, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, it dealt with certain charitable funds originally left to the parish of St. Giles without, Cripplegate, which was now divided into the parishes of St. Giles and St. Luke. At that division, in the early part of last century, these funds were appropriated in certain proportions between the two parishes, and in 1732 an Act was passed which confirmed the prescriptive right of the two parishes to their respective portions. The parish of St. Luke had, however, greatly increased in population, principally of the poorer classes; and this Bill proposed to abstract from St. Giles's parish a portion of those charities which it possessed both by prescriptive and Parliamentary title. He opposed this attempted interference with the rights of property. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gregory.)

said, that the donors of these charities in times past undoubtedly gave their money for the joint benefit of the two parishes, and the funds should be administered by the Charity Commissioners. He wished to show the House that the promoters of the Bill were acting with complete bona fides. The charities were given for a parish which had ceased to be populous, and one which had grown populous and poor. The richer parish was willing to treat the poorer one liberally, but they said their hands were tied, and the promoters now came to Parliament to have that shackle removed. The charities being for the joint benefit of the two parishes, it could not be said that the richer portion, which was thinly populated, should reap the benefit at the expense of their needier and more numerous neighbours, and he thought, therefore, that the distribution should be made according to the numbers and poverty of the applicants. He undertook to get rid of the 4th clause and of the proposed limitation on the power of the Charity Commissioners to deal with the subject. He agreed that the subject should be referred to them, and hoped the House would give the Bill a second reading, in order that, like all other local Bills, it might be referred to a Select Committee.

said, his hon. Friend had put the case with considerable ability, but he wished the House to understand that this was not so simple a question as they had been asked to believe—namely, as to whether St. Luke's was entitled to a share of these charities. There was much more in it than that. The Bill proposed to prevent the carrying out of certain schemes of the Charity Commissioners, and the promoters of it characterized the way in which these Commissioners dealt with the matter as an abuse of the original intention of the donors. What the promoters wished to do was to apportion the distribution to the numerical strength of a part of the parish. Cripplegate, on the other hand, thought that the charity was no longer to be dealt with by distributing doles, but in a manner more in accordance with modern views. In his opinion, those who sustained the schemes of the Charity Commissioners and opposed this Bill had more reason on their side than the promoters. He would like to see the whole of the City charities reformed. He opposed the second reading of the Bill.

said, he should advise the House in cases of this kind to allow the Bill to take its usual course. He felt that in a private and complicated matter of this kind the House was incompetent to deal thoroughly. For himself, notwithstanding the speeches that had been made, he confessed he did not understand the matter, and therefore he thought it far better that the Bill should go upstairs to a Committee, where it could be thoroughly dealt with.

said, the House was not called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the merits or demerits of a system of doles. Neither was the House asked to interfere with the rights of property in any other way than that in which such rights had been dealt with scores of times in schemes of the Charity Commissioners, and under Parliamentary sanction. The only question was whether the Bill was so plainly bad and unreasonable as to make it necessary for the House, by rejecting it at this stage, to withdraw it from the consideration of the usual tribunal. The facts of the case were very simple, and the House was in a position to consider it upon its merits. The parish of St. Giles' had formerly consisted of two parts, a lordship and a liberty part. Charities were left some to the lordship, some to the liberty portion, and some again for the benefit of the undivided parish of St. Giles'. These last mentioned charities were the subject of the present Bill. In 1732, St. Giles' was divided into two parts, and at that time a plan of apportionment which had been agreed upon 30 or 40 years before was adopted by Parliament. Since then the circumstances of St. Luke's and St. Giles' had entirely changed. St. Giles' had become a great business centre, with a very small residential population and few poor. St. Luke's which was then a country district, given up to the plough and the crook, and the milk-maid had grown enormously, and had now a dense and destitute population. He hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition to the Bill.

said, he was about to oppose the second reading of this Bill, because sending it upstairs meant a waste of the charity funds, part of which would really go into the hands of those who promoted it. Nothing else could accrue from carrying out the design of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). Besides, to interfere in the sense which the promoters advocated was to destroy a decision that had been come to in 1732, when a just settlement of the claims had been arrived at.

said, he had listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, but he confessed they did not touch the most objectionable clause in the Bill. Something had been said about the insufficiency of the proposition which proposed to transfer property from one hand to another on the alleged poverty of one part of the parish. There was some force in that objection; but that House had always been anxious to do what it could for those who were too poor to help themselves. The worst feature in the Bill was that in the 4th clause, which proposed to refer this matter either to private arbitration or to the Charity Commissioners; and he confessed that seemed to him an undesirable manner of dealing with money belonging to a parish. He understood, however, from the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Torrens) that the 4th clause was to be taken away, and that the management of these funds was to be handed over simply to the Charity Commissioners. Due regard would doubtless be had to the poverty and numbers of the recipients of these charities; but that should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. He also understood that the hon. Member would withdraw the limit which the Bill proposed to put upon that discretion. This removed the main objection he had to the Bill. As to the argument that they were now asked to break a former Act of Parliament, that might be equally urged against any Bill dealing with matters which had formed the subject of previous legislation. The settlement of 1732 might have been adapted to the circumstances of the time in which it was made, and yet be wholly unsuited to the wants of 1877. When they had put the charge of the administration of charity funds in the hands of a recognized body, the House should not lay down rules for their guidance. Being entrusted with certain functions, they should be allowed to use their judgment, and trusted to do their duty properly. As the matter was to be referred to the Charity Commissioners, he thought it would be wrong to reject the Bill on the second reading.

said, the charity had been administered, from its inception to the present time, in strict accordance with the intentions of the donors; but he did not object to the administration being transferred to the Charity Commissioners, believing that the Commissioners would continue to distribute the funds on the same principles; but he urged that the Bill should be withdrawn, and framed more in harmony with the declarations now made by the hon. Members for Chester and Finsbury (Mr. Raikes and Mr. Torrens).

thought it would be simply monstrous to have the money of those charities administered as at present; it would be far better to have them managed more in accordance with modern ideas. The parish of St. Giles' was simply acting the part of a dog in the manger. He was told that they had already £3,000 in the bank, and did not know how to use it. He hoped the Bill would be sent before a Committee upstairs.

rose to ask a question. He was surprised to find that they were discussing a Private Bill in regard to endowments. Generally speaking, endowments were provided for by schemes from the Charity Commissioners; but he was told that the reason why this Bill had been introduced was that an Act was passed in 1732, and unless there was a Bill to prevent the operation of that Act the scheme could not come into operation. As the Bill was first brought forward it would appear to decide what that scheme should be; and he wished to ask whether the alterations now made would simply take away the binding effect of the previous Act and send it to the Charity Commissioners to frame a scheme, thereby putting the charity in the same position as other charities.

said, the Bill, as presented to the Committee, was simply to be a Bill to give power to the Charity Commissioners to do that which they could not do without such an Act. They could not carry out a general scheme unless the old Act was repealed. Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

called attention to the private Bills introduced in the present Session with the view of employing steam or other mechanical power upon tramways, and moved that a Select Committee be appointed

"To consider how far, and under what regulations, the employment of steam or other mechanical power may be allowed upon Tramways and public roads."

The hon. Gentleman said, his attention was first called to this subject by a report made to him at the commencement of the Session by the Board of Trade, who, finding themselves confronted by a large number of applications for provisional orders for steam tramways, and having observed that there were coming before Parliament also a large number of private Bills relating to steam tramways, thought it was desirable, if possible, to arrive at some harmonious mode of action by which regulations to the same effect should be enforced by the Board of Trade in the case of Provisional Orders, and by Parliament in the case of Bills. The Bills before Parliament for this Session with regard to the application of steam or mechanical power to tramways were nine in number. They were the Birkenhead Tramways Bill, the Dublin Central Tramways Bill, the Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill, the Galway Tramways Bill, a Glasgow Bill, an Ipswich Docks Bill, and Leeds, Leicester, and North Metropolitan Bills. Six of these would come before the House of Commons; the other three would be commenced in the House of Lords. There were also applications before the Board of Trade for Provisional Orders for Bristol, Dewsbury, Nottinghamshire, Sheffield, Swansea, and Wolverhampton. We were therefore on the eve of considerable and important legislation upon a very interesting subject. He might point out the different ways in which these Bills approached the question of regulation of the steam power to be applied to tramways. Birkenhead proposed that the consent of the Board of Trade should be obtained; Dublin proposed that the carriages might be moved by animal, steam, or any other power, but made no reference to the Board of Trade. The Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill proposed to require the consent of the Local Authority to the use of steam. The Galway Bill, like the Dublin one, made no reference to the Board of Trade or Local Authority. The Glasgow and Ibrox Bill provided that the consent of the Board of Trade should be necessary. The Ipswich Bill would require the consent of the Urban Sanitary Authority to the use of steam, but said nothing as to the Board of Trade. Leeds and Leicester both proposed to obtain the Board of Trade's consent to the use of steam or mechani- cal power, and so also did the North Metropolitan Tramway Company. There were thus three or four different modes of procedure contemplated by the different Bills. In the case of the Dublin Tramways Bill it was with considerable difficulty he had found out that there was a clause in the Bill proposing to use steam or mechanical power at all. The House had passed two Acts last year relating to steam tramways, the first in the form of a private Bill—the Vale of Clyde Steam Tramways Bill—which was an unopposed Bill, and in that character it came before him, when he pointed out to the promoters of it that it was only sanctioned as an experiment. The other Bill was passed through the Board of Trade as a Provisional Order Bill, and referred to the Wantage Steam Tramways. These were the only two instances in which Parliament had licensed the application of steam or other mechanical power to tramways, and therefore the Bills that were brought in this year might be said to furnish practically the first occasion on which Parliament had to deal with this question in bulk. By the General Tramways Act, 1870, Clause 34, it was provided that all carriages used on any tramway should be moved by the power prescribed by the special Act, and where no such power had been prescribed that animal power should be employed. From that it appeared that Parliament had in its mind at the time the possibility of other than animal power being employed, but no general principle was laid down as to its desirability or undesirability. What was now wished was that Parliament should lay down some uniform system of dealing with these Bills, and that it should be one which could be dealt with by the Board of Trade by Provisional Order. Some hon. Members might think that by the appointment of this Committee the case might be prejudged; but he had drawn out his Resolution in such terms as not to prejudge the case, and he had only followed upon the lines laid down in the General Tramways Act. In the year 1864 a Committee of this House was appointed to join a Committee of the House of Lords to consider various points in connection with the railways of the metropolis, and they also resolved that it was expedient that an inquiry should be instituted in the following Session, in connection with the Lords, as to the system of metropolitan tramways. In 1872 a Joint Committee was appointed, which resulted in the adoption of the present system. On consulting with Earl Redesdale, Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, it was considered not desirable to ask for the appointment this year of a Joint Committee, and therefore it was that he now proposed the appointment of this Committee. He hoped that the House would see no difficulty in granting the Committee, and he promised them that he would use his endeavours to secure on that Committee the services of hon. Members who were an authority in that House, and lay down a satisfactory mode of procedure for the future. By the appointment of the Committee at that early period of the Session he believed they would be able to complete their labours before Easter, so as not to interfere with the progress this Session of the different schemes before Parliament. In the meantime, he had suspended proceedings on existing Tramway Bills until the Committee should have reported.

expressed his satisfaction that this subject had been brought before the House. It was a serious question how far tramways should be extended, and whether steam or other mechanical means should be used for the purpose. The Metropolitan Board of Works had considered that it would not be part of their duty to withhold their consent from the bringing of these various schemes before the House, being desirous that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them; but, at the same time, they reserved to themselves full power to discuss the whole question as it arose. He trusted that the proposed Committee would be appointed, and that the whole of the schemes would be well considered before there was any further legislation in the matter.

also hoped the Committee would be appointed. It was extremely desirable that legislation upon this subject should proceed on a basis that was common and intelligible.

wished to ask whether the proposed Committee would embrace the question of locomotives on public roads generally. The hon. Gentleman confined his re- marks to tramways alone, but the Notice on the Paper went beyond that and included locomotives on roads.

remarked that the question was not whether there were to be tramways, but how they were to be worked? He was by no means clear that steam would be the motive power. Engines might be made to run quite as well on roads as on rails. When the difficulties as to horses were overcome tramways would doubtless increase.

said, that the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, through their President, last year petitioned the Home Secretary and the Board of Trade for permission for the use of steam power in country districts. It had been found that when steam power had been used it worked remarkably well, and it was found that those who were at one time most opposed to it were now as much in favour of it.

asked whether it was not legal now to use steam engines on roads? His impression was that at the present moment engines could be used on the highways.

said, he did not attach so much importance, so far as this reference was concerned, to the use of steam power on public roads as he did to its use on tramways. The Committee, if appointed, would, however, he had no doubt, find an opportunity of conveying to the House great and important information as to the use of locomotives on roads. The two subjects were closely connected, and it would be difficult to inquire into one without the other. He preferred to leave the terms of reference as he had drawn them. Locomotives could now be used on public roads if they complied with the Act on traction engines. There was a Bill before Parliament proposing to alter the law with regard to locomotives on roads, and he hoped to be able to propose that the hon. Member who was in charge of that Bill should be a Member of this Committee. Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, "to consider how far, and under what regulations, the employment of steam or other mechanical power may be allowed upon Tramways and public roads."

And, on March 1, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. SALT, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. B. SAMUELSON, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. PELL, MT. M'LAGAN, MT. JAMES CORRY, Major BEAUMONT, Viscount HOLMESDALE, Mr. COTES, Colonel LOYD LINDSAY, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. HICK:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a telegraphic despatch in the Second Edition of the "Times" of this day stating that orders have been given for the demobilization of the Russian Army on the conclusion of peace between Turkey and Servia and Montenegro; and, whether any information has been received on this subject at the Foreign Office either from Her Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg or from the Russian Embassy in London?

No confirmation, Sir, has yet been received officially at the Foreign Office of this statement. I am also commissioned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state that he called this afternoon on the Russian Ambassador, who had not received any official information on the subject.

asked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro, Whether, as this Bill proposes to abolish offices, he will give an assurance that the Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee in order that the case of those interested shall be fully considered?

