asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would kindly describe to the House the number and composition of the members of Queen Anne's Bounty Board; whether they number about six hundred and fifty, and that a large proportion of them are not members of the Established Church; whether they have absolute control over large Church property which is designed to augment the income of poor incumbents; and, whether complaints have been made to him of their administration of that property?

in reply, said, he thought the Queen Anne's Bounty Board consisted of the following persons:—The Archbishops and Bishops, the Deans and Chapters, the Speaker of the House of Commons, all Privy Councillors, all Lords Lieutenant of Counties, the Judges, the Serjeants-at-Law, the Queen's Counsel, the Chancellors and Vice Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, the Lord Mayor of York, the Attorney and Solicitor General, and the Mayors of all other towns. Considering how great was the number of those constituting the Board, there were no doubt many among them who did not conform to the doctrines of the Church of England; but he would refer the hon. Member, and all others who took an interest in the matter, to the Report of the Committee of this House which sat in 1868 to investigate the constitution and functions of this Board, and which made a Report to the House. The Members of the Board, no doubt, had control over considerable sums of public money, and he believed also that there had been recent complaints as to their action.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whe- ther it is true that under the new regulations which are proposed with reference to the Custom House at Gibraltar, steamers calling there with cargo and arriving on a Saturday afternoon will not be able to commence discharging until Monday morning, instead of as at present being able to proceed on their voyages in the course of a few hours; and, whether the Government will endeavour to modify the proposed Ordinance in such manner that it may not result in any such serious interference with the trade of the port, nor in increased expenses to steamers making legitimate use of Gibraltar as a port of call?

My hon. Friend apparently refers to Clause 15 of the Draft Ordinance, which provides that "goods shall not be landed from any ship on Sundays, or holidays, except by special permission of the Governor." It is, however, the intention to grant such special permission in the case of the principal lines of steamers calling at Gibraltar, so that no inconvenience of the kind alluded to is likely to arise. The general opening, however, of the Custom House on Sunday for business which can be as well transacted upon other days would manifestly be undesirable.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to the Supplementary Estimate of £100,000 in aid of Expenditure in the Transvaal Territory, Whether any communication has reached the Colonial Office warranting the expectation held out by the Treasury of repayment of that amount from Local Revenue?

It has been, as yet, impossible to obtain full details of the revenue of the Transvaal, but there can be no doubt that its natural capabilities and climate render its prospects extremely promising. The experience, moreover, of other Settlements—few of which are so favourably circumstanced—fully justifies the confident expectation that the re-payment of £100,000 will be easily accomplished in the course of a few years. If, however, this were not so, the expenditure of such a sum would, I need hardly remind my hon. Friend, be a mere trifle, as compared with the cost and calamity of a Caffre war. I may, perhaps, be allowed to take this opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W.E. Forster) appears to be under with reference to some observations of mine in the debate on the second reading of the South Africa Bill, and upon which he founded a Question addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday last. What I said was, that subsequent to a statement made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State in "another place" fuller information had been received from Sir Theophilus Shepstone. The despatch to which I referred was already upon the Table, and will be found at page 152 of the Blue Book, and is numbered 122. This despatch was received on May 26, while Lord Carnarvon's statement was made on May 7.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to allude to a despatch received at a later date.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government is prepared to concede to those writers or copyists who have for a year or upwards been continuously employed in one Government Department the same amount of leave of absence, without loss of pay, as is allowed to the lower division clerks under the Playfair scheme, seeing that in both cases the hours of work are the same throughout the year?

in reply, said, it would be altogether impossible to put the writers and copyists on the same footing as regards leave of absence with the lower division of clerks, who were now an established portion of the Civil Service, and were on the same footing as regards leave of absence and other advantages as any other members of the Civil Service. The copyists or writers, on the other hand, were only engaged temporarily.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the British Ambassador, the amnesty which has been proclaimed, and the promise of the Sultan, the Bulgarian prisoners, or at all events the Christian portion of them, have not yet been released?

Sir, I regret to say that the promise of the Sultan with regard to the amnesty of these prisoners has not yet been carried into effect. It has been respresented to His Majesty that in the present state of affairs it will be dangerous to allow persons who were leaders of the insurrection to return to their homes; and it was settled that the prisoners alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as all others, should be classified. One class would include those who would be pardoned immediately; another class would include those who would be released, but, at the same time, placed under police supervision; a third class would include those who would be allowed to return to their homes at the end of the war, but would be released immediately; and the fourth would include those who had been sentenced to death, and who would be kept in prison for life. Mr. Layard had arranged with Mr. Blunt, in concert with the Porte—Mr. Blunt being now Consul at Adriannople—that he should arrange the details of the release of these prisoners; and he has reported that the classes and the names of all the prisoners have been received from Sofia and Philippopolis, and that the classification has been completed; but the prisoners have not yet been released. About a fortnight ago my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a despatch to Mr. Layard, instructed him to represent to the Porte that the promise of the Sultan ought to be immediately carried out. I may also mention that Mr. Layard has been unceasing in his endeavours to obtain the release of these prisoners, and his efforts have been entirely approved by Her Majesty's Government. There will be no objection whatever to lay the despatches of Mr. Layard upon the subject before Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Coroner's Inquest held on Friday last, on William Arthur Gibbs, a boy of twelve years of age, a scholar of Christ's Hospital, who, according to the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, committed suicide while in a state of temporary insanity; and, whether it is proposed to institute any investigation into the circumstances under which that child was driven into a state of insanity by the cruel treatment to which he appears to have been subjected?

Mr. Speaker, everyone must deeply regret the occurrence that took place at Christ's Hospital, and no one more so than those who have the management and care of that School. I must demur to one statement in this Question—namely, that which implies that there was cruel treatment, because that assumes that which has not yet been proved true. That is the material part of the case. The Coroner's Jury were asked by the Coroner whether the deceased destroyed himself from fear of punishment, or if they thought that ill-treatment was the cause they were to say so; otherwise they were to find a verdict of temporary insanity, and they found a verdict of temporary insanity generally, and not either of the other causes. However, the authorities of the School have already made a thorough investigation into this matter; and, so far as I can learn from that investigation, in their opinion what has happened was owing very much more to the peculiar temperament of the boy himself than to any cruel or harsh treatment to which he was subjected. With that good feeling which, I am quite sure, will always characterize any body of persons who have the well-being of a school of this magnitude at heart, the managers have placed themselves unreservedly in the hands of the Secretary of State on the point as to whether any other inquiry ought to be instituted. Upon that matter I have not the slightest hesitation as to what course should be pursued. I think it most desirable for the interests, not only of the public, but of the School itself, that an investigation should take place; and I want now only to bear my testimony to the candid way in which the Governors of the School have come forward to promote any inquiry which may be made.

said, the father of the boy, who was quite un- known to him, had forwarded to him a copy of a letter from the master of the school at Hertford, where the boy was formerly educated, giving him the highest possible character.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the Resolution come to on the 6th instant by the Upper House of Convocation, in which, after hearing the written declaration of the general meeting of the Holy Cross Society, the House of Convocation resolved "that they held the Society of the Holy Cross responsible for the preparation and dissemination of the book called 'The Priest in Absolution,'" and that the Society in their declaration had neither repudiated nor effectually withdrawn from circulation the aforesaid work, and that the House expressed its strong condemnation of any doctrine or practice of confession which can be thought to render such a book as "'The Priest in Absolution' necessary or expedient," and that the Primate in his opening address is reported to have said that it "was a conspiracy in our body against the doctrine, the discipline, and practice of our Reformed Church," the Government are prepared to take such legal steps as may be necessary to ascertain the names of any clergymen of the Church of England who may be members of the Society of the Holy Cross, and to take further steps either of assisting the archbishops and bishops, or otherwise, so as effectually to prevent such clergymen from continuing to minister within the pale of the Church against the doctrines, discipline, and practice of which they are declared by the Primate to be in conspiracy; and, whether, in the event of the Law being at present insufficient to attain that end, they will be prepared to introduce a measure calculated effectually to put a stop to such practices next Session?

Sir, the only answer that I am able to give to the Question of my hon. Friend is that the Government have received no official communication on this subject, and that they do not feel them- selves to be in a position to initiate any proceeding with regard to it.

I beg to give Notice that unless proceedings are taken by the constituted authorities either of the other House of Parliament or of this House, I shall, at an early period next Session, bring this matter before the House in the manner in which I shall be best advised to do.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Officers of Infantry Militia may be permitted to attend the School of Military Engineering at Chatham, in a limited number at a time?

in reply, said, that though he was anxious that all officers should avail themselves of the military schools, the power of the staff of the Engineering School at Chatham was already overtaxed, and he could not at present give permission for officers of the Infantry Militia to study there.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to alleged atrocities said to have been committed by the Russian troops and by Bulgarian Christians in Asia and in the district of Sistova in Bulgaria; and, whether any inquiries have been made into their truth and with what result?

I have a Question upon the same subject, which it would perhaps be convenient to put now. It is to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Turkish Government have sent any and what communication to the British Government regarding acts of the greatest gravity committed by the Russian troops in the invaded parts of the Turkish territory, amounting to a systematic course of massacre, pillage, and incendiarism, especially at Sistova, Batach, Soukoum Kalé, Ardache, and elsewhere in Asia, and the brutality practised towards the Armenian Bishop of Utach-Kalissa; and, whether the Government will lay Papers upon the Table of the House on this subject?

The Question of the hon. and learned Baronet is not quite the same as the Question of my hon. Friend, and I think I had better postpone it until it comes on in its order. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that reports of atrocities similar to those mentioned in the Question have been communicated to Mr. Layard by the Porte, and have also been reported to Her Majesty's Government by the Turkish Ambassador in London. The only information we have from other sources was in a private letter from Soukoum Kale to the British Vice Consul at Trebizonde, the substance of which was telegraphed here by Mr. Layard, and which stated that Russian atrocities were reported at Adlu, north of Soukoum Kalé, and 1,500 families were said to have died from starvation, being forced to fly to the forests to escape the Cossacks, who burnt and pillaged all before them. The writer's name is not mentioned, and it has not been possible to make inquiries into the accuracy of his statements.

said: Communications of the character mentioned in the Question of the hon. and learned Member (Sir George Bowyer) have been received at the Foreign Office, and they will be included in the Papers which will be laid upon the Table shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will offer the same terms of retirement to all the Army Medical Officers as have been offered to those now joining?

in reply, said, he could not offer the same terms of retirement to all the Army medical officers as had been offered to those now joining, for the reason that the different sets of officers had entered the Service on wholly different conditions.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the long-continued inefficiency of Stamfordham School in Northumberland; and, whether the Endowed Schools Department will be prepared to issue at an early date a new scheme for the management of the said school, providing (inter alia) for the compensation and compulsory retirement of the present master thereof?

This ease has engaged the attention of the Charity Commissioners for a long time. The draft of a new scheme for the management of the school has been prepared, and is on the point of being published in the manner required by the Endowed Schools Act. It provides, among other things, for the compensation and compulsory retirement of the present master.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any decision has been yet arrived at with respect to the principles under which the claims of the War Office upon the India Office on account of the Home Charges incurred for the Regular Forces serving in India during the years 1870–71, 1871–2, and 1872–3 are to be decided; and, whether any decision has been arrived at with respect to those charges in future years?

in reply, said, it was true there had been a difficulty in arriving at the settlement of the claims referred to by the noble Lord, and the matter had been referred to him. He was very anxious to bring about a settlement of the question, which certainly ought not to be left long outstanding.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the rule instituted by Lord Card well "that Majors as well as Lieutenant Colonels are only to hold that position in regiments for five years" is to be acted upon in the same way as owing to the rule not having been carried out, great uncertainty is felt by the junior ranks?

in reply, said, the Rule would, when finally settled, be laid down in the new Warrant upon Promotion and Retirement.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any alteration has been made by the French Government in the rule which compels a British subject to show a passport on entering France from Italy?

The Foreign Office are not in possession of any information showing that any alteration has been made by the French Government in the matter of passports as concerns British subjects. The production of passports by British subjects entering France is not required by the French Government, and the Foreign Office have no official knowledge that they are required from such British subjects entering France from Italy.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether retired Naval officers will, when called into active service, receive retired pay in addition to full pay; and, if not, what course will be taken in respect to officers who have commuted their retired pay; whether, in case of such retired officers being promoted, their promotion will be to the active or retired lists; whether, in the event of promotion being conferred on a retired officer for subsequent active service, he will, on his services being dispensed with, be entitled to the retired pay of the superior rank; whether subsequent active service will be allowed for increase of retired pay, the regulation of 1870 notwithstanding; and, whether the Admiralty will, at an early period, issue instructions on these and other points connected with the employment of retired officers in the active service of the Fleet?

in reply, said, that retired naval officers could only be called into active service in accordance with an Order in Council. If it should be necessary to issue such an Order in Council its terms would settle the various points which might be raised in relation to pay and promotion. He understood that the terms of the Order had not been settled; and, of course, if it should be necessary to issue it, it would require very careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, "Whether the expenses incurred in conveyance to gaol (to and fro) of prisoners remanded or of prisoners summarily convicted will in future be a charge on the County Rate, or whether such expenses will be repaid by the Treasury?

in reply, said, the expenses referred to by the hon. Member would in future be borne as hitherto as police expenses by the county. The expense of conveyance of prisoners committed for trial to the assizes or quarter sessions from the gaol and from the place where they might be convicted to the gaol again would be borne by the Government.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will produce the text of the option given to the Admiralty till the end of the Session for the purchase of the Mount Boon site, alluded to in the answer given by him on the 10th instant?

in reply, said, that, as he had already stated, the option was given to the Admiralty verbally by Mr. Edmund Augustus Smith, the receiver of the estate, and was afterwards confirmed by letters, which he would read to the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to lay them upon the Table?

