, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I hope that even amidst the anxieties of Continental politics the House will be able to afford its attention to a careful and well-considered proposal, made and supported by experienced men of the most divergent political views, in the honest belief that its adoption would confer an immense political benefit on Ireland, and would conduce to the stability of the Empire. Whatever may have been the case in past times, and whatever may be said to the contrary now, I, for one, believe that it is impossible to be for any time a Member of this House, and permitted to enjoy friendly, personal intercourse with its Members, without perceiving that as individuals you intend well to Ireland. But I may be allowed to remind the House that there is a certain most un-Parliamentary locality which is proverbially said to be actually paved with good intentions. At any rate, it must be admitted by even the most cheerful optimist, that this present Parliament, as elected in 1874, has done very little indeed to give practical effect to these good intentions. You have done nothing in this Parliament for any class or interest in Ireland. The gravest problems of Irish life—material, moral, social, and intellectual—still remain to be solved. You not only have not solved them, but you have not even attempted their solution. You not only have not attempted their solution, but you have deemed it your duty in debate after debate, in division after division, week after week, Session after Session, year after year, to reject the solutions proposed by the majority of the Representatives of the Irish people. I am sure that many hon. Members of the Government, and of the House, must have regretted these reiterated, peremptory, almost invariable, rejections of the proposals which Irish Members have from time to time brought forward for the improvement of their own country. For myself, I may say that I rarely vote on any measure exclusively affecting the domestic affairs of England or Scotland; because I deem it hard that the vote and the judgment of an English or Scotch Member about matters of which he has a life-long knowledge, and in which he has the deepest interest, should be countervailed by the vote of a person like myself, who, however well he may intend towards England or Scotland, can really know very little about the exclusively domestic affairs of these countries. If I were in the habit of giving such votes, I should be disposed to regulate them very much in accordance with the opinions of the majority of English or Scotch Members on the subject-matters in hand. I should say to myself—"These hon. Members are the Constitutional Representatives of their own country; they speak with the authority which the Constitution gives them for this very purpose; they speak with a full knowledge of facts which I can know only most imperfectly; they speak of what concerns themselves, and their fortunes, and their children, and their fellow-countrymen. It would be monstrous that I should set my guesses about England against their life-long experience, or interpose my external interference in what really only concerns them selves and their fellow-countrymen." This feeling is shared by most of my hon. Colleagues from Ireland. I believe that such reluctance to obstruct your wishes, as regards your own country, would be still greater if we were more powerful. Suppose this Imperial Assembly were held in Dublin; suppose the vast majority of its Members were Irish and Roman Catholics; suppose you English and Scotch Members were a small minority, expressing the opinions and pleading for the interests of your own countrymen; how would you like to be told—indebate after debate, Session after Session—that you knew nothing about your own country, that your facts were all fancies, that your conclusions were all fallacies? How would you feel if your most careful and earnest proposals about the affairs of your own country were voted down by what Mr. Froude might call "Brutal majorities" of Irishmen and Roman Catholics? That would be a shameful injustice; but pray consider, are you not actually perpetrating a precisely similar injustice upon Ireland by this peremptory, incessant, and scornful rejection of the proposals of the majority of the Representatives of the Irish people? I am sure many hon. Members must feel this, and must be anxious to find some measure put forward by Irish Members to which they can assent. I believe you ought to have assented to nearly every measure we have proposed; but, however this may be, I submit that a perfectly unobjectionable proposal is to be found in the Bill which I have now the honour to move. It proposes to deal with one of the greatest and gravest problems of Irish agricultural life. There is no one fact in the material condition of Ireland so remarkable, and none so absolutely unquestionable, as the fact to which I now call your attention, and which you will find verified in the admirably prepared statistics of the Registrar General for 1876–7—the fact, namely, that of the 20,000,000 of Irish acres more than 4,000,000 of acres are lying waste. The exact figures are as follows:— Total agricultural acreage, 20,327,764 acres; waste lands included in this acreage, 4,572,216 acres. Now, Sir, I submit that this is a very grave fact, indeed, one worthy of the attention of Parliament; one not to be airily put aside by any amount of graceful badinage. It is quite idle to say that it is not an evil in a poor agricultural country to have one-fifth of the soil waste; it is quite idle to say that nothing can be done to diminish this evil. In every country in Europe the Government looks on its waste lands as a stain on its map, and energetically applies itself to the removal of the stain. In Ireland the stain covers one-fifth of the whole area, yet our Government does nothing effectual to remove it. Such is the evil for the diminution of which this Bill is intended. Permit me to state the mode in which it is proposed to diminish it. In this matter my friends and I have made an important, and, as we admit, a desirable alteration, in deference to the views of the Government expressed—in the second reading of a Bill which I had the honour to bring in in 1875—by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who then administered with so much ability the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet was good enough to say—

"The attention of the House could hardly be occupied with any question of greater importance to Ireland;"

and, after stating his objections to the measure in the shape in which it was then proposed, he made the following important suggestion:—

"If anything could be done by way of Government interference to secure that works of arterial drainage should be more generally and thoroughly carried out than they were at present, that, indeed, would be a matter which the State might reasonably undertake."—[3 Hansard, ccxxv. 1461–1464.]

Encouraged and guided by this expression of Governmental opinion, I consulted not only with my Parliamentary Colleagues but with friends outside, who have given the subject years of thought and labour—Mr. O'Malley, the distinguished Conservative lawyer, to whom I am indebted for the most skilful preparation of this Bill; Mr. Joynt, the able and accomplished Crown and Treasury Solicitor for Ireland, whose treatise on this subject in 1865 led to important alterations in the law; Mr. Brett, the eminent chief engineer, who had 50 years' practical experience of reclamation in various parts of Ireland; and other thoughtful and experienced friends. The result is that we have adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, and made arterial drainage the main feature of this Bill. On further consideration, we concur with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that this is a wise modification of the original proposal. Though high mountain lands are being every year successfully reclaimed, on the Alps, in the Pyrenees, and in Scotland; nevertheless, as M. De Lavergne, in his Economie Rurale de L'lrlande, points out, the drainage of our low-lying lands may be more easily and more profitably undertaken; and it is, as he says, a more intolerable evil to have the vast tracts of our natural meadows, the peculiar and priceless treasure of our soil and climate left a prey to weeds and waters. That such marshes are extensive may, unhappily, be perceived by any traveller in Ireland—you see those vast, dreary swamps in all directions. Master Fitzgibbon, the able and learned father of the present distinguished Solicitor General for Ireland, calling attention to the subject in 1869, says—

"The traveller, in whatever directionhe moves, sees at intervals vast tracts of land saturated with water. In numberless instances, these tracts are intersected by rapid streams fed by the water which the saturated soil cannot absorb, and thus inviting the hand of man to tap the sponge and let off the stagnant water which feeds the rush and the wood, but destroys every succulent plant. There are also vast regions of marsh which, though capable of abundant reproductive cultivation, have been for centuries and to this day still continue to be dismal swamps."

