdraw the Bill from the purview of the House. He regretted that this misunderstanding had arisen, but in the circumstances he felt bound to press his motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYmoved "That the debate on the said motion be adjourned."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that as there had clearly been a personal misunderstanding, and there was no question of the delay involving the loss of the Bill, this was not a matter upon which their Lordships should be put to the trouble of dividing, and he hoped Lord Heneage would consent to the adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYjoined with Lord Kimberley in suggesting that Lord Heneage should, as a matter of grace, give way.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that after this expression of opinion from the Leaders on both sides of the House, he felt himself at liberty to consent to the adjournment.
  On Question, "That the debate on the said motion be adjourned," resolved in the affirmative, and ordered accordingly; Bill to be read 3a an Monday next.

  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading road.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, as your Lordships see, this Bill amends the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, and if I do not detain your Lordships at very great length upon it, I trust it will not be attributed to any want of interest in a subject of such immense and vital importance to hundreds of thousands of people living under very uncomfortable, and, I fear, very insanitary conditions in our great towns, and possibly in some cases in villages. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain you at any very great length, because I do not think there is really any serious opposition, or any opposition at all to the Bill. There may be differences of opinion as to whether the Bill might not have taken a larger scope, but so far as the Bill does go, I do not understand that there is any opposition to it. The Act of 1890 deals with three different subjects. It is divided into three parts. The first part, which refers to London chiefly, deals with unhealthy areas, provides for their clearance, and for the erection of buildings for the housing of persons who have been dishoused by the clearance of the area. The second part deals with the unhealthy dwelling houses and their destruction, and also with houses which are obstructive, which interfere with the sanitary conditions of their own neighbourhood. The third part deals with working class lodging-houses. It is with this third part, which is adoptive by the bodies which have the power of adopting it, that the Bill now before your Lordships deals. Under the third part the local authority has the power of acquiring land and erecting lodging-houses for poor people within its area, and it is in this that a difficulty has presented itself. Your Lordships know just as well or even better than I do how extremely difficult it is for a local authority in London or any large town to obtain a site within it? boundaries for the erection of lodging-houses. The expense of the
  622
  land is very serious, and I believe that one of the reasons that have caused this Bill to be brought forward now is that the County Council of London found themselves unable to accept an offer of a site outside their own boundary. The Bill before your Lordships will enable a local authority to go outide its own area, acquire land, and put up lodging-houses on it for the purpose of the inhabitants of the area which it governs. That is what is dealt with under the first clause of the Bill, and I think I am justified in saying that it is the most important in the Bill. That applies to any council other than a rural district council which has adopted Part III. of the Act of 1890. Clause 2 deals with the rural district council, and the difficulty that has been met with there is not of the same character. The difficulty there is in the matter of procedure. Under the present law a rural district council has to obtain the approval of the county council by a laborious process. The county council has to appoint a committee, and has to inquire very closely in detail upon the spot, and altogether it has been found that that process is so laborious that the district councils have been discouraged from adopting that part of the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill before your Lordships simplifies that procedure. The consent of the county council is still necessary, but it will not be necessary for that county council to go through the same process that it had to take under the present Act. Sub-section 2 provides—
  "(2) In giving' or withholding their consent under this section, the county council shall have regard—

  (a) To the area for which it is proposed to adopt the said Part; and

  (b) To the necessity for accommodation for the housing of the working classes in that area; and

  (c) To the probability of such accommodation being provided without the adoption of the said Part; and

  (d) To the liability which will be incurred by the rates, and to the question whether it is, under all the circumstances, prudent fur the district council to adopt the said Part."