, in reply, said, this Bill was based on the Report of the second Committee which investigated the subject last Session. It contained no compensation clauses; but if the House agreed to the second reading, he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and he could promise that all those who were interested should have an opportunity of explaining their case.

said, that after that explanation, which was so far satisfactory, he should not move his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.

, in rising to call attention to the constitution of the Irish Society of London, and the management of its income and property, and to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the constitution, management, and annual expenditure of the Irish Society of London; and, further, to report as to what, if any, changes can be made in the governing body or the mode of administration in order to ensure a more economical and advantageous application of the property, or whether such result can be best attained by placing the property in the hands of public Trustees resident in Ireland,"

said, the nature of the case he had to present to the House was such that he hoped no apology was needed from him for introducing the subject; because, although the locality affected was represented in that House by four Members only, it was in reality a matter of great importance, inasmuch as it affected the privileges of the great Corporation of London, which had a large interest in the subject. The property which was the subject of the Motion was so extensive as to produce an annual rental of £14,000 gross, or £12,700 net. It was all situate in the county of Londonderry. The history of the property extended 250 years back. In the reign of James I., a large amount of property in the Province of Ulster, to the extent of 400,000 or 500,000 acres, having been forfeited by persons who were guilty of treason, it was then resolved to form a new plantation or colony in Ulster under a Charter. Accordingly, the large Companies which formed part of the Corporation of London were called in for the purposes of providing the requisite funds for settling and populating the new Colony. The original Charter was granted by King James I. in 1613. Shortly afterwards disputes arose between the Crown and the Corporation of London, the result of which was that in the reign of Charles I., in 1637, that Charter was annulled, and the Crown again took possession of the property. Subsequently, however, in 1662, King Charles II. granted a new Charter under altered conditions, under which the property, the subject of this Motion had ever since been regulated, and under which the Irish Society itself was originally created, and had continued down to the present day. Between the granting of the original Charter and the time of its annulment, the Irish Society had conveyed in severalty, as their own separate properties, to the 12 great City Companies of London, portions of the original estates which had been conveyed in bulk to the Irish Society by the original Charter; and the consideration for those conveyances was the good and valuable consideration of money paid by each of the 12 Companies for the purpose of the Ulster settlement and plantation. And here he begged it to be understood that he did not impugn the title to the property or attack the revenues of the several properties of the individual Companies — they were, no doubt, lawfully conveyed by the Irish Society between the granting of the original Charter and its annulment. Notwithstanding these conveyances, however, there was a large residuary property not conveyed to these individual Companies, and this was brought under, and specially made the subject of settlement, in the second Charter of Charles II. That property was called the indivisible portion of the old estate, and the House of Lords, in a judicial suit, had decided that this property was public trust property, and it was sufficient to show that the Charter of Charles II., under which the Society still existed, bore this character, to justify him in saying that this being public property, it ought to be used for the general purposes for which it was conveyed—namely, the benefit of the public. It was also necessary for him to state that this Charter dealt not only with the formation of the Irish Society; but it further provided for the municipal government of the city of Londonderry, and the town of Coleraine—and this, indeed, was the ground on which the old city of Derry had assumed its present name. This being the history of the case, it was his duty to show and to prove, on unimpeachable evidence, that the property thus vested in the Irish Society was held for public purposes, and for public purposes only. He had first, however, to state that although the present gross income from the property was £14,000, it had not, as the House would suppose, always produced that amount. Twenty-five years ago the income did not amount to more than £7,000; and antecedently, the figures were smaller still; but it had always been a property of a very substantial character, and was still an improving property, and likely in the future to become still more valuable and produce a larger income. The question now raised with respect to it was no new question. Already three Royal Commissions had dealt with this subject as incidental to the main purposes for which they were appointed—the Commissions upon the Corporations of England and Wales, upon the City of London, and upon the Corporations of Ireland; and each of these Commissions had inquired into this particular subject, and had, as he would presently show, condemned the present state of things. The last occasion on which the subject was brought before the House was in 1869, by the late Mr. Maguire, the esteemed Member for the city of Cork, and the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Carlingford, distinctly admitted that the present state of things could not be allowed to endure, and promised that the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. That promise, however, like many others, ended without performance. But as regarded the Parliamentary position of the question, they had this—that the responsible Minister of the Crown, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had admitted that the existing state of things required a remedy, and had promised the attention of the Government to it. Now, he believed he was entitled to state that the case set up out-of-doors by those who represented the Irish Society—though he doubted that it would be ventured on here — was, that these estates were their private property; that they were in no sense a public trust; that they might, if they so pleased, dispose of it for their own purposes, or of the City Companies, and that the Society were not responsible, in any public sense, and could not be dealt with as public trustees. The history of the dealings with this property by the Society was certainly very remarkable. When the income derived from it was small, the greater part was spent for the personal delectation of its members, and any surplus—if any there was—was handed over to the City Companies, where probably it was probably it was also spent upon dinners. When, however, the income increased, by degrees some light seemed to have broken in upon the minds and consciences of the Irish Society, for about 150 years ago they awoke to the propriety of devoting some part of their income to the public objects for which they were instituted, and up to 1823 about £500 a-year was devoted to public purposes. Between 1823 and 1832 a great improvement occurred, and the £500 was increased to £1,000 and £1,500 a-year. It could be proved, however, from the sworn documents of the Society, when on its defence in a Chancery suit, that between the years 1777 and 1831 about £2,000 a-year was paid to the City Companies as the primary recipients and cestuis que trusts—making in 60 years £120,000 so paid, in distinct breach of the primary trust upon which the Society held the property. Now, this property was given the Society for the public purpose of plantation, for making roads, bridges, and for the erection of the necessary public and municipal buildings of the two principal towns of the county of Derry; and at the very time this money was being misappropriated, and the £120,000 unlawfully put into the pockets of the 12 City Companies, the city of Londonderry was incurring a public debt and taxing its citizens for making a bridge over the Foyle, to connect two parts of the place, and for improving its port and harbour—the very public objects for which the property was given to the Irish Society. Now he came to a remarkable state of things. In 1823 the Irish Society was called upon by the Common Council of the City of London to account to that body for the appropriation of their revenue. They refused, contending that the Corporation of London had nothing whatever to do with the matter, that they were only responsible to the City Companies, whose property the surplus income was. In 1832 this remarkable change occurred. The Skinners Company thought they did not get enough of the money, that too much was spent by the Society upon its own responsibility, and for its own purpose, and that too much was given to the public. Accordingly the Skinners Company brought a suit in Chancery to compel the Irish Society to account for the application of their revenues, and to get a more equitable division, not between themselves and the public, but between themselves and the Irish Society, to the exclusion of the public. The scene then entirely changed. The Irish Society, in indignation at the exercise of their abounding discretion being interfered with, entirely changed their front, and would not give anything to the City Companies. While the suit was going on the system of administration—he was happy to say—entirely changed in the interest of the public, and from that day to this the City Companies had never received one farthing of the money. So that, after having refused to account to the Corporation of the City of London, because it was a matter personal and private between themselves and the City Companies, they then declined to pay money to those Companies because they alleged that they held it for the advantage of the public. The old adage was realized as to what happened when certain persons fell out. Well, then, was this public property—or, in other words, did the Irish Society hold it as a public trust—or was it, as they contended, private property? He could not understand how the Corporation of London—although otherwise unreformed—could have thought it was held as private property; for they were not a private association, and as a public corporation could hold only for public purposes. He must now trouble the House with a few extracts from important documents and decisions which dealt with the question—was this a public trust, or was it a private endowment? He would first read two sentences from the Charter of Charles II., by which the Society was constituted. The first recited—

"That the Society did retain in its own hands such part of the same tenements and hereditaments as were not property divisible for defraying the charge of the general operation of the said plantation."

Then the intent of the Charter was described as followed:—

"That there may be a new Society made by the new plantation in Ulster aforesaid, consisting of the like number of honest and discreet citizens of our city of London as the other and former Society heretofore consisted of, and that a new incorporation of the said city or town of Derry be constituted, and for the further and better settling and planting of the said county, towns, and places with trade and inhabitants."

It was upon this that the Skinners' Company proceeded. On the hearing, the Master of the Rolls decided in favour of the contention of the Irish Society—that they were not a body accountable to the City Companies, because their primary trust was a public trust and not a private trust. The Skinners' Company appealed to the House of Lords. Their Lordships confirmed the decision of the Master of the Rolls—that it was a trust held by the Irish Society for public purposes, and not for any other purposes. Lord Lyndhurst said—

"Now, my Lords, if that be so, the conclusion I come to appears to me to be irresistible; they are public officers—they have public duties to perform of an important kind, By the terms of the Charter of Charles II., independently of any general reasoning, this property is given to them for these very purposes: they have applied it for these purposes. After they have satisfied the purposes, which are purposes entirely in their discretion, they been in the habit of paying over the surplus funds to the different Companies, in proportion to their original contributions; but that depends entirely on the will of the Society—I mean as to the amount. They arc to exercise their judgment as to what is necessary for the performance of their public duties, and after they have satisfied those duties, after they have applied to public objects what in their judgment—the fair exercise of their judgment—is necessary for those objects—then it is, and then only, that the surplus which remains, subject to their discretion, has been usually paid over to the Companies."

And then, at a later part of his judgment, he stated—

"Now it is perfectly clear, therefore, in this state of things, that they cannot be considered as trustees for the benefit of the Companies."

And Lord Campbell said—

"It seems to me that the object of the Crown was that public purposes should be attained by the trustees who had the management of these lands, and I am clearly of opinion that the purposes for which the grant was made still continue, and that they arc and must ever remain trustees for the public."

He had then to point out that in this Skinners' suit the Society had taken up the position that they were public trustees, and were not accountable for their actions to any Company. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1851 or 1852 to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London; and the Irish Society being an annexe of the Corporation, they inquired also into the affairs of the Society. That Commission was as strong a one as had ever been appointed. It included as its Members the late Lord Taunton, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Mr. Justice Patteson. A Commission so appointed could not be considered a revolutionary body, neither could it be said that the conclusion to which they came could be considered as other than of the greatest weight. They reported that the Society, from its Charter and present practice, were mere trustees for the purposes declared in the Charter of Incorporation, and that—

"Though neither Lord Langdale nor the House of Lords decided what the claims of the Company might be upon a supposed surplus, it results from both these decisions that the objects of the Charter are so vast and various that they never could be satisfied by any funds at the disposal of the Society; and that, in fact, if the Society did its duty, no surplus could ever arise within any reasonable probability. Practically, therefore, the Companies have no interest in the revenues of the Society, because they can only be entitled (if they are entitled at all) to a surplus which has, and cannot have, any actual existence. It follows that there are no persons or bodies in this country beneficially interested in the receipt of the revenues."