But thanks to the care of the Registrar General, we are this year enabled to give the exact acreage of these dismal swamps. Sub-dividing the vast total of waste lands, he informs us that such swamps cover the enormous area of 1,713,472 acres, or more than one-twelfth of the whole country. This extraordinary fact is explained by the peculiar physical structure of the Island. Ireland is shaped like a cup, the mountains being round the coast and the central plains being low-lying. Hence, if you want effectually to improve the agricultural condition of Ireland, you must realize the physical conditions of the problem, and from this point of view it is evident that the first requirement is that which the right hon. Baronet suggested, and which this Bill proposes to promote—arterial drainage. Accordingly, arterial drainage has for many years occupied the attention of those who wished really to improve Ireland. There is a mass of complicated legislation on the subject; but the true story of the work of arterial drainage in latter years may be briefly told. Its real commencement is the Act of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 89, passed in 1842 by the late Sir Robert Peel. That measure was marked by the largeness of view and boldness of treatment which characterized that great statesman. It enabled the Board of Works, as a Department of the State, to undertake the great national work of arterial drainage, charging the cost in the usual way on the lands improved. The fate of the measure is interesting. It was no sooner passed than an immense impetus was given to arterial drainage. Four hundred and fifty-two vast districts were surveyed. Of these, 122 districts, comprising 270,000 acres, were reclaimed. But in the midst of the work came the Famine. Under the pressure of that terrible calamity financial considerations were overlooked, and the drainage works were treated rather as measures of poor relief than of remunerative investment. Money was spent with both hands, and when it came to be repaid, poor rates had risen to 16s. in the pound, and fee simple lands were being sold with Parliamentary title at five years' purchase. Something like a panic ensued. A Parliamentary inquiry was hold. Large remissions had to be made, and the undertaking of new works under this Act was virtually prohibited. It was only in 1863 that the effects of this panic somewhat subsided. In that and subsequent years, Acts on a different principle were passed, proposing to accomplish arterial drainage by local and individual effort; but under the superintendence of the Board, and with money supplied by the State. It is not too much to say that those Acts have proved a failure. Only 26 districts in all were surveyed; only 20 districts, comprising in the aggregate 90,000 acres, were reclaimed. There are now but six districts in which anything is being done; and in the whole year 1877 there were but two applications. In fact, the great national work of arterial drainage is at a standstill. Of 452 districts, originally proposed to be reclaimed under the Act of 1842, and which were estimated to be completed in 10 years, more than 300 districts still remain utterly unattended to; and we have it on the authority of the Parliamentary Report of 1844 that these districts include some of the richest and most naturally productive lands in Ireland. Nay, more, we must remember that the drainage of particular farms and estates in most instances depends on the pre-existence of arterial drainage. The State having abandoned the latter, individual proprietors and farmers have, in a great number of instances, abandoned the former; and thus, in almost every part of Ireland, you find land which had been reclaimed reverting into its primeval condition of swamp. Thus it happens that the acreage of waste lands in Ireland, notwithstanding the reclamations which have been effected, is nearly as great as it was 30 years ago. It is now proposed to revert to the vigorous and statesmanlike policy of the late Sir Robert Peel. The present Bill is nearly identical in principle with the Act of 1842. It provides that on proper application by proprietors, and due inquiry by Inspectors, and due notice to all interested, and with the consent of at least half of them, the work of arterial drainage should be done by the Commissioners, the expenditure being charged in the usual way on the lands reclaimed. It abolishes the cumbrous and costly proceeding by Provisional Order, and substitutes the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. It authorizes the board to purchase waste lands, and after the main drainage has been effected to divide them into allotments, and sell them to occupiers who may complete the works of reclamation, and by a system of gradual payments ultimately become peasant proprietors. It gives to the board the usual power of raising money on debenture, and it adds a clause which I specially commend to the attention of the House, extending the power of borrowing under the Land Improvement Act to the smaller class of farmers, who in reality must need such loans, and who, under the provisions of the Land Act, have valid security to offer. Such is the measure for which I now earnestly ask the friendly consideration of those who, irrespective of Party, wish to confer a practical and permanent benefit on all classes of Irishmen. It may be objected that we propose to revive a system which has failed, which was discontinued by the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee, and which cost the Treasury more than £1,250,000. To this I answer, the Act of 1842 did not fail. It reclaimed 270,000 acres in 10 years, as against 90,000 reclaimed ever since. Its operation was discontinued in a panic, and at a time of exceptional disaster. The remissions were made under the peculiar circumstances of the Famine, and on the express ground that the expenditure was rather for famine relief than for land improvements. It may be urged, as it was urged upon the last occasion, that the great experiment at King Williamstown resulted in a loss to the Treasury; but I am sure this objection will not be pressed when I remind the House that the King Williamstown experiment proceeded on the radically wrong plan, of the State undertaking not only arterial drainage, but agricultural reclamation. That is not the plan of this Bill. On the contrary, you will see on reference to Section 20, that it is a plan, the adoption of which by the Commissioners this Bill expressly forbids. But it may be said, as on the last occasion it was said, this Bill proposes a raid on the Exchequer. To this I reply, that the proposal is to expend Irish money for a most pressing Irish purpose, on security as good as any in the world—that of Irish land. To call this a raid on the Exchequer would be misuse of language. But it is said that Irish landlords and tenants would not repay what they borrowed. To this I answer, that as to Irish landlords, they have since the necessary remissions of the Famine time repaid the advances under the Act of 1842 with a great and honourable exactness, such repayments, now amounting to nearly £1,250,000; while of the repayments for drainage under the recent Acts, there is not a single instance of any proprietor being in default. As for Irish tenants, I answer by reference to the accounts of the Church Act, not a pound of which is in arrear. But it may be urged that in consequence of the increased cost of labour such reclamations would not pay. To this I answer, if labour has increased in cost, land has more than proportionally increased in value. Land which 30 years ago sold for 15 years' purchase now brings 25. Moreover, the process of arterial drainage, then little understood, is now completely mastered by scientific engineers, who work with the aid of machinery formerly unknown. These, you may say, are theories; but it is a matter of fact, authenticated by the Board of Works'-Reports, that arterial drainage, which formerly cost an average of £6 10s. per acre, is now done for an average of £4 per acre. But it may be urged that the State should not interfere directly in such matters. To this I reply, that though the State should not interfere directly in the drainage of particular farms or estates, the great work of arterial drainage is the special work of the State. If it is to be done at all the State must do it. I believe I am right in quoting as an authority for the doc-trine the righthon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). When he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, that right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a singularly able speech on this subject, at the Irish Statistical Society, is reported to have said—

"This is a great Imperial question. The drainage of these vast tracts in Ireland ought to he dealt with by the Imperial Legislature. Individual proprietors cannot grapple with it. Everyone admits that."

And he adds—

"Look at what the Imperial Parliament expended on the Caledonian Canal in Scotland. Look at what the Imperial Parliament expended on the Rindean Works in Canada—over £1,000,000 for 123 miles."

I may add a more recent instance. I hold in my hand the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Observaney and Drainage Boards in 1877. You will find in the 4th paragraph a most comprehensive scheme of drainage, which, as I understand, is to be carried out under the auspices of the State. In every country in Europe the State charges itself with great works of reclamation adapted to the special requirements of the country. Thus, in Holland, the great necessity is the reclamation of slob lands, and, accordingly, we find that the State is reclaiming the Zuyder Zee; and Mr. Amerferdt, of Haarlem Mere, writes to me that 13,000 people, with their churches, schools, and factories, now reside on land over which, in his memory, tall ships sailed. Thus, in Prussia, the great requirement of reclamation is timber plantation, and, accordingly, I find by a Report of the Budget Commissioners of the Prussian Landtag concerning the afforesting of waste lands (obtained for me by the courtesy of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, through the British Ambassador at Berlin), that since 1872 the State had bought and planted more than 1,000,000 acres. In Ireland the special requirement of reclamation is arterial drainage, and it is this which we now ask the State to do. The doing of it will not only serve agriculture, but it will also improve climate. This was pointed out long ago by Arthur Young; but it has been scientifically demonstrated by recent authorities. Thus, in Mr. Price's work on The Climate of Ireland, after comparing the average rainfall of these Islands, he shows that the rainfall of Ireland is not excessive, and he adds—

"The climate of Ireland is just as much inferior to that of England as its agriculture is inferior, and no more; by effective drainage, tillage, and planting of waste lands, as fine a climate could he obtained in Ireland as in any-other part of the globe. The dampness of the air depends neither on the quantity of air nor the proximity of 'the ocean, but upon the extent of flooded and undrained land."