I do not think it is necessary to lay them upon the Table.

Then, I object to their being read unless they are to be laid upon the Table.

explained that there would be no objection to lay the letters upon the Table if they were moved for, but he did not think the House would deem it necessary. The first letter, which was signed "E. J. Smith," and dated March 19, 1875, stated that the purchase of a portion of the estate of Mount Boon for the erection of a Naval College had been before the Master of the Rolls on the previous day, and the writer was authorized to negotiate the sale, which he proceeded to do, offering the land at the rate of £200 per acre. The next letter was addressed to Mr. Lambert, Private Secretary to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and was dated the 31st of May, 1877. It was as follows:—

"As the Dartmouth site was, so it is, and so it will be. The Master of the Rolls gave his sanction to the negotiations, and so it remains."

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Irish Executive are at present possessed of the legal powers requisite to give effect to any course which may be considered advisable for stamping out the Colorado beetle, should it appear in Ireland; and, if not, does he intend to bring in any Bill or take a Vote in Supply this Session to further this object?

If any expenditure on the part of the Government should be rendered necessary by the appearance of the Colorado beetle in Ireland, I have no doubt that Parliament would readily vote it; but there appears no reason for taking a Vote in Supply this Session for the purpose, nor do I think that further legal powers are required. I may state that the story which has appeared in the public journals, that this beetle has been found on the quays in Dublin, is not true. The insect which was found has been seen by Professor Ferguson and other gentlemen, and I am informed that it is not a true beetle, and is more than double the size of the Colorado beetle, which it in no way resembles.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have received any reports or accounts from Admiral de Horsey in respect to the encounter between Her Majesty's ships "Shah" and "Amethyst" and the Peruvian Ironclad "Huascar;" and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay such reports or accounts upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, the Reports from Admiral de Horsey relating to this subject had been received at the Admiralty, either last night or this morning. They were very volumi- nous; and until they had been considered it would be premature to say whether they could be laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will add to the Return, Navy (H.M.S. "Inflexible"), No. 295, 1877, the curve of stability, with the Report, dated 23rd August 1870, of H.M.S. "Captain," with the curves e, f, and g of H.M.S. "Inflexible" set out thereon to the same scales; also the Letter of the late Chief Constructor, dated 23rd August, published in the "Times," 24th August 1870, and the submission of the late Controller, dated 24th August 1870, respecting the stability of H.M.S. "Captain?"

in reply, said, that as the question raised with regard to the Inflexible was about to be referred to an Admiralty Committee, he did not propose to lay any further Papers relating to the ship on the Table. Moreover, he thought it undesirable to add to the Papers which had been presented on the subject of the Inflexible any Papers relating to the Captain.

asked the Vice President of the Council, When the Report of the Philadelphia Exhibition will be in the hands of Members?

Originally a limited number only of the Report was printed, and was only supplied to hon. Members who asked for it; but I heard so much interest expressed on the subject that some time back I desired that a copy should be sent to every Member, and I am informed that we may expect them to be delivered within a week.

asked the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire, Whether he intends to proceed with his Motion on the Burials Question on Tuesday or during the present Session?

in reply, said, he had been most anxious to bring on the Motion, particularly now that so much additional light had been thrown on the subject by the Returns moved for two years ago, but only just presented, relating to burial places. But the competition for places on Tuesdays and Fridays had been so keen that the first day he could obtain was Tuesday next, and then six hon. Members had precedence. He had hoped, thanks to the kindness of some hon. Gentlemen who had precedence of him, that he should be able to bring the subject before the House on Tuesday next, but in that hope he was disappointed. He was, therefore, compelled to withdraw his Motion simply because there was not the slightest chance of bringing it on. But he begged to give Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity next Session of bringing the whole subject before the House.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state to the House what further steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take with a view to the early settlement of the question of Sunday Closing in Ireland?

Sir, I should be very happy to state anything that I was able to do, but I am not able to say that Her Majesty's Government can see their way to make any further proposal. If, consistently with attention to other Business, they are able to get the Bill discussed, and if it should come on for further discussion, they will, of course, be ready to take part in it. My right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has given Notice of the Amendments which he will propose in Committee. Beyond that I do not think there is anything more to be said at present.

said, he wished to make some observations with reference to the Answer which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, and he would conclude with a Motion. He wished to complain of the action of the Government upon the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and to put it very strongly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far he would consider it fair to throw upon the hon. Member the responsibility of further conducting the measure through the House. The Government had taken away from the supporters of the measure the position which they were in in April last of pushing the Bill through the House. The Government having on the 12th of February, by sending the Bill before a Select Committee, assumed the responsibility of its further conduct, they had no right now to throw back at the end of the Session that responsibility on his hon. Friend, or to extricate themselves from that responsibility. He felt justified in complaining that the Government sent the Bill before a Select Committee at a time when it was perfectly well known that, unless the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of the Bill, it must be defeated. He would prefer to assume that the Government had acted in good faith on that occasion; but, were he not prevented by the Forms of the House from referring to anything which passed in a debate during the present Session, he might cite the words of the Chief Secretary to show—and he virtually gave the supporters of the Bill a solemn pledge— that if they took that course the prospects of the Bill would not suffer in regard to its passage through the House. He (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) desired to obtain information from public officials in certain towns as to the practicability of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. If he had no intention of changing his own mind upon the Report of the evidence of the Committee, he had no need to take from February until May for such a purpose; but when the Chief Secretary found that the Committee reported in favour of the Bill, then he took up the position he had assumed before the Committee was appointed at all, and showed that, as an official, he did not care a jot for the Report of the Committee, and that they had just lost so many months upstairs. Now, he (Mr. Sullivan) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the decision of that House, and to the large majorities by which the Bill was carried —having regard to the fact that he had virtually, according to all Parliamentary procedure, taken the Bill out of the bands of its promoters, he asked, in the face of the House, how he could thrust this Bill on his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, and allow it to be strangled by a party so small—he did not mean with reference to the measure of their language—so small numerically, he repeated, as to be almost lost sight of in the general concurrence of opinion on this Bill. The Government either meant this Bill well or they did not. If the Government wished to settle this question, which had become a source of grievous agitation in Ireland, they could do so. If they did not, let them declare that they have been overpowered by their 13 Friends among the Irish Members. Then he could understand their position. If those 13 Members had defeated Her Majesty's Ministers, it was not for him to quarrel with that. He should not object to hon. Members taking any course they deemed best in the interests of their country. He had his own strong opinion upon many questions, and he should be the last to quarrel because hon. Members differed from him. "What he did say was—Let the Government tell them frankly that they had been conquered, or let them say that secretly they felt that 13 Members had been doing their work. He feared the Treasury Bench rejoiced and were glad that they had these 13 Members to save them from the odious work of strangling the Bill, and that the 13 had been playing the game of the Government by rescuing them from a most embarrassing position, having men sitting behind them whose consciences revolted from pursuing such a course. As far as the fortunes of the measure were concerned—he would not then touch its merits—it was the case of the Sibylline leaves. Last year the Government offered to accept the Bill, omitting from its operation all towns whose populations exceeded 10,000; but an hon. Member (Mr. Callan) talked out the measure, and it was defeated. This year the Government only proposed to exempt five large cities, but the Committee overruled that point. Next year public opinion would demand that a much smaller concession in the shape of exemption should be made to the opponents of the Bill; so that the Irish minority below the Gangway would find that by the talking-out process they had gained nothing but a little time. But the Government bad much to gain or lose as regarded their character before the country. This was no Party question or political issue. A great moral issue was involved. He asked, had the Government acted frankly, honourably, and in good faith in sending the Bill upstairs so early as the month of February to waste the best part of the Session, and then at the end of the year saying to his hon. Friend that he must take the chances of a struggle with other Business to pursue the conduct of the Bill? The hon. Member concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.

I hope I shall not be transgressing the Rules or going against the feeling of the House if I point out that the Motion for Adjournment at this moment, and for such a purpose as that intended by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it, is highly inconvenient. It is a practice which the House should be rather jealous of sanctioning, except in cases of necessity. With regard to the complaint involved in the Question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot at all admit that there is any real justification for the charge which he has openly brought, and for the charge which—if I may use the word inoffensively—he insinuated against us. He, in the first place, charged us with having wasted a great deal of time which should have been, and might have been, made use of by the promoters of the Bill in carrying forward the measure; and he put a question to us in a manner which justifies me in saying that it amounts to an insinuation that we may have been in some sort of complicity or private arrangement with the Gentlemen who oppose this Bill. [Mr. SULLIVAN dissented.] The hon. and learned Member disavows any such intention. I am glad that he has done so. I do not think it would have been consistent with his character to make any such charge; but the language which he used impresses one with the idea that he wishes to know whether or not we were in some sort of private collusion with the opponents of the Bill, which is hardly a charge that ought to be brought against Her Majesty's Government. With regard to this Bill, I must entirely deny the position which the hon. and learned Member endeavours to take up. It is perfectly true, as he has said, that the Bill was introduced early in the Session; and he went on to observe that the Government virtually took it out of the hands of the promoters when they sent it to a Select Committee, the consequence of which was that a great deal of valuable time had been lost, while if the Bill had been left in the hands of the promoters it would during that time have made considerable progress. He alleges, therefore, that the Government had assumed some sort of responsibility with respect to the Bill which justified him in calling on them to take it up as a Government measure. Now, that is not, as I understand the matter, what took place. When the second reading of the Bill was proposed, the Government did all it could to afford a fair chance of full and free discussion. The promoters themselves could only have brought on the Bill in the first instance on a Wednesday. Had it been met then with the sort of opposition it has more recently encountered, it was highly improbable that they could have carried the second reading against that opposition. And, moreover, the course the Government would have taken in the matter would have been a different course from that which they took, unless the Bill had been sent up to a Select Committee. If the question remained as it stood on the second reading, and no Select Committee had been proposed, the Government would have felt themselves bound to have obtained a much larger discussion than that which took place both then and possibly at future stages of the Bill. What was done was this:—The Bill, at the suggestion of the Government, was read a second time, and advantage was given to the promoters of the Bill by getting it through that important stage. It was then sent to a Select Committee. Therefore the proceedings of the Representatives of the Government were open and bonâ fide, and were not calculated to delay the Bill. They endeavoured in the course of the Inquiry to elicit such opinions as would guide themselves and others; and if a long time was spent in discussion before Committee, perhaps the hon. and learned Member may be himself held responsible for it, for he put a great many questions to the witnesses who were examined, which he was perfectly right and justified in doing, considering the great importance of the question. But if these questions were necessary, it showed that there was in no degree any needless waste of time, or anything but fair and bonâ fide discussion. Assuming that all these inquiries were necessary, what happened then? The Bill came down here, and without some kind of assistance from the Government it could hardly have been brought on with any hope of being passed this Session. The Government being appealed to, said they would be ready to do what they reasonably could to bring on the Bill for discussion. In concert with the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), one day was given for the discussion, and, afterwards, by an arrangement of the Government Business, another day was given for the same purpose. It is true both days were Morning Sittings; but the promoters of the Bill could only have commanded Wednesdays, and if it had been intended to meet the Bill with very long discussions they would have been in no better position than they now stand. As it is, they have secured a fair discussion. There has been a full inquiry; the whole case has been very elaborately laid before the House, and the Government are prepared, when the discussion of the Bill is renewed, to proceed on the same lines as I have indicated just now—namely, to support the Amendments of which Notice has been given. Our conduct has been perfectly straightforward, and I do not think there is any ground for complaint against us. The hon. and learned Member says there are only 13 Irish Members opposed to the Bill. I do not know how that may be. The Bill has been discussed at two Morning Sittings. On the first occasion 12 Members spoke, all of whom were Irish except the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), three speaking for and nine against the Bill; and on the second occasion 11 Irish Members spoke, five for the Bill and six against it. I do not doubt that a large majority of the Irish Members support the Bill; but measures of this sort are fair subjects for discussion, and we could hardly venture to get up and say that hon. Members who felt strongly on the subject had not a right to do what they had done in Opposition to the measure. I should myself prefer that we had less of those long speeches and less of discussion that prevents decisions; but, under the circumstances, I do not know that there is any special reason for complaint against the Members who have taken the part they have done. I will not accept any such responsibility as the hon. and learned Member would throw upon us, and I do not think we are liable to any censure for the course we have taken.