He would now call attention to how the Governing Body, which had the management of this vast property in the North of Ireland, 500 miles away from Guildhall Yard, where it was administered, and of which the revenues were also local, was constituted. The Society had but one permanent member, the Recorder of the City of London. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present to tell the House what part he took in the management of the estates; but the gentleman who filled the office of Recorder at the time that Commission sat told the Commissioners that he had only attended one meeting of the Society. In fact, he (Mr. Lewis) believed that the only permanent member of the Governing Body was not in the habit of attending any of the meetings of the Society. The shifting members of the Governing Body consisted of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, and 24 ordinary members. The Governor, as a matter of form, was elected annually; but practically, inasmuch as he was always re-elected, he was a permanent officer, otherwise there would not be any continuity in the government of the Society. His hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was elected in 1873, and had since been elected annually; and was, therefore, practically a permanent officer. The Deputy Governor was elected yearly, and the 24 ordinary members, of whom 12 were elected every year, continued in office only two years; so that, at the end of every two years, there was a complete change of the Governing Body. He understood there was what was always a crowd of candidates for these appointments, for to be elected a member of the Irish Society was considered one of the honours of the Corporation, and was therefore an object of special desire by members of the Court of Common Council. He asked, could there be any constitution more unsuited for the management of property 500 or 600 miles away, the application of the revenues of which was local and had reference to educational, charitable, and other purposes? Again, the Society was a foreign body—an absentee body; and, further than that, it was also an unreformed body, for it was strange, but nevertheless the fact, that while all other public bodies had to submit to such changes as the circumstances of the time required, the Corporation of the City of London had hitherto escaped reform. Some time or other, however, it would be compelled, like the the other public institutions of the country, to submit to the pruning knife. So it was with the Irish Society which emanated from that Corporation, and so despotic was the sway which it exercised over the Mayor and Corporation of the City of Derry, that that body could not pass a bye-law in the administration of local self-government without sending it to Guildhall Yard for the approval of these City magnates. Was that a state of things which ought to exist? Upon one occasion the unfortunate Corporation of Derry took upon itself, with insolent self-reliance, to name one of the streets, and it was upon record that the Irish Society, in the exercise of its undoubted rights under the Charter, sent a peremptory order to the Corporation of Derry to restore the original name of the street. Now, he would ask the House if such a state of things ought to be allowed to last in these days of local self-government? The altered circumstances of the times and of the locality imperatively required that it should cease, and that the property should be administered for the advantage of the people and of the locality with which it was connected. He considered that fact alone sufficient to justify the appointment of the Select Committee which he asked the House to grant to him. That was not all. The property being local, and the Governing Body being in London, there was a system of dual government, with two sets of officials. There was a Government house in Derry, with a most efficient general agent and subsidiary officers, and there was a Government house in Guildhall Yard, with most efficient secretaries with very little to do, and a number of subsidiary officers. And this dual system of government had most remarkable results. He had already referred to the way the Society had interfered in respect to the naming of streets. That was, however, a trifling matter compared with their conduct in opposing a Bill which the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Derry promoted in 1854 for the improvement of the navigation of the Foyle. The Harbour Commissioners, in the exercise of their public office, brought in a Bill for the improvement of the port and the navigation of the river. The dignity of the Irish Society was at once aroused, and they immediately put forth the privileges they asserted themselves to possess—they petitioned Parliament against the Bill. So here they had two public bodies, intimately allied, in a position of antagonism. In the end the opposition to the Bill was arranged, but the matter was not settled without the waste of £1,200, in passing what should, in common reason, have been an unopposed Bill. When the Corporation of the City of Loudon was made dry nurse to the Ulster plantation, the county of Londonderry was desolate; it had no inhabitants, no means of local self-government, and no money to cultivate property. Consequently, it required not only the power of wealth, but it required intelligence of management, and to obtain that it was necessary to go far afield. At that time, therefore, it might have been a very politic arrangement that an outside body should manage the affairs of the county. But the state of things was totally altered now. Everybody acquainted with the county of Londonderry and with the city of Coleraine knew that they had merchants and members of all classes and creeds who were just as capable of taking part in the administration of affairs as the Corporation of the City of Loudon or any other municipality. The case, therefore, was entirely altered, and that of itself, at the expiration of 250 years from the date of the Charter, appeared to him to be sufficient justification for asking the House to inquire as to what might be the best way in which to manage this large and important property. One of the evils of the present mode of administration was that the Society had spent considerable sums in complimentary presents, and at one time had been turned into what might be called a "Mutual Snuff-box Society." Each year a deputation of the Society went over to Derry to visit the estates, and on their return their portraits were painted, to be hung up in the Society's rooms in the Guildhall, or they had services of plate presented to them. In a book published by the Society he found no fewer than 26 instances of presentation to those who had been good enough to form deputations to the city of Derry. Nor was that the only mode of expenditure to which the Society had committed. itself. He found by the books of the Society that, in 1832, £932 had been paid as the cost of an Election Petition to turn out the Members for Coleraine. A year later he found an item of the payment of £110 to Captain Thorpe, the brother of the then Governor, the late Alderman Thorpe, towards his expenses at an election for that town. But they next got to even worse. In 1854, when the Commission on the Corporation of London was brought on, the then Governor of the Society, Mr. Alderman Humphery, was brought seriously to task with reference to the annual expenditure. He said the expenditure might be put at about £3,000 a-year, including £600 a-year for law expenses. He (Mr. C. Lewis) had looked into the accounts, and found that for the five years, 1870–74—both inclusive—the expenses of management were £22,468, or £4,500 a-year. They were dealing with an estate at this time bringing in £12,700, and he would ask hon. Members what they would think of the expenditure being nearly 40 per cent of the income with regard to any charities or trusts with which they were connected, not in any outlay respecting the estate, but in travelling expenses to Ireland in the month of August, the ostensible object of the deputation being the interests of the Irish Society, but in reality to afford them the opportunity of a visit to the Giant's Causeway, and have a pleasant summer outing. In some years the expenditure was as much as 45 per cent of the income. In 1874 a sum of £970 was paid for visiting the estate, and in 1873 it was £870. They then came to another item—tavern expenses. This was no invention of his—he was speaking from a Parliamentary Return obtained by himself in 1876, and another in 1866, before he had the honour of being a Member of that House. He found the item of tavern expenses put down in those Returns at £2,203 for five years. Was it right or proper that the money belonging to a public fund should be spent in such a lavish manner as that for the personal enjoyment of a few gentlemen connected with the City of London? Was he not entitled, on behalf of the constituency he represented, to say that a very strong case was made out for inquiry? But it did not end there. There was another item of "Fees to Members." Now they would understand why, to get on the Society was such an object of anxiety to members of the Common Council. It did not require legal training to see that these payments were utterly illegal. Public trustees had no right to fees. Nothing was said in the Charter about the payment of fees; and yet, from an early period in this Society's existence to the present time, the funds of a public trust had been diverted in the payments to members for the performance of a public duty. The payment was continued to the present hour, in defiance of most plain and positive evidence that it was illegal. It had gone on for 200 years, and could not in that time have amounted to less than £30,000. He should probably be now told — "See what the Society have done for the city of Derry." No doubt, things had somewhat improved of late. He would let them into the secret of how that had come about. His present Motion was an answer to a requisition he had received two years since. In June, 1875, he, at the requisition of his constituents, and acting with the other Representatives of the district, gave Notice of his intention to bring this matter of the Irish Society before the House. When the deputation went to Ireland in the following August it was surprising what an amount of liberality they carried with them; under the pressure of this impending Motion, it was suggested that grants might be made for the public purposes of Londonderry and Coleraine. Unfortunately, he was unable to bring on his Motion in 1876; but Coleraine sent a deputation to London and got a grant of £10,000 for the improvement of the town, and the city of Derry got £40,000 to liquidate the debt upon the bridge. [Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW: Hear, hear!] He would not say that the Irish Society made these grants under pressure; but they were just the very grants which ought to have been made years ago at the time when the city debts were contracted; and were now made at the very moment the inhabitants of the country and towns had awakened to their rights. He desired to state what was the public history of this question. The Royal Commission of 1854 reported that in their opinion the Irish Society should be dissolved, that new trustees should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, and that the trust should be declared by a public Act. He did not ask the House to go as far as that on this occasion, and for this reason—it was said on behalf of the Society that that was an ex parte decision, that the Commission had not heard the Society. Many persons who opposed the views which he ventured to hold said that the state of affairs, as far as the properties held by the Irish Society were concerned, had changed considerably within the last quarter of a century. This, without doubt, was true; but the altered state of circumstances, even though it might be a change in the direction he desired, ought to justify an inquiry before a conclusion was arrived at as to the manner in which the properties owned by the Irish Society should be managed in the future. In 1869, Lord Carlingford promised the serious attention of the Government to the matter — he (Mr. C. Lewis) now requested the serious attention of the House to it. His request was in no respect an extreme one. He asked the House that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the management and annual expenditure of the Irish Society of London; and to report what changes were required to be made in the Governing Body and mode of administration: in other words to inquire and report whether the necessary reforms could be best effected by a reform of the existing Governing Body, or by the alternative suggested by the Commission of 1854? He thought he had said enough to justify him not only in bringing the matter before the House, but in asking it to grant the Select Committee for which he now moved.

seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the constitution, management, and annual expenditure of the Irish Society of London; and, further, to report as to what, if any, changes can be made in the governing body or the mode of administration in order to ensure a more economical and advantageous application of the property, or whether such result can be best attained by placing the property in the hands of public Trustees resident in Ireland."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)

Sir, I cannot for a moment pretend to emulate the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry in the way in which he has stated his case; but I am sup- ported by my knowledge that the facts are favourable to the statement which I have to make. I would ask the attention of the House, because I think it will feel that I am in a very responsible position as Governor of the Society, and, to some extent, my hon. Friend may think I am to blame. Now, Sir, I am not astonished that my hon. Friend should have brought this Motion forward. Several of his predecessors have felt a similar necessity, and have brought forward similar Motions. My hon. Friend has said that in 1856 Mr. Kennedy brought forward a similar Motion, seconded by the then Member for Londonderry. In 1869 Mr. Maguire also brought forward a similar Motion, and on both occasions the Motion was withdrawn, the hon. Members being satisfied with the discussions it had elicited. I trust the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) will, when this discussion terminates, deem it wise to follow the same course. Now, Sir, I will just say one or two words on the points urged by my hon. Friend. He has asked, in very forcible language, whether the Irish Society is a private Society or a public trust. Now, Sir, let me say that since I have been Governor of this Society I have never missed an opportunity of declaring, from year to year, as opportunity offered, that primarily and indubitably it is a public trust, which requires the trustees to spend the moneys in public improvements, in promoting schools, in building churches, and in doing whatever may be considered best for the advantage of the locality interested; but that undoubtedly there may be a reserve, which is, or may be, the property of the London Companies. The hon. Member has stated to the House why he considers that the matter should be inquired into. I devote a large amount of time from year to year—I spend a week or 10 days every year in Derry. I do not charge my travelling expenses—and the only money I take is the cost of my living while I am in Derry. What are the fees? Every member receives a fee of 10s. for attending a court. Is that an excessive fee? I do not think my hon. Friend would consider that a very large sum for attending court. Every member receives a fee of 5s. for attendance at a Committee. I do not see how that can be considered exorbitant. My hon. Friend says it is a breach of trust to receive any fee at all. That is a legal question. The opinion of Lord Campbell and Lord Lyndhurst was that the Society was to spend its money in the improvement of the property; but if there were any surplus that surplus would undoubtedly go to the Livery Companies. If my hon. Friend thinks that this money has been spent in defiance of the law, he is a very good lawyer, and knows what remedy may be taken. My hon. Friend has stated that there are many objections to a body of gentlemen in London managing a property in Ireland; but I must remind my hon. Friend that this is a dual trust. In 1613 the Livery Companies who contributed this money consented to part of it being set aside for making the trust a permanent one: but when that trust was satisfied, the balance of the money should go to them from year to year. My hon. Friend has spoken of the grievances which are suffered by the Corporation of Londonderry. He says they cannot even pass a bye-law without the assent of the Irish Society. Strictly speaking, that is correct; but, as a matter of fact, my hon. Friend knows that the Irish Society has never interfered with the passing of any bye-law by the Corporation for the last 150 years. It is true, that nominally their assent is required to a bye-law; but, on the other hand, the Corporation of Londonderry receives from the Society the sum of £1,200 a-year—the Society feel they are trustees for the city of Derry. The condition of the Corporation of Derry at the time the Irish Society obtained their Charter was a lamentable one. The Corporation had spent all their money, and even the mace was put into pawn. The Society had actually to pay their debts and to take the mace out of pawn in order to enable them to go on. My hon. Friend made another point. He stated that in 1874 the Society opposed the improvement of the quays and the construction of a harbour. Why did they oppose it? Their opposition, Sir, was intended for the benefit of the merchants of Londonderry. The Society thought that if they were going to give a free grant of the land they had a right to stipulate that if any house were put upon that land for public purposes no charges should be made except such as might be sufficient to pay for the erection of the buildings; and, therefore, they insisted that there should be a clause in the Bill to give the Society power to assent to the tariff proposed to be put upon the trade. The whole object of the Society was to protect the small traders and to insist upon the lowest possible tariff being charged for the dues, considering that the Society were to grant the land. The deputation which waited on the Society in reference to the subject went back again, and the first thing they did was to pass a Resolution thanking the Society for the liberality which had been shown in its treatment of the Harbour Commissioners. My hon. Friend has said that the state of things is entirely altered—that Derry and Coleraine require no longer to be dry-nursed by the Companies of London. If the case is so altered that the Corporation of Derry can do without the Livery Companies, then the Livery Companies will come in and say that the trust is exhausted, and that the corpus of the fund therefore belongs to them. That is not the view that the Irish Society considers a reasonable one. I shall presently, I think, be able to show that the inhabitants of Derry and Coleraine are satisfied, and that they are not here supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, but are anxious that it should be rejected. When the Motion was brought forward by the hon. Gentleman last year not a single Petition came up in support of it; but a Petition came up from Derry, signed by the Bishop, by the clergy, by the merchants, by gentlemen of social position and property, praying the House to reject the Motion. What did Coleraine say? Coleraine sent up a Petition against the Motion. Now, I venture to ask the House whether they can accept that as a view of the feeling of the people of Londonderry and Coleraine in regard to the Motion of my hon. Friend—especially as there was not a single Petition in favour of it? My hon. Friend tells you of the sudden liberality of the Society when it we heard that this Motion was coming on; but he forgot to tell you that we agitated for the freeing of the bridge 10 years ago. Ten years ago the Society offered £1,000 a-year for the opening of the bridge; and I made an offer myself last year. I said—"If you will find half the money we will find the other half"—because the Society felt that the freeing of the bridge was a matter of great importance for the well-being of the poorer inhabitants of Derry. The city is divided by the river Foyle, the working people live on one side, and the factories are placed on the other; so that the work girls have to cross the river to go to their employment, and the tolls amount to something like 2d. a-day, which is a heavy tax upon them. I said—"If you will find one half the money to free the bridge we will find the other half." The Society agreed to give £1,000 a-year 10 years ago, I think—at all events, it was many years ago—the agreement was entered into and the money was paid for three years, when the payment was stopped because the Society disapproved of the proposed mode of constructing the bridge. The Society has now agreed to pay half the cost of freeing the bridge. And let me remind the House that they have applied to the Treasury to lend the money; but the Treasury say they cannot do so. The Society has therefore to borrow the money from the Assurance Societies, or wherever it can get it. If this Motion passes the credit of the Society will be injured, its proposals with regard to the bridge will be unfulfilled, the improvements will be stopped, and I venture to think that my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Lewis) will not dispute that it will be exceedingly difficult to know when the works will be carried out. What does the Motion ask for? An inquiry into the constitution, management, and annual expenditure, of the Irish Society. Why, Sir, the constitution is as well known as anything can be known. My hon. Friend has told you that this book was published by the Society in 1804. If a Select Committee sat for three months it could not get a better history of the Society than this book gives you. With regard to the management, I am quite willing to admit that there is more expense than one could wish to see. But remember it is a dual trust. The Society is obliged to have a representative in Ireland. He is allowed £800 a-year and a house to live in. He occupies a good social position, he is a magistrate and a member of the Grand Jury. I do not think my hon. Friend will be of opinion that we should make any reduction in that payment. We must also remember that the Livery Companies have an interest in the estate—they are entitled to the reversion, and it is necessary to have some sort of establishment in London. All that that establishment consists of is a secretary, a clerk, and a porter, and I do not well see how that establishment could be reduced. With regard to the items of expenditure to which my hon. Friend has referred, I am quite sure he would not have stated them if he had not been informed that they were quite correct. In order to understand this matter, I think it will be necessary for me to trespass on the patience of the House while I state the circumstances under which this Society was originally instituted. About the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the O'Neills and O'Doherties, who were in constant rebellion, had their lands sequestrated by the Crown. These lands constituted the greater part of the county of Londonderry, and the Crown having taken possession of them, did not know what to do with them. It accordingly applied to the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London to consider what should be done with it. The Corporation appointed four citizens to visit the district and to report upon it. Those citizens came back and reported that it was well watered, suited for agricultural purposes, and carrying on an important trade—and that opinion had been amply verified. A grant of £30,000 was accordingly made for the purposes the Crown had in view; and that sum was subsequently increased to £60,000. That seems a small sum of money now; but in order to obtain some idea of its relative value in those days, let me inform the House that at that time a bullock was worth 15s. and a hog 2s. If you take the relative value of money, that £60,000 would represent £2,000,000 now. The Corporation had a power of requiring the Livery Companies to contribute money, and they commanded them to find that sum. It was contributed by 53 Companies, and I think that for more than a century the Corporation never received any consideration for it. The lands were divided and apportioned to the Livery Companies in proportion to the amounts contributed by them, and the Charter was granted in 1614. My hon. Friend (Mr. C. Lewis) read one part of the Report of the Royal Commission on the subject; but if you read only one part of a Report you are apt to get a mistaken notion of its import, and sometimes the reading of another part helps you to understand it more accurately. Now, Sir, I say the Irish Society have done their duty to the North of Ireland. They did, as their duty compelled them, take over boys from Christchurch Hospital as apprentices, and for many years the inhabitants were forbidden to take any Irish apprentices. Houses were built some of which, I think, remain in Coleraine to this day. They were framed in London and taken over and put up as quickly as possible. The Colony was so well nurtured that it became in after time, and is now I venture to say, without fear of contradiction from my hon. Friend, a district as populous and industrious as any other part of Ireland; and I venture further to say that the Irish Society has mainly contributed to that happy state of things. My hon. Friend (Mr. C. Lewis) has dwelt very much upon the expense of management; but he must remember that no society, church, school or institution, that could be required for the benefit of the district, has been forgotten. One of the most gratifying things to me, and one which almost repays me for my annual visit to Ireland, is to visit the large school in Coleraine, where more than 700 children of all denominations receive an education free of expense as good as any that is given in any part of Ireland; and I think my hon. Friend will not dispute that the schools are everywhere spoken of in terms of the highest appreciation. I do not wish to detain the House by dwelling on the subject; but I ask who is it that complains? Not the inhabitants of Derry—because they have petitioned against this Motion:—not the inhabitants of Coleraine, for they also have petitioned against the Motion. I make that statement in the presence of the hon. Member (Mr. C. Lewis). He is here, and if I make a misstatement he will correct me. The inhabitants of Londonderry and Coleraine, who are the primary beneficiaries under our trust, do not complain—why should the House interfere in the work of the Society, and prevent that work from being carried on which is now in progress for the benefit of those for whom the Society was originally established? Sir, I do not want to point too much to the work of the Society, but if any of my hon. Friends know the Cathedral at Derry, they will remember that there is a stone inside the porch, placed there two centuries ago, which bears this inscription—

"If stones could speak then London's praise would sound,

Which built this church from out the ground."