I need scarcely add that this loss of temperature and this vast expanse of swamp is prejudicial not only to the growth of corn, but to public health. This was unhappily exemplified in the Famine time, when the swamps bred fever as a plague. On these various grounds, I submit this measure for the consideration of the House. It would serve all. It could injure none. Landlords would be served by it, tenants would be served by it, the towns would be served by it; public health would be promoted, taxation would be diminished, climate would be improved, a new element of healthy Conservatism would be introduced into Irish social life by the formation of a class of peasant proprietors, whose interest in the soil and security in the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labour would render them industrious, law-respecting, and order-loving citizens—the bases of social order, civil freedom, and national prosperity.

regretted he was obliged to meet the Bill of the hon. Gentleman with a direct negative. Although he had barely had three minutes to consider his words, he had carefully gone through the Bill, and his opposition would be mainly directed to one point, leaving other points to be dealt with by succeeding speakers. Though the Bill in its first clauses was very similar to the Act of 1863, yet at the 11th the tone materially changed, and nobody, merely listening to the speech, mild and kindly as the hon. Gentleman's speeches always were, would suppose that it was connected with so strong a measure. The Preamble of the Act of 1863 contained these words—

"Whereas it is expedient that the proprietors of land in Ireland should be enabled to construct works for drainage and other improvement of their lands,"

and its provisions carried out this principle; but at Clause 11 of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, there was a departure from that, and it was there proposed that occupiers should be given an equal position and equal powers with the proprietors. It really meant that the rights of the proprietors might be interfered with by the tenants, who, at the same time, would be given inducements in Clause 14 to vote in favour of the constitution of a district. In the Act of 1863 it required the votes of proprietors of two-thirds the value to obtain drainage powers; in Clause 11 of the Bill the votes of half the proprietors and occupiers conjointly were declared to be sufficient. In the Act, petitioners had to give security for costs, &c.; in this Bill there was a less satisfactory arrangement, considering who were to be the petitioners. The rights of proprietors were directly assailed by the propositions of the Bill, the extreme character of which might be illustrated by those of a Petition which was presented the other day from the Agricultural Labourers' Union in Norfolk, praying that all cultivable lands should be placed under the management of Commissioners, the extent of woods and parks limited, that the game laws should be abolished, the unpaid magistracy swept away, the future growing of grass for pasture prohibited, and other equally extraordinary measures carried into effect.

observed that the hon. Member who had just sat down had confined his criticisms to the portion of the Bill which referred to the reclamation of waste lands. Another portion of the Bill however, dealt with the subject of arterial drainage, which was a question of the greatest importance, and facilities for which ought to be afforded by the Government. The sketch which his hon. Friend (Mr. MacOarthy) had given of arterial drainage was entirely accurate, and, on two occasions, he (Mr. O'Reilly) himself had paid the cost of the drainage imposed by the Arterial Drainage Bill, and never was money better spent. The remissions made by Parliament for these were, as was shown by the Report of the Committee, for works executed at unnecessary cost in the Famine time, and excused by the Famine necessities. His hon. Friend desired to go back in this Bill to the proposals of the Act of Sir Robert Peel—that the work should be carried out by the Board of Works. He went further than had ever been proposed before. In the second Act of 1842 a majority of two-thirds of the proprietors was required. That was afterwards reduced to more than half. He would suggest that it might be urged that a majority should be required. It was also doubtful whether the Board of Works as at present constituted in Ireland was very well calculated for over-riding all the local owners and authorities. He would not oppose the Bill on that ground; but perhaps it might be desirable that the two agencies should be opened, and that in some cases the Local Board should have the drainage entrusted to their hands; and in other districts, if a Local Board could not be formed, and if the proprietors preferred to entrust the drainage to the Board of Works, that it should be entrusted to them. So far he gave his cordial assent to the spirit of the proposals which had been made. They could not overrate the importance of arterial drainage. He warmly approved of the object which his hon. Friend sought to attain in the reclamation of the comparatively waste lands of Ireland; but he doubted whether the reclamation of land and the establishment of a peasant tenantry on it could be successfully undertaken by the State. His hon. Friend said that in other countries the reclamation of waste land had been successfully carried out by the State; but in most of those cases it would be found that the operations were confined to slob lands or lands flooded by the sea. He did not know of an instance in which the State had improved mountain or bog with profit. In Belgium, where a large amount of waste land had been brought under cultivation, the work had been almost entirely effected by private enter-prize. His hon. Friend went too far when he proposed that houses should be built. He said that the preliminary cost should betaken out of the moneys of the Commissioners, whether the scheme was carried out or not, and the Commissioners were to recover the cost from the parties; but if the money could not be recovered from the parties, who were they to recover it from? It was his opinion that the State could not go further than draining the land and preparing it for reclamation, and then handing it over for further reclamation, for the erection of buildings and similar works, to those who would be prepared to undertake it themselves. He was ready to support the second reading of the Bill, expressing his cordial assent to that part of it which referred to draining. As for the subject of reclamation, he should say that, considering the doubtful nature of the remuneration and expenditure by the State, that was a matter which should be carefully considered. Of course, he could not support any proposal unless there was adequate security given for the return of the expenditure.

said, he wished to free himself from the paternity of the Bill, with which he had been charged by the Press, and even by some friends, on account of the similarity of his name to that of the hon. Member for Mallow. He (Mr. Macartney) was of the same opinion as the hon. and gallant Member, that this Bill contained the principles of more than one Bill. He considered it contained three Bills—first, a Bill for a large system of national drainage; second, a Bill for promoting the reclamation of waste lands and the establishment of a peasant proprietary; and the third, which was at the end, was a very important one—to provide for the giving of loans upon reasonable terms to small tenants. Now, he thought that all the objects aimed at by the Bill were laudable in themselves separately; but he did not see why they should be jumbled up in one measure, so as to make it difficult and almost impossible to find out what was the main object of the Bill. With regard to the main drainage of Ireland, no one had a stronger wish than himself to see it carried out thoroughly and efficiently. It was a matter of national importance, and should be, he thought, promoted by the Government, and not by a private Member. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) mentioned as an example of main drainage the reclamation carried on in Scotland; but the Caledonian Canal had not been constructed for drainage purposes or for land improvement, but to facilitate the passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the North Sea of the commerce of this country. Another instance was the Erie Canal in Canada, which was for the purpose of communicating between two large rivers. The two instances fell entirely to the ground as precedents for the present Bill. If arterial drainage was not carried on in the most scientific way, it might be as mischievous as it might have been beneficial if it had been properly carried out. He knew a district in Ireland where the streams had been enlarged by arterial drainage, and a district had been subjected to floods which was formerly free from them. They ought to be cautious as to whom they entrusted the power of arterial drainage to. The proposal that one-half of the proprietors and residents in a district should have the power to enforce the drainage in that district seemed to him to be very objectionable. The old proportion of two-thirds, as laid down in the Act of 1863, was the smallest proportion which ought to be empowered to do what was equivalent, in fact, to giving away the land of the district. It had been said that this Bill was for public purposes, and that private proprietors had no reason to be alarmed. It appeared that almost anybody had a right and interest in the land except the owner himself. At present the public had a right to go through it for a railway; the public had a right to make a road through it; the public, if they wanted to take possession of an ancient monument, could appropriate the owner's right and fence him out of his own property. If the proprietor did not think it worth while to reclaim the land, the State was to lot out not only the reclaimed land, but the drained land in allotments from 10 to 100 acres, none of that being fit for the plough or the spade at the moment it was handed over to the purchasing tenant. The State was then to offer it for letting, and it was supposed that the tenants holding any land in the immediate neighbourhood would apply their energies to it for two or three years; but that would require capital, and if a man had capital sufficient to supply the material and labour for a farm, and could live for two or three years without profit, he would be uncommonly foolish to go into the occupation of such a farm. In Ireland at present the land had been reclaimed by the slow, incessant work of the occupier, adding to the land he already occupied in spare hours, and not devoting his whole time, but his extra time to it. If the labour was paid for, he believed it would be utterly impossible to make it remunerative. In his judgment, the provision in this Bill that land should be taken compulsorily from the owner merely because it happened to be lying waste was rather a hard one. Waste land was mountain and boggy land. Large tracts of mountain and boggy land in Ireland, though let at less than 5s. an acre, were occupied by small tenant-farmers in lots of three or four acres. On that a tenant kept geese, a goat, or pigs, and the land was assessed to him for that purpose. The one final objection he entertained to the Bill was the facilities it offered to small occupiers to borrow money. From his own experience, he was convinced of the injury that was done to a man by encouraging him to get into debt when he had no certain means of repayment. There were in Ireland certain institutions known as loan funds, and, for his own part, he should be glad to see them all swept away. A poor farmer having a small field, perhaps, wanted a cow, and, instead of saving money to buy that cow, he went to the loan fund, taking with him two substantial neighbours for security. The money was borrowed and repaid at high interest, and more farmers were brought into difficulties and distress by borrowing from those loan funds, or going security for borrowers, than in any other way. Unless the State possessed some extraordinary means of repayment, the advances must end in their loss in very many cases. Where a tenant had a long lease there was security. But what security could there be in the case of a tenant from year to year? It might be said there was his tenant-right, the security of his tenure. But there were prior claims upon this; there was the rent due to his landlord, and there were other debts he would probably owe around. Therefore, he condemned the part of the Bill which gave those borrowing facilities. The right thing to do was to give support to small occupiers by encouraging a spirit of thrift and hard work, and giving up habits of intemperance. He could not but think that the Bill would be better for being divided. If there was a Bill for arterial drainage he would support it, though he did not believe in the wonderful improvement in the climate of Ireland promised by the hon. Member for Mallow. The influence of the Atlantic Ocean and the Northern position of the Island must always remain, and the climate could never be like that of the South of France, nor could it become like that of some countries which were in want of rain. For green crops the climate was well fitted, and arterial drainage would not alter the climate except in the slighest degree. Finally, he hoped that in objecting to the Bill it would not be supposed he did so because of its affecting landlords' interests. His reason was he did not think it politic for the Government to take into its hands such a task as the reclamation of waste lands, which would never pay, and to establish peasant proprietors upon the land, who in not a few cases would be off, leaving their tenant-right and the Government in the lurch.