quite agreed that it was a most exceptional course to move the adjournment of the House. He thought he could satisfy the House as to the causes which had led to the "dead-lock" at which they had now arrived. He thought the Government had fallen into error in not taking up the Bill. It was a measure called for by the almost unanimous voice of Ireland. ["No, no! "] Well, that was a question which he was not now disposed to discuss. The question was one on which they had 13 Irish Members voting one way and the entire of the other Irish Members present voting the other. They had the entire Irish Press in favour of the Bill. He held that the Bill was required by the almost unanimous voice of Ireland. He thought that the charge against the Government of having given, while they professed a support, only a half - hearted support to the Bill was true. The Government had left the question in the hands of a private Member; and were it not for the opposition of the Government the measure would have been carried last Session. This year they referred it to a Select Committee on one point only, the exemption of five large towns; and, that having been decided againt the Chief Secretary by the Select Committee, he had now given Notice of Amendments, the object of which was to reverse the decision of the Select Committee. He (Mr. Meldon) held that the supporters of the Bill had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government in not facilitating the progress of the Bill. The supporters of the Bill asked for a day for the discussion of it; but the Government, instead of giving them an ordinary Evening Sitting, chose a day Sitting, when they knew that the Bill could be talked out. On those grounds he maintained that the Government was responsible, and in a matter on which there was such strong feeling the Government were to blame, and they should have given the advocates of the measure precedence over all other Members. ["Oh, oh!"] He said yes, for the measure was of more importance than any they would carry this Session.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not convenient that opportunities of this kind should be taken or made for discussing questions of this nature, especially as the time is not far distant when a more legitimate opportunity will arise for discussing the conduct of the Government in regard to the legislation of the whole Session. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government are not open to the imputations that have been cast on them by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). I do not think the hon. and learned Member can justly accuse them of having been the sole cause of the failure of this Bill. Every Member must be perfectly aware that a Bill promoted by a private Member, if it meets with any opposition at all, has very little chance of success. Every Member must be aware that a Bill opposed in the manner in which this Bill has been, although by a very small minority, has absolutely and chance of success; and it is not just, therefore, to say that the Government have interfered with the success of the Bill. But I hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have informed the House that the Government, if they did not take up the measure this Session, would be prepared to deal with the subject next year. The position which they occupy with regard to this measure is extremely anomalous. They did not give to the Bill the support they would give by making it a Government measure. At the same time, they did notoppose the Bill. They had voted for the second reading, and they had given a sort of qualified support to the Bill by devoting some portion of the Government time to it; and if this sort of thing is to be continued next Session exactly the same result would follow. The time of the House would be wasted, and great discontent would ensue, by allowing an important subject, in which the people of Ireland feel so deep an interest, to be treated in that manner. If the Government do not give a more hearty support to the Bill than they have already given it, they must be perfectly aware that they are inviting that kind of opposition which would prevent the passing of the measure. At the same time, they do not appear to have the courage to say that the Bill is one of which they disapprove, and which ought not be passed, and they leave it an open question and in a most unsatisfactory position. I hope that before the end of the Session the Government will be prepared to say that next Session either they will give the Bill hearty official support, or that they will be prepared to deal with the matter themselves.

said, he rose to say he thought it would be extremely unwise for Government to give any pledge with regard to another Session; for this he could say of his own knowledge—that a very extraordinary change of opinion had taken place not only in that House, among Irish Members, but in the country itself; and that many of those Irish Members who voted for the second reading of this Bill this Session would be found, if a similar vote were brought forward again, to vote against it. He was perfectly disinterested in that question. Indeed, if he had had a strong feeling on the subject at all, it would be that his constituents, as a whole, were in favour of the Bill; but after hearing the evidence that was given before the Select Committee, he declared that he was prepared to vote, even in defiance of his constituents, against the Bill as it stood. He was sure that if the feeling of the people of Ireland could be ascertained it would be found to be not in favour of the Bill. He believed that in Ireland the general desire would be for a shortening of the hours on Sunday, and also on Saturday, and that the houses should not be bound to close entirely. He believed that in the next Session of Parliament it would be seen that scarcely a single parish in Ireland would send up a Petition in favour of entire closing on Sundays. Having said that, he wished to relieve himself from the imputation of any inconsistency in his action in reference to this matter He was totally opposed to entire Sunday closing, and his conduct in reference to the Bill had been in perfect consistence with his holding that opinion.

observed that actions spoke louder than words, and if the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) believed that Irish opinion was such as he had represented it to be, he wished to know—he wanted to know—how it was that he did not allow the House to go to a division when the Bill was last under consideration? The opponents of the Bill were repeatedly challenged to go to a division, but they preferred talking the Bill out. Perhaps he might here be allowed to say a word or two on the Question of Adjournment. ["Oh!"] He knew it was not a popular Question; and he was glad, indeed, to hear the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition say just now that he intended endeavouring to obtain a day on which the conduct of the Government during the present Session might be taken into consideration. When that day came the course they had pursued on this Bill would hold a very prominent place in the discussion. He did not know that the noble Marquess would be able to get a day, but he hoped they would be able to have that discussion. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had had something to do with the Bill in discussions upon it in its earlier stages; and he was partly concerned, also, in bringing the House into its present position in reference to it. The House would remember that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a proposition to the House on the subject, it was that he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) should give up the day which by the chances of the ballot he had got for another Bill. The House would remember that he was suspicious, and that he did not like the right hon. Gentleman's offer. He deemed him to have given a promise that he would take up the Bill, and that the Government would take care that it should be carried through the House. He must say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not absolutely say either that the Government would take up the Bill or that it would not. The right hon. Baronet, however, promised to give up Tuesday morning, in addition to the Wednesday which he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had given up; but having done that, the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in saying he had given the hon Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) a day. And there lay the whole point. He had only given him half-a-day, and this was the weak point of the whole arrangement; for the 13 opponents of the Bill knew very well that if a Morning Sitting were given they could talk out the Bill; whereas, if a whole working day were given for the discussion, they knew from past experience that the Sitting might be prolonged until 7 in the morning. He could refer to the words, too, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the same occasion. He said he was as earnest in the support of the Bill as the hon. Member for Londonderry himself; that he had no wish whatever to delay the progress of the Bill; and that he had every reason to be assured that the inquiry by the Committee might be completed before Easter.

rose to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in alluding to a debate which has taken place this Session?

The hon. Member, in referring to debates in the present Session is not in order.

said, he begged pardon of the House for having transgressed the Rules. He knew, however, the words which the right hon. Gentleman used; and, if the division on that occasion were referred to, it would be found there were only five Irish Members, five English brewers, and 15 miscellaneous English Members. ["No !"] If necessary, he could prove his words. The Amendment proposed to be made in the Bill was that certain exemptions should be provided for in it. That was a matter for the Committee, and yet 13 Irish Members would not allow the question to be discussed, nor the Government to be placed in a position to bring forward the Amendment they proposed to introduce into the Bill. It appeared to him that such a course was worthy of the name of obstruction. They had heard several times of three or four Irish Members opposing more than 100 successfully; but it was only a question of degree, for they saw these 13 Members resisting 200. He said that the House and the Government were not in a dignified position on this question. They had allowed themselves to be deluded; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in to such tactics, all he could say of him was, that in that House he would be the principal supporter of faction, and the patron of obstruction.

said, he ventured for the second time to express an opinion on this question. He had been told he was an advocate of obstruction when, for the space of 20 minutes, he occupied the time of the House with the remarks he had to make on this subject; and he said that if such a speech was to be so called, there was an end of representative government. Was he to be charged with obstruction by an hon. Baronet who every year spun the same yarn over and over again, varied as it was by being sometimes less and sometimes more amusing? He had often heard his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle described as a "funny fellow," though he should not have ventured to speak of him so but that he believed the term was applied to his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue); but he thought the funniest thing the hon. Member for Carlise had ever done was to taunt one or two Irish Members who, on a subject of the deepest practical interest in Ireland, ventured to speak upon it for a quarter of an hour, when they did so for the first time after having, as he had done, occupied a seat in that House for 25 years, while the hon. Baronet treated the House every year to an hour and a half's disquisition on a cognate subject. He rose, moreover, for the purpose of making an observation, which he thought was of some importance. Since the discussion on Tuesday last reports of the proceedings in that House had reached his own part of the country. He was an independent Member, and was neither a Member of the late nor present Government. Nor was he a Press Member, and therefore he was unrepresented as to the statements he had made. He had nevertheless been called to account lately by certain persons in his county who were connected with a local Vehmgericht called a Sunday Closing Association, and asked to explain some passages in a speech which, with the most powerful microscope he had been able to procure in London, he could not discover that he had ever made. The fact was, that if you were not connected with some great Party, or did not possess much greater eloquence than he could pretend to, you got no report in the London journals. They found advertisements more profit- able. In the Irish journals, if you did not perform the kotow to particular gentlemen who were known as the London correspondents of the Irish papers—a thing he should never think of doing—your speech was unreported. In these circumstances, he had better explain the speech that was unreported, because that was the shortest way of replying to his constituents.

The hon. Member is out of Order in referring to a former debate.

said, he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, but wished to say he had done nothing whatever tending to prevent a division being taken on the Bill under consideration. To such an assertion he desired to give an emphatic contradiction. He wanted to ask the Government, however, to undertake to bring in a Bill reducing the hours of sale on Saturday night, and imposing restrictions as regarded Sunday. If the Government would bring in such a Bill next Session he ventured to think it would command general support in the House and in the country, though it might not satisfy the Vehmgericht and those who held Sabbatarian opinions, and that it would pass through Parliament without being delayed by having to go through the ordeal of an inquiry by a Select Committee. Such a Bill, too, would accomplish what was necessary without injuring the interests of humble people in various parts of the country.

said, he was not surprised at the heat exhibited by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), or at the bitterness exhibited by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), on that question. He had heard of the phrase "dying on the floor of the House," but he believed this was the first time the charge had been brought against a number of hon. Members that they had set to themselves the task of "choking the voice of their country on the floor of that House." The voice of the country was shown by the Petitions in favour of the Bill. There were 150,000 Petitions in favour of it, and 40,000 against it. Subsequently the proportion was 49,000 to 23,000, or two to one. The hon. and learned Member, in a speech made in order to shake the evidence given before the Committee, said—

interposed: Such a quotation would not be in Order.

said, he would not quote; but the hon. and learned Member at Exeter Hall had said the Bill was only opposed by "the 11 of all Ireland." He (Mr. Callan) remembered a happy historical occasion when there was another "11 of all Ireland," and when the hon. and learned Member described him as the "sublimated quintessence of a brick." There were 59 Home Rulers in the House: was the hon. and learned Member sure that all of them were in favour of the Bill? Were the Members not Home Rulers in its favour? How many of the Irish Conservative Members were in its favour? The hon. and learned Member, addressing a small meeting of his constituents, said—"I am not in favour—

again interposed on a point of Order.

merely wished to say that the hon. and learned Member had avowed he was not in favour of State compulsion apart from local action. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, the hon. Barone't the Member for Carlisle, and their satellites, during the Recess to take the advice of the Apostle Paul to Timothy—"Drink no more water, but take a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and for thine often infirmities."

said, it was not his intention to prolong the discussion upon the question. He was very glad it had taken place for two reasons. It had, in the first place, defined the position which the Government had taken up on the Bill. They had fallen back in the position they held a year and a-half ago. In the second place, he was glad because it had enabled the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to make a suggestion on the subject which entirely accorded with his own wishes and desires. If the Government had announced that they were prepared to deal with this question, not in the sense of that Bill, but on their own responsibility, he should certainly not, on his own responsibility, have pursued the matter any further. But they had receded from the position they took up at the commencement of the Session. The Bill had, in fact, been thrown back two years, and he must begin the fight again. He would have to take the opinion of the House, not on the Bill, but against the Government. It was therefore his intention, if a day for that purpose could be found in the remainder of this Session, to test this opinion by submitting a Motion on the subject. If he could not bring it on this Session, then he gave Notice that he would at the very earliest moment next Session move—

"That the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill is such as to warrant the expectation that Her Majesty's Government will, in the public interest, adopt early and effective means for bringing about a settlement of the question involved in this measure."

He made that announcement in order that hon. Members might be aware of the course he intended to take, and he trusted that whenever he was enabled to bring forward that Motion it would receive the unanimous support of the House.

remarked that several Motions for the adjournment of the House had been made this Session by the supporters of this Bill. If it was intended by the Motion of which the hon. Member had just given Notice to force the Government into passing this measure, he hoped the Government would do nothing of the kind. It was said at Exeter Hall that its only opponents were "the 11 of all Ireland;" but hon. Members should recollect that 18 Irish Members had already spoken against the Bill, and it must be remembered that the Bill affected not only the electors, but the non-electors as well. Their interests and opinions ought, in a matter like this, to be considered as well as those of electors, who it must not be assumed were all of one way of thinking. The contrary was the fact. Besides this, it was a question which never was brought before the country at the time of the General Election; and it was a fact that since the Bill was introduced a very large number of Irish Members who were formerly against the Bill had now been forced to support it against their own convictions.

rose to Order. Was the hon. Member justified in stating that hon. Members acted in opposition to their own convictions?

said, he could give proofs of the fact. When the second reading was about to be brought on, a meeting was called by a Committee of nine or 10 Members opposed to the Bill to consult as to the best means of opposing it. As soon as our Circular was issued a counter-Circular was sent to all the newspapers in Ireland, and to officials and leading public men, advising them to put pressure on their Representatives, and make them withdraw their opposition to the measure. These were sent to the leading men and supporters of the Members both in counties and in boroughs. Well-paid officials set the telegraph at work, and the result of this combined and organized pressure was what he had stated. He held in his hand a telegram from an hon. Member — ["Name!"] — he did not intend to name any hon. Member— who wrote—

"If I vote against the Bill I risk the loss of my most powerful supporters at the next Election. I am very sorry, hut I must vote for the Bill against my own convictions."