I venture to say that there is not a church, or a school, or a public building in Londonderry, which would not make the same declaration—that the Irish Society have fostered religion and education ever since the trust was first founded. But go back to the time when the freemen of Derry gallantly defended its walls against the assaults of the enemies of this country—history tells of the glorious defence that was made against the Siege of Derry. The Livery Companies supplied the sinews of war, and more than that—they sent over some of the finest pieces of ordnance that were made at that time. Sir, you will see on the walls at this day, the Salters' gun, the Vintners' gun, the Fishmongers' gun—and others. In one of the descriptions of Macaulay, one of the guns is described as "Roaring Meg," and I believe it was fired as many as 200 times during the Siege. That was the spirit of the Livery Companies of London, in those days, who declared that they would defend the Crown against the assaults of its enemies. I will not detain the House longer. I have only one word more to add. My hon. Friend has complained of the constitution of the Society. He has said that the Recorder is the only permanent Member of the Society—that is, that the Recorder ex-officio is the only permanent officer. He has been pleased to refer to me in very satisfactory language; and if he is satisfied with the present Recorder, and he is the only permanent officer, why should he bring this Motion before the House with the view to censuring the conduct of the Irish Society? As long as the Irish Society shows confidence in me I shall always endeavour to persuade my Colleagues that this is primarily a trust for the benefit of Derry and Coleraine; and as to the surplus to which allusion has been made, I am afraid it will never arrive as long as my hon. Friend and others have any public improvement which they wish to see carried out.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) has, with his accustomed ability and command of administrative details, met the Motion and speech of the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis), and I think we may now assume that we have heard the worst and the best that can be said for the Irish Society in its connection with the Plantation of Ulster. I do not rise for the purpose of supplementing the statement of facts which has been sufficiently ample, but to say some words on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent in this House, and whose interests are largely in the keeping of the Irish Society. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not support the Motion now before the House in any spirit of hostility to the Irish Society, but because I believe if the Committee sought for be granted, its investigations will result in giving fuller scope to the beneficent aims of that body, and to the exertions of my hon. Friend near me (Sir Sydney Waterlow), who, I am bound to say, is as skilled and impartial a Governor as ever was at the head of this or any other Society. My hon. Friend asks for a Select Committee of inquiry, and the Motion foreshadows some interesting topics of investigation. If it has a Radical look about it I hope all alarm on that score will be dispelled by reflecting that the Motion proceeds from a safe quarter of the House. Indeed, we are now happily at a loss to know in what particular region of the House of Commons reformers find their seats. But it may be a relief to some hon. Members to know that the Motion before the House does not go nearly so far in Radicalism as the Report of the Royal Commission of 1854. That Commission recommended the repeal of the Irish Society's Charter. In that recommendation I cannot agree. Nearly all the property of the county of Derry is held under the Charter of Charles II., and if it were repealed, I dare say all this property would, in the meantime, revert to the Crown. Of course, Parliament would take care that the present owners should get their lands back under a new title; but to subject the fee-simple of a whole county even for one night to a debate in this House, and to the risks and eccen- tricities of the Division Lobbies, would be a nervous kind of process. My hon. Friend opposite does not aim at anything so disquieting and revolutionary as this, but something much more practical and modest. My hon. Friend has laid some stress on the anomalous character of the Irish Society's position and duties, and has urged that our notions of propriety are challenged, if not outraged, by the spectacle of a committee of the Corporation of London managing property on behalf of the people of Derry and Coleraine when these people are quite competent to manage themselves. It has been replied to this that the anomaly does not so much consist in the mode of managing the property as in the fact that there is such a property to manage, made over to two towns in the North of Ireland, whilst other towns in Ireland have nothing of the kind. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, but I take leave to say that is a dangerous line of argument, for if you begin to question the wisdom of James I. and Charles II. in making over this property to Derry and Coleraine—or, rather, to the county of Derry—people will begin to question their wisdom also in issuing many other Letters Patent, where individuals, and not the general population of a district, were the beneficiaries. It will be better for us not to open up the question of property at all. If you tell us that the reasons why King James selected Derry and Coleraine and the county lying between them as objects of special favour no longer exist, and that the estates may now be set free for more general purposes, I am afraid there are descendants in Ulster of many other favourites of King James who will not thank you for going back to these first principles. If I am asked why Derry and Coleraine should have these advantages, I cannot answer, except that they have them under an ancient Charter, and if we come to ask the why and the wherefore of all existing rights in the North of Ireland, we shall open up fields of discussion where nothing but revolution can reap its harvests. It is well, then, that my hon. Friend's Motion assumes that the concern of any Committee which this House may be pleased to appoint will be to find out whether the mode of administering the trust may not be so improved as really to strengthen the Irish Society, and add to the advantages of the people. Sir, the Irish Society is the only genuine relic of the Ulster Plantation. In the case of private estates the objects and conditions of the settlement have long since been forgotten or disregarded. The only thing that is left to remind us of the best element in the Plantation is the Ulster Tenant-right, which is a tradition of the favourable tenures conferred on the Colonists, and which, I regret to say, in some districts of the Province has well nigh disappeared in the general subversion of popular rights. But no matter what changes took place in Ireland, the Irish Society preserved its identity all through; and we have heard this very night from my hon. Friend, the Governor of the Society, that it frankly acknowledges that it has the same duties to discharge as when it first took possession of the confiscated lands of Ulster. All the good and all the bad of the Ulster Plantation are in the Irish Society as fresh as in the year 1613. What we aim at in this Motion is to expunge all the bad and perpetuate all the good. I must speak frankly. I admit that when King James undertook to colonise the six northern counties of Ireland with English and Scotch settlers, the county of Derry fared rather better than the rest. Its escheated lands fell to the Corporation of London, and we know that the Corporation of London has always been a great defender of liberty, especially its own. I bring no charge against other proprietary colonists; but I own that the Londoners, as the King used to call them, discharged their duties in a spirit of tolerance, which contrasted favourably with that shown by some other undertakers in the Province. The truth is, they were not bigoted enough for King James's taste; for, about two years after the issuing of the Irish Society's Charter, the King wrote to Lord Deputy Chichester complaining that the Irish Society had not driven the natives off the lands. My' hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has no reason to be ashamed of his ancient predecessors in those days. It is true those English gentlemen had signed harsh covenants while they were in London; but when they found themselves face to face with the Irish people their kindlier feelings got the better of them, and they had not the heart to drive the people to the mountains. Sir, Englishmen who know Ireland are seldom its foes. The Irish Society allowed many of the native Irish to stay where they were, and dared to incur the displeasure of the Royal bigot who had sent them over to do sterner work. I, for one, am ready to place to the credit of my hon. Friend and the Society over which he so worthily presides those humane deeds which have lived in history for 260 years. I would not have it thought that we, in the North of Ireland, have ever looked upon the Irish Society and the London Companies as wilful oppressors. They have allowed themselves, now and then, to be misguided by officials, both English and Irish. This is specially true of the Mercers' Company. But, on the whole, they have administered their estates with a certain consideration for the comforts of their tenantry. But the people of Derry and Coleraine, or, at all events, a portion of them, are dissatisfied with the present state of things on two grounds. The one is a matter of principle, and the other is a matter of detail. As to principle they feel sore at being subject to a foreign body like the Corporation of London. I am sure the hon. Baronet (Sir Sydney Waterlow) wonders at his being considered a foreigner in Derry, for at Government House he and his guests always seem very much at home. And yet the Governor of the Society, with all his tact, patience, and impartiality, has not been able to reconcile Derry to English rule. It is a remarkable thing, and I crave attention to it, that men of all shades of politics, and of all religious opinions, take exception to this department of English 'rule, and hint, in no obscure way, that Irish ideas ought to prevail at Derry and Coleraine. I confess I am led to think that almost all Irishmen are inclined for home government when their interests appear to demand it. In the case of the Irish Society, it is thought that the evil is intensified by the shortness of the tenure each member has of office. With the exception of the Governor, who is generally re-elected — and I hope the present Governor will be re-elected as long as he lives—each member remains in office only two years. He sees Ireland twice, and is then for ever lost to us. Now, with reference to the concluding part of my hon. Friend's Motion, it may be asked—Suppose the Irish Society were abolished, what do you propose to put in its place? I think I shall act discreetly if I follow the example of my hon. Friend, and decline to answer that question. I am not able to answer it. My confession is an open one. It would be presumptuous in me to set up for being wiser than the whole body of the people of Derry and Coleraine; and, as they have not come to a common understanding as to any constructive policy, I think it may be as safe for me not to rush where my constituents fear to tread. The Royal Commission of 1853 recommended that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should nominate a new body of trustees; but I have not met any Derry man who agrees with the Royal Commission, for there is a vague impression that the Court of Chancery in Dublin might, at some future day, cease to be the seat of patriotic virtue. Passing away, then, from this part of the subject, I come to the question of detail, or the practical administration of the trust. Here I am not afraid to recommend some positive and substantial measures of reform. I have admitted that it would be a serious thing to repeal the charter of Charles II., and send the whole property of county Derry adrift on these benches. But it is one thing to repeal the Charter, and another thing to supersede certain parts of it by Act of Parliament. Many parts of it have already been set aside by the Act for the reform of Irish Corporations. The Charter gave us many things in Londonderry which we have not now. It gave us 12 aldermen for life, six sergeants-at-mace, a chamberlain, two sheriffs, a gauger, and a garbler, whatever that is, with several other civic benedictions which have vanished away. We only ask Parliament to go a little further in the way of reform. The Irish Society have two sets of duties. They are landlords and they are trustees—they own property in Ireland, but then they must spend the income from that property for the benefit of the districts where it is situated, in public improvements and education. Originally, the whole county of Derry was entitled to the benefits of the trust; but when the 12 London Companies had their portions assigned to them by a conveyance from the Society, it was understood that the Companies would do for the county what the Society was to do for Derry and Coleraine, and with a measure of fidelity they did so. It cannot be questioned that the London Companies spent more of their rents upon local improvements, religion, and education, than is generally done by private owners, and, so far, carried out the spirit of the Charter. But now the Companies are, one after another, selling their properties, and their successors in title repudiate all obligation to do for the districts what the Irish Society was originally constituted to do. Those parts of the country which have passed away from the London Companies might as well have never had any connection with the Irish Society. The estates have gone into private hands. Benefactions for local objects have ceased, rents are raised beyond any figure that was contemplated by the Companies, and the chartered rights of the people are lost. Whatever mistakes may have been made by the London Companies, and however numerous may have been their shortcomings, I deny that it has been any benefit to the community that they have withdrawn from the country, that they have sold their estates, and brought the purchase money with them to London. I submit that the county at large has more reason to complain than either Derry or Coleraine, and I think that if any new declaration of trust is to be made it will be necessary to consider that the Irish Society was constituted in the interest of the whole Plantation of the county of Derry. I do not dispute the legal right of the London Company to sell their estates; but when we take into account the origin of their connection with Ireland, and the objects they were intended to serve, I think the very least they can do is to make the first offer of the property to the occupying tenants, and not hand it over to men who will whip them with scorpions. In the name of sound policy and of justice I put in this claim, and I protest against a process which in its issues may be little less disastrous than the wholesale confiscation of the 17th century. Many of the present troubles can be traced to the uncertainty which has prevailed, and which still prevails, as to the tenure of land. The hon. Baronet has appealed to the fact that within the municipal boundaries of Derry and Coleraine nine-tenths of the building ground is let on perpetuity leases. Well, I ask why not let the remaining tenth on the same tenure? For want of a nail in the shoe the horse is to be destroyed. If there never had been a perpetuity lease for building purposes granted in Derry, I do not know but by this time the people might have been schooled into acquiescence in a system which had become universal. But the popular idea of the management is making fish of one and flesh of another. I do not myself believe that in later years favouritism has had anything to do with it. Still, it is hard to persuade people that a partial result is not traceable to a partial purpose. After all, building leases form a small portion of the question of tenure. The Society has some 50 agricultural tenants who have been kept in a state of chronic alarm ever since the passing of the Irish Land Act. If there is an estate in Ireland in which the Ulster custom of Tenant-right exists, it is, and ought to be, that of the Irish Society. The Society claims to have had a principal hand in creating tenant-right. I do not deny it. I own gladly that the Society has latterly shown a disposition to concede to its tenants all the ancient rights and privileges they enjoyed under the tenures of the Ulster Plantation, and I, therefore, refrain from offering any hostile criticism upon proceedings which were of a dubiously creditable character as regard s leases. I am not suggesting, for it would be unjust to do so, that the Irish Society have been bad landlords, or that they have purposely harassed their tenants; but I do affirm that they have not always sufficiently considered the history of the people with whom they had to deal. Gentlemen go over from London and are amazed that an agricultural population, such as they find on their Irish estates, should keep so stiff a back and stand so straight upon their rights. The reason is to be found in history. These men either trace their lineage back to English or Scotch colonists who went to Ireland in a spirit of hardy enterprise, or they exhibit the pluck and tenacity of those native Irish who held their own against the colonists when they attempted to drive them to the begs and the mountains of Londonderry. I think it worth while to be patient with such men when they show a little of their inherited independence, or when they give expression to their wants and feelings in language which is not always cast in the mould of courtly ceremonial. The Irish Society is a trustee for the public, and I should like to point out, before I sit down, that the spirit and objects of the trust are not altogether in harmony with the requirements of the 19th century. King James was a great Protestant in his own way, but he had uncommonly foolish ideas about the way of propagating Protestantism. The Irish Society was sent over to Protestantise, educate, and civilize the North of Ireland; and we find that the first deputation of that body set about its missionary operations by presenting silver-gilt communion cups to the established congregations of Derry and Coleraine. That was its first religious effort; but, along with this, it did something in the political line, for it made an allowance to the orthodox Members for Derry and Coleraine to defray their expenses in the Irish Parliament. I have no interest in that historical reminiscence, because these were the borough Members. An attempt was made in the early part of this century to widen the scope of the Society's donations, and make its action less sectarian; but the Charter was found too rigid for the Liberal views of my hon. Friend's Liberal predecessors. It is not surprising that such a Charter is unpopular; but, whatever justification there may have been for this sectarian construction of the Charter, I put it to this House whether denominational favouritism in Ireland is not now out of date. We have no privileged church or religion in Ireland now. There is no such thing as nonconformity on the other side of the Irish Sea. You are in this country still debating about the burial of dead Dissenters. In Ireland you buried all the living Dissenters in 1869, and, at this moment, there is not a Dissenter from the Giant's Causeway to the Cove of Cork. Amid this state of things it is high time that the Irish Society should be emancipated from the panic-stricken policy which was in vogue after the discovery of the gunpowder plot. I do not for one moment suggest that the property should be di- verted from the purposes for which it was set apart; but I would melt it down in the crucible of the 19th century, and get rid of every obnoxious element. James I. may have known well enough what was good for the 17th century, but surely we know better than he did what is suitable for the 19th. Pious founders, whether kings or common men, should come under a statute of limitations as to their dictatorial powers. The world moves on, and even Charters get out of date if they stand still. Noah's ark was the work of a pious founder, but it was not intended that people should live in it for ever. The hon. Baronet has enumerated the educational benefactions of the Society, and I have only to say that, of all its grants, those which will stand the most searching test are the grants which have been made in the interests of knowledge. I wish to see its powers enlarged in making these grants—I mean as regards the area over which they are to be denominationally spread. The reforms which I desire to see brought about point to an improved system of tenures, a curtailment of expenditure in the management of the trust, and such an extension of the Society's powers as will enable it hereafter to disregard all sectarian considerations in the distribution of the vast funds at its disposal. A Committee of this House would, I hope, be able to tell us how this is to be done. If legislation is necessary, let us face it. A Parliament that put down Ritualism, or tried to put it down, and then made a bold effort to put down the Free Church of Scotland, may well be asked to undertake the task of overhauling a Charter of Charles II., especially when the request is made by an hon. Gentleman whose locality in this House places him above the suspicion of revolutionary proceedings. I am animated by the most friendly spirit towards the Irish Society. The Governor, the deputy Governor and assistants, are better than their Charter; and I would rather see it brought up to the level of the generous opinions and sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone than see him any longer cabined, cribbed, and confined by an antiquated instrument. No good can come of these perpetual squabbles between Derry and Coleraine on the one side and the Irish Society on the other. We want to end them not in a hollow truce, to be followed by another outbreak, but in a permanent peace, which will insure prosperity and mutual confidence for generations yet to come.