concurred in the objection to the mixing up of the questions of arterial drainage and of the reclamation of waste lands in the same Bill; but he did not think the Bill was open to the objection that it would interfere with the rights of property, because though the Bill proposed that land should be taken for reclamation, it could only be so taken with the consent of the owners, and no owner was under compulsion to part with his land against his will. The most important and practical proposal in the Bill was that relating to the improvement of the existing drainage laws. He thought the present system required amendment; but he did not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. MacCarthy)in his proposal to substitute the Board of Works or any central authority for the Local Boards. He believed that drainage works would be much better carried out under the management of gentlemen residing in the locality than by any Central Board. The experience which they had had of the works carried out by the Board of Works, the great expense incurred, and the unfinished state in which the works were left, afforded them a warning against having recourse to that Board for such matters in future. The hon. Member for Mallow proposed that a numerical majority should be sufficient to constitute a drainage district, but that was a proposal which could not be justified, because a numerical majority of occupiers and owners might represent a very small part of the property to be dealt with, and, therefore, a very small proportion of those who would have to bear the largest share of the expense. Under the existing law the assent of two-thirds in value of the proprietors of the district was required. There was, however, an immense difficulty in getting the positive and direct assent of so large a proportion of the proprietors if the district happened to be a large and scattered one. That difficulty arose from the circumstance that there were in Ireland, as in other countries, a great number of persons who, from one cause or another, would take no action whatever. An alteration of the law to simplify these proceedings ought to be made, but not to the extent proposed by the present Bill. He would suggest that the positive assent of the majority should be required, and that the works should be carried on with that positive assent unless one-third or one-fourth or some other proportion expressed absolute dissent. So far as the Bill sought to remove the difficulties in the way of arterial drainage, he was in accord with it; but he could not say the other provisions of the Bill were such as to command approval. He looked on as a doubtful experiment the proposal that the State should buy lands for the purpose of reclaiming them and erecting buildings on them, and then re-selling them. He did not believe the Bill would interfere with the rights of individual owners; but he saw risk of danger in giving to the State such duties to discharge. If the Bill had been confined to this he should oppose it; but as it stood he could support the Motion for its second reading.

said, the scheme proposed by the Bill was not a practical one; it introduced principles entirely new and uncalled for, and it would completely overturn the legislation which had been progressing steadily and with very favourable results for the last 14 or 15 years. One of the objects of the measure was to increase the facilities for establishing a peasant proprietary. As to that, he would merely remark, that the subject was being investigated by a Select Committee of the House; and before dealing with this branch of the question, it would have been more convenient to have awaited the Report of that Committee, and the evidence they would collect. The Bill also introduced the novel principles of the purchase of land and its reclamation when purchased by the State. But before the State was asked to undertake these duties, it would be well to inquire what had been done of late years by private enterprize, aided by the facilities legislation had already given to owners of land. In 1844 the Land Improvement Act of Ireland was passed, and under that Act 274,000 acres had been reclaimed by proprietors alone at a cost of £6 10s. per acre. During the same period landlords and tenants jointly, at their own cost, and without State aid, had reclaimed 300,000 acres, and another 300,000 had been reclaimed by the tenants alone. In addition to this, 400,000 acres had been let to tenants for grazing, making an addition of 1,274,000 acres to the productive lands of Ireland in 34 years. Surely that was no inconsiderable result to have achieved. In the enumeration by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) of the waste lands of Ireland, he mentioned the mountain lands, those subject to floods, and the flat bog. With respect to the reclamation of bogs, it could only be carried on at an immense cost; and, besides, from his experience in the North, he found that where the bog was being rapidly cut out, it was a very serious question, indeed, how in some 20 or 30 years the poorer occupiers were to find fuel. That a certain amount of good might be done in improving pasture land upon the hills he admitted, if the same course were adopted as that followed on the Cheviot Hills and other places. Another class of waste lands alluded to were the low mountain ranges at an elevation of 600 to 800 feet above the sea—in round numbers, about 990,000 acres. His own experience of such land was in a district where the proposals in the Bill were carried out under most favourable circumstances; the land was intersected by good roads, the heathery slopes gave a good fall for drainage, a plentiful supply of lime was to be found in the neighbourhood, and kilns were erected for burning the lime. The district was within easy reach of market towns and railway stations. About 35 or 40 years ago operations such as were contemplated by the Bill were carried out, houses were built by the landlord, roads were made, and the whole was parcelled out among tenants. For a short time the fields were tilled and cropped; but by-and-by, from the humidity of climate and other causes, the tenants found themselves obliged to give up cropping. The lands had now reverted very nearly to their original state; they were growing fine crops of heather, and afforded as good shelter for grouse as any in that part of the country. He did not doubt but that such would be the effect of the Bill in most cases. It had been described mainly as a measure to promote arterial drainage. If so, he submitted that it was a measure of a very retrogressive character, for it entirely reversed the principle on which arterial drainage had been carried out in Ireland since 1863. The hon. Member for Mallow gave statistics; but the inference he drew from them was hardly fair, and he did not give credit to the Act of 1863 for all the good it had done. Prom the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works, 1876–7, he found that 32,832 acres had, by arterial drainage, been increased in yearly value £10,270. Other large works were going on, and were not yet completed; but it might be fairly said that 100,000 acres had been reclaimed, or were in the process of reclamation, under the operation of the Act. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had made a suggestion which was worthy of consideration. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman as to the enormous difficulty of getting two-thirds of the proprietors of a district to give their assent; there was so many absentees, so many minors, and so much land was held by public companies. This might be modified, but it was not advisable to unsettle the Act altogether, as proposed by the Bill. Up to a certain extent the Bill proceeded on the lines of the Act of 1863; but when it came to the formation of districts, it was not clear how the assents were to be obtained. Another question was the definition of what could be considered waste land. In some parts with which he was acquainted fields were much affected by floods, and all plans of improvement to prevent this had fallen through because of the cost. Still, the land could not be considered waste land. He hoped the House would not give its assent to the Bill, which he thought entirely subversive of a system which, in his opinion, had worked extremely well.