That was a proof of the truth of his statement. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) fully believed that some of these Irish Members would lose their seats at the next Election. For himself, he did not depend upon a mere chance majority of 20 or 30 votes. He stood there as the Representative of more than one-half of the whole of his constituency. He was also the Representative of the people, and as such he opposed the proposal that Ireland should be dealt with in this way.

contended that they were entitled to ask for some exposition of the policy of the Government. The question of Sunday closing had been on two occasions inquired into by a Committee of the House, and, in his opinion, no further information was wanted. Hon. Members could not but admit that there was a considerable amount of feeling in favour of this Bill on both sides of the House; and he thought it was exceedingly desirable that the appeal of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should be acceded to by the Government. If the appeal should be rejected, he would be glad if the Government would tell the House what course they would take next Session, and whether they would then be prepared to pass a Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland or not?

hoped, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had expressed his surprise at brewers voting against this Bill, the House would pardon him for saying a few words, although he might seem to have some prejudice on the subject. He had frequent and continuous correspondence with Ireland, which convinced him that the state of feeling there on this question had been entirely misapprehended. ["No, no!"] Well, he believed that to be the fact. He thought it would be most imprudent for the Government at this moment to support the Bill. Let them wait till next Session, and then they would hear what the real opinion of the people of Ireland was on this subject, and if they wanted prohibition, let them have it. He believed the opinion of Ireland to be entirely the other way.

said, if this debate was prolonged they must think that bold statements made great opponents of the Bill. Last Session a similar statement was made as to, the opinion of the people of Ireland, and they found that that statement was immediately followed up by a meeting of publicans in Dublin and £2,000 subscribed for the purpose of fostering an expression of the people of Ireland on this subject. They had seen what the result had been. Because three or four hon. Members who had previously supported this measure were said to be prepared to vote against it in future for some reasons which they did not explain, the House was asked to believe that the opinion of Ireland had changed on this matter. He had no doubt that this question must stand over till another Session. They would then be able to judge of the value of the statements that the opinion not only of Irish Members, but of the Irish people had changed on the subject. As to the conduct of the Government in the matter, he had only to say they paid no regard whatever to the wishes or feelings of the Conservative Members from Ireland. He was quite aware of the fact that those Members were not, as a rule, a very united body; but on this particular subject they happened to be a very united body. With the exception of the official Members of the Conservative Party, he thought he might say they were almost unanimously in favour of this Bill. He believed that in that re- spect they represented not only the Conservative portion of the constituencies in the North of Ireland especially, but also the combined respectable opinion of the whole of Ireland. [Laughter.] It was very easy for hon. Members to laugh, but he was perfectly prepared to abide by his statement, and he did not believe that another £2,000 subscribed by the publicans would in any way affect the ultimate success of the Bill. The conduct of the Government on this subject had been such as to cause the greatest dissatisfaction and sorrow to their supporters in Ireland, who regarded their action as one of shilly-shallying which they did not understand.

remarked that he had never known a Bill at its commencement receive so much encouragement from the Government as had been accorded to this, for at the beginning of the Session they allowed the postponement of two Bills so that this Bill might be read a second time. He reminded the House that this question of Sunday closing was not raised by the people of Ireland, and that it was abundantly proved by the evidence given before the Select Committee that they did not require it. He complained that the inquiry which had taken place was a fragmentary inquiry, and that it should have been limited to five towns, and not to the whole of Ireland. He had received many communications since the first day's debate from gentlemen who wrote that they were astonished at the evidence which had been produced before the House, and that they would not any longer support the Bill. It had been, however, a most providential fact that the Committee sat, for he would tell the House that between this and the next Session evidence would be forthcoming from the bone and sinew of Ireland; for men who were not voters, and who could not therefore influence the action of their Members, would come forward in their thousands to protest against it. The Government had deliberately gone out of their way on three different occasions to support the promoters of this Bill; but he thought that when next Session arrived it would be sufficient time for them to declare an expression of their opinion on the subject. But if the Government thought this question of such great importance as had been alleged, then let them make further inquiry and bring in a Bill dealing with it. He would ask any hon. Member if the late discussion on the Bill was a perfunctory one. Facts and figures never used before were adduced, new arguments were employed, and a new view of the case presented. There was no intention to waste the time of the House by unnecessary eloquence. It had been asserted that this measure had received the unanimous approval of the Irish people; but it was a remarkable fact, as indicating the feeling of the Irish people upon the subject, that since the first day's debate not a single Petition had been presented from the working classes, and not a single public meeting had been held in its favour. The truth was that the whole agitation on this subject had been got up by parties utterly unconnected with the great bulk of the people, and the effect of such a measure would be to deprive the working men of their just rights.

explained that the reason why the majority of the speakers on this Bill had opposed it was that those who were in favour of it were not anxious to assist them in talking it out.

thought that the opinion of the Irish people had not been fairly represented on this subject. While there had been great enthusiasm and excitement on the part of the promoters of this Bill, no motion whatever had been made by the great body of the people in favour of the measure. The policy which had always been pursued by the Imperial Parliament had led the Irish people to believe that it would give them not what they desired, but what it thought was good for them; and, consequently, the idea never entered their heads that Parliament would give them that to which it and Her Majesty's present Government especially were opposed. He hoped, therefore, that time would be allowed to the Irish people to speak their minds on this question.

hoped that after the Government had given one opportunity of discussing this Bill they would not place another day at the disposal of the promoters. Every opportunity had been given, and everything that could be wished for had been done, for those dismal Sabbatarians.

said, no change of feeling on the part of the people of Ireland had taken place. Every Session the feeling of the people of Ireland was more and more in favour of the Bill.

rose to call attention to the incomplete state in which the Ballinamore Canal had been left by the Irish Board of Works since 1860. The Canal was 39 miles long, and the original intention of its construction was to connect Lough Erne and the Shannon, and thereby bring several seaports into communication with many places. He would suggest that an inquiry into the condition of the Canal should be made by an independent engineer. In 1846 the Canal was taken up by the English Government, and in 1860 it was handed over to the trustees of four counties whose banks it bordered. From that date to this it had been totally unfit for commercial purposes, and thereby many miles of river traffic had been rendered entirely useless. There being no railway communication in the district, it was probable that if the Canal were placed in a proper condition there would be some 30 miles of traffic upon it, consisting of coal and other materials, which could be carried more cheaply by canal than it could otherwise. It might be said that the trustees had neglected their duty in not keeping the Canal in repair, but they could not raise the money. All that he asked for was an inquiry, which had been urgently requested by trustees of four counties and the Town Commissioners of Cavan and Enniskillen. The inquiry into the state of this Canal in 1859 and in 1873 by Commissioners of Public Works was well known to have been a sham and a mockery, as they inquired into the work they had themselves planned, mismanaged, and squandered money upon. It was well known that the Board of Works had grossly neglected their duty. On the Ulster Canal a short time ago £1,200 had been spent, and a company of merchants proposed to carry their goods on the Canal to Lough Erne and Enniskillen, but they found that it was totally useless. Another glaring instance of their incompetency was the drainage of the River Shannon. It had been going on for 43 years, and yet it was in a disgraceful state. All he asked was inquiry, and this he hoped the Government would be able to grant.

said, that if he could see any useful purpose which would be served by the inquiry asked for he should be very ready to entertain the proposal, but that he had not heard anything from the hon. and gallant Gentleman to show that such would be the case unless the Government were almost to re-make the Canal at the public expense. The total cost of the Canal had already amounted to £284,000. The estimate was fixed in 1845 at £110,000, and in 1847 an addition was made which brought it up to more than £130,000, while in 1853 it had further increased, to £242,000. In 1856 it was found that even for that sum the Canal as originally planned could not be completed, and therefore the works were to some extent reduced; but it was handed over to the trustees in a navigable condition in 1860. A Report, entering most fully into the details, was made by the engineers in 1859, and it was shown that it had been made navigable to 4 feet 6 inches instead of 5 feet 6 inches as in the original plan, and that the depth in the upper reaches would be obtained by keeping up the level. The whole question was then fully gone into, when it was clearly shown that the works could not possibly be completed on the original plan, and therefore it was proposed to reduce the charges on the district. Public notice was given of the proposed alterations; a meeting was convened on the subject, and the only objections made were those which came not from the counties interested, but from private individuals. The Canal was handed over to the trustees, subject to those alterations, in a state that would have permitted navigation if it had been properly kept up. Instead of charging the district for drainage and mill-power nearly £50,000, they charged them only £25,000; and instead of £49,000, which it had been intended to charge for navigation, only £30,000 was charged for that purpose. The Treasury was saddled with a sum of nearly £225,000, as its share of the cost of completing the works. No objection was made by the trustees at the time when the Canal was handed over to them, and they proceeded to invite tenders from persons desirous of undertaking the navigation, but failed to obtain any. The result had been that the Canal was useless, no navigation had practically taken place on it, and it had been kept in repair solely as a drainage outlet since 1860. He had been lately asked to put some 15 miles of it into repair in order to accommodate the coal traffic from Lough Allan to Ballinamore; but he found that the cost of doing this would be some £4,000 or £5,000, and the trustees informed him that the navigation was not likely to pay for it, and it would be unfair to levy fresh charges upon the district. While the existing facilities for canal traffic in Ireland were not taken advantage of, was it worth while to expend a large sum of money in renewing the Canal in question? Except in the case of the canals, which were in the hands of railway companies, inland navigation in Ireland was almost entirely neglected. He had sailed for many miles over the splendid reaches of the River Shannon, and had hardly met a single boat. The hon. and gallant Member had blamed the Board of Works, but they could not be fairly blamed in this matter. No doubt some advantage might accrue from united management; and if any company or responsible body of persons willing to bind themselves together for the purpose of undertaking the management of these canals as one concern came to him and made a definite and reasonable proposal on the subject, he should gladly bring it under the consideration of the Treasury; but unless people in the districts principally interested were willing to contribute he could not see how Her Majesty's Government could incur any further expense.

as Representative of one of the counties interested in this Canal, supported the proposal for an inquiry. The Canal was perfectly useless in its present condition, and he asked, whether the Treasury were prepared to allow all the money which had been spent upon it to remain unproductive? So much money having been spent on the Canal, the Board of Works not having carried out the original plan, and no inquiry having yet been made as to the way in which the expenditure had been incurred, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was justified in asking that there should be some inquiry in order to show who was to blame for what had taken place, and with a view to some proposal for rendering the expenditure already incurred of some utility. If his hon. and gallant Friend would propose a Motion he should be happy to vote for it.

said, that considering the interest that was taken in all educational matters in Scotland, it would be disrespectful in him not to state a few facts relating to the present state of education in that country, although he need not repeat some that were stated in the course of the discussion on the English Vote. There was an increase in this Vote of £50,500. The first cause was an increase in the cost of inspection, the Scotch Board having agreed with him in thinking that the schools ought to be better looked after. The sum of £34,000 was due to the natural increment of the grants, and £15,000 to an increase in the building grants. There was a considerable amount of building yet to be done, and it would be two years before the required buildings would be completed. In the year there had been an addition of 100 schools, with accommodation for 65,000 scholars, making the total accommodation 456,000, while there were 433,000 children on the books. An average of 329,000 showed that an approximation was being made to the desired proportion. Of course these figures were for a period long gone by, but he had that day obtained the Return for the last three months—from April to June, 1877. These Returns showed an increase in the average attendance of 23,300, and in the grant earned of £25,000, while the rate of grant had risen to 16s. 1¾d. as compared with 15s. in 1876. The same three months showed an increase of 60 night schools, there being 260 as compared with 200 in 1875; an increase of 4,400 in the average attendance—15,000 as compared with 10,600; and an increase of 5,000 in the number present on inspection —14,000 as compared with 9,000. The supply of teachers seemed to be large, as there were a certificated and a pupil teacher for every 80 children in average attendance; so that the supply came up very much to what it was wished to be. He desired to notice what had been said as to the Scotch Code lowering Scotch education. In 1873 the Code was issued by his Predecessor as received from the Edinburgh Board of Education, which proposed grants for a class of subjects in advance of the ordinary curriculum of elementary schools, and the 21st article of the Code gave a greater choice of such subjects than even the Edinburgh Board proposed. In 1874, the first year of examination under this Code for the grants for specific higher subjects, only 4,407 were presented, and only 103, having passed Standard VI., took three of these higher subjects. In 1876, 18,760 were presented in higher subjects, and 793 took up three of the higher subjects, which was an exceedingly satisfactory result. If higher subjects had been so much taught formerly, why did not more at once take them up and pass? If higher subjects were disappearing, how were these increased numbers to be accounted for? The Board of Education reported that in 1875 there were 260,000 children in 1,338 public schools—with an average attendance of 150,000 — receiving instruction in specific subjects, and of these 7,635 boys and 1,296 girls were taught Latin. There was great freedom in the choice of subjects, and it was easy to see what were the subjects preferred by the parents, who ought to be the ultimate judges of the subjects the study of which was to be encouraged by the State. The following were the numbers of scholars examined in the subjects named:—English literature, 10,000; physical geography, 8,800; Latin, 3,300; physiology, 3,000; mathematics, 1,196; French, 1,282; domestic economy, 783; magnetism and electricity, 631; botany, 363; light and heat, 223. This indicated what the popular feeling was as to these specific subjects. He should be loth to suppose that the Code was lowering the standard, and on this subject he would quote a few words from Dr. Eraser, a leading member of the Paisley Board, and one of the most distinguished "educationists" in Scotland. He wrote—

"It is contrary to fact that the present Code is lowering the range of intermediate education. During the 25 years of my connection in this town, more or less with all the schools, I never found half as many boys learning Latin as at present. In one of our board schools 90 boys are in Latin classes."