felt it was hardly necessary for him, after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), to address the House upon the present occasion, but having for many years had the honour of being connected with the City of Londonderry and also of being a member of the Irish Society, he desired to make a few remarks. He approached the question without prejudice, and he would say if he thought this Motion would promote the interests of Londonderry and Coleraine he would support it. He believed, however, it would have directly the opposite effect. The relations between those towns and the Irish Society were never more cordial than at the present moment. The City of Londonderry had no sympathy with the agitation, which had been got up by three or four individuals for interested and selfish purposes, and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) was made their cat's paw. The authors of the agitation held leases under the Society which had nearly run out. The land comprised in those leases was situated near the City of Londonderry, and was most valuable for building sites, and the lessees felt they would be unable to obtain renewals unless some agitation were got up against the Society. He quoted the Petitions from Londonderry and Coleraine which ho had presented last Session, and also several letters which had been addressed to himself by respectable inhabitants of those towns, to show that public feeling was entirely against this agitation. He could himself speak for the last 25 years, during which the Irish Society had not only done its duty, but acted in a most judicious, liberal, and generous spirit. The Society had expended large sums of money in making new sewers and quays, in erecting schools, and in improving the approaches to the bridge in Londonderry, and had given no less a sum than £40,000 towards freeing the bridge from tolls. It could not, therefore, be said that they were unmindful of he general benefit of the district where their property was situated. He might remind the House that no tenantry in the North of Ireland obtained their holdings upon such favourable terms as did those of this Society, and it would be a great misfortune to the latter if the property of the Society passed into other hands. He very much deprecated agitation of this character, which was got up by a small section, because it inevitably resulted in the large City companies withdrawing altogether from the North of Ireland and carrying their money to London. In conclusion, he might observe that the Society were perfectly willing to modify the duration of their leases.

said, he hoped that nothing that might fall from him would tend to disturb those friendly feelings which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman W. M'Arthur) had referred to, as generally subsisting between the Irish Society and the people of Londonderry and Coleraine; still, he thought that a good deal of the irritation inevitable to discussions of this kind must continue to arise until they arrived at a clear and definite understanding as to the true position and functions of the Irish Society, about which there had been so much debate. He had heard with pleasure from the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), that it was his decided opinion, and one which he took all opportunities of enforcing on his colleagues—that the primary duty of the Society was, to hold and administer their property for the benefit of the districts under their charge; but still, he must add, that statement was qualified in a way which left the matter in a somewhat unsatisfactory position; because the hon. Member went on to state that though there were these primary trusts for the benefit of the locality, yet there were other secondary or subordinate trusts for the London Livery Companies who, according to him, had certain reversionary rights. Now, that was a point which must be cleared up before they could arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the subject. How it should be, indeed, that some two centuries and a-half after the constitution of the Irish Society there should be any obscurity about its objects or duties, it was needless at present to inquire; but, probably, there would have been less room for misapprehension on the subject if the Society had been more disposed to give information when called on for it. When, in 1832, Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the affairs of the different Municipal Corporations of England and Ireland, and information was sought in respect of the property of this Society, none could be obtained. The English Commissioners, indeed, seem to have thought that the inquiry fell within the province of the Irish Commissioners, and the Irish Commissioners unfortunately could only report that when they applied for information to the general agent of the Society in Ireland, they were told that he was not authorized to give any. It was, he (Mr. Law) thought, much to be regretted that a body discharging an important public trust should have acted in that way. Now, he believed no one would regret more than the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone that such a course should have been adopted by the Governors of that day; for no one would deny—and least of all his hon. Friend—that a public body which occupied so important a position, and which was entrusted with such important duties as his hon. Friend admitted the Irish Society was, should at all times be ready—nay, even anxious—that its administration should be open to the fullest investigation. However, it so happened that shortly after the time the Society thus refused information to the Royal Commissioners, they engaged in a protracted litigation with the Skinners Company; and from the statements made on either side in that cause, the House had, as it appeared to him, the means of forming tolerably correct conclusions as to some, at least, of the questions raised in this discussion. The Skinners Company alleged that the Irish Society were trustees for them and for the other Livery Companies, and insisted that every penny of surplus income, after payment of permanent charges and the expenses of management, should be handed over to them. To that demand the answer of the Society was distinct and precise enough. They said nothing whatever of the "dual trust," on which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had insisted so often that evening. There was then no division of their duties into primary for the benefit of the localities, and secondary for the Livery Companies. On the contrary, their answer in 1834 was this—that they owed no duties whatever to the Livery Companies, but held the estates in question upon public trusts alone—namely, for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Plantation—that was to say, the promotion and support of the Protestant religion within the district, the maintenance of divers public charities therein, the protection of the Settlement, and "the advancement of the trade and commerce and general welfare thereof." Was it not then somewhat inconsistent in this same Society now practically to deny their accountability to the public of Londonderry and Coleraine, on the ground that they were answerable to the Livery Companies as having reversionary rights and being in fact the ultimate owners, after having defended themselves against these very claims, when formally asserted by the Skinners for themselves and the other Companies, by insisting that their only trust was for the public of Londonderry and Coleraine. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

But there were two other parties to this suit beside the Companies and the Irish Society — the Attorney General and the Corporation of the City of London. Well, the Corporation did not then concur in the view of the Livery Companies; on the contrary, they averred that the property held by the Irish Society was not impressed with any trust in favour of the Livery Companies or any of them, but was

"impressed with trusts or purposes of a general character for the prosperity of the said Plantation, and the benefit of the inhabitants and the public in general, entirely apart from private pecuniary advantage,"

and the answer to the Attorney General was to the same effect. That contention was successful—the Bill of the Skinners Company was dismissed by the Master of the Rolls with costs and, on appeal, the House of Lords affirmed that decision. It could hardly, then, be said that the Royal Commissioners of 1854 were not warranted in stating that—

"There are no persons or bodies in this country (England) beneficially interested in the receipt of the Society's revenues. Neither the Corporation of London, the Society itself, nor the London Companies being beneficially interested in its funds."

It would, however, appear that notwithstanding the decision by the House of Lords, and the Report of the late Lord Taunton, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Mr. Justice Patteson, as just re- ferred to, a difference of opinion did, as a matter of fact, exist on this vital question; and this—even if there were no other reason — seemed sufficient ground for having some further inquiry. Another ground for acceding to the proposed inquiry was the fact that there had long existed more or less dissatisfaction with the administration of its trusts by the Irish Society. He admitted that his hon. Friend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had shown himself an admirable Governor; but it was not quite satisfactory that, owing to the peculiar constitution of the body, the proper management of the trust should depend on the Society having at its head a gentleman who, however excellent, was only mortal, and who might at any time be succeeded by a person of a different character. And here too, as it appeared to him, there was matter for inquiry, with a view to placing the constitution of the Society on a more reasonable footing. But it was said that this agitation was factitious, and, in short, had been got up by a few interested persons for their own private ends. All he could say was this—that a memorial had been signed by 270 of the most influential of the inhabitants of Londonderry, amongst whom were the Mayor and five or six Aldermen of the city, asking for inquiry; and that another memorial had been signed by 123 inhabitants—including the Town Commissioners—of Coleraine to the same effect; and, having regard to this expression of local opinion, he ventured to think it was rather too much to say that there was no real dissatisfaction existing. Moreover, the Royal Commissioners of 1854 had reported that the evidence taken by them appeared to show that the relations between the Society and its tenants could not be deemed satisfactory, and a similar statement might be found in the Report of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners 20 years before. Now, considering the peculiar constitution of the body, and the difficulties insuperable from their position, having to make costly expeditions annually to Ireland, he felt sure that they did not actually misapply a shilling; but, then, what objection could there be to a full inquiry, the result of which would only be to show that everything was regular and right. There was another matter connected with the Society's management of the trust property to which he (Mr. Law) desired briefly to advert; and that was the uneasiness created amongst the tenantry by some recent attempts, as they believed, to interfere with, or at least question, their tenant-right. Well, he (Mr. Law) did not himself suppose that any such injustice was intended; but the course taken, and the language of certain notices issued on some recent occasions, had naturally caused disquiet on this point. He (Mr. Law) had seen and read the Society's form of lease; and he was compelled to say that although the tenant-right was reserved, the lease itself was subject to such conditions and restrictions as to materially interfere with its value. A lease containing 16 special covenants, with a clause of forfeiture for breach of any one of them, was no real security to a tenant. Looking at this form of lease as given in the local papers, he found that if the tenant failed to protect from injury every shrub and sapling on his farm, or let a road or a drain be for a day out of order, or even if, without his knowing it, a judgment creditor, by registering his judgment as a mortgage, transferred the holding to himself as security for his debt, the lease was forfeited. Now, so long as his hon. Friend remained Governor of the Society, he (Mr. Law) knew that this tremendous power would not be improperly exercised; but it was an undesirable and unhealthy state of things when in business contracts like a lease, one party was thus placed entirely at the mercy of the other. And now for a few words on the composition of the Irish Society. It consisted of a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and 24 Assistants, who were changed every two years, the only permanent officials being the Governor and the Recorder of London. Now every one of these gentlemen might be, and no doubt was, anxious to do his duty, but they were beset by difficulties, of which, perhaps, the greatest was that they knew, and could know, little or nothing of the localities or the requirements of the people for whom they were trustees. It was true a deputation made an excursion to Ireland every autumn, remained there about 14 days, and gave some very pleasant parties; but such a system for administering a local trust in the North of Ireland seemed almost an absurdity. The fact was, the Deputy Governor and assistants were out of office before they could gain any acquaintance with the requirements of the locality. Perhaps, too, he might remind the House that the Commissioners of 1854 recommended the abolition of the Irish Society, and the appointment of local trustees by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Difficulties, no doubt—and serious difficulties—might easily be suggested, as likely to arise with a system of purely local trustees; but he would hope that it was not beyond the reach of Parliamentary wisdom to devise a scheme which would obviate these objections. Could they not, at all events, arrange to give the Governor a helpful body of assistants to aid him in his duties, instead of 24 faineants, all in a row, who could be of no earthly use to him, or those for whom they were supposed to act? There was again another point to which he wished to allude. It would be seen that the population of the county of Londonderry in 1871 was about 174,000, and of these more than one-third were Roman Catholics, all of whom were absolutely excluded by the provisions of the Charter from participating in the trust. Now, could that be justified in these times? He found that large sums were expended by the Society every year for education. In Londonderry there was disbursed for schools £1,843, and in Coleraine £873. Now, of course, none of these were Roman Catholic schools, for the Society was precluded by its Charter from promoting any but the Protestant religion. But as far as could be learned from the published accounts, it would appear that out of £2,716 given to schools in Derry and Coleraine, the sum of £80 only was given to the National Schools intended for, and open to, children of all creeds. This point, at all events, he (Mr. Law) thought, might be more fairly and usefully dealt with, by allotting the larger proportion of the Society's educational grant to assist those schools which the State had provided and endeavoured to make available for all children, Catholic as well as Protestant. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had told them that the Society's school at Coleraine was open to all. That might be so; but still it did not seem to him a sufficient concession to the conscientious convictions of a large part of the population. The Society, in short, in all that related to or touched upon religion, was founded upon views that were now happily obsolete, and must be replaced by others more in harmony with modern principles. It was, therefore, no matter for surprise that four years after the Royal Commission of 1854, the Endowed Schools Commissioners, when they turned their attention to this matter, should have recommended that immediate steps should be taken in order that all the funds which, under the Charter of the Irish Society, were devoted to education should be placed under a system of efficient management, for the benefit of all the people of the county. Now, all these various considerations showed, as it appeared to him (Mr. Law), that some inquiry should take place. If the Committee were not granted the matter would be closed for this Session, but the question would assuredly soon be raised again. It was not for the interests of either the Irish Society on the one hand, or Londonderry or Coleraine on the other, that any ground, or even supposed ground, of complaint should remain. He did not believe the Society had anything to conceal. He was convinced that for many years back they had done everything that could be reasonably expected of a body of trustees so constituted; but in their own interest, as well as in that of the people concerned, he thought there ought to be an inquiry such as that now proposed.