said, as frequent reference had been made to the Bill of 1863, passed when he had the honour to be Chief Secretary for Ireland, he wished to make a few remarks on the measure before the House. He had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy), who had most clearly enunciated to the House his views on this subject; and he must say he thought the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), and the noble Lord who had last spoken, went strongly in favour of the Bill. For what did their speeches say? The hon. Member for Eos-common pointed out most clearly the difficulties which arose under the present system of carrying out the drainage of any district, and the noble Lord agreed with all that had been said as to those difficulties. But while the hon. Member for Roscommon was going to support the Bill, the noble Lord was going to oppose it. He (Sir Robert peel) was inclined to take the view of the hon. Member for Roscommon. Though there might be difficulties in the Bill which in Committee would require amendment, he felt obliged to give his support to the measure. The noble Lord had stated that since 1844 nearly 1,300,000 acres had been reclaimed; but the hon. Member for Mallow had pointed out that nearly one-fifth of Ireland was in a state described by Master FitzGibbon as a "dismal swamp." The hon. Member wanted to revert to the principles of the Bill of 1842, under which vast tracts had been reclaimed until the Famine occurred, when the rates rose to 16s. in the pound, proprietors were ruined, and the works were stopped. They could not do better than follow the provisions of that Act. He admitted that in the proposal of the hon. Member there were one or two matters which required serious consideration; but he could not agree with the action of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner), who had said that he had only given the Bill two or three minutes' consideration. It would have been better if someone else had moved the rejection of the Bill. He (Sir Robert Peel) was sorry that in doing so the hon. Gentleman should revert to a Petition from Norfolk, which would have been better referred to by some English Member. While admitting the subject had been better handled by gentlemen in Dublin, and that the Bill had been carefully drawn up, he asserted that it assailed the right of proprietors. He (Sir Robert Peel), however, agreed with the hon. Member for Roscommon, who did not believe in the right of sale of proprietors. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) took the opportunity of referring to what he (Sir Robert Peel) had said 20 years ago in Dublin, before the Statistical Society, with regard to the Caledonian Canal and a canal in Canada. What he said was that, as these had been considered works of Imperial necessity, and had been made at vast expense by money given by the State, the reclamation of waste lands might be treated as a work of an Imperial character. He was surprised to hear from the noble Lord the Member for Ennis-killen (Viscount Crichton) that, in his opinion, the reclamation of bogs in the North of Ireland would be a serious disaster. He never before heard an Irish Member say—"Don't reclaim our bogs; if you do, it will be a calamity of the most serious character." Arterial drainage must be done by the State, and in the absence of any great domestic legislation this Session, they might grapple with the question, and deal with it in a practical manner. There was one clause referred to by the hon. Member for Tyrone which would require considerable amendment. That was Clause 18, which did not only deal with the reclamation of waste lands, but the wording of it was such that it dealt with the reclamation of waste and other lands. That was a point that would require some amendment. He thought the time had come when they might reasonably hope that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whom he and everybody was glad to see in his place, would say that the Bill—let it be divided into two parts if they pleased—ought to receive a second reading; and then, if it were referred to a Committee, the objects which-the hon. Member for Mallow had in view might be promoted.

supported the Bill, which, he said, would tend to the welfare and prosperity of the country. It was a question which, if properly handled, would bring employment to thousands, and consequent happiness. For the last 30 years the Irish people had been flying to other lands, and tilling the ground in foreign countries. But if the people got any encouragement from the Government, they need not go away from their homes. This showed the necessity of a Home Parliament, for the first tax they would impose on the country would be for the reclamation of waste lands. The hon. Member for Tyrone had dwelt on the hardship of obliging a landlord to give up his waste lands; but if a man persisted in keeping land in such a condition that it only yielded 5s. a-year, whereas it could yield 30s., he was doing an injury to the State as well as to himself.

said, that the promoters of the Bill wished to have Imperial funds at their back, which showed they did not believe the scheme would succeed on its own merits. He estimated the cost of reclaiming the land now at 100 per cent more than it would have cost 25 years ago. If they took a farm of 10 acres, and built a house upon it, the rent they would obtain would only pay for the house, and if this was the case, it would not be worth while reclaiming the land. He had seen large tracts of peat land drained, and it was worth less money after the operation than before. Nothing would grow on drained peat land. They knew that Government, which was the worst of joint-stock companies, could not do such work as that proposed so cheaply as private individuals. He must oppose the Bill in its present state, though there was some small part of it in which Government assistance might be given with advantage.

thought the Bill deserved careful consideration. He concurred in the opinion that certain waste land was incapable of ever repaying the expense of reclamation. He approved the submission of proposals such as were contemplated by the Bill to the Board of Works, instead of being brought before a Committee of that House, which must be attended with great expense as well as risk. He would support the Bill as one going in the right direction.

hoped the Bill would be read a second time, and then very much altered in Committee—the subject of arterial drainage, perhaps, being exclusively attended to.

, who, on rising to address the House, was loudly cheered, said, he thought the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) might be congratulated on having brought before the House a subject well worthy of consideration, and he deserved their thanks for having introduced it to their notice. The measure, which had been several times before the House, dealt with the reclamation of waste lands, and also with arterial drainage—two very different subjects. These distinct questions had been clearly defined by the hon. Gentleman. He did not share the views which had been expressed by some hon. Gentlemen, who really looked on the arterial drainage as the principal part of the Bill, and thought the question of reclamation of waste land was an additional one, which might be very well disposed of by Committee. As an illustration of what he said, he might refer to the fact that the hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill under the same title in 1875, which dealt solely with the reclamation of so-called waste lands, and had no reference to the question of arterial drainage. Now, however, he had introduced clauses dealing with that subject, and had, so to say, gilded his pill with provisions in which, taken by themselves, there would be a general disposition to concur. In fact, the hon. Gentleman had baited his trap so skilfully that he had actually succeeded in catching so old a hand as his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). With respect to the reclamation of waste lands, there appeared to be difference of opinion; and the hon. Gentleman himself, with great discretion, dealt very lightly with that part of the Bill—in fact, as had been said with great truth, he had left that part of the Bill to take care of itself. He thought the House should consider whether these two very distinct subjects could be appropriately dealt with in one Bill. As regarded the improvement of waste lands, he thought the hon. Member had made out no case. Under the existing law, it was within the power of private owners, on their own initiative, to obtain State aid for the purpose of reclaiming waste lands. They were enabled so to do by charging their estate with the capital sum expended; and there was no necessity why persons other than owners specially interested should be required to take part in the work, unless, in the case of arterial drainage, where an entire area was brought within the scope of the improvements—when it would be impossible for any owner to take independent action. He thought the hon. Member did wisely in not dwelling at any length on that portion of his Bill. If carried into effect in the manner proposed, it would lead to a system of State land-jobbing, which he thought most undesirable, and which Parliament would hesitate to sanction. He should not go into the details of that part of the scheme, which appeared exceedingly objectionable; but he now approached a very different branch of the subject—namely, that which dealt with arterial drainage. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), who supported the Bill, made some observations on this part of the subject in which, to a great extent, he concurred. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), and the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), also treated the subject from a point of view which, in great measure, he appreciated. They alluded to the fact that sometimes technical difficulties were placed in the way of persons desirous of obtaining the advantage of existing Acts. They mentioned the case of minors and owners deceased, and urged that those technical difficulties required the consideration of Government. One argument he could not follow. It was said that whereas under the Act of 1844 the Board of Works had been responsible for the execution of the works, by the Act of 1863 the responsibility of the Board of Works had been assumed by a board of landowners, and that the number of drainage districts formed, and the number of acres drained, had been much greater under the former than under the latter arrangement. He could not follow that argument. A hungry man, sitting down to dinner, after eating heartily of what was placed before him, would, no doubt, at the end of half-an-hour, if offered a further. addition to his repast, find some difficulty in eating as much as he did at first—and so it was perfectly natural to suppose that, when facilities were first afforded for drainage schemes, they would comprise a larger extent of country during the first few years of the operation of the Act than subsequently. His noble Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton) had pointed out that the Acts were by no means a dead letter, and great advantages were constantly being derived from them. With regard to the objections to the system, he would only say this, he should be quite ready on the part of the Government to give them every consideration. The House would hardly expect him on so early an occasion since his connection with Ireland to declare at once his assent to a scheme like this under a somewhat misleading title—the Waste Lands Bill—which dealt with a very different subject, and by no means in the best manner. He therefore hoped the House and the hon. Gentleman would be content with the discussion which had been held, and accept his assurance that any anomalies and difficulties that could be removed in the present Acts would have the careful attention of the Government.

said, that as a rule, the Government should not undertake what might be carried out by means of private enterprize. But there were exceptions to that rule. As regarded Crown lands, the Government was in the position of a private owner, and was bound to make the most of them. There were extensive tracts of such lands admirably suited for the growth of trees, and it was the duty of the Government to plant them for the benefit of this and future generations. The seashore belonged to the Crown, and there were extensive estuaries that might be drained to the general advantage of the country. Why not employ convicts to carry on such works? Under proper management, the convict establishments might be made self-supporting. The reclaimed lands would prove a profitable investment, and would ex- tend the resources of the country. Arterial drainage might also be carried out by the same means, and both would pay.