This was interesting testimony, which was well worth consideration. He would not speak now of the proposal made by the Universities as to the instruction of teachers, as the matter was referred to in the discussion on the English Vote. A great deal had been said in Scotland, and in England too, about the importance of preventing our system from degenerating into one of mere cram, and he would, therefore, call attention to the precaution taken to prevent this result. He had the greatest horror of cram, which would have a disastrous effect upon children, and through them upon the national character. It had lately been laid down that specific subjects must be in the time table for the whole year, and not merely for a few weeks. This was done because it had been found that there was a tendency on the part of clever teachers to run children through specific subjects in about six weeks, so that what they acquired was a little veneering rather than a solid acquaintance with the subject. It was further provided that a specific subject must be taken for the three years, which would prevent a scholar attempting to do a bit of Latin one year, a bit of botany another, and a bit of physical geography in the third. To prevent superficiality in any of the specific subjects various conditions were prescribed. In English literature, to discourage mere learning by rote, it was laid down that a student should be required to show his knowledge of the meaning of a passage and of the allusions contained in it; also that a passage should be paraphrased, and further that the student should write a letter or statement, the heads of the topics to be given by the Inspector. Very stringent directions were given in notes to the schedules with the object of discouraging cram. One of these notes was as follows:—

"It is intended that the instruction of the scholars in the science subjects in this table shall be given mainly by experiment and illustration, and in the case of physical geography by observation of the phenomena presented in their own neighbourhood. If these subjects are taught to children by definition and verbal description, instead of by making them exercise their own powers of observation, they will be worthless as means of education. It cannot, therefore, he too strongly impressed on teachers that nothing like learning by rote will be accepted as sufficient for a grant, and that the examinations by the Inspectors will be directed to elicit from the scholars, as far as possible, in their own language the ideas they have formed of what they have seen."

The instructions to the Inspectors respecting history and geography was that the scholars should show special knowledge of any historical events or characters connected with the district in which their school is situated, and that the class examination will be conducted so as to show the intelligence and not the mere memory of the scholars. Another change had been made to relieve children of the hardships they were exposed to in traversing long distances between home and school in bad weather. It was provided that between the 1st of November and the 1st of March, two attendances might be registered for any scholar who had been under secular instruction for four hours, in the morning and afternoon taken together, of any day on which the school was open for five hours. Scotland still kept ahead of England both in the grants she earned and in the acquirements of her children, and he could only hope that Scotland might be tripped up by England—not by unfair means, but by the energy and determination of the English people.

congratulated the Committee and the noble Lord upon the satisfactory statement which he had been able to lay before them. It was very gratifying to find that the results of experience were showing how to remedy the evils of examination on specific higher subjects, such as those lately introduced into Scotland, which were an extension of those that had prevailed in the schools for a long time. There was another part of the subject on which the noble Lord had not given them any information. The Scotch Education Act differed altogether from the English Education Act. In fact, it recognized secondary education as a part of the duty of the Act. Under its provisions 11 schools were set aside with a view to promote higher instruction in the country. Two other schools had been since added, and consequently 13 secondary schools were now in operation under the Education Act for Scotland. The intention of the Act was excellent; but the method in which the Act had operated had been that, instead of acting favourably to the schools, it had acted very injuriously, and for this reason—the endowments of these schools were extremely small, amounting at the time the Endowed Schools Commissioners reported to only £3,980. Five-sixths of the revenues were derived from the fees of the scholars, and consequently the schools had to spread their net to get in scholars in order to live at all. The result was that there had been a tendency under the Act to lower these establishments to the level of elementary schools, instead of keeping them apart as secondary schools. These schools had been required to make bricks without straw. The £3,980 distributed throughout the schools of Scotland was preposterously small as an endowment. Accordingly an Association, supported by private means, was formed in order to promote secondary education in Scotland, and a large deputation waited on the Home Secretary to point out to him how the present law acted injuriously upon these schools, and how impossible it was for the Association to promote secondary education, unless there was some legislation in regard to the endowments in Scotland. The educational endowments in Scotland were very large. A Royal Commission was instituted in 1872 to inquire into them, and its last Report, made in 1875, stated that they amounted to no less than £174,543 per annum. That was amply sufficient to put secondary education in Scotland into a most satisfactory condition, if the trustees of these establishments were allowed to reform their institutions. In 1869 an Act was passed for the purpose of enabling the educational establishments of Scotland to put themselves into a satisfactory condition, and under its provisions one body — the Merchants' Company—did reform their schools in an admirable manner. That Act, how- ever, only remained in force for a year. Consequently there was now an Act which enabled endowments in England to be applied to proper purposes, whereas no such power existed in Scotland. The Home Secretary answered the deputation to the effect that the time had arrived when it was necessary to legislate for the educational endowments of Scotland; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would now be able to give them an assurance that next year the Government would take up the matter and legislate in such a manner as they might deem to be most in consonance with the information which had been brought to bear on the subject.

said, he thought the noble Lord had congratulated himself rather too much in view of the existing facts. There had doubtless been a great increase in the number of pupils presented in specific subjects; but that proved very little. Statistics, up to that time, had been utterly worthless. The noble Lord had enumerated the changes made in the Code this year. The object was very simple. It had been the habit of teachers, in order to get the greatest possible amount of grant with the least amount of trouble, to cram the pupil in the most elementary portion of two specific subjects in one year. Then, instead of proceeding with that subject, he passed on to another pair of subjects, and again presented a pupil, and so on, to the third year. In this way scholars were taught a smattering of half-a-dozen specific subjects; but statistics based on that system were really of no use. These statistics showed that 3,300 had been presented in Latin; but it did not show that any of these pupils had obtained useful knowledge. As to the system of cram, no one who had looked into the subject could doubt that precautions were taken not one moment too soon, for one Inspector after another had reported that the system of grants for specific subjects must give rise to a system of cram all round. The Department had laid down a rule that all specific subjects in which pupils were presented must be kept on the Time Table all the year round. Well, in English language and literature, all that was required was to get by heart 200 lines of poetry, and to paraphrase a certain passage. It was difficult to see how a teacher could pass the entire year in teaching his scholars 200 lines of poetry. As a matter of fact, the children were crammed with that amount of poetry in two or three weeks. The introduction of a variety of subjects had given rise to all the trouble and the depreciation of Scottish education. As to physical geography, that was a science which would require very much more attention than could be given at school to render it of any practical use. The noble Lord had told them that French had been introduced. There was no doubt that if French were taught it would be of very much more utility than the instruction in the classics which was given at these schools. But only 1,200 students were presented for examination in French, and in by far the greater number of cases their knowledge of French consisted of the first rules of grammar, the regular verbs, and the first 10 pages of the vocabulary. The noble Lord did not say how many were presented in German. If, however, he remembered the statistics rightly, there were not 50; and how the noble Lord could congratulate himself upon introducing a number of these subjects he could not understand. The same thing was the case with botany. There were 300 presentations in that. It was no use to keep up special subjects for only 300 presentations. There was a more important matter to which the noble Lord did not refer, and that was the alteration that had taken place, he understood, in specific subjects and domestic economy. The noble Lord said that the number of girls examined in domestic economy was 783. Now, he understood it had been made compulsory to present every girl for examination in domestic economy. That would certainly effect a very great revolution in their present system, and a number of schoolmasters had complained to him on the subject. He did not know what domestic economy was as defined by the Education Department; but he had happened to see a number of questions which were put to the candidates on the subject, and some of them were utterly absurd. One, for instance, was—"Supposing you had £1,000 to invest, and wished to have some safe investment for it at 4½ per cent, where would you look for it?" Now that, no doubt, was a branch of education very necessary for persons who had money to invest; but he thought it was wasted upon children in elementary schools. There were several points connected with the Scotch Code which he ventured to take this occasion of drawing the attention of the noble Lord to. In the first place, one Inspector after another had reported upon a very unsatisfactory state of education in the Highlands. That, to a very considerable extent, arose from Article 17, par. 0, which provided that no grant should be given in the case of any school which did not provide at least 80 cubic feet of air internally, and 8 square feet of air for each child. Now, the result of that was that schools of that description could not be built; and the consequence was, that the schools in the poorest part of Scotland did not participate in the benefits of the Act. Several Inspectors had alluded to the matter, and one of them had pointed out, in what seemed to him to be a very common-sense manner, that those regulations as to space and room might be all very well in a crowded town, but that they might be dispensed with in the case of a school on a moorside or upon a hill. The matter had been brought before the Department, and no change had been made, and his astonishment was that the noble Lord, who was not insensible to the great necessity which existed for the encouragement of education in the Highlands, had not given it his attention. There was another matter which had given very great dissatisfaction to the teachers in Scotland, and he thought very justly so, because it might be remedied with very little difficulty, and that was this—One Inspector was extremely hard and harsh as compared with his brethren. Another might be extremely lenient, and in his case the schoolmasters did not complain; but in the case of the south-west districts of the Highlands, which were certainly by no means the worst supplied with teachers, the Reports of the Inspectors showed that they were very far behind their brethren in other parts of Scotland. Now, in such a case as that, where complaints had been made and public attention had been drawn to the school, he thought that the difficulty would be very easily met by a change of Inspectors, in order that the Department might see whether the blame really attached to the schoolmasters or to the Inspector. The noble Lord had alluded to building grants and to the money which was disbursed for that purpose. He wished to call attention to a matter of infinitely more importance than the money which Scotland could ever hope to obtain from the Department, and that was the removal of those impediments which had been placed in the way of handing over all the schools in Scotland belonging to Church and voluntary associations to the school boards, without money and without cost. Before the passing of the Scotch Education Act, besides the parochial schools maintained by the parishes, there were a number maintained by voluntary associations and Churches. The Free Church especially had established throughout the Highlands a large and complete system of voluntary schools, and the same was the case with other associations which he need not specify. These Bodies were all perfectly willing to hand over their schools to the school boards. Now that the State had taken up the education of the people, they considered that there was no use in their going to any further expense in the matter, and therefore they were perfectly ready to hand their schools over. But it was found that there was a difficulty existing. In fact, numberless difficulties existed. If the managers of these schools had incurred a bonâ fide debt of say £50 on a school worth £1,000, the school board would not accept the gift if they wished to hand over the schools. But unless such anomalies were speedily remedied, he was afraid it would be too late; whereas, if they were, an amount of money would be saved in Scotland very much greater than anything in the shape of building grants from the Department.

considered that the difficulty in transferring these schools was not due to the Department, but to the Education Act, and the construction which had been put upon it. It was quite true, however, that the attention of the Department had been called to the subject, and that nothing had been done. Only 13 schools had been transferred during the last year. That was to be regretted. As to the present teaching in Scotland, he might state as a fact that there was a feeling prevailing in that country that the education of children was being degraded rather than elevated. The noble Lord no doubt was anxious that that should not be the case; but it was, and it arose from the fact of their not being able to secure teachers who possessed those acquirements which enabled them to give instruction in the higher branches that would be of advantage to the humblest in poor districts. Under their ancient system the parish schoolmaster could usually teach Latin, Greek, and mathematics; and if he could not impart a knowledge of science, he could do so in other useful branches of learning, and that was the defect in the present system. Therefore, though there might be an increase in the number of scholars, there was a degradation in the standard of learning.

observed that great hardship had been caused in the Highlands and insular districts, by the withdrawal of the schools which had provided them with education before the passing of the Education Act of 1872; while board schools had not yet been established in their place, in consequence of the difficulty the boards experienced in finding tradesmen who would build the schools. The difficulty about teachers must continue to prevail for some time, although he concurred with what the noble Lord had said the other day, when he stated that the supply of teachers would soon be adequate to the demand. But that brought him to the appeal regarding educational endowments, which was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) to the Home Secretary. In that appeal he cordially concurred, and he (Mr. Ramsay) would also appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to take care that the time was not allowed to pass away without something being done to fulfil the promise which the Home Secretary had held out to them of having legislation with regard to the educational endowments of Scotland. He believed that it was quite possible, without offending the sentiments, or it might be called the prejudices, of the people of Scotland, to provide adequately for higher education in that country, without encroaching upon those endowments in a way which would not be satisfactory to those who at present governed them; and, therefore, he hoped that the appeal which had been made to the Department would not be in vain, but that something would be done. What was required in the schools in Scotland was not the teaching of some small elementary knowledge in branches of science; but that the minds of the children should be developed. Not that the children should be crammed with matters of mere memory, but that their intellectual powers should be improved, and their children made good members of society, and be taught to do their duty to themselves and the community.

