asked the Postmaster General, If a man named Channer, who has been employed for many years as an occasional messenger in the sub-postal district of West Malling, Kent, was last year refused permanent employment as a rural messenger, though strongly recommended for the appointment; if a small boy named Langridge aged sixteen, received such a similar appointment as a rural messenger, and has since been suspended, having been convicted of drunkenness; if a convict on ticket of leave not long ago received the appointment of rural messenger near Edenbridge, and has since been dismissed or again convicted; if there is not difficulty in finding full grown men to undertake the duty of a rural messenger at the present rates of remuneration; and, if he will refuse his sanction to the practice of entrusting Her Majesty's mail bags in lonely country districts to boys of small stature and tender years, who are physically incapable of protecting themselves and the valuable property entrusted to them?

The man named Channer was not eligible, being above the age at which rural letter-carriers are admitted. Langridge, being 16, was eligible, and having obtained a Civil Service certificate was appointed. He afterwards got drunk, and was dismissed. A man, who it turned out was a convict on ticket-of-leave, was unfortunately employed by the sub-postmaster of Cowden to deliver the letters, with the knowledge and concurrence of the postmaster of Edenbridge, and of a resident magistrate whom he consulted. This man has again been convicted of stealing and sentenced to penal servitude. As a rule, there is no difficulty in finding suitable persons to undertake the duties required at the present rate of remuneration. The system now in force has not been found generally to work badly, and it does not seem desirable to alter it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can communicate to the House the result of the inquiry which he informed the House he had directed to be made with reference to the death of Sir Francis Groldsmid from an accident in getting out of a Railway carriage at the Waterloo Station when it was alleged that the door had been opened from without before the train had stopped; and, whether he will now cause inquiry to be made as to what regulations have been made to prevent the repetition of a similar accident?

I laid upon the Table of the House last night the Report of Colonel Yolland upon the lamentable occurrence to which my hon. Friend refers. Colonel Yolland attributes the accident to the door of the compartment, which was fastened, having been opened by some of the officials at the station before the train had stopped; and, also, to the absence of suitable arrangements respecting the footboard of the carriage. I shall carefully consider the Report; a copy has been forwarded to the London and South-Western Railway Company, and I have requested them to inform me what steps they have taken, or propose to take, to prevent the repetition of similar deplorable accidents.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is intended to raise fresh troops in India to take the place of those that have been despatched to Malta?

No intimation has been received here that it is intended for the present to raise fresh troops in India to take the place of those that have been despatched to Malta. Should the service, however, be prolonged, the Government of India, who are responsible for its peace and security, may think it necessary to complete their normal military establishment.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is his intention to bring in, in this Session, any Bill for amending the Law which relates to the collection of Rates in Dublin?

Sir, a Commission has been recently sitting in Dublin inquiring into the whole subject referred to in the Question of the hon. Member; and until I have had an opportunity of fully considering the Report of that Commission, and carefully reading the Evidence taken before it, it would be premature to come to any decision on the subject.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the Congress about to be held at Berlin, England will be the only Great Power represented both by her Prime Minister and her Foreign Secretary; and, whether there is any precedent for the adoption of this course in former Congresses by England? He also wished to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to state to the House the reasons which have induced the Government to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of two plenipotentiaries to attend the Congress?

With regard to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, we do not know for certain who are to be the Representatives of all the other Powers at the Congress. With regard to the second Question, whether there is any precedent for the adoption of the course of sending two Representatives by England—the Prime Minister and the Se- cretary of State for Foreign Affairs—there is no such precedent. With regard to the third Question—of which the hon. Gentleman has not given Notice—I really do not see that I can say anything more than I said last night.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give the House the assurance that in the Congress about to be held, Her Majesty's Government will undertake that the case of the Armenians shall be considered as well as that of the other Christians living under Turkish rule?

If my hon. Friend will look at the Treaty of San Stefano, particularly Article 16, he will see that the case of the Armenians must necessarily come before the Congress, and no doubt it will receive the careful consideration of the Powers.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has had under his consideration any plan for the construction of the ram of an ironclad ship, so that it should be removable, when not actually required for purposes of war, or for its being covered in time of peace in such a manner as to render it less damaging in the event of a collision with another vessel?

, in reply, said, that the rams of the Inflexible, the Agamemnon, the Shannon, and other vessels of modern construction were so fitted that they could be removed and replaced. Any temporary covering, he might add, which might be placed on a ram must be destroyed in the event of a collision.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Greece has received an invitation to the Congress, Greece not being a party to the Treaties of 1856 or 1871; and, if not, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to give effect to their expressed wish that Greece should be represented?