said, that, before the House divided, he wished it to notice that the principle of this Bill was capable of more extensive application than seemed to have been supposed. Waste land was defined in the Bill as mountain and marshy land, not thoroughly drained, and not worth 5s. an acre. He ventured to say there were tens of thousands of acres in England not worth 5s. an acre, and three-fourths of all Scotland did not produce to the proprietors 5s. an acre. He was reminded that the Bill extended only to Ireland. He was quite aware of that; but, if Members of the House were going to apply such principles to Ireland, it would be necessary to consider the expediency of applying the same principles to Great Britain. He did not grudge anything being done for Ireland, and would support every reasonable measure which might tend to provide an increase of profitable employment for the people, whether such measures were brought in by private Members or the occupants of the Treasury bench; but he could not accept a Bill for the reclamation of waste lands without considering the principle on which they proposed to proceed. No doubt the reclamation of waste land, whether in Great Britain or Ireland, would be a great advantage to the Empire; but he thought reclamation, to be profitable, must be carried out by and at the expense of private individuals, and not of the State. If the hon. Gentleman who had presented this Bill would consent to eliminate all the clauses regarding compulsory drainage and the purchase of land for the purpose of reclamation, and would confine the object of the Bill to arterial drainage, he would support it—as he thought that a duty that might well be undertaken by the State. But anything beyond that he did not think the House should agree to. Considering the abundance of capital, he did not see that the State required to step in for the purpose of undertaking reclamation works, if it could be shown that the reclamation could be profitably carried out. He, therefore, could not support the Bill in its present shape, as he considered its principal object was the reclamation of waste lands, and not arterial drainage.

said, it was necessary that there should be some reform in the present system of arterial drainage in Ireland, and it was manifest that legislation on the subject was requisite. He believed that there was a period when the reclamation of waste lands would be more advantageously carried out by individuals than by the State. If they could get the co-operation of landlords and tenants in Ireland, the question would soon be settled. But, unfortunately, the Irish landlords and tenants had not that mutual sympathy which was to be wished, and did not see that their interests were united, in the same way as was the case of Scotland. What was requisite was, some arrangement whereby the State should secure to the tenants the occupation of waste land for a considerable time at a very moderate rent while it was in course of reclamation. The landlord would still remain the owner of the land, and he would eventually come into good land at a fair rent. In the meantime, the tenant would be able to remunerate himself for his labour and outlay. That was the general outline of the system he would like to see established.

, in reply, said, he shared the pleasure with which the appearance of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) as Chief Secretary was greeted by the House, and hoped that he would have the opportunity of calmly considering this measure. Some of the objections to the Bill related to simple matters of detail, which might be easily arranged, and which were no grounds for opposing it on the second reading. It had been said that the Bill was an attack on the rights of property; but the truth was, that it was laid down on the lines of a measure of the great Conservative statesman, Sir Robert Peel. The noble Lord the Member for Ennis-killen (Viscount Crichton) said, that a very large acreage had been reclaimed of recent years; but the greater part of the land had been reclaimed under the Act of Sir Robert Peel—and this, therefore, instead of being an argument against the Bill, was an argument in its favour. It had been said that it sought to subvert the present system, but it did nothing of the kind. It merely proposed to supplement that system. It was alleged that reclamations would now cost 100 per cent more than a few years ago: but, so far was it from true that reclamations were more expensive than those carried out 30 years ago, the figures of the Board of Works showed that recent reclamations cost one-third less than those of former times. The Chief Secretary's allegory about the diminished appetite of a man who had eaten half his dinner did not apply, because of 452 districts that had been proposed and surveyed for reclamation, 300 were still unreclaimed. He had not made this Motion in any Party spirit, but with a sincere desire to benefit his country; and when the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected to the measure that it was both a drainage Bill and a Bill for the reclamation of waste lands, he might say that, while reclamation was the end, improvement of arterial drainage was in many respects the necessary means. He might suggest, if it met the views of the House, that, while that part of the Bill which related to reclamation should be admitted, they should pass those clauses which related only to arterial drainage, and to which little or no objection had been raised by the speakers. Even if they did nothing but promote arterial drainage, they would do a work of the greatest benefit to Ireland.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he by no means proposed to deal in any large or comprehensive manner with the Irish Education Question, or indeed, to do more than deal with a very small though important portion of it. The general question of the state of higher education in Ireland had been frequently before the House, and would come before it again, with, he hoped, better results in the future than in the past. On that point, however, he had little or nothing to say in connection with the present Bill. His object was merely, taking the Queen's Colleges and Queen's University in Ireland as they stand, to try and get out of them as much utility as they were capable of furnishing; and it would remain for the House and the Government to consider whether the amount of utility which they were capable of furnishing was very much after all. With that question he did not accordingly deal. He found that the House and Her Majesty's Government had established certain Colleges in Ireland called Queen's Colleges, since incorporated into a University called the Queen's University, for the ostensible purpose of the advancement of learning in Ireland; and he also found, as he expected to be able to prove to the House that these Colleges had not contributed to the advancement of learning—that, on the contrary, they had done much to hinder that advancement; and, taking them as they were, and looking only to the classes which had chances of profiting by them, he proposed that such guarantees should be added as might secure that even within a very limited area learning might be advanced and not retarded by these institutions. In conformity with the programme expressed by the Government when passing the Act, and generally sanctioned by the majority of hon. Members of the House—though, as usual in such cases, not sanctioned by the majority of the Irish people—the Queen's Colleges were erected, and afterwards the Queen's University was established by Royal Charter for the purpose of granting degrees to the students educated in these Colleges. To come at once, then, to the object of the Bill, he first sought to have the Queen's College, Belfast, recognized as that which it had actually been from the commencement—namely, a College which, to all intents and purposes, was for the exclusive use of the members of the Ulster Presbyterian Church and other Evangelical Protestants in that part of the country, whose general tenets did not differ essentially from those of Pres- byterianism. Secondly, with regard to all the Queen's Colleges, he proposed that some efficient system of public inspection should be established, and that the results of the inspection should be regularly laid before Parliament; and, furthermore, that the public moneys which supported these institutions should be wholly raised in such a form as to permit of the rigorous application of public control. He meant that the whole of the sum devoted to the support of the Queen's Colleges and University should be annually provided by Parliament in the Estimates, and that no portion of it should be practically removed from the control of Parliament by being placed to the account of the Consolidated Fund. The provisions of the Bill were few; but he had reason to believe that they would be effective, and that a thorough system of inspection would fully meet the exigencies of the case. Without some such system, the Colleges and University were likely to continue to live on the public funds, and yet to counteract instead of promoting the objects for which these funds were originally granted. If they were at length to commence to promote the advancement of learning in Ireland a stimulus should be applied, and a corrective brought into exercise, and that stimulus and corrective should, in the first place, be public inspection, and, in the second place, should be the threat that if the inspection did not show that these institutions were what they pretended to be, they should cease to be a burthen on the public purse. The Bill, then, was divided into two portions—one referring to a particular aspect of affairs in the Queen's College, Belfast, and the other seeking generally to provide for the improvement of education in the institutions at large. The provision that had regard to the Belfast College was rather incidental than essential to the general scheme. From the very first hour of its establishment that College had been conducted, not officially and avowedly with a view to provide denominational education for the members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, but in reality and in fact it had been so conducted. Some hon. Members might be incredulous to hear that statement, but the most stubborn incredulity should yield to the evidence of facts. He granted that the general purpose of the Queen's Colleges was to establish what was called non-sectarian education, and to place non-sectarian and secular knowledge within the reach of all persons and sects in Ireland without discrimination. He would not enter on the question whether there could be such a thing as non-sectarian secular knowledge, but it was a fact that these Colleges were founded to provide it; and the constant claim of the various Governments of the day, and of all who were opposed to granting denominational freedom in education to the Catholics of Ireland was, that in the Queen's Colleges and University the Irish people really had institutions capable of granting such knowledge with the most perfect impartiality, and with the most entire absence of any leaning to the right or to the left, to one religious sect or the other. That theory had been carried out in Galway and Cork Colleges as far as such was practicable, and the only drawback to the working of the mixed education system in these Colleges was that it had not worked at all; that, however perfect might be the practice of the governing body and the professors, no students, or practically no students, had attended; and that, in fact, the attempts to carry out honestly, if he might use the word, the scheme of non-sectarian secular instruction had totally failed in Cork and Galway. In Belfast, on the other hand, they were confronted by the fact that there had been a fair attendance of students. The instruction given in that College seemed to a large extent to meet the wants of the Presbyterian portion of the population. In fact, Belfast College was the one great proof adduced of the success of the mixed education system, and used to induce the House and the country to believe that sooner or later mixed education would take root in Ireland, and that the other Colleges would meet with the same numerical success. Well, in Belfast there were generally more students than in the other two put together, and its success was still more remarkable on comparing the arts faculty there with that in the two other Colleges. As every educated man was aware, the arts faculty was the University faculty; and the general education which made up the culture of the cultivated man, and which it was the primary object—he might say the exclusive object—of the House to promote and advance in estab- lishing the Queen's Colleges, could only be obtained in the faculty of arts, and by the state of that faculty every University must be judged, tried, and either approved or condemned. Well, while there were often from 120 to 150 art students in Belfast, there were seldom or never more either in Galway or Cork than could be accounted for by the number of scholarships and exhibitions—the number of pecuniary inducements—attached to the various stages in arts education in the Southern and Western Colleges. Beyond this class, which were equally numerous in Belfast, there were twice as many in Belfast who continued the arts course without the direct inducement of scholarships; and it was evident that the presence of these extra students spoke far more for the success of Belfast for the reason that mere considerations of pecuniary profit could not explain this attendance. He maintained that this success of the arts faculty in Belfast was not due to its being a faculty of mixed education, but a faculty of Presbyterian education and practically denominational secular knowledge. In other words, in order to purchase the favour of the powerful Presbyterian Body, the Queen's College, Belfast, had been so officered and professored as to allow of its being, to all intents and purposes, the secular side of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary. There was practically nothing of a mixed educational character about the faculty of arts in Belfast; for a Return issued for last year showed there was altogether only one Catholic student in attendance. The House would admit that there was nothing fortuitous or accidental in the monopoly of the Belfast faculty of arts enjoyed by the non-Catholic students. Before the Commission of 1857, Professor M'Douall was asked if the bulk of his class were not gentlemen going into Presbyterian Orders, and his reply was—