said, that he merely rose to state, in reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that he had nothing to add and nothing to withdraw to or from what he had said to the deputation which attended him at the Home Office.

rejoiced that the noble Lord had made considerable alteration in the pay of the Scotch School Inspectors, but wished to urge again that there was not a sufficient number of Inspectors to do the work. It was impossible to carry on the inspection of schools in a satisfactory manner, so long as it was hurried over in a short visit. To allow of this inspection being efficiently carried out, the number of Inspectors must either be increased, or the areas allowed to each Inspector limited. But it would probably be preferable to carry out both these plans. It would also be advisable to add a few more Inspectors to serve as a reserve force, to be specially thrown on some schools of the districts, in order to test the soundness of the ordinary inspection. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had brought to light the injury done to some schools by some Inspectors being either more lax, or more stringent, than other Inspectors; showing that the money results to schools of a high standard, had thereby actually been less favourable than to other schools of a lower standard. His hon. Friend had then urged the transfer of Inspectors from one district to another; but it would be advisable to be cautious in making transfers, which might indicate defective inspection. These defects arose from two causes—one, insufficiency of inspecting power as to numbers of available Inspectors; and one, defec- tive power as regarded ability of inspecting. The remedy was that the Inspectors should be taught, in suitable training establishments, how to inspect; but that could not be done while their number was so small. The Inspectors should, however, be urged to try to make themselves acquainted with the minds of the children, so as to frame their questions in a form to be understood; and he would suggest that a second Inspector, thoroughly experienced in Scotch thought, should from time to time be sent down to schools unfavourably reported upon, so that the kind of inspection might be so varied as to enable the authorities to obtain an accurate acquaintance with the state of the school. It should also be mentioned that the Scotch inspections could not be deemed satisfactory until the young and inexperienced Inspectors, brought into the service from the Universities of England, had gained more experience. Even the very words used in the Reports of Inspectors to denote the progress of the scholars at schools, and the fitness of the teachers, varied with the temperament of the individuals who inspected. This was a form which could, however, be taught; but without a training establishment, and a reserve of Inspectors, it was impossible to create uniformity in the wording of the Reports, so that similar ideas and results might be stated in similar words by the different Inspectors. The occasional inspections thus advocated would allow a comparison of Reports, and lead to a proper system of recording results in the inspection Reports, and thus, from different Reports of different Inspectors on the same school, the differences of opinion between Inspectors would be clearly shown. Hitherto, training had been confined to elementary schools, and no doubt those were the essential and primary schools to attend to. But why not follow the Chinese educational system? In that country education was carried far beyond the English system. There were schools in China in every little village; schools of a higher order in the district, others in the Provinces, and finally at Pekin. Most promising youths of the poor were trained as well as the wealthy. This system should be followed up now that we had adopted the Chinese system of education; there was no use in denying that, though the Chinese system was almost perfection when compared with ours. Then, with regard to subjects to be taught and to be examined into, the Chinese had attained the greatest perfection in standards; but the Chinese mind was stereotyped with ideas obtained from the old books of the Chinese philosophers, and thus the progress of that great people had been checked, or kept down to the knowledge or ideas of the centuries before Our Saviour. That mental limitation as to subjects to be taught, or tests to be applied, we had in part followed; but it was open to grave objection, especially as regarded loading the very young mind with long pieces of poetry. He would not be very particular as to the standard, but would rather trust to the Inspectors to find out whether the schools had arrived generally at that degree of excellence which they ought to attain. A good deal had been said about the necessity of improving the teachers; but that improvement should be made to come from within that useful body of public servants. At present, there was no great inducement to improvement held out to them. The way to create activity was to create inducements to be active. Now, one way was to create additional schools for higher subjects. He believed his own county would gladly try to form a higher school, thereby creating a demand for the services of teachers of a more advanced class, and consequently better remunerated. And, further, though there were some difficulties in the way, he thought some inducements should be held out to teachers to qualify themselves to become Inspectors. He therefore asked, why they did not follow the example of the Chinese a little more, and draft off the better class of instructed boys to a higher school? Such a system would benefit the poorer youths, improve the elementary schools, and spur on the teachers too. There was another suggestion he would offer. His hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) was a most useful member of the Education Board for Scotland; why should he not, with all his knowledge and experience, have power to draw up an annual Report on the subject of educational arrangements in Scotland, so that the House and the country might have full information upon it from time to time from a responsible Member of this House? Then with regard to the accounts of income and expenditure, there was an urgent necessity for bringing these matters under better control. The first and most important point was, to have a thorough audit, not of vouchers only, but of the figures entered in those vouchers. At present there existed a terrible dread of an examination of these figures. It looked as if that thorough audit would destroy the independence of school boards and their right of control over the schools, whereas it would, in his opinion, aid that proper control by the local boards. Then there were other questions as to the sufficiency of the present school building arrangements, and as to the situation of schools. Those also required to be examined into and kept right by trained Inspectors, qualified for the investigations, being specially employed for these examinations.

said, he could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) with reference to the number of extra subjects which had been taken up by Scotch students. He hoped the advantages which had been given to Scotland in this particular would be extended to England, that less impediments would be thrown in the way of students taking up the extra subjects, and that a larger number would be induced to study them. He thought the requirements for needlework were a great deal too high, and he hoped the noble Lord would re-consider that matter. The noble Lord had proposed that no grant should be given unless instruction in any subject taken up extended over a whole year. That was surely going a little too far. The period might fairly be reduced to six months. The noble Lord also proposed that when a particular subject was taken up it should be compulsory for the child to keep to that subject for three years. He thought that was a mistake, as a child might take up a subject for which it was not well qualified, and it ought to have the opportunity of taking up others. He was also in favour of teaching fundamental ideas of several branches of science. He deprecated a smattering as much as anyone; but it could not take long to give a child fundamental ideas, and fundamental conceptions of several sciences would frequently be of more use to a child than fuller instruction in one science only. He also complained of the Code because its details and rules were too minute and peremptory, leaving little or nothing to the teacher and the circumstances of the school.

thought the statement of the noble Lord was, on the whole, satisfactory. At all events, it was well to know that they were not going back, and that Scotland even kept ahead of England. But they had not much to congratulate themselves upon in the list of numbers applying for extra subjects. Out of 380,000 scholars, for instance, only about 1,000 took up French. We were, perhaps, from our insular position, the worst-instructed country in the world in foreign languages, paying less attention to them than any other nation. Something ought to be done to remedy this. The state of matters might be satisfactory from an English point of view, seeing that Scotland was ahead of England; and English Members might think that Scotland had attained to something great; but no Scotch Member who had given attention to educational matters in his own country could be satisfied with things as they were. He thought the time had come when they should adopt the American system, making elementary education absolutely free, so that the fees which parents now paid for elementary, might be devoted to higher education. That was the line he had always taken, and he thought it was greatly strengthened by the statement of the noble Lord, and he hoped before long the opinion might become more general, and they might see the country going in for free education.

earnestly asked the attention of the noble Lord to the present status of pupil teachers. When a pupil teacher was entered at a school, there was a regular indenture drawn up, and signed between him and the school board. The consequence was that although the master of the school was the pupil teacher's real master, and alone had authority in the school; he found he had very little influence over him; and when there was not a proper relation between them, the bad consequences even to the pupil teacher himself were disastrous. He hoped the noble Lord would take the matter into consideration, and, if possible, adopt certain rules by which the pupil teacher should not only be under the surveillance of the master, but should be under his actual authority, instead of being under the authority of the school board.

said, that in his opinion, education would never be thoroughly extended among all classes of the poor except by an entirely free education. A general notion was that what people did not pay for they did not value; but the free system had been tried on a very large scale in the city which he represented (Edinburgh). There were 5,000 children in that city receiving free education in 16 schools, supported by George Heriot's hospital funds, and the attendance averaged. 90 per cent all the year through, while at the board schools, with more than double the number of children, it did not come up to 75 per cent. If education were generally made free, it would cause a very much higher attendance. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), and with his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), in the hope that the Government would introduce a measure for regulating endowed institutions in Scotland next Session; but there were two opinions in Scotland as to what that measure should be, and he should like to take the opportunity of stating to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) and to the Lord Advocate the two views which were entertained. There was an Act passed, to endure for three years, which had already been referred to, for enabling such institutions to open their doors wider than they had hitherto been, and partially to alter the principles on which they were established. That Act was entirely permissive in its character, and had now expired. Some people, with whose opinion he sympathized, would give the Governors of such institutions even more power than they had under that Act to alter their constitution, subject to the sanction of the Home Secretary. Another idea advocated by some persons in Scotland was to seize on the funds of those institutions, originally left for the poor, and devote them to the education of the rich and middle classes. To that proposal there was a very strong objection in Scotland. With regard to the middle-class schools referred to in the Report, they only afforded a small portion of the education provided for the middle classes. In the city with which he was connected there was one such school with 450 scholars, and with fees and endowments amounting to about £4,500; but there were 10 times that numbers of scholars in other schools not under the Act. The Report stated that there were only 1,300 children learning French; but he had no hesitation in saying that there were more than that number learning French in Edinburgh alone, and probably more than that number learning French in Glasgow. French, German, and other modern languages were mainly taught by private masters. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) had asked, why should not the counties have middle-class schools of their own? He answered, why not? Every county should establish such a school; but let the county gentlemen put their hands in their own pockets, and not rob Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen. He was very much pleased to hear the noble Lord explain that the variety of subjects now permitted to be taught under the Scotch Code was considerably greater than the number which the Scotch Board of Education desired should be taught. This was a good answer to the cry which had been raised that education was deteriorating in quality. He believed, on the contrary, that education in Scotland was better now than it had ever been before.

said, that the want of facilities for utilizing existing schools for national education had been the means of largely increasing the burdens of the country. The principle which underlay the present system of educational administration, which was almost unanimously condemned by the country, was to maintain and confirm the principle of denominational teaching; and he regretted that some assurance had not been given by the Government that the children who were being educated in denominational schools would be protected against the teaching, under the name of religion, of the doctrines which had recently been disclosed, and which had created, such general disapprobation.

said, that having been a member of the school board of Dundee for three years, he had naturally taken a great deal of interest in the board schools. He did not think that there were any schools in any of the larger burghs or cities throughout the country which had been attended with greater success than those of Dundee. But he shared the opinion entertained by many persons, that a still higher standard ought to be reached before payments were made to the teachers. The Returns showed that the principal teachers of the board schools in Scotland were very well paid. Their salaries ranged in some cases from upwards of £300 to more than £500 a-year. With such salaries a higher standard of education on the part of the scholars ought to be reached. Both Scotland and England were very much indebted to the noble Lord for his efforts to raise the standard of education, and it was to be hoped he would long be spared to devote his assiduity and energy to the cause of education.

assured hon. Members from Scotland that he was the last person to think they had got to finality as to the standard of education. It was only wise, however, to advance with caution, especially when they were sweeping into their schools vast numbers of uneducated children. At the same time, the remarks which had been made would be duly weighed. With regard to the specific subjects, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had unduly run them down. Of course, if it was found that these subjects were taught too slightly, it would be very easy for the Inspectors to insist on higher requirements. As to literature, it was not merely a question of learning by heart. There was a great deal more—dictation, for instance, which was one of the most important elements in a child's instruction. Physical geography he regarded also as a very important subject. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the desirableness of the children learning more Latin and French, instead of the scientific subjects. For his part, however, he (Viscount Sandon) was not prepared to compel the children in Scotland to learn French and Latin in the ordinary schools. As to domestic economy, he had received many communications from Scotland in favour of teaching it. He thought it a very good thing indeed that the children should receive hints as to what they ought to do hereafter with their money; and he rejoiced that by the establishment of penny banks they were now taught in hundreds of board schools to lay by what they could. Considering how important the study of health, food, and clothing was to the future mothers of the country, it had been thought right, where girls chose to go in for specific subjects of a more advanced kind, to make domestic economy one of their extra subjects; and he held to that as a wise arrangement. With regard to schools in the wilder districts of the Highlands, the rules as to the buildings had been relaxed in order to meet the difficulties of the case. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Boroughs (Mr. Ramsay) had given high testimony, on the whole, as to the work done, and his testimony was of great value. In the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) as to the importance of Inspectors he thoroughly agreed; and, as a matter of fact, the staff of Inspectors had been considerably increased. He thought, however, that the picture which the hon. Member gave of the present elementary education as being of a "humdrum Chinese" kind was rather overdrawn. He was not acquainted with the Chinese system of education; but he ventured to think that the elementary education now given to the working classes of this country was of a very thorough character. He would not be tempted to enter at that time upon the subject of free education; but he might remark that Scotch parents seemed inclined to take a different view from that of the hon. Member, the fees paid in Scotland for education being on a much higher scale than in England. As to pupil teachers, while he hoped they would recognize that they must be subject to the masters of the schools, he did not see his way at present to give the masters a greater control over them. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Yeaman), who always spoke with great authority, asked that an effort should be made to raise the standard somewhat, and in the instructions to the Inspectors this would be kept in mind. He was fully aware that in Scotland such a change would be more willingly received than in. England. A great deal, however, depended upon the parents. If the parents put a pressure upon the masters, he had no doubt the standard would be raised. Now that children were obliged to go to school, he heard from all quarters— especially from Scotch masters—that as soon as the legal obligation was over the child seemed to think, and the parent often agreed with him, that his education was over, and the result was that in many cases the children left school earlier than they would have done before. It was, therefore, important that they should receive a very thorough knowledge of elementary subjects during the few years they were at school. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had asked that the grant of 4s. for specific subjects should be divided into two. This was a matter well worth consideration, but he could not at that moment give a definite answer on the point. As to cramming, he thought the precautions which had been taken to guard against it had met with entire approval, and those precautions applied to history and language as well as to other subjects. In conclusion, the noble Lord thanked the hon. Members for Scotland for the kind tenour of their observations.