said, that as the Representative of one of the towns embraced in this property (Coleraine), and in which he had resided all his life, lie had had every opportunity of observing how the duties of the Society had been carried out. He had listened with great pleasure to the discussion that had taken place, and to no part more than the clear statement that had been made of the trusteeship for the towns of Derry and Coleraine. And he had to state this—that although the towns of Derry and Coleraine had been for a long time dissatisfied with the way in which the funds in question had been distributed, that feeling had during the last 10 or 15 years undergone a change—at all events, so far as the latter town which he represented was concerned. He had had to meet the Deputations of the Society for nearly 20 years, and had had occasion to bring many matters before them, and he must say—as he had said in past years—that they had always given their best consideration to the various applications made before them, with the full desire of doing their best for the town and inhabitants of Coleraine. As regarded their grants for educational purposes, they had been most liberal—their schools were large, and one of them provided accommodation for 700 children—they were free to all classes, and were always full. He must correct the statement of the right hon. and learned Member (Mr. Law) that these schools were not under the National Board. These schools were under the National Board—these schools, moreover, were not only under the National Board, but were managed by a local committee. As regarded the trade and commerce of the towns, he had never known an improvement suggested in which the Society was not willing to join. As to the navigation of the river Bann from Coleraine to the sea, the Society had agreed to assist with £1,000 a-year for 10 years, £3,000 had been paid when the project was abandoned; but it was now resumed, and the Society had agreed to grant £1,000 a-year, not for 10 years, but for 25 years. As regarded the management of this property, Coleraine at least had no cause to complain—the Society had granted leases on such terms as had given great satisfaction. No doubt some alteration in the constitution of the Society would give satisfaction, because it was objectionable, that persons who had no knowledge of the county should be placed upon the Board, and cease to be members just as they had acquired some knowledge of their duties. The inhabitants of Coleraine, however, did not think that that was a proper time to press these changes on the Society. If their conduct of affairs continued what it was, the inhabitants of Coleraine felt that the matter might be left in the hands of the Society. That being so, he could not support the Resolution, against which he had received a Petition signed by a much larger Humber of persons than supported the requisition in favour of bringing the subject before the House last Session.

contended that no answer had been given to the Resolution which had been brought forward on the subject before the House by the hon. Member for Londonderry. If indeed, there had been any question of want of confidence involved in the Motion, he would not have supported it; but what the Resolution asked for was investigation; the necessity for which was shown by the fact that no one could say what were the trusts on which the Society held the property in question. They had heard the decisions of the Courts of Law, and they had now heard the very important declaration of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), that it was a public trust under which that property was held; and once that fact was established, all minor questions must give way to that of investigation as to the manner in which such public trust was administered. The hon. Member admitted that fees were paid, but excused them on the ground that they were so small; still, those payments to trustees were misapplications of trust funds which were quite unjustifiable; no explanation had been given as to the large tavern expenses, amounting to several thousands of pounds; and there were various other matters which demanded inquiry. The question for investigation was simply as to whether the funds of this public trust had been legitimately applied. This was not the first time the matter had been brought before the Parliament. Investigation was promised in 1869, by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Carlingford); and if that promise had been kept we should now have been in a position to say—what the proposed inquiry was intended to show—what were the trusts on which the Irish Society held their estates, and how the rents of those estates had been applied. He hoped some Member of the Government would explain what these trusts were. It was impossible that matters could remain as they were at present, and if the investigation asked for was refused by the Government, he hoped the Motion would be repeated again and again till it was granted.

said, that so long as the House encouraged and listened to the agitation of such questions from Ireland they would have enough of them. It was not disputed, certainly it was not disproved, that the Irish Society administered its duties with admirable tact and ability; and the House had been called upon to waste so much valuable time, merely for the purpose of inquiring whether some other organization could be sustituted for the one in existence. The Corporation of London deserved every credit for the grand success of the experiment it had made in Londonderry, by which it had supplied a complete counterpoise to the otherwise dominant power which had so long had an unfortunate influence in Ireland. In that country the world might see the two systems in operation side by side. On the one hand they had seen massacre following massacre, and desolation spreading over the rest of Ireland; while there, in the extreme North, civilization and prosperity had gone hand in hand. He trusted that the House would do nothing to destroy this one good example of Protestantism as opposed to Popery, and agree to this purposeless and objectless Motion without a single grievance having been made out. There had been no complaint made against this Society of money misapplied or of the existence of great dissatisfaction; and all that had been suggested against it was that some change was wanted in the organization of the Board. The fund could not have been more honestly and honourably managed than it had been under the present Board. For two or three centuries it had been the model and example of good administration to all Ireland, and it was, indeed, hardly too much to say that it was the best governed and most prosperous district to be found in Her Majesty's dominions.

said, there could be no doubt that the constitution and the management of the Irish Society of London might be a legitimate subject of inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and he should be reluctant to interpose any obstacle to such an inquiry if sufficient grounds were shown for it, and there did not appear reason to suppose that the mere granting it would create greater mischief than would be balanced by any good that could possibly result. What was it that was sought? The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) asked for a Committee to inquire into the constitution, management, and annual expenditure of the Irish Society of London. Now, he would venture to say that there was hardly anything upon which the House had already better means of forming a judgment than on the Irish Society. Its constitution might be found, by anyone who liked to look for it, fully described in the judgment of the House of Lords to which allusion had been made, in frequent debates in the House of Commons, and in the Reports of Royal Commissions. Its management and annual expenditure had been explained by the hon. Member for Maidstone, and both had been so fairly and. and openly placed before the House and the country by the Society that he could not conceive that any further information on those two points could be obtained by the inquiry of a Select Committee. But the right hon. and learned Member for the county of Londonderry (Mr. Law) had told them, amongst other points, that ho considered inquiry was necessary in order that the trusts of the Society should be more clearly defined. Again, he would refer bon. Members to the judgment of the House of Lords on that point also. He could not conceive that any Committee, whatever ability it might display in the preparation of its Report, could more conclusively state what were the trusts of the Irish Society. It had been admitted that night by the hon. Baronet (Sir Sydney Waterlow) that the Society held its property subject to a trust for certain public objects. He found that in a previous debate in this House Baron Dowse stated this as the effect of the decision of the House of Lords—

"That the Irish Society were declared to be trustees for public objects, and that, after having satisfied these public objects within their discretion, the surplus ought to go to the Loudon Companies."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 709.]

That, then, was what he understood to be the position of the Irish Society. With regard to its management and expenditure he would speak presently; but first of all he would ask the attention of the House to the latter part of the hon. Member's Motion. The Motion asked for inquiry

"as to what, if any, changes can be made in the governing body or the mode of administration in order to insure a more economical and advantageous application of the property, or whether such result can be best attained by placing the property in the hands of public Trustees resident in Ireland."

Now, that pointed to a conclusion far more sweeping than anything in the mere words of the Motion. It pointed to a conclusion definitely expressed in the Motion of which the hon. Member for Londonderry gave Notice last Ses- sion, though he did not bring it before the House—a conclusion which seemed to have been pressed upon him by many of his constituents, and was pointed at still more clearly in his speech—namely, that the property of the Irish Society should be taken away from them and placed in the hands of public trustees, locally resident. Now, before assenting even to inquiry into a proposal of this kind, the House ought to be satisfied how far the Society had or had not fulfilled the public trusts for which they were constituted. He had failed to gather from any previous speaker a statement that the Society had not to the utmost of their power fulfilled those public trusts. The hon. Member for Londonderry himself (Mr. C. Lewis) spoke of the magnificent manner hi which the Society were now behaving to Derry and Coleraine. Certainly the hon. Member went on to hint—and his hint was amplified by a subsequent speaker—that the attacks on the Society which were made or threatened had disposed them to behave more liberally than heretofore. This assertion, however, was conclusively refuted by a mere glance at the grants made in previous years, long before any attacks of this kind were meditated. He had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth); but though in addition to being a Member of that House he was a Professor of Magee College, he failed to catch any allusion to the liberal contribution in 1850 of £1,000 from the Society to the College, towards the foundation of a Professorial Chair. Then in 1854 the Society made a large contribution to the waterworks of the city of Derry; in 1856 there was the building of those schools in Coleraine which, as the hon. Member for that borough (Mr. D. Taylor) informed the House, were under the National Board, and open to children of all denominations. In 1861 the Society gave £10,000 towards the bridge of Coleraine, though it was now urged as a great blot on the fair fame of the Society to have allowed the debt to accrue; and within the last two years grants had been promised by the Society of £1,000 a-year for 25 years towards a harbour at Coleraine, and no less than £40,000 towards paying off the debt upon the bridge at Londonderry, which had been mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Lewis). He would not trouble the House with any statement as to the application of the funds to other public purposes of the locality. The Governor of the Society (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had sufficiently entered into those matters. He only mentioned enough to show that there was no good ground for complaint as to the mode in which the Society administered its revenue in Derry and Coleraine. It had been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Law) that it was a pity the Society could not contribute towards denominational objects, such as Roman Catholic education in the county of Derry. But there were sufficient undenominational objects, such as harbours and bridges, to which the Society could subscribe, and the hon. Member (Mr. C. Lewis) had not hinted that he would desire such an application of their funds. What, then, was the object of the Motion of the hon. Member? The misappropriation of the funds of this Society spoken of by the hon. Member took place almost centuries ago, and he (Mr. C. Lewis) appeared to argue that, as for a great many years the Society had devoted their funds so largely to local objects as to leave no surplus to go into the pockets of the City Companies, the property should be taken from them and placed in the hands of local administrators. The hon. Member touched upon the expenses of management, on the fact that the property was governed by a non-resident body, and its alleged interference with the discretion of the Corporation of Derry; but were these points of sufficient importance to justify a Motion which, whatever its terms, would be accepted out-of-doors as not only a censure of the Irish Society, but as directly affecting the property of the City Companies, and even of private proprietors in the North of Ireland? But what were the facts as to the expenses of the management? The hon. Member for Derry stated that in one year £970 was charged for the expenses of a single visit of the Deputation to Ireland. That did seem a large sum; but it was not alleged that it was spent for any private purpose. The Deputation visited Ireland on the business of the trust, and did—as he hoped they would continue to do—entertain the principal persons of Coleraine and Derry in a manner which no doubt gave great satisfaction to those persons; and he understood they not only spent the money of the Society, but some of their own private funds as well. Then the House had been told of law expenses, of a fee of 10s. for each attendance at meetings of the Council, and of £450 charged for the establishment of the Society in London. Did this contrast unfavourably with what they knew of the management of trust funds by public bodies of other kinds? Had they never heard of the legal and other expenses of certain Commissions instituted within the last 25 years by Parliament itself for the administration of trust funds? It was possible that the expenses of management might be lessened if the property of the Irish Society was handed over to local trustees in Ireland; but in some ways the trust fund might be more advantageously distributed by a non-resident managing body, for they were perhaps less liable to be biased by local interests and less disposed than the corporations of certain towns in Ireland had recently been proved to be, to devote their lands to the benefit of themselves, their relations, or their friends. The hon. Member said the Society exercised an abnormal control over the Corporation of Derry. Well, they paid the Corporation £1,200 a-year; and perhaps the control in question was not entirely useless, for when the Corporation got into difficulties some time ago and had to pawn their mace, the Society redeemed it from pawn, and restored it to them. The hon. Member said that the Society exercised so complete a control over the Corporation as even to interfere in the naming of the streets. One would scarcely have thought that in Derry this would have been felt as a very great grievance, when it was remembered that, about two years ago, the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin, with great ceremony and parade, changed the name of Essex Bridge in that city, which had been so named after a Saxon Lord Lieutenant, to Grattan Bridge, in honour of a distinguished Irish patriot; but from that day to this "Essex Bridge" remained painted up at the corner of the street, and they had never taken the trouble to alter it to the new name. Having now gone over the points upon which the hon. Member grounded the Motion, he asked the House to consider whether they were really sufficient to justify them in granting this inquiry. The mode of appoint- ing members of the Council, and perhaps the mode of granting leases to tenants, might need reform—though the Society were not the only landlords in Ireland who were found fault with on the last head. For the sake of these comparatively small matters, would the House sanction a Motion which out-of-doors would be taken as an intention to deprive the Irish Society of their property altogether? This matter was not now brought for the first time before the House. In 1869 there was a debate upon it, and at that time Lord Carlingford speaking for the late Government admitted that there were points connected with the Irish Society which required looking into, but it was for the Government to consider whether any legislation on the subject was required, and whether there should be any investigation supplementary to the inquiry of 1854; but that there was no occasion to proceed with undue haste in the matter. It was (said Lord Carlingford) the duty of Government to satisfy themselves whether it was necessary to institute any further inquiry either by a Committee or by a Royal Commission, or to propose any legislation with regard to the Irish Society. That Government remained for four years subsequently in office. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not doubt that according to that promise further investigation was made in the matter, and he was forced to conclude that they had come to the decision that although it might be desirable to effect some small reforms, the dangers and difficulties of dealing with the subject were so great as to outweigh the advantages that could be expected to result from them. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Law), who was afterwards Attorney General for Ireland in that Government, must, when he made his speech that night, have forgotten the debate of 1869. As to the Motion, he thought that serious results might follow from agreeing to it. He came to this conclusion not so much from the terms of the Motion itself as from the object that more plainly appeared in the Motion of last year, in the Petition presented by some of the constituents of the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis), and specially in the hon. Member's speech this evening. It was not merely the future of the Irish Society which was now in question. The hon. Member for county Derry (Mr. R. Smyth) wished the City Companies to remain Irish landlords; but the passing of such a Motion would be a strong inducement to the Companies to withdraw from the North of Ireland. Their property was held under the same charter, and if they found the Irish Society disestablished and disendowed it was perfectly conceivable that the next step would be to attack the Companies, perhaps on the ground that they had not given sufficient consideration for their property, and that therefore it should be taken from them and divided—possibly without payment—amongst the existing tenants. Those Companies, with such a possibility before them, would probably at once take steps to dispose of their property. But that was not all. There were private properties in the North of Ireland held by titles either resting on a similar basis, or actually derived from the Irish Society. He did not know whether or not they would be endangered; but if the House passed this Motion, a vista of possible consequences would be opened which he would rather not contemplate. The House had heard nothing from the hon. Member for Derry which would justify them, for the sake of such small advantages, in undertaking so grave and so perilous a task.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had strangely misunderstood him. He had not urged the Irish Society to contribute towards denominational objects; but had complained that owing to the limitations in their Charter their contributions were practically in favour of denominational education and confined to one particular sect.