  The 3rd Clause of the Bill will enable the now Metropolitan Borough Councils to adopt Part III. as amended, and to exercise powers under the Act as amended for the acquirement of land and the putting up of houses for the purpose. Then, my Lords, at present the law insists upon expenditure upon one part of

  623
  the Bill being accounted for under that part. Clause 4 of this Bill will enable the local authority to account for expenditure under Part III. under any one of the other parts. For instance, if an area has been cleared under Part I., and if a site for lodging-houses has been acquired under Part III., and a profit can he made by the scheme under Part III., that profit may be set against the expenditure under Part I. The only condition is that there shall be a separate account. Then, under Clause 5—
  "(1) The local authority, if not a rural district council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and if a rural district council with the consent of the county council, may lease any land acquired by them under and for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (in this section referred to as 'the Act,') to any lessee for the purpose and under the condition that the lessee will carry the Act into execution by building and maintaining on the land lodging-houses within the meaning of the Act."
  That was an Amendment put in during the course of the Bill through the House of Commons with a very practical argument behind it that it might very possibly he that some person perfectly competent and anxious to do work of this kind might be very much better able to do it than the county council itself, and therefore this provision has been made, that the local authority, with the consent of certain higher authority, may for the purpose of carrying out the intention lease the land. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act will not extend to any lodging-house to which this Act applies. For this reason: that those sections refer to the local authority where the land has been acquired—that is to say, the land outside the area administered by the local authority which has acquired it. Let us take the case of the London County Council. If they had acquired some land outside their own area they naturally would not want the local authority in that area to manage their lodging-houses for them. The intention is to retain the management of those lodging-houses in the hands of the authority that has acquired the area. Under Clause 6, on the complaint of a parish council where a district council has, in the opinion of the parish council, failed to adopt the Act when it ought to have adopted it, or failed to carry out a scheme which might in the opinion of the parish council have been advantageously carried out, the county council is empowered to examine into the arguments
  624
  pro and con., and, if it thinks right, to take over the powers of the rural district council, and to adopt the Act with regard to that particular scheme. Under Clause 7 a cheaper form of arbitration is provided for, whereby a single arbitrator will be called in instead of, as has been the practice, two arbitrators with an umpire in case of disagreement. These, my Lords, are the general provisions of the Bill. The main objections that have been taken to it are as follows: It has been objected that the Bill does not contain provisions for securing convenient railway and tramway facilities. It was thought by some Members of the House of Commons who I am sure have a very wide knowledge of the conditions under which people live in these very crowded areas, that this Bill should have taken a wider scope and should have provided for, I think I may say, the compulsion of railway companies to run convenient workmen's trains to those areas before the lodging-houses were built. Well, in the opinion of the Government, the powers of the President of the Board of Trade are already sufficient to secure that convenient workmen's trains shall be run to these areas when there is some indication that there will be a population there requiring those trains. That is so far as trains are concerned. With regard to tramways I understand the difficulty to be this: that a local authority wishing to project a tramway not only through its own area, but through the area of, we will say, a neighbouring local authority, is unable to obtain the ear of Parliament because the local authority which intervenes or is outside the particular area, if it objects, can prevent the first local authority approaching Parliament at all. A deputation waited upon Mr. Chaplin, the President of the Local Government Board, and Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Board of Trade, with the object of placing before them their views upon this particular point. Having considered very attentively the representations put forward by that deputation, I believe the intention of the Government—I do not know that I am authorised to say that they intend to do it, but I am sure that I am authorised in saying that they are considering most sympathetically the proposal to omit the present Standing Order No. 22, with a view to insert a new Standing Order providing that where a local