said, that in moving this Vote he would not trouble the Committee with observations on the general system of education in Ireland, or draw attention to alterations in any particular sub-heads as compared with the Vote of last year. There were alterations in various items, but there were none of them of such a character as to call for special remark, except that perhaps he should explain that a sum of £2,500 for poundage, charged in the Estimates of past years as due to the Post Office for paying the salaries of the teachers, was omitted in the Vote now proposed to be taken. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) last Session called attention to this charge, and objected to its being included in this Vote, and since that time the Secretary for the Treasury had arranged that the teachers should have their salaries paid in another way equally convenient to them, and at the same time this item should not be included in the Vote for Irish education. The Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for 1876, which had recently been presented to Parliament, enabled him to mention one or two points of comparison with the statement he had made on this subject last year. He found from the Report that there had been a considerable increase during the year in the number of pupils on the rolls of the National Schools, the total number being 1,032,215. He did not think any real argument could be based on those figures as to the progress of education in Ireland. It would be much sounder to follow the custom of England and Scotland, and take the numbers attending at a certain date before the inspection, or the average daily attendance of the pupils. Both of those points were brought forward more prominently in the present Report of the Commissioners, and he thought the Committee would be satisfied with the evidence of improvement which they afforded. On the last day of the month preceding the inspection there were 596,477 pupils in attendance, or 18,886 more than in 1875; and the average daily attendance was 416,586, an increase of 26,625. He did not say that those figures showed sufficient attendance; but he found, as he had stated earlier in the present Session, he expected he should, by what had taken place in the county of Longford and other counties, that the attendance of the children had been made more regular than otherwise by insisting on the payment of proper fees. As the attendance of children had improved, so the income of the teachers had materially increased. In 1875 the total income of the National School teachers in Ireland, whether from State or local sources, was returned by the Board at £571,648 and for 1876 it was returned at £638,508, of which £138,839 was paid by way of results. That showed a very material increase in the income of the teachers for last year. Another fact which would be satisfactory to the Committee was that whereas in 1875 80 3 per cent of that income was derived from Government grants, and only 19 7 per cent from local sources, in 1876 72 4 per cent was derived from Government grants and 27 6 per cent from local sources. That increase had arisen from an improvement in the amounts paid for fees by those sending their children to school. Last year he called attention to the small amount of fees paid by the children for their instruction, and he quoted certain counties as illustrating the low amount of those fees, and the comparatively small number of the children who paid them. He found from the Report of the Commissioners for 1876 that a total sum of £78,434 was received in payment from pupils, showing an increase of £17,723 over the preceding year. If they looked at the particular places in which that increase had mainly occurred the result would, he thought, be found even more satisfactory. Last year he quoted the statistics of the counties of Cavan, Longford, and Leitrim on that point. In Cavan in 1875 the average per pupil of school pence was 1s. l½d., and the average per pupil of the total amount locally subscribed was 2s. 6¾d., while in 1876 the school pence averaged 1s. 11¾d., and the total amount locally subscribed 2s. 10¾d., showing a fair increase. In the county of Longford in 1875, 1s. 3¼d was the average amount of school pence, and 2s. 2d. the total average amount locally subscribed; while in 1876, the average amount of school pence was 2s. 2d., and the total average sum locally subscribed 3s. 8d. In Leitrim in 1875 the school pence averaged 1s. 1d., and the total amount locally subscribed 1s. 11d., while in 1876 the school pence averaged 2s. 4d., and the total sum locally subscribed 3s. 4d.

continued: That increase was mainly due to the action which had been taken in consequence of the fact that in schools in non-contributory Unions the National teachers did not receive the contingent portion of the results-fees from the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had asked the Government to adopt some system by which the teachers would not in future be deprived of those fees; and in last August he was able to undertake on the part of the Government that for the year 1876–7 the contingent results-fees should be given to teachers of schools in non-contributory as well as contributory Unions, provided that an equivalent sum was raised from some source or another by those who were interested in the schools. The effect of that proviso had been very satisfactory as far as regarded the increased income of the schools in non-contributory Unions from local sources. In 2,698 of the 3,272 schools in non-contributory Unions the condiditions entitling the teachers to contingent results-fees were fulfilled. Those conditions were that the local contributions to a school should equal 3s. 4d. per child per annum of the average attendance of the school, and also at least half the amount of the results-fees which might have been granted to the school under the Act had it been situated in a contributory Union. The amount of the contingent results-fees thus paid to the teachers of schools in non-contributory Unions was £22,357. From the Report of the National Education Commissioners it would be found that in the schools of those non-contributory Unions the local subscriptions had increased from £7,582 in 1875 to £12,486 in 1876, and the school pence of the pupils from £23,978 in 1875 to £34,984 in 1876. Since those figures had been arrived at, he believed there had been a still greater progress in the amount derived from those sources, and especially in the amount of the school fees; and what might fairly be deduced from that was that they might safely advance still further in the requirement of aid from local sources in that manner, and might insist on such a proviso as that which he had suggested last year—namely, that in all schools a reasonable payment not below a certain minimum should be required from the children receiving education. He thought, then, it might be said that, as a whole, the system was progressing satisfactorily as regarded the attendance of the pupils, and that a very considerable and proper increase had been obtained in the payments to the teachers during the last year from the source from which contributions had hitherto been so extremely deficient. He did not wish to imply that he was satisfied with the present position of affairs in either case; but he did think it was shown that things were improving and that they might properly press forward in the same direction, with the perfect confidence that by insisting on further payment of fees for the education of children they would not really decrease the average attendance. During a debate which occurred, earlier in the Session, when comparisons were made between the number of children examined for results in Great Britain and in Ireland, it was stated that the number of attendances required for examination for results was less in Ireland than in England. That was the fact. But they had now made a step in advance in that matter, for whereas last year the number of attendances required to qualify a child to be examined for results was 90 whole days, in the present year— 1877–8—the Commissioners of National Education had added 10 more days, bringing the number up to 100. He hoped that before long further progress would be made in that direction. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Vote.

said, he was sorry that he could not take so sanguine a view of the progress of education in Ireland as that taken by the right hon. Gentleman. As far as the National teachers were concerned, matters were retrograding rather than anything else. He must protest against the way in the Irish Education Estimates were brought forward this evening. Full notice ought to have been given to the Irish Members that these Estimates would be brought on this evening. It was perfectly well known that one of the most serious questions to be discussed in connection with these Estimates, was whether the system introduced last year for the purpose of augmenting the salaries of the Irish National teachers ought to be continued or not, and he thought every information that could have been given ought to have been given to enable Members to debate that question. The last thing done last night was the laying on the Table by the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a most important communication on the subject of continuing the present system, and perhaps, lest he (Mr. Meldon) or some other Member might see that communication before these Estimates were brought on, the right hon. Gentleman sent it off to the printer.

said, the correspondence in question amounted merely to a recommendation by the Commissioners of Education to the Treasury, supported by the Irish Government, to continue for the present the system which he had detailed to the Committee with reference to the acceptance of voluntary contributions in lieu of the results-fees voted by the Guardians, as entitling a school to receive the contingent results-fees.

said, Irish Members would have been glad of the informa- tion contained in the correspondence, as then they might have fairly discussed it that evening. He also complained that although he had been in constant communication with the Irish Office up to a recent date, the Chief Secretary had withheld from him the slightest intimation of the proposals he intended to bring forward on behalf of the Government. The question was whether the system began last year was to be continued. He would, then, in the first place, say that the scheme did not carry out the proposal of the Government in 1875, when the National Teachers' Scheme was introduced. The National Teachers Bill of 1875 was not successful. It was admitted in 1874 that the salaries of the teachers were insufficient, and the Government then undertook to remedy the grievances. There had been an addition made to their class salaries, but the Government also proposed that at least a certain sum should be allocated to them, which was to be divided into three parts. The one-third of the fees which they were to earn by results was to be paid unconditionally, and the other third was to be by the Government on condition that the Board of Guardians supplied the other third. The Guardians had been made to assent to that by a ruse, and to vote the money for two years. The number of contributory members in contributory Unions in Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Con-naught had fallen to one-half, and that showed that this was wholly inoperative. Instead of Boards of Guardians being willing to make themselves contributories under the Act of 1875, they were actually at present refusing to pay for the education of children who were boarded out by them in different parts of the country. But assuming that this system was successful, and that the teachers received sufficient remuneration, he still contended that the system was most unrighteous, as it held out a temptation to the teacher to make false returns. He did not assert that the returns were falsified; but it was wrong to put a teacher in a position in which he was tempted to make the school income greater than it really was. Nothing could be more injurious to education than to have persons over children untrustworthy. Owing to the Chief Secretary having said that this was only a tentative measure, money as voluntary contributions had been paid as school fees. The result would be that next year this source of emolument would be shut out from the teachers. Then, again, a direct premium was held out under this system for teachers not to educate the children as well as they might. A teacher, when the result fees were very low, would have little difficulty in getting sufficient to entitle him to the thirds, whereas a man whose result fees were larger would find greater difficulty in that respect. It was inexpedient that the collection of the fees should devolve on the teachers instead of the managers. Hon. Members would be surprised to learn that all that the teachers wanted was salary—for first-class, of whom there were only about 200, £2 per week; second-class, which composed the great body of teachers, £1 10s.; and third-class, £1. The teachers were getting further from their chance of getting this question settled, and then what were they to do when this system was to be taken as an experiment for another year? The Chief Secretary had told a deputation of teachers that they must agitate themselves, but the answer to that was the teachers were not allowed to take part in politics; and in one case the names of two persons similar to those of two teachers in the district which were pointed out in the Papers were forwarded to the Commissioners of Education, and an Inspector was sent down to inquire as to whether they had attended the political meeting on the Land Tenure Bill. The manager of the school refused to allow the teachers to be examined unless the Inspector would give the names of their accusers, and this was refused. But what was the result? Those two teachers were dismissed, although they had never attended the political meeting. That was a comment upon the suggestion of the Chief Secretary that they should agitate in this matter. The teachers were wrong to adopt the unrighteous advice given them to agitate among the Guardians; and now, that it had been unsuccessful, something ought to be done to meet the moderate demands of the teachers this Session. If no Bill could be introduced this year, at least some temporary alteration of their condition might be adopted; unwilling Guardians might be forced to pay for the education of those children whose parents were too poor to pay, and the Guardians ought to be made to pay for the education of children who were, boarded out by them throughout the country. Managers of schools should be encouraged to make that local contribution as large as possible, but the two-thirds grant should not be contingent. He hoped that the teachers would not once more be turned away with nothing having been done.

said, he could not concur in many of the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member, either as to the position of the teachers or the means he suggested for improving it. Parliament ought to be careful not to do anything to render the teachers in a greater degree than they were now the servants of the State. If anything were done in Ireland to increase the power of the State over the teachers and managers of schools, it would involve a great risk in the way of destroying their independence. Nothing was more to be deprecated than an increase of the salaries of those teachers wholly, or almost wholly, out of the State funds. If the danger referred to was to be obviated, it could only be by some local and voluntary payment towards the teachers' salaries. Nor was there anything new in that system. Up to 1870 the State payments to schools in England were entirely in proportion to the amount of local contributions, and even now, excepting in the case of the board schools, the same principle was followed. As to the way in which payment from local sources should be made, the first proposal of the Government was that it should be done by means of a rate levied by some local authority; but there were strong objections to that method, and it did not meet with a favourable reception in Ireland. The Government then proposed to give a contribution from the State funds, if contributions were made from local sources, either in the form of rates or voluntary subscriptions, and that was a very fair proposal. If the Government had not made the contributions from the State dependent on local subscriptions, the latter would have fallen off almost to nothing. He expressed his pleasure at hearing the Chief Secretary say there was an intention to make the payment of a small fee compulsory. He thought this would tend to a more regular attendance at the schools, inasmuch as parents would he desirous of getting full value for their money.