"Yes; not exactly that they have made up their minds, but they have it in contemplation; very generally they have that object in view."

Going further back, it would be seen that the monopoly had been arranged from the very beginning. When, in 1849, the new professors of the faculty of arts were appointed and their qualifications and character canvassed, a resolution was unanimously passed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the following terms:—

"Whereas one of our ministers in whose capacity and paternal care we have entire confidence has been appointed Dean of Residences, and whereas the qualification and character of the persons appointed in the Queen's College, Belfast, for those classes which students of this Church have been hitherto required to pass are such as to influence this Assembly in accepting certificates and degrees from that College, we now permit our students to attend the classes in the Queen's College."

Previous to the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, the Presbyterian Assembly had in contemplation the foundation of a religious College for the special purpose of meeting the requirements of young men going in for Presbyterian Orders; but when the intention of the Government to establish Queen's Colleges became known, a deputation was at once sent to see what could be done. Sir Robert Peel assured the Presbyterian delegates that the satisfaction of their desires would be one of the main objects aimed at by the Government, and Dr. Cooke had said that the same assurance was repeated again and again. Those assurances were carried out in the foundation of the College in Belfast, and in the appointment of the original professors, whose characters were such as to merit the approval of the General Assembly, which accepted them as their own teachers in an openly and avowedly denominational institution for the instruction of Presbyterian students. After that came the fact that the arts faculty was almost entirely maintained by the theological students of the Presbyterian Church; and, looking at all these things, and seeing that if the Presbyterian theological students were withdrawn, the faculty of arts in the Belfast College would be an utter and hopeless failure, he was entitled to maintain that the College was a success—not because of its religious impartiality, or its advantages for mixed education, but because it was a Presbyterian College. What he asked the House to do was to legalize what was done now in a surreptitious manner, but done undoubtedly unavoidably—what had been established without their official knowledge, and, so to speak, behind their official backs. While he proposed that, he did not by any means look on it as an essential portion of his Bill, though he sought for the Presbyterians of Ireland a recognition which the Government would not grant to another portion of the people of the country. He recognized the numerical success of the system in Belfast as a fact; but he also said that the bad education in all the three Colleges was a fact, that the necessity of raising the standard of education was a fact; and the object of the rest of his Bill was to provide, by the most convenient means, that, instead of a system at once a numerical and an educational failure, there should be a system which, whether failing numerically or unacceptable to the Catholics of Ireland, should, at any rate, have a right to be considered an institution of University education. Before going on to the second portion of his Bill, he would make this simple remark—that no hon. Member would say that the presence of one Catholic in a faculty of arts of 150 members constituted a fair representation of the 1,000,000 of Catholics who formed the half of the population of Ulster. Coming, then, to the general provisions of the Bill, he proposed that there should be a general inspection of the Colleges, the result of which should be reported to Parliament, and that the entire sum for the support of the institution should be provided out of the Estimates. Whatever the Colleges might be from a religious point of view, it was right they should have a real educational operation, and that, so far as they existed at all, they should exist, in the words of the Act—"for the advancement," and not for the degradation of learning in Ireland. He regretted to say that the tendency of these institutions had been to the detriment of knowledge and learning. Whether the Queen's Colleges be approved or disapproved of by the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, if they were to exist they should be institutions of secular learning; and no matter how objectionable they might be in the eyes of the Catholic Prelates, their condemnation by Catholic opinion was not, in the opinion of the most advanced secularists, even a sufficient counterpoise to the damning fact—and, unfortunately, it was a fact—of their being worthless as places of secular education. He wished, then, to consider the question of the Colleges purely from the point of view of secular education, and to point out that as such they had deplorably failed; and though he believed he would be fully justified in asking for their summary abolition, he contented himself with requesting that steps should be taken to raise them to that position of secular instruction which they had abandoned. Much more than £750,000—nearly £1,000,000 in fact—had already been spent upon them, and it was for the House to say whether they should continue in the future as in the past—a bad sort of grammar school, masquerading as a portion of a University institution. Dealing, then, with the faculty of arts, it must be granted that, generally speaking, the amount and character of the instruction given during the course would be determined by the character of the degree examination; and that the character of the preliminary knowledge the schoolboy should bring to College would be determined by the entrance examination, so that it would be well to see what those examinations were. Something less than a third of the arts students sought the degree with honours; and, practically, the third class was not superior to an ordinary pass degree, with which the majority contented themselves. Candidates who sought to graduate with honours might select for their examination any one of the following groups:—The Greek and Latin languages, mathematical, or experimental, or natural science, any two modern Continental languages; or might make up an honour course out of any three of the following:—English language and literature, logic, metaphysics, history, political economy. As could be perceived by a little reflection, 17 varieties or selections of honour degrees were thus at once provided; and he need not remind hon. Members how little consonant that was with the theory of an arts education being a general education, or that an honour degree, which was really sub-divided into 17 varieties, did not encourage very strongly that general and uniform standard of high culture which was present to the mind of most educated men when they spoke of a general and liberal education. It would be admitted that there was a very fair scope for the principle of permutation and combination in the selection of the subjects of an honour degree; but even such honour students were only in the minority of the total number of the arts graduates, and those who passed the course without honours were the students who set the general standard as regarded University education. These latter obtained their degree "in any group of subjects provided the sum of the numbers attached to the subjects amounted to four." The subjects, with their numerical values attached, were—English literature and history, 2; mathematical science, 2; experimental physics, 2; chemistry, 2; and so on, so that the student had his choice of any subjects which would go to make up four. There were, however, other subjects—Zoology, Botany, Greek, Latin, French, German, Italian, Logic, History, and Political Economy; all of which rated as one, so that a student had an extended choice of what subjects he should make up his mind to be examined in. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was not an advocate of a cut-and-dry-system of absolute uniformity; but there were limits to toleration, and men of the most liberal views would hardly admit that that was a course of graduation worthy of the recognition of public opinion. Seventeen varieties of honour degrees would seem various enough; but the permutations of the pass-degree subjects was something extraordinary. He would ask the hon. Members of the House to calculate how many courses of pass graduates of the Queen's University they might conceivably take in order to make up a single man of a real general and liberal education. He would only add that while those regulations had continued to stand as he had quoted them down to a year or two ago, some verbal alterations had been recently introduced, calculated to baffle an inquisitive stranger; but which, to the initiated, strictly maintained the status quo as he had described it. But perhaps it might be said that the standard in each of these subjects, composing those infinitely permutable groups, made up in profundity and breadth for the extraordinary variegation of the degree. As an answer to that, he would mention that the far-reaching and severe tests were in Greek, Xenophon, Cyropædeia, Books 1 and 2; Homer's Iliad, Book IX., with prose composition in Greek; in Latin, Sallust and the Satires and Epistles of Horace, with prose composition in Latin; in English History, the period from 1602 to 1702; or, at most, English History for a couple of centuries. Passing in those subjects, a student was entitled to proclaim himself a graduate of that illustrious institution which was founded to dissipate the darkness of clericalism, and to put the pretensions of the Roman hierarchy to shame. The standard of the examinations for matriculation, they all knew, set the standard for intermediate schools. Now, what was the standard of matriculation in the Queen's University, and what were Queen's Colleges doing to promote and elevate Intermediate Education in Ireland? In a volume of personal experiences published a few years ago, Professor D'Arcy Thompson stated that some of the students of his Greek class had still to learn their elements after they had passed the matriculation in Greek, and many of them came to him utterly innocent of Greek, and for weeks were engaged in mastering declensions and conjugations. Professor Nesbitt said that the requirements of the Queen's University in Ireland were lower than of any other; and Dr. Ryall said half the Harrow boys knew more than the students entered in Cork. Professor Craik, of Belfast, admitted that a man might go through the whole course of the College, and obtain a degree in medicine, without having any competent knowledge of the English language; and, in reply to further questions from the astounded Commissioners, he said—