  625
  authority desires to run a tramway through the area of another local authority, the first local authority shall be entitled to be heard by Parliament. I understand the difficulty at present is that they are debarred from being heard before Parliament in such a case if an objection is raised by a neighbouring local authority. If the Standing Orders are amended as suggested then the local authority desiring to project the tramway will, at any rate, be heard by Parliament, and I am given to understand that the members of the Government who have given their consideration to this are prepared to support it. I do not know whether it has at present come before the Chairman of Committees in this House, but I believe it has come before the similar authority in the other House, and has been approved there. Those are two of the objections that have been raised to the Bill. Another objection is that the Bill ought to have provided for the power of a local authority to hire land outside its own area. That the Government have opposed—I personally think upon thoroughly sound grounds. I can imagine most serious injustice being done to very deserving people and people who are by no means in very affluent circumstances. If such a power did exist one can conceive this—I do not say injustice, because it would be the law, but I think it would be rather unfair—that a man having invested his fortune in a piece of land would be under the risk of its being acquired by a local authority and his not receiving even the purchase price of the land, but only such an amount of rent (in perpetuity, I believe, is the intention) as somebody or other—not the local authority, I presume, but some arbitrator—might decide was at that date the value of the land. How the individual would ever re-acquire the real estate I am not sure. However, there was a proposal in some such form as that which the Government opposed in the other House, and it was not pressed. My Lords, the general complaint in the other House was that the Bill was not of a large enough scope, that it might have been a very much more heroic measure altogether. Well, there is a different opinion, which is that in this matter—an extremely difficulty one, affecting the rights of property—it is on the whole better to go slow than to take a very long time poring and arguing over the
  626
  merits or demerits of a large measure, and perhaps in the end not producing out of the argument anything very valuable. At any rate, if this is not a very long step in advance, I honestly believe that it will be a useful one. It endeavours to remedy at any rate one serious difficulty, the difficulty which the local authority has in obtaining land at a moderate price. There is one other objection, I remember, which was raised, and that is that the Bill did not contain any provision for the length of time within which a loan obtained by a local authority for acquiring land should be repaid. The suggestion was that the term of sixty years should be extended to seventy, or even up to 100 years. That was resisted by the Government in the other House on the ground that it is impossible to say now what may be the demand for houses sixty years hence or longer, and that sixty years is a sufficient period during which it is safe to allow those loans to be repaid. My Lords, as I say, the Bill does not profess to be a great scheme. It follows on the lines of those Bills that have been at various times introduced, and which were consolidated in the Bill of my noble friend the noble Viscount behind me (Viscount Cross) in 1890. It endeavours to meet a distinct difficulty which has been experienced by the County Council of London amongst others, and I think your Lordships will see for yourselves that if the Bill, when it becomes law, is as effective as the Government believes it can be made to be, it does solve one of the most difficult problems which we have to face in the case of these overcrowded areas—that the local authority can take the people concerned out of a crowded area into one in which the sanitary conditions are far better. Those are the main reasons with which the Bill has been introduced. It has, on the whole, I think, been received by thoughtful people even on the other side of the House in the House of Commons with approval, although I admit that there have been these criticisms; but as a whole it has been received with approval, having regard to the divisions and the speeches. I have read every speech that has been made in the other House, and I think I am perfectly justified in saying that the Bill has been received with approval there where it has been debated at consider-

  627
  able length, and I hope it may receive the same approval from your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Harris.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the great interest that has been taken in this Bill and in the question of the housing of the working classes generally must be my excuse for troubling your Lordships with a few words upon this motion, first as a member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, and also as an elected Member for St. Pancras, which is one of the most congested parts of the whole of congested London. I have listened with great attention to the very lucid speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. With two points brought forward by him I entirely agree. He says this is not a great scheme. Indeed it is not. He also says that there will be no opposition. Naturally there will be no opposition from this side of the House, or, at any rate, there there will be no opposition from the Liberal party, but I am bound to say that the scheme has been received by the whole Liberal party with very great and grievous disappointment. The noble Lord did not say much about the circumstances that led up to this Bill being brought forward. I will for one moment refer to them, and if I say anything that is not the fact there is Lord Cross, who has the whole thing at his fingers' ends, and he will correct me if I fall into any error. From 1851, when Lord Shaftesbury's two Acts were passed, up to 1870, there was no desire on the part of municipalities to take action in this matter of the housing of the poor. Then the noble Viscount opposite brought in his Acts of 1876, 1879 and 1882, and those, with Mr. Torrens' Acts of 1866 and 1868, produced a little improvement; but I think I am only speaking the absolute truth when I say that mainly owing to the expensive machinery required to put those various Acts into motion the activity that was shown was short lived and spasmodic. Then in 1884 the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. We sat for two years and issued a unanimous Report. I cannot say that there was anything very—to use the noble Lord's language—heroic in that Report, but it had the effect of leading
  628
  to the Bill of 1885, which was put forward by the noble Marquess, and on the Report of this Commission I think I may fairly say that the consolidation and amendment of the foregoing Acts with Lord Salisbury's Act of 1885 were effected by the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, which simplified and cheapened the machinery involved in municipal action. In 1889 the Conservative Government created the London County Council, and the Metropolitan Board of Works ceased to exist. The Metropolitan Board of Works, as the House well knows, used to clear away insanitary areas and sell land to building companies, and I believe during the whole of its existence it housed a little more than 27,000 persons up to the year 1889, when it ceased to exist. The London County Council then came into operation, and they began to build them selves in 1892, and in eight years we have housed 10,000 persons. What we have in hand now and what we have completed in the last sixteen months amounts to an additional accommodation for 25,000 more people, at a cost of £1,500,000, and we confidently expect that schemes that we are considering will enable us to house an additional 24,500 persons, making a grand total of 60,000 persons rehoused within the next five years. But, after all, we have been told that this is only touching the fringe of the question. That I admit, but I say that we could have done a great deal bettor, and we could have really—if I may be permitted to use the expression in this House—tackled the question in sober earnest, had we had greater facilities for housing the working classes. The noble Lord opposite said there were very few objections that had been made to this Bill in the House of Commons, and he mentioned some of them, but I venture to think that he forgot some of the most important ones. There are five propositions of what is really wanted for housing the poor in urban districts. First of all, the period within which loans for building purposes must be repaid, should be considerably extended. As the noble Lord said, it is now up to sixty years, and we ask as a matter of justice that it should be extended to 100 years. If noble Lords would be kind enough to go round to the Millbank site, and see the building being put up there by the London County Council for the housing of the working classes, they will,