As the invitations to the Con- gress have been addressed to the Powers who were signatories to the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, and as Greece was not one of those Powers, an invitation could not be addressed to her. The invitation to Greece to attend must come from the Congress itself, and the subject will be brought before the Congress as soon as it meets.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information to-day respecting the condition of the German Emperor?

Sir, we have received a telegram this morning from Lord Odo Russell, in which he says that His Majesty has passed a good night, and that his state was satisfactory this morning. I have also seen a telegram from the German Embassy, to the effect that His Majesty's state was considered satisfactory by the doctors, and that there was much less pain this morning than yesterday.

With reference to the suggestion which I ventured to make yesterday to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has found any precedent which would justify his proposing some Motion or form of Address whereby the House might express its detestation and abhorrence at this second attempt which has been made upon the life of the Emperor of Germany?

Sir, I have been unable to find in any of the recent precedents of this House any case in which a Vote of the character referred to has been proposed to or passed by this House, with the exception of the case of the assassination of President Lincoln. That was a case in which the deed had been completed and in which an Address expressing sympathy with those who had been bereaved, and horror at the crime which had been committed, was adopted by both branches of the Legislature. There is no precedent for an Address in the case of an attempt upon the life of any Sovereign; and I cannot help thinking that there might be inconvenience in introducing a precedent which we might possibly be asked to follow in other case in which it might be less convenient to adopt such a course than it would be at the present moment in this particular case, on which the feeling of the House would be so unanimous. But, Sir, in the few words which I ventured to say last night, which were echoed so much better by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and which were so emphatically cheered and sympathized with by the whole of the House, I think I expressed the general feeling of the country. I would only further say that my noble Friend the Secretary of State or Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) has already, in the name of England, expressed to the German Government the sense, which he is so well able to express, of the feeling entertained throughout the country in regard to the crime. In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary that any further expression of feeling on the part of the House should be given.

asked the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, Whether it is his intention to proceed, before the holidays, with the Motion of which ht has given Notice, on going into Committee of Supply, with reference to portions of an article by the right hon. Member for Greenwich which has appeared in "The Nineteenth Century?"

, in reply, said, that from the nature of the Motion itself he felt himself bound to bring it forward a the earliest possible period. He was therefore anxious that it should come on next Thursday; but, considering that the right hon. Gentleman to whom it referred was in Scotland, and looking at the difficulties which at all times stood in the way of private Members, he did not think he should succeed if he were to endeavour to bring it on on that day. He therefore intended to bring it forward on the earliest possible opportunity after Whitsuntide, which would probably be the first Thursday after the House re-assembled. When he gave Notice of his Motion he had every reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich would be in his place, particularly as an intimation had been given of an important state- ment from the Government in both Houses on that day. If he had had any idea that the right hon. Gentleman would not be present, he should certainly have postponed his Motion.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Report of the Select Committee and the Evidence on the Merchant Seamen Bill will be placed in the hands of Members?

, in reply, said, the Minutes of Proceedings would be ready in a few days, the Evidence not for some little time. The Bill was on the Paper for Thursday; but, of course, it could not be taken until hon. Members had had time to consider the Evidence.

Sir, I beg to ask the hon. Member for MidLincolnshire, Whether, seeing that this day has been specially arranged for the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, he could not postpone his Motion with reference to the Derby Day to the Evening Sitting?