, in reply, said, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the attention which the House had paid to this matter; which, after all, had very much of a local character. He denied that the Irish Society had the least right to take credit for liberality in the manner in which it had discharged its duties—they had simply spent their money according to their Charter. It was not generosity, but the mere performance of a duty—when it was said that they had given £1,000 to one thing and £10,000 to another, that was not the ease. He was much amused by what had been said about their liberality in the matter of the cemetery and the waterworks. So far from being liberal, they had claimed £5,000 from the Corporation of Derry in respect of land required for waterworks for the town, and upon an arbitration they had been awarded £510. They had also asked £1,500 for land which was wanted for a cemetery. As to leases, in Belfast those granted were perpetuity leases, whereas in Derry the Society had only granted leases for 61 years, and manufacturers would not build upon land let for so short a term. The term was now, he believed, extended, and changes were being made of a more liberal character.

said, his hon. Friend was totally uninformed on the matter. Nine-tenths of the leases granted within the municipal boundary of Derry were perpetuity leases.

said, that was the old property. It was during the present century that perpetuity leases had been refused. In refutation of the statement that this agitation had been got up by "a small and contemptible clique," the hon. Member referred to the requisitions desiring him to take up the question. One was signed by 261 citizens of all classes and creeds, including five out of the six Aldermen of the city, 13 out of the 18 town councillors, 64 merchants, and others. The memorial sent from Coleraine was signed by nine out of the 18 town commissioners. As to the assertion that there was no breach of trust, he replied that 45 per cent of the income was spent in managing expenses. He was content to go to a division with the knowledge that on this matter, as on many others, a Conservative Ministry and the Conservative Party shut their eyes to the necessity of reforming institutions, leaving it rather for a Liberal Ministry when it came into office to work out Radical changes with a ruthless hand.

, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of apprenticeship of Pupil Teachers in Elementary Schools, and into the con- stitution of Training Colleges for Elementary Teachers, said, that by a Return presented in June last it appeared that £5,250,000 had been expended in the year ending the 31st of March, 1875, on elementary education, not by a Vote of the House alone, but by contributions from Imperial funds, from rates, subscriptions, and school pence contributed by the parents of the children. The amount contributed by Imperial taxation was £2,250,000, being an increase of £600,000 in the course of three years, at the rate of 30 per cent. If the local expenditure had also increased at the same rate, they might assume that during the year 1877–8 the expenditure of the country on elementary education would not be very far short of £6,500,000, a larger sum than was being spent by any country in Europe; but notwithstanding that large outlay the results were far from satisfactory, for he found that out of the number of children attending the elementary schools not more than 800,000 were able to pass the three lower Standards, and and not more than 200,000 the three higher, and that of those 17,000 had failed in reading, 52,000 in writing, and no less than 66,000 in arithmetic. Of all the children in our schools not more than 11,000 were able to pass in the Sixth Standard in arithmetic, or 1 in 250. His noble Friend the Vice President of the Council said last Session that the sober wishes of the country in respect to the education of the people had been disappointed, and he came to the conclusion that this was chiefly owing to irregularity of attendance. He (Mr. Samuelson) believed that that was not the only or the principal reason. He attributed it in no small degree to the deficiencies in the teaching staff. There were 21,000 certificated elementary teachers in England and Wales, 2,000 or 3,000 assistant teachers, and 39,000 pupil teachers. Thus there was less than 1 certificated teacher to every 120 children in our elementary schools. It must be acknowledged that the teachers and assistant teachers alone were not sufficiently numerous to supply the educational wants of the country. It became, therefore, necessary to inquire what was the capacity of the pupil teachers who were relied upon to supply the deficiency of the teaching staff. They were from 13 to 18 years of age, generally educated in the ele- mentary schools, superior, but not much so, to the other children, and not necessarily possessing any special vocation for teaching. It must be evident that for the first years of their career they could be but of very little assistance to the teachers of the schools. He should not, however, rely on any a priori reasoning on this point, but would show from the Reports of the Inspectors of Her Majesty's schools that the qualifications of the pupil teachers generally were so limited that their assistance in the work of education must be of very little value. The hon. Member quoted passages from more than 20 Reports of Government Inspectors in support of this statement. The pupil teachers were described as exhibiting in many instances extreme ignorance. One described Milton as "a learned Egyptian." To the question—"Who were the Roman Emperors who visited Britain?" another replied—"Julius Caesar, who converted the Britons to Christianity 45 years before the birth of Christ;" and a third said that—

"The Duke of Marlborough was a celebrated general who lived during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, and fought the battle of Waterloo."

In regard to London, he had examined the detailed Reports of the Inspectors of some 12 Board schools; and of that number there were not more than four in which some grave fault had not been found with the work which had been done by the pupil teachers in such elementary subjects as reading, grammar, and composition. Another test of the efficiency of the system was afforded by the examination of pupil teachers after they had served an apprenticeship of five years, for admission into the Training College. Mr. Matthew Arnold, speaking of the grammar papers of candidates, said that at no time since he had been a School Inspector had he known them to have been worse. Great dissatisfaction was beginning to arise in the country with the pupil-teacher system, and the London School Board and the school boards of several other large towns had expressed themselves strongly upon the subject. Pupil teachers were now overworked alike in imparting instruction to youthful scholars and in attending to the claims of their own education; and that was an evil which called for remedy. It was to be regretted that in the new Code no relaxation of the rule compelling the principal teacher of a school exclusively to give instruction to the pupil teachers under him was to be found. Where class-room teaching was adopted in schools the pupil-teacher system was quite inapplicable, and this furnished another reason for an inquiry being held. Turning, then, to the instruction of candidates in training colleges, the accommodation in this was quite out of proportion to the number of those asking, and qualified by examination, for admission—and this whilst the demand for certificated teachers was far in excess of the supply. He (Mr. Samuelson) could not imagine why in such places as the metropolis it should not be possible for young persons to be trained as elementary teachers without entering into a sort of cloister, which, moreover, was a purely denominational institution. The only remedy for the existing state of things provided by the new Code, was that in future, monitors should be admitted at the age of 12 years, and that if they pursued their studies satisfactorily for two years they might then be apprenticed as pupil teachers. He did not know that he was bound to state what remedies he would suggest—he would much rather they should be suggested by persons more qualified than himself—a Committee of the House or a Royal Commission. He would, however, say that he had formed some opinion on the subject, and he thought if nothing more could be done the English Code should be assimilated to the Scotch Code, so that the Colleges should cease to be exclusively boarding houses. They might also offer every inducement to University graduates to become elementary teachers. By that means they would raise the standard of the whole body of elementary teachers, and so an important point would be gained. Still, he did not think when all this was done they would have done enough. He was anxious to see power given to the school authorities of a districts to combine for the purpose of establishing preparatory Training Colleges. No doubt the expense would be considerable at first; but in the long run he thought it would result in a great saving to the country, because an efficient system was cheaper than one which, however cheap, failed to effect its object. He disclaimed any idea of casting a reflection upon the elementary teachers, who as a body he believed to be very zealous in their calling, or on the pupil teachers who were already doing much more than could be expected of them considering their youth. The whole system at present existing was unsatisfactory and unsound, and no matter what were the numbers of children brought into our schools our elementary education would never be satisfactory until those children were placed under the care of a greatly increased number of thoroughly qualified elementary school teachers.

seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of apprenticeship of Pupil Teachers in Elementary Schools, and into the constitution of Training Colleges for Elementary Teachers."—(Mr. B. Samuelson.)