pointed to several items of the Vote, more particularly that relating to school sites, which he thought required explanation.

said, Irish Members had always urged on the Government the importance of making increased grants for primary education, and he advocated the same cause now. There was no Church money in Ireland. He pointed out that while the cost of education per head in Ireland was 2s. 2½d., in England, where the population was more compact, it was 2s. 1d., and in Scotland, which presented pretty much the same conditions as Ireland, it was as high as 3s. Now, if Ireland, were treated with the same liberality as England and Scotland, the grant now asked for would be increased by £183,000, which was almost double the amount required to satisfy the claims of the Irish teachers. If the people of Ireland had the management of their own affairs, they would put a tax upon spirits and apply the proceeds to education. The present Government, however, taxed spirits without giving the people of Ireland any corresponding benefit.

said, he objected to the too great cheapness of popular education just now in Ireland amongst the working classes. Some means should be taken to make parents pay for their children more frequently than they did. He knew how the money that should be so spent went on the Saturday evening. The poverty of the country was no doubt great, but there was no sufficient excuse for the high percentage of parents who paid nothing at all. When the common school system was introduced by Mr. Stanley, afterwards Lord Derby, it had not been the choice of the people. It had neither popular support nor the support of the landlords. They were now in the critical condition of making compulsory contributions, and at the same time imposing on the country a system with which it had no sympathy. They did not approve of the present system of national education; but they preferred it to blank ignorance. He now said to the Government, when they referred to the small contributions by the people and the Guardians in comparison with the percentage contributed by the State, that the system of education of the people of Ireland was the State's choice and not that of the Irish people; and that if the State forced its system upon that country, the people there would say—"Pay for it." But how lamentable was the pay of the teachers and the attendance at the schools! He deplored the present state of things, but nothing would bring it right until education was brought more into harmony with the feelings of the people.

referred to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Model Schools, and stated that the Commissioners condemned those schools, and reported that no more money ought to be expended upon them. That was the unanimous decision of the Commissioners, and notwithstanding that, the Chief Secretary for Ireland stood up in the House and asked the Committee for the usual grant of public money for those schools. The present system of education in Ireland had destroyed the private schools in that country. He considered that the Irish Members had good reason for complaining of the course pursued by the Chief Secretary.

said, that the national teachers of Ireland had some ground for feeling that the Chief Secretary would take some means to alleviate their position. The right hon. Gentleman's attention was called to this question in 1874, but those teachers had remained scandalously underpaid. There were 9,000 of them, and they received last year on an average £31 each, insufficient, to his mind, for the pay of an ordinary labourer, much less for those who were employed in instructing. The salaries of the higher officials had been considerably increased since 1871; whereas the unfortunate nation al teachers were obliged to go without houses, and almost without bread, in many cases, to give to their children. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said that his union had been a contributory, and, in his opinion, it was a very sound principle to encourage local contributions; but, at the same time, the Boards of Guardians would be placed in a false position if they were to give money over which they had no control. He hoped Government would never levy a tax on the Irish people for purposes of education so long as the education was not such as the people wished.

said, the discussion had elicited the tolerably unanimous opinion from the Irish Members that the question of national education in Ireland was one which imperatively demanded attention at the hands of the Government. He (Mr. King-Harman) had induced two unions to contribute for two years, but the experiment had not proved successful, and he could not bring himself to ask them to contribute longer. The contributory system had thus proved a failure. It was of the utmost importance that the teachers should be well educated, and if that was not generally the case, the House would remember that they were poorly paid and that no provision was made for their old age. He trusted that during the Recess the Government would consider the propriety of appointing a Committee, or a Commission, to inquire into the position of the Irish national teachers.

said, the sum for secretaries' salaries for 1877–8 was £1,600, the same as in the previous year. A financial assistant secretary had been added at £650 a-year: what were his exact duties? The office of Clerk of Accounts at £650 appeared to have been abolished. Hitherto the rule had been that there should be two secretaries, a Protestant and a Catholic, equal in salary and equal in position. But though it was understood that some great changes were being made during the past year, especially in the secretariat department, the proceedings of the National Board were shrouded in mystery, and he wished to know what the exact nature of those changes were.

advocated an increase of pay to teachers, especially in poorer districts, where there were no voluntary contributions.

said, with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), these Estimates were framed before the changes in the staff of the National Board were agreed on, and therefore did not correctly represent the final settlement. During last summer a good deal of correspondence passed between the Com- missioners of National Education and the Treasury upon the manner in which the duties of the secretaries of the National Board were performed, and especially those duties which related to financial matters. After careful inquiry it was thought better to re-organize the secretariat department, which formerly consisted of two secretaries and a clerk in charge of accounts. The senior secretary had retired and his place had been taken by his colleague at an increased salary of £1,000 a-year, while another secretary had been appointed at £800. The clerk in charge of accounts had been replaced by a gentleman holding a higher official position, though not receiving a higher salary, as assistant secretary. These changes were unanimously agreed to by the Board of Education, and he was confident would conduce to increased efficiency. With regard to Model Schools, he believed they had been doing a good work, although he admitted that there were some points on which they might be altered with advantage. To some extent they had departed from the original intention of being model elementary schools. Education of a higher kind was now given in many of them, and to the children of parents holding a very good position in society. But, as appeared from the Estimates and from the last Report of the National Board, the fees in the Model Schools had been considerably increased, with the view of checking any abuse of this kind. But the question whether the Model Schools ought to be maintained or not was one of too much magnitude to be discussed upon this Vote. With regard to the position of the national teachers in Ireland, he was bound to say that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had not dealt quite fairly with the Government for what had been done. If he had thought that the hon. and learned Member was not aware of the intention to continue the present system for another year, he should have been happy to give him information on the subject. But some time ago the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were unofficially informed of the fact, and they had communicated it to the national teachers generally; so there was really nothing to conceal in the matter. No doubt the National Teachers Act of 1875 had not succeeded to the extent to which they wished; but why? Not because the Government had failed to do their part; but because the Guardians in many of the Poor Law Unions had declined to perform theirs. Yet all that was asked by way of local contributions amounted to a sum not exceeding the ordinary small fees which ought nearly always to be paid by children for the education they received. They did not ask, or expect, at present any large amount from this source; but it was only right in the interest of the children and their parents that the education received should be paid for. To a great extent it would then be more valued.

called attention to the increasing grants that were being made to England and Scotland in comparison with those for Ireland. This year was worst of all, for there was no increase for Ireland, while in the Education Vote for England there was an increase of £203,744, and of £50,555 in that for Scotland. The totals since 1874, when the present Government came into office, were an increase for education of £103,000 for Ireland, £600,000 for England, and £321,000 for Scotland.

observed that Unions in Ulster only contributed for a short time, and it was only by the teachers personally canvassing the Guardians that they obtained any contributions from them.

regretted that the Government had not acceded to his proposal for improving the position of the national teachers in Ireland, and it would therefore become his duty, should he obtain an opportunity this Session, to take the opinion of the House as to the manner in which the Irish teachers had been treated.

expressed a hope that some alteration would be made with regard to training schools for teachers, which would cause the people of Ireland to have greater confidence in the system.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain why Scotland, with only half the number of inhabitants, should have twice as much for education as Ireland?

said, that some arrangement was about to be made in lieu of the old charge for poundage in this Vote, by which the salaries of teachers would be paid to them without expense or deduction. As to the alleged difference in the grant for Scotch and Irish education, for many years the Irish Education Estimates were proportionately much larger in amount than the English and Scotch Votes; and, although the latter had increased of late years, the question was, what sum was really needed in each country for education. It must also be remembered that the English and Scotch Votes were supplemented by voluntary subscriptions to an extent quite unknown in Ireland.

asked, whether the Chief Secretary had read the recommendations of the Inspectors of Fisheries, and was prepared to act upon them?

said, that he had considered the recommendations made in regard to the Irish fisheries, and had been in communication with the Admiralty and the Treasury upon them. It might be possible to take some steps with a view to better supervision and care of the oyster beds on the coast of Ireland, and if that work were added to the duties of the present Inspectors, there would be greater necessity than at the present time for devoting a steamboat or cutter solely to their service. With regard to the loans made from the Reproductive Loan Fund, they had, according to the Reports of the Inspectors of Fisheries, been punctually repaid; but it was not certain that they had all been applied to the purposes for which they had been made.

said, that some difficulty had been felt in Ireland in providing accommodation for lunatics, the existing asylums having proved insufficient, and that the Government were on the point of issuing a Departmental Commission, with the object, among other things, of ascertaining whether any of the workhouses could be used as idiot asylums.

drew attention to the salaries paid to the Commissioners. The Vice President was paid £2,000, and the Commissioners £1,200 each. He asked the Chief Secretary, if he would inform the Committee what were the particular duties and functions of the Commissioners?

said, the Commissioner to whom the hon. Member seemed particularly to refer was well-known to many hon. Members, and formerly had a seat in the House; but he was unable to say at the moment what the particular duties of his office were.

moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £2,000, the salary of the Vice President of the Board, contending that there was no more unpopular body in Ireland than the Local Government Board, because of their arbitrary conduct towards the local authorities. Owing to their action with reference to the appointment of medical officers, the Public Health Act of 1874 had turned out to be an entire failure.

said the increase in this Vote was entirely due to the augmentation of the salaries of the higher officials in the chief offices.

remarked that the carrying out of the sanitary laws in Ireland was a mere farce, owing to the miserable salaries paid to the medical officers.

said, the Local Government Board was one of the greatest shams in Ireland. Hon. Members were apt to think that the Irish Board was a similar Board to the English Board; but while, in England, the Board was composed of a number of gentlemen enjoying the confidence of the country, and had a Representative in the House, the Irish Board was not represented. In Ireland there were three Poor Law Commissioners, who, by the stroke of an Act of Parliament, were converted into a Local Government Board, and to these were added the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary. Of these, the last had absolutely nothing to do; and the function of the Chief Secretary in connection with the Board was confined to answering Questions in the House. The other night the Government expressed a determination not to support sinecure offices —here was an opportunity of carrying out that policy. The only working member of the Board was Sir Alfred Power.

denied that the Irish Local Government Board was a sham, as it had been called by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray). He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not pretend, as President of the Board, to take any active part in the ordinary details of its administration, but Sir Alfred Power referred all questions of policy to him. Both the English and Irish Local Government Boards performed corresponding duties; but he did not see how the Irish Board could be described as more arbitrary than the English. The difference between the two was, that the Irish Board really existed as a Board, whilst the English consisted, as all knew, of the President alone. The hon. Member for Tipperary was supporting the omission of the salary of the very member who, he said, did all the work. More than three years' official connection with Sir Alfred Power had convinced him that there was no Civil servant more able or more devoted to the Public Service, and he could not conceive anyone acquainted with the duties he performed, seriously objecting to the payment of his salary. With reference to what had been said as to the inadequate pay of the medical officers, he would remind the Committee that on this head there was an increase in the Vote of £1,250, and a considerable increase in respect of the important item of vaccination.

acknowledged the force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. As it was the principle, and not the individual, they wished to protest against, he hoped, however, some other Member would move the reduction of another portion of the Vote.

said, it was the general opinion that the Local Government Board in Ireland worked badly, and that Sir Alfred Power was a dictator. He should like to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of some of the officials who did nothing.

said, that the Treasury ought to have proposed even a larger reduction. There were included salaries for the schoolmasters and mistresses in Ireland. It would be well if the sums voted for the education of pauper children could be included in the Education Estimates.

moved—

"That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,200, for the salary of the Hon. Mr. Bellew, one of the Commissioners."

Following at some distance the example of the Government in reducing the number of sinecures, he hoped to have their support. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had not denied that this official did nothing for his salary. He did nothing but write a few letters, and he challenged the right hon. Baronet to contradict that statement.

wished to say that many items might also be included in the English Education Vote.

hoped that something would be done to re-consider the state of this Department.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time, the object of which was to facilitate the transmission of money through the post by means of postal notes.

objected to a measure of so novel and important a character being proceeded with at one o'clock in the morning, when there was nobody present to discuss it. He moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

supported the Motion for Adjournment, declaring that the Bill, if passed, would upset all the legislation on which the Bank of England rested, and allow postage notes of any value under £5 to circulate from hand to hand, guaranteed by all the security which the State had to offer.

assented to the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, that changes had been made in the measure by the House of Lords, by which the entire scope of the Bill had been altered. When the Bill left this House the sole right to the game was vested in the tenant, as it was in England; but now, as the Bill came back to them, the sole right to the game was the landlord's, by presumption of law. He complained of that alteration, and wished to know why Scotland was to be debarred from a privilege which had been given to England in the year 1831? As the Bill now stood, it would be very easy to evade it. Another change of some importance in the Bill was the striking out of that part of the 4th clause relating to game harboured on the estates of the lessor.

said, the hon. Member would have an opportunity of speaking to the Amendments as they arose.

moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.

urged that the Amendments made by the other House made no practical difference.

thought that the alterations would not affect the Bill, and he was prepared to support them.

moved the rejection of the Amendment.

seconded the Motion.

defended the alterations which had been made in the Bill, and pointed out that it had only been changed back to what really was its original form.