  629
  I am perfectly certain, agree that it is absolutely preposterous to imagine that those buildings will not last 100 years. Then the next thing we want is the compulsory registration of the real owners of all property, so that those benefiting from insanitary slums and illegal overcrowdings could be immediately and drastically dealt with. Your Lordships know that the Land Transfer Act of 1897 is not compulsory, except in a few parts of London. The third thing we require is power to the local authority to have destroyed without compensation, and at the cost of the owner, insanitary slums which are injurious to health, where the owners fail to make them really habitable after being called upon to do so, and if then the owner refuses to rebuild, the local body should have the power to do so on equitable terms. Fourthly, we want power given to the local authorities—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord—to insist on a much better transit service to and from the suburbs of the great towns. At present the cheap transit follows the peopling of a new district. If overcrowding is to be really prevented, cheap transit must be used largely in the development of new districts, and must not be left merely to follow their development. Then, fifthly, what we have always asked for, and what this Bill no doubt gives, is that local governing bodies in our great towns should be empowered to acquire land compulsorily outside their own jurisdiction for the erection of workmen's dwellings. The Bill on the Table gives us this last concession, but it refuses to entertain the other points which we consider so essential to the welfare of the community at large. I have spoken of the disappointment with which this Bill is received by the party to which I have the honour to belong, and I maintain that we have cause to complain that so little has been done for the working classes only at the end of five years by this all-powerful Government to try to put an end to a condition of things which is a danger to the State and a disgrace and a stain to our civilisation and our Christianity.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I only wanted to call attention to one or two points mentioned by the noble Lord behind me, but I cannot help being rather amused at
  630
  hearing my noble friend opposite, as a representative of the Liberal party, talking of their disappointment at the character of this Bill. As far as I know, the whole legislation relating to the curing of these formidable evils, which I fully admit, was carried out by my noble friends behind me; and during the time that the noble Lord opposite and the Liberal party were in office, I am not aware that they did anything towards carrying into the Statute-book any of those reforms that my noble friend has enumerated just now. It is rather amusing, therefore, now to hoar my noble friend expressing bitter disappointment at the small nature of this Bill. However, my Lords, that is neither here nor there—it is by the way. I did want to say one word about a matter that was referred to by my noble friend in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, the question of the consent of local authorities to tramways running through their district from another district. As the House is aware, at present under the Standing Orders of the House the consent of any local authority, or, if the local authority differs from the road authority, the road authority as well, is necessary as a preliminary to the introduction of any Bill. It is what is called an Examiner's Standing Order, and unless the consent of the authority is proved before the Examiner it is impossible for the Bill to come before Parliament at all. Now, I entirely sympathise with the views of my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think they to a great extent fall in with the views of my noble friend opposite. I am strongly of opinion that the local authorities ought to have a very strong voice when tramways are put through their district by persons, either companies or municipalities, outside those districts; but, beyond giving them a mandatory power of being heard before Committees, I venture to think it would be desirable (and I should be very glad, if certain circumstances arise, to move an Amendment in the Standing Orders to that effect) to take away from authorities the absolute power of stopping schemes of this kind. That is the main point to which I wanted to call attention; but I confess that I am very glad to hear from my noble friend that the Government do not look with any favour upon the idea of compulsory hiring