said, anybody who had watched the course of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Motion could not help being aware of his full right to bring a question of this importance before the House. Though he might not agree with all the opinions the hon. Gentleman had expressed, he was bound to listen to them with every attention. The hon. Gentleman had gone over a very wide field of observation on the present occasion, and he had touched upon some very large topics; but in the course of his reply he would confine himself to the two leading points which appeared on the Notice of Motion. The hon. Gentleman had quoted very largely from the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of schools. He did not find fault with him for doing so; but he must remind him that Her Majesty's Inspectors did not all take the same view as those whom he had quoted, and some of the others had modified those views with the observations with which they had accompanied them. He thought all were agreed as to the desirability of securing as good a staff of teachers as could be obtained. As to the failures of pupil teachers at examinations, the hon. Gentleman had quoted some observations of his friend, Mr. Matthew Arnold, on the subject. They must all know that anyone of the great attainments of Mr. Matthew Arnold must have suffered untold torments in the ordeal of wading through the com- mon-place papers which various pupil teachers must produce. They should, however, remember that they must not press too hardly upon poor children of 14 or 15. He dared say that Mr. Arnold would bear in mind his own University, where many hon. Gentlemen had taken distinguished honours, and where probably they had produced comparatively as bad answers as those which had been quoted as showing the extremely degraded intellectual condition of the pupil teachers of England. The hon. Gentleman went on to allude to the strong representations which had been made by the School Board for London on the subject. It was quite true that the London School Board did ask the Education Department to sanction a very great change of system; but the Department could not comply with the request because it would have been in direct dereliction of the Code, and the Code having all the authority of an Act of Parliament, they had no power to go beyond it. The London School Board had complained especially of their disadvantages in regard to the training of pupil teachers, referring to the difficulty of instructing one teacher in half-a-dozen subjects; but the London Board had many large schools and able teachers, and they should have been the last body in the world to complain of not being able to allot different groups of teachers to their different schools. The whole subject was no doubt a very serious and important one; but to ask for a Committee of the House to investigate it would, to his mind, imply that there was a distinct current of dissatisfaction with the present system. If such dissatisfaction did not exist he thought the House would agree with him that it would not be wise to imply distrust while great changes were going on in the educational system. It was not quite clear that the pupil teacher system was so rotten as the hon. Member seemed to imply. The underlying thought in the hon. Member's remarks apparently was the supercession of pupil teachers by adult teachers; but the Government of Holland was again expressing its assent to the pupil teacher system, though raising the age to 16; while authorities in America—men who were favourable to advanced education—were expressly regretting that the system did not exist there, and attributed many failures to the absence of young teachers. Again, the pupil teacher system was not to be lightly dismissed as one of a trifling or indifferent character. Surely the hon. Gentleman had not forgotten that it was introduced by the eminent and gifted Sir James Kay-Shuttle worth who had observed the use of it in Holland, and to whom they were so largely indebted on all educational matters. There was also a very considerable mass of testimony in favour of the system. To show that he had not overlooked the importance of the subject he might mention that during the winter they had taken the opportunity of consulting many of the leading Inspectors in regard to it. He found the general opinion to be that there was a steady and marked improvement of the pupil teachers; but certain recommendations were made which he thought worthy of all consideration. It was thought very important that they should gradually raise the age at which children should be allowed to teach, particularly in the case of girls; that they should gradually raise the standard and establish something like a probationary class from which pupil teachers should be taken. After full consideration, they had agreed to make those changes in the Code. The hon. Member had passed rather cursorily over what was considered of great importance by leading educational authorities. Only three instead of four pupil teachers would be allowed for the future; but when schools averaged above 220 there might be an additional adult teacher. There would also be two supplementary monitors of 12 years of age instead of a fourth pupil teacher, and they would teach three hours instead of five. No pupil teacher hereafter would be qualified till 14 years of age, and they must pass the examination which had hitherto been passed at the end of the first year. The effect of this would be that the pupil teachers would be an elder class, and therefore more able to go through the labours of their position. There would also be probationers from 12 to 14, so that teachers and managers would be able to select from them those who should fill the higher office of pupil teachers. He mentioned this for the purpose of showing that he was not unmindful of pupil teacher apprenticeship, and that the best steps had been taken to improve their position, acting on the principle that these changes should be gradual. With regard to the present position of the teachers in this country, it was supposed by many that teachers were only supplied from pupil teachers and Training Colleges; but a very considerable number come from outside. What were the advantages of the present pupil teacher system? Its advantages were very great, quite independent of any matter of expense. It was a great advantage to have even children teachers for elementary teaching. He was confirmed in that by the remarks of a very experienced man, Dr. Eigg, the head of the Wesleyan Training College, and a man of large experience, who was entirely of that opinion. Pupil teachers were invaluable, provided they were constantly under the superintendence of adult teachers. If they got rid of this youthful system of teachers they must fall back on a great system of adult teachers, and the expense would be perfectly enormous. The expense was becoming a very serious matter, both locally and Imperially; and if they could get as good results from the present system they were bound to adhere to it. Then if they gave up pupil teachers they must fall back on very large classes; and nothing, he believed, could be so bad for elementary teaching as very large classes. One advantage of the present system was that we were able to pay children from 13 to 18 years of age for their work as pupil teachers; but if we were to establish a college pure and simple for those between 13 and 18 years of age, that would be attended with a most serious expense. There was another advantage in having a great staff of pupil teachers, for it enabled them to pay greater attention to the schools. An additional advantage of the present system of pupil teachers was the tie established between the master and the pupil teacher, for it kept the pupil teacher up to the mark and obliged him to polish up his weapons. Suppose in answer to the proposition of his hon. Friend, you were to destroy the present system, you would thereby destroy the tie between the head teacher and the pupil teachers. He held that in the training of the character of the future teachers of the country nothing could be so important as the tie—a very close one it was known to be in many schools—between the head teacher of the school and the pupil teacher. The head teacher had watched that child almost from infancy through all its different stages, and he felt almost a paternal interest in it. The breaking of that tie by establishing a central system would, he believed, be a very great blow to the national teachers of the country. If you once embarked upon a centralizing system, the responsibility of the head teacher for that child would be absolutely gone. Suppose that child as a pupil teacher gave bad lessons, how was he to blame that child for doing so?—seeing that the responsibility had been shifted to another person, under whose roof that child spent a very great part of the day. Moreover, a centralizing system would destroy the respect for the teacher. A child would naturally expect that a teacher was fit to instruct him in all the various subjects which came within a school life; but the child would be told that he must go to this person for history, to that person for geography, to another person for arithmetic, and at last he found that there was hardly a subject in which his master was fit to teach him. When respect for the teacher was destroyed, subordination in a school was absolutely ruined. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman came to this—an attempt to substitute a professorial for a tutorial system. He acknowledged and admired the zeal displayed by the hon. Gentleman for the pupil teachers; but he said, without doubt, that for these children between 13 and 18 a tutorial system was ten times better than a professorial system. Everyone of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools complained of the great pressure upon these young children. They all said the pressure was too great. The pressure would perhaps be ten times greater if a centralizing system were established, and they had to go for instruction to different parts of the town. It would be very unwise to subject these children at a most critical age to the excitement and competition of the proposed centralizing system. A bad effect would also be produced upon the teachers, who would be taken away to deliver lectures in those central schools. Moreover, it would tend to aggravate the evils of "cramming," from which children already suffered sufficiently. From his official experience he held most strongly that it was safer in the interests of these children, as the future teachers of the land, to leave them to the more substantial teaching of their own masters and mistresses in their own schools than to expose them to the keen competition of centralizing schools. Many of the leading educational authorities looked upon the scheme of his hon. Friend with the very greatest fear. His hon. Friend would perhaps say that the present system was a narrow one. It was not narrow. There was immense elasticity in it. Under the present system there was perfect freedom and elasticity; and provided that the tie was maintained between the pupil teacher and the head teacher of the school, and that the head teacher gave the pupil teacher five hours' instruction per week—surely not too great an amount to insist upon—there was nothing to prevent the grouping of pupil teachers together for teaching on Saturday afternoons or evenings. The Liverpool Board was now trying that experiment, which might be made in other places with great facility. He would next refer to the question of Training Colleges, to which his hon. Friend had alluded. It was true that the Scotch had Training Colleges; but it must be remembered that the case of Scotland, which had its own advantages, was different from that of England in many ways, and that the advantages of the English training system were very great indeed. The more he looked into the matter the more he saw that the character of the school must depend upon the character of the teacher, and the more anxious he was to secure that the teacher should not only be good intellectually, but also fitted by character to be entrusted with the care of children. It was absolutely necessary, as far as possible, to keep as close a watch over the character of the teachers of the future, as over their mental attainments, for the character of the children would in future depend on that of their instructor. All would admit that the charge of children between the ages of 14 and 18 years was a very different thing from that of mere day-school children up to 14; and he hoped that the House would hesitate for a long time before they got the mass of their teachers from other sources than they did at present. Their existing Training Colleges did not belong to one denomination only. The Church of England, from its position, naturally had a large number, including that of St. Mark's and others, whose excellence was well known and recognized. The Wesleyans had also a Training College at Westminster; other religious Bodies had their Training Colleges, as, for example, those at Borough Road, Stockwell, and Homerton; the Roman Catholics having theirs at Liverpool. He trusted, therefore, that the House would pause before it rashly interfered with that system. It was often forgotten that there was not the least reason in the world why people should not enter the teaching Profession from outside; and, in fact, there was nothing now to prevent anybody from establishing a subsidiary system of that sort. Persons over the age of 21, if they had only shown teaching capacity by working for six months as assistants in an elementary school, would find the teaching Profession open to them, and might pass into the ranks of certificated teachers, so that different views on that subject might now be perfectly well tried by experiment, and it would be much the best course for those who thought the existing system was not satisfactory to let that experiment be made, as it easily could be at present. He was not anxious that there should be one rigid, uniform system in that respect; it was much healthier that there should be various avenues and means of access to the teaching Profession; and that was the case now. But he put it to the House strongly, in the interests of education itself, whether it was not most undesirable at the present moment to make any more great changes in the existing system, which nobody could say had broken down. They had already made great changes with the assent of both sides, not only by legislation, but in the Code; and his experience of his present office made him believe that they ought now to try to get a period of rest, and that the minds of teachers, of managers, and of school beards should not be distracted for the next two or three years in their important work. Everybody, he thought, would also allow that they had a good series of school subjects in their Code; and they had succeeded in getting the children into the schools. The work of education might be watched as closely as they liked, but no step ought to be taken which might disturb the teachers' minds and distract them from the difficult problem which they were now solving with such satisfactory results.

expressed his astonishment at the remarks of the Vice President of the Council, because three-fourths of those remarks were not in the slightest degree pertinent to the Motion now before the House. But the speech would have been extremely pertinent if the Motion had been that, in the opinion of the House, it was desirable at once to abolish the pupil teacher system. If he (Mr. Fawcett) had thought that was the object of the Motion which he had seconded he would not for one moment have given it his support. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) and himself did not wish the House to prejudge the system or say one word against the pupil teacher system. He believed in the system. His motive was simply this—that they believed if certain changes were carried out the system would be rendered more efficient. The noble Lord had not only been guilty of inaccuracy with regard to the import of the Motion, but he had contradicted himself. How did he reconcile the vaunted elasticity of the present system with the statement he made at the beginning of his speech, to the effect that he would not discuss the proposed recommendations of the London School Board because he was tied hand and foot both by the Act of Parliament and by the Code? He (Mr. Fawcett) supported the Motion principally because he most heartily and cordially endorsed every word that had been said by the Vice President of the Council against the serious disadvantages which resulted from the employment of pupil teachers between 13 and 18 years. That seemed to be one of the most important points for inquiry, and it was exactly a question which the House would do well to investigate. The present system had so enormously overworked the pupil teachers, that it was detrimental to their health, and so exhausted their energies, that it was not only injurious to them as long as they were pupil teachers, but most grievously interfered with their efficiency in after life. He was quite aware that the legal time during which they might give instruction was five hours; but there was evidence showing that they often taught for six or seven, and in some cases even for seven and a-half hours a-day. The work of teaching was pecu- liarly exhausting, but the labour of the pupil teachers did not end there, for it was necessary that they should prepare themselves for examination, and for this preparation some two or two and a-half hours daily were required. Altogether those young persons had to work harder than he had known the most industrious competitors for honours at the University to do. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that those who supported the present Motion were anxious to abolish the pupil teacher system. Their contention was simply, that from evidence obtained from the London School Board, from Liverpool, from a great body of teachers throughout the country, and from numerous Inspectors, it appeared conclusively that the present system was not efficient. Without presuming to say in what particular way the system ought to be improved, they merely submitted that an inquiry would show what were the defects, and what remedy was needed.

observed, in justification of the tenour of the speech of the noble Lord, that there was ground for supposing the Motion to mean more than appeared on the surface, the hon. Member who brought it forward having suggested in his remarks that there ought to be something better than the pupil teacher system. As to the operation of the London School Board, in London there were one or two schools on the German system, one of which—a school of about 1,000 children, with adult masters—he had visited. It did not earn in proportion so much as other schools of the same size on the pupil teacher system. He was not entirely satisfied with pupil teachers. They had to educate themselves and qualify themselves for examination and to carry out the work of education, which was an enormous pressure on them at their time of life. The fault was not so much in the system as in the way in which it was worked, for by crowding so much into one syllabus it was made more laborious than it ought to be. What was wanted was to provide a machinery for the education of children, nine-tenths of whom would have to earn their living by mechanical labour. They were, in fact, far below the mark in what were popularly called the three R.'s, more particularly in arithmetic, whilst they were cramming and killing their pupil teachers with work which they ought not to be compelled to do; but if they were less ambitious in their syllabus, and more moderate in their requirements, the pupil-teacher system might yet be worked successfully and well.

said, that before the House could sanction the appointment of the Committee asked for by his hon. Friend it should be satisfied that the subject was sufficiently important to justify such appointment; that the inquiry was not likely to do more harm than good by unsettling the present system, by making its administration difficult; and that there was good primâ facie ground for the inquiry. The importance of the subject all would acknowledge, and if the appointment of the Committee was likely to, as his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) appeared to think it would, unsettle the present administration of education throughout the country, it was a very good reason why the Committee should not be appointed. He could not support a Motion that would have the effect of getting rid of pupil teachers and Training Colleges, because they were so completely a part of our system that it would be wrong to attempt to get rid of them. He understood that the object of the Motion was not to get rid of them, but whether they could improve both. That there were primâ facie grounds for inquiry was shown, he thought, by the fact that the London School Board had come to the conclusion that they could best get through their most difficult work by grouping their pupil teachers and sending the children to teachers specially trained in particular subjects. At any rate, the question was well worthy the consideration of a Committee; as also the one of how far we were overworking the pupil teachers, and whether we were injuring their health more than improving their minds. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) did not dwell as much upon the Training Colleges as upon the pupil teachers; but it must be acknowledged that the Training Colleges had done a vast amount of good, and that but for them education would not have been in its present position. But the fact remained that they did not train all the teachers. His noble Friend had rather congratulated himself and the House on the fact that there were some thousands of teachers who came into the profession from without. For his own part, however, he did not think it was an advantage in itself to have any teachers who were not trained. Much might be said in favour of taking a University training in England, as was done in Scotland, but that there must be some kind of training everybody would admit. Notwithstanding the enormously increased demand for teachers, scarcely any fresh Training Colleges had been established. These institutions were very costly, and he approved the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banbury that, in addition to the bearding Colleges, day Colleges should be founded. Training Colleges were required in order—first, that young men and women might acquire in them the secular knowledge which they would hereafter have to teach; secondly, that they might be under moral and religious superintendence; and, thirdly, that they might be well trained in the practice of teaching. In his opinion, all these advantages might be obtained at a very much less cost in large towns. He did not wish to get rid of the Training Colleges, which would still be useful, but he would suggest that in addition to them there should be erected in the large towns training halls. Pupil teachers ought at a certain age—say from 16 to 18—to be allowed to attend the lectures which would be given in these halls, and he proposed that the Education Department should acknowledge a new class of teachers, who, for distinction sake, he would call student teachers. If his suggestions were adopted the student teachers would teach in the schools, but not for so many hours as the pupil teachers. Care would also be taken that they should attend the lectures, and they would be under the control of the managers of the schools. Looking forward, as he did, to a very large increase in the number of teachers, and hoping they would all be trained, he ventured to submit this suggestion to the consideration of his noble Friend. When the attendance difficulty had been met, the next great thing would be to improve the quality of the teaching.

said, that before the House went to a division, he wished to state in a few words the way in which the Government looked at this Motion. It had been said by both the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), and by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr Fawcett), that this was not a Motion brought forward for the purpose of overthrowing the system of apprenticing pupil teachers, and they had asserted that his noble Friend's (Viscount Sandon's) argument in favour of that system was altogether beside the question. He must, however, remark that, if a Committee of that House were appointed to inquire into this subject, it would be guided in its inquiries not by the opinions of those who moved for it, but by the terms of the reference; and it would be seen by the first reference proposed that the Committee would enter on its labours in a much more inimical spirit to the system of apprenticeship of pupil teachers than hon. Members anticipated. The proposal was to appoint a Select Committee to inquire, not how the system might be approved, but "into the system of apprenticeship of pupil teachers in elementary schools." When a Committee proceeded to inquire into a system, it meant that the system was to be put on its defence. If, however, the Committee were to be limited to an inquiry as to the best manner of improving the system, then ho replied that the Department represented by his noble Friend was charged with the particular business of seeing how the whole of this system of education worked, including the duty of watching the working of the apprenticeship of pupil teachers. It would be, therefore, a reflection on the Department to appoint a Committee to inquire into the details of a system which the Department was constantly watching and endeavouring to improve. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) admitted that after the agitation which the educational mind of the country had undergone for the past few years, it was desirable that a period of repose should be granted to allow of the fair working of the system; and considering that the system was being worked under the cautious and attentive eye of his noble Friend, and that, as all admitted, it was worked in a spirit of fairness, he thought the Government were not unreasonable in asking for time for the development of the whole system, before any attempt was made to cut it up by the roots. The Government thought it would be very undesirable, in the present state of the educational question, to appoint a Committee which might lead to bringing up the whole subject again; and personally he might add that he should look with alarm upon the appointment of a new Committee now when the expenses of the Department were increasing so rapidly, because these Committees, whatever else they did, almost invariably ended in an increase of expenditure.

, in reply, disclaimed all feeling of hostility to the Department, and expressed his opinion that the Motion which he had proposed would, if carried, result in great benefit to the country.