"Possibly I could hardly go the length of saying that if a person came entirely ignorant of the English language I would pass him."

He (Mr. O'Donnell) could go on accumulating proofs to almost any amount, but he thought he had shown the House that there was, at any rate, a certain need of public inspection—and for a good deal more than there had been for the last 30 years, during which nearly £1,000,000 of the public money had been spent. He desired to keep the religious element as far apart as possible from the question; but it should strike hon. Members that there must have been some motive for this extraordinary playing fast-and-loose with principles of University education. When they saw the handful of students and of graduates which even this lax system produced, they could have some idea of the state of the Colleges if they had ventured to maintain the original stan- dard intended at their foundation. How desperate the state seemed to the managers might be concluded from the evidence given before the Endowed School Commission by a resident master of the Galway Erasmus Smith School. Mr. Killeen said that the grammar school had fallen off because the boys were admitted to the Queen's College before they knew their grammar at school, and he had heard the professors say that they had to teach the pupils grammar after they had been admitted scholars of the College—in fact, they got scholarships when they should have remained two or three years longer at school. That would show hon. Members one of the reasons which led to the deplorable degradation of the matriculation examination. When, in addition, they had the President of the Belfast Queen's College, in his evidence, laying stress on the very painful position the Queen's University would be in if they had no graduates to present to the public "at their annual assemblages in St. Patrick's Hall," and the great difficulty there would be in presenting any graduate except the graduation examination was reduced in the way the House had just heard, they would see the very close connection between the unpopularity of the system in Ireland and the disgraceful laxity of examination by which the Queen's University had endeavoured, so to speak, to outwit the Irish public, and to present the appearance of collegians and bachelors of arts when it was deprived by the popular abstention of the necessary materials for real collegians and real graduates. Although the increased strictness of examination proposed in the Bill might have the effect of exposing the barrenness, and weakness, and unpopularity of the mixed education system to the full extent dreaded by its managers, still the House should not hesitate for a single instant between a real system of education, however unsuccessful from a numerical point of view, and a system of nominal education, which was at once a numerical failure and an educational disgrace. Of course, at that stage he could not give all the details which might be rightly required in Committee; but he thought it would be granted from the facts he had already quoted, the necessity of some system of public inspection being established. They had seen that the Queen's Colleges had reduced their matriculation examination so as practically to abolish it, and, as a consequence, had to make graduates within three years out of the raw boys whom they admitted, and whom they bribed with scholarships to leave their grammar schools. More logically than creditably, then, the Queen's University must proceed to carry out a system of sham graduation in order to match a sham matriculation. It would undoubtedly be very painful if, at the annual meeting at St. Patrick's Hall, they were able to present to the public no degrees, and it was clear they would be able to present hardly any if those degrees were the result of a trying examination. At the same time, he should remind the House that the reduction in the original standard of education, and the general lowering of instruction in these institutions, originally took place in spite of the protests of the Queen's University graduates. The graduates in the three Colleges met the Queen's College Commission with most earnest protests against doing anything to encourage the increased laxity, and asked them, on the contrary, to set bounds to the progress of sham education. The Commissioners, also, refused to approve of the lax system practised by the College authorities, and recommended them forthwith to establish a real entrance examination, which would be a fitting prelude to a real degree examination. The protests of the graduates and the recommendation of the Commissioners were equally neglected and defied, and influences to which he need not particularly refer succeeded in allowing the Queen's University authorities to carry out their system of nominal education and nominal degrees. Such a state of things had existed for more than 20 years, and would continue, unless the House insisted on an improvement. It should not be forgotten that the faculty of arts was the only faculty of education, and this was the case - in a special manner in the Queen's University of Ireland; for in other Universities the training of professional students included a certain portion of general knowledge and learning. In the Irish Queen's College, however, from the moment a medical student passed the ridiculous entrance examination, he was freed from all obligations of general in- struction. The student's knowledge even of the English language was not tested in any subsequent year after he was admitted. Not a single gleam of general instruction lit up the way of the Queen's College medical student. The professional faculties had come to furnish the large majority of the candidates at those so-called examinations. At the last examination, it was stated that out of 831 students nominally on the rolls, 527 were medical students and 45 attended in the department of engineering. The entire of the arts faculty of the three Colleges contained only 247 students—students, he would remind the House, provided by the matriculation and other tests to which he had referred. In fact, they might now describe the Colleges established for the advancement of learning in Ireland as a huge dissecting-room, with medical class-rooms and the class-rooms of an ordinary grammar school attached; for the arts faculty was only a small annex of a considerable system of medical and other professional education. The Queen's University had utterly failed to play any useful part in the general education of the country. When the House remembered that the establishment of a medical faculty was hardly contemplated at first—and, in the words of Sir Robert Kane, the plan of the buildings of the Colleges bad been drawn up and approved by the Government, on the supposition of there being one faculty of arts, with schools of engineering and agriculture, everyone could understand the significance of the total failure of the original plan of the Government. It could not be contended that the objects of the Queen's Colleges Bill could be satisfied by the erection of a number of medical schools in the provincial capitals of Ireland. At present they were little more than medical schools, and so far as the faculty of arts existed, were bad grammar schools, competing, by moans of lavish scholarships, with the regular grammar schools, and lowering the standard of intermediate education by the shameful laxity of their entrance examinations. During the 30 years of the establishment of these institutions, the country had been subsidizing them to the annual tune of some £33,000, and during those 30 years some 950 bachelors in arts had been passed—30 nominal graduates per annum, at a total expense of nearly £1,000,000 sterling, or an annual cost to the Exchequer of £1,000 sterling per graduate. He would ask the House if such a result had not been too dearly bought?—and if the House resolved to continue the payment of the public money to these institutions, they ought at least insist that the annual handful of graduates should be graduates and not grammar schoolboys masquerading as University men, in order to prevent the Queen's University being placed in the position of having no graduates to present to the public. If the House came to the conclusion that nothing could really reform the Queen's University except reforming it off the face of the earth, he was not prepared altogether to gainsay such a resolution; but, if the Queen's University were to be maintained, there should be an entrance examination of a real character, and scholarship examinations of a real character enforced. He did not pretend to hold out any hope that a mixed education system would, under any circumstances, recommend itself to the people of Ireland. In the case of the only College which was a numerical success, mixed education had been practically given up, and the Queen's College, Belfast, in its students, professors, and class-books, was a Protestant and Presbyterian institution. But so long as a mixed education system was maintained—be it unpopular, be it rejected 10 times over by the nation for which it was nominally intended—at any rate let it not be utterly unworthy of the name of education. It cost £1,000 to turn out a student from the Queen's University. The British soldier was an expensive article; so were the converts made by the Society for the Conversion of the Jews. But these examples paled before the students of the Queen's University. It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.