  631
  in matters of this kind. I think this question of compulsory hiring, which has cropped up in several directions, at present is not a very safe one. If local authorities or companies for public purposes require land, surely they ought to take the land with all its liabilities and obligations upon it, and allow the owner to be absolutely free. I think this question of compulsory hiring is a most dangerous one, and that it will act very unfairly and with great hardship upon owners of land. There is a very important question raised by the noble Lord opposite as to the length of term during which loans for various objects should be repaid by local authorities. I do not like to dogmatise at all on such a question. I quite see the importance that it is to local authorities to get those terms prolonged, but still it ought to be done with very great caution. At present the maximum term is sixty years—that is, two generations; and I think we ought to have very strong arguments before we extend the term very much beyond that. One hardly knows what changes may take place in the surroundings of any undertaking or any scheme in the course of two generations. As I said, I am not prepared to dogmatise on the subject, but I confess that at present very strong arguments should be brought forward to induce Parliament to assent to extending the time beyond the sixty years or two generations that has thus far prevailed.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I should not have intervened in this debate if it had not been for the reference made to myself personally by the noble Lord opposite. He has given a fairly accurate account of the history of this particular kind of legislation, and it is a great satisfaction to me to find that public opinion has grown very much upon this subject, especially of late years. It was in the year 1875 when I had the honour of bringing forward a Bill to enable the authorities in London to get rid of what you may call the unhealthy areas; and if anybody remembers what unhealthy areas there were in London at that time, and were to go to those places and see the fine buildings erected now for the lodging of the labouring classes in their place, he would be perfectly amazed at the change that has taken place. I do not believe that there is one of these unhealthy areas
  632
  now existing in London which it was the special object of the Bill of 1875 to remove. But so difficult was it at that time to pass a Bill of that kind that I remember very well when I laid the instructions before the noble Lord, Lord Thring, who was then the Parliamentary draughtsman, to draw that Bill he came to mo and positively refused to carry out my instructions. I inquired why. He said, "I can only characterise your Bill, Mr. Cross, in two words — Communism and Confiscation." Well, I do not think there is much confiscation if you look at the amount of money which the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works had to pay in order to carry out the Act; while as to Communism, if by communism is meant doing what you can to house the working classes in fit and decent places, not at the expense of the State, but to enable them to house themselves in decent houses, then I am quite willing to be called a. Communist. But it was not till I drew the Preamble of that Act of 1875 that the noble Lord would consent to draw the clauses which were to give effect to it. Public opinion has changed very considerably since then. That Act of 1875 is now embodied in the Act of 1890. The noble Lord opposite has complained that the present Bill does not go quite far enough. At all events, it does make a very substantial step in the right direction. It will enable local authorities, where it is almost impossible for them to obtain land within their area, to obtain equally good land for the housing of the working classes outside the area. If it did no-more than that it would have done a great deal. It will, I believe, promote the building of houses for the working classes, and I sincerely hope your Lord-ships will not only give the Bill a Second Heading but will carry it through as it is. I am bound to say I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I do not think that the time of borrowing ought to be extended too much. Sixty years, as the noble Earl has said, covers two generations. At all events, if the present generation is not to bear its own burdens, do not go beyond the next generation. If you come to 100 years you come to the third and fourth generations, who will have burdens of their own to bear in dependently of those which you want to place upon them. Therefore I for one

  633
  should be certainly opposed to an enlargement of the time daring which the money is to be repaid. My Lords, I believe this Bill is a substantial contribution to what we all want to see, and I heartily support the Second Heading.
  LORD WINDSOR: I wanted to ask one question upon the Hill and its relation to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. In the first place we are all agreed that this is not a very large scheme; but I think that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill is justified in saying that it is a step in the right direction, and on two grounds particularly I should be inclined to support it. One is that I think the ratepayers have a right to some relief. We all know the difficulty in rehousing the working classes in the very centre of the huge population of London. Only a few hours ago in a Committee Room upstairs a member of the London County Council was giving evidence, and he stated that a site had been acquired at the cost of £200,000, and that with the condition upon it of erecting workmen's dwelling-houses it was valued at,£45,000; that is, that the commercial value of the land had been reduced 75 per cent. at least in consideration of the condition attached as to the erection of workmen's dwelling-houses upon it. In fact, he gave us instances more striking even that that. Another one that I may mention was an instance of a site that had been acquired and had been put up to auction, and not one single bid of one single penny-piece did they get from anyone for this land, because of the condition attached to it. Therefore, I say that I do think it is desirable for the sake of the ratepayers that larger powers should be given to acquire land outside the area, so that the London County Council, for instance, can make greater use of the powers which I believe they already have; that is of, in certain cases, selling land when they have taken away the old houses—selling the land at its commercial value, and buying other more suitable laud for the erection of dwelling-houses. My Lords, it is not possible, it is not to be expected, that exactly the same persons who are displaced can be immediately housed in new dwellings. We had an instance of that mentioned in evidence this afternoon before the Committee to which I have referred. A witness for the
  634
  London County Council told us that on a certain site where tenants had been displaced new buildings were erected, and a certain number of the old tenants applied for these new buildings, but their behaviour has been such that it has been absolutely impossible to keep them; no respectable person would take lodgings under the same roof with them, because they were not amenable to any proper discipline, and such discipline as is absolutely necessary for persons living together in the same building. So that we do not suppose that those persons will be immediately housed, but it certainly will have a tendency to remove the congestion if these dwellings are built on outside areas. The persons who occupy them must at any rate have lived somewhere before—they will have left their own houses and left them empty, or if the houses had been overcrowded before it will have a tendency to remove the congestion. Therefore, I think the noble Lord is perfectly justified in saying that it is a stop in the right direction. My Lords, I wanted to ask what relation has this Bill, under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which is mentioned over and over again, with Part I. of that same Act. In Clause 12, Sub-section 3, Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, I road that—
  "The local authority may also engage with any body of trustees, society, or person, to carry the whole or any part of such scheme into effect upon such terms as the local authority may think expedient, but the local authority shall not themselves, without the express approval of the confirming' authority, undertake the rebuilding of the houses."
  Then in Sub-section 5—
  "If the local authority erect any dwellings out of funds to be provided under this part of the Act, they shall, unless the confirming authority otherwise determine, sell and dispose of all such dwellings within ten years from the time of the completion thereof."
  Then, turning to Part III., Clause 59—
  "The local authority may, on any land acquired or appropriated by them, erect any buildings suitable for lodging-houses."
  And further on, Clause 61 says—
  "The general management, regulation, and control of the lodging-houses established or acquired by a local authority under this part of this Act shall be vested in and exercised by the local authority."
  LORD HARRIS: That is cut out in. this Bill.
  LORD WINDSOR: Then I presume it would mean that they are not to rebuild houses other than lodging-houses.
  LORD HARRIS: My noble friend opposite, Lord Carrington, knows bettor than I do, but I think the explanation is that the houses referred to in Part I. are not lodging-houses. It is only Pact III. that deals with lodging-houses, and if a local authority builds houses on the area that has been cleared they need not be necessarily lodging-houses; they may be probably houses of any kind or description.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Under, I think, the 13th Clause of Lord Salisbury's Act the noble Lord will find in the definition that "lodging-house" means any house or tenement of any sort or description that is erected for the occupation of the poor. "Lodging-house" does not mean a house kept for lodgers to live in, but it includes every sort of house, whether two families live in it or one, that is erected for the occupation of the poor. I think that is the definition of "lodging-house" in the Act of 1890.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  PROHIBITION OK EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores—was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 205.)
  House adjourned at half-past Seven of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.