If I thought it were the general wish of the House that no portion of the morning Sitting should be sacrificed in the discussion of this Motion, I would at once act upon the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but I do not think such is the case. Besides, I feel sure that it will occupy very little time indeed. I think the House will be of opinion that an ample apology for my bringing forward this matter will be found in the fact that my Motion is in support of a time-honoured custom, which has been practised with the general approval of hon. Members for a period which extends over an entire generation of Members. Since 1847, if not for a longer time, this House has invariably adjourned over the Derby Day, except when the Derby Day fell within the Whitsuntide Recess, as was the case last year. In the previous year; and the year before that, the Prime Minister, then Mr. Disraeli, himself moved the adjournment over the Derby Day as a matter of course. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Green- wich, when he was Prime Minister, more than once made a similar Motion. Beginning in 1852—and not in 1860, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last night—Lord Palmerston made the same Motion, and continued to do so during the whole time he presided over the Government of the country. Under these circumstances, I rather regret—and that for more reasons than one—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thought it incumbent upon him to follow the precedents which have been set him by the former Leaders of this House. Of this, however, I am quite certain—had he thought fit to do so it would have been an absolute "certainty" for him—what is called in racing parlance a real "good thing"—on its being carried; and I confess I am sorry that what I am afraid will appear as a slight on this time-honoured race should have come in this House from its Leader, and who also happens to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows his own business best, and hence it is that it has fallen to a private Member to make this Motion to-day. Lord Palmerston once said there were Motions made in the House which the longest speeches could not make intelligible to hon. Members, while there were others which might be comprehended without any speech at all; and this Motion is, I am inclined to think, one of those which immediately recommend themselves to the good sense of the House of Commons. I really do not know what Business is to occupy the attention of the House upon Wednesday; but I think it cannot be of sufficient importance to induce us to break through a time-honoured custom; and I also think that when hon. Gentlemen are opposed to a practice for which we have had precedents during the last 30 years, we are entitled to ask them how it happens that that which was considered right and fit in 1876 should become improper and unfit in 1878? The onus is, I think, thrown upon them to show why we should now depart from a custom which has for so long a time met with the assent and approval of the House. So far as I am concerned, I do not see that this Motion can be opposed on the ground of a great pressure of Business, nor, indeed, do I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise any such objection. It is, therefore, clear that it is not on the ground of any pressure of Business that my Motion is to be opposed. That being so, I may state that there are one or two reasons which strike me why we should adjourn over to-morrow. In the first place, we shall be acting upon a precedent of many years' observance; and, in the next place, the day has come to be regarded as a holiday not only by Members but also by the admirable staff of officials connected with this House, all of whom perform their duties in a most admirable manner. Indeed, I think it must be admitted that there is no body of public men more indebted to its staff of officers than the Members of the House of Commons are to their officers for the courtesy and attention with which they perform their duties. I must say, therefore, that I consider it would be somewhat harsh on our part were we to abrogate the holiday to which they have been looking forward for some time past, and for which they have no doubt made all their arrangements already. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton), who has notified his intention to oppose the Motion, stated on a former occasion that the character of the race at Epsom had changed almost entirely; that formerly the majority of the horses were owned by noblemen and Members of Parliament, but that such was not now the case. [Mr. ASSHETON: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend cries "Hear, hear!" but I think he has made a great mistake, for on looking over the list of what is called "probable starters," as published in one of the sporting papers, I find that a great many of the horses belong to distinguished persons. I believe there is one belonging to my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition; but the first favourite—and, as far as I am informed, the horse likely to win—belongs to another Member of this House; and, surely, under these circumstances, we should fail in our duty to our brother Member if we do not all go down to Epsom to witness his triumph. It will be a proud thing for all of us if the Derby of 1878 should come back to the House of Commons; and in support of the hon. Member and his horse I express an earnest hope, for the hon. Member's own sake, as well as for our own, that "Sir Joseph" may be the winner. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Thursday.

, in seconding the Motion, said: The Marquess of Granby, when moving in 1849 the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day, stated that it was a custom which had been observed from time immemorial. If, then, in 1849, the adjournment in question was regarded as a custom dating from time immemorial, I should like to know what it is now? Here I must say that all of us regret the absence of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who, if he had to bring forward the Amendment to this Motion, would have introduced it with something like originality and humour. In these days, when we have to listen to so much repetition and seriousness, it is absolutely refreshing to hear something we have not heard before, and, although we may not agree with it, to have an opportunity to laugh instead of yawn. I have, in listening to debates in this House, often wondered in how many forms it is possible to present the same idea; for, generally speaking, after the first hour of debate we hear nothing new, but have to listen to the same ideas brought forward and clothed in different words. The simple question, however, with which we have now to deal, is whether we shall have a holiday to-morrow or not? We have had, I think, a most laborious Session. We met at an earlier period than usual, but why I have not yet been able to find out—and our perambulations night and day through the adjoining Lobbies have been both numerous and fatiguing, and, judging by the faces I see before me, I think we want, as Mrs. Brown says, "a little outing in the country." No one can ever accuse the supporters of this Amendment with being too genial or jovial. Because a few are dishonest gamblers, and a few drink more than they can walk away with, they would punish the many who desire to enjoy an innocent and a pleasant day. I do not deny that there may be some who make the Derby a business matter—men who bet largely and eat and drink little; but there are far more who look upon the Derby as a pleasure, who bet little, but who eat and drink a great deal. The Derby is, in fact, a great national fête, and, as a great national fête, it is most fitting that the grand Assembly of the nation should take part in it. Hon. Members ought to remember that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Look around the House, and you will see that the faces of the overworked Members are pale with the intensity of political thought and with the cares of State. The Members of the Government seem overworked, and to have duly earned their salaries. Overworked, too, appear the occupants of the front Opposition Bench, whose only salary is hope. They also require a holiday, and especially so as we all know that "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and nothing is so good for a sick heart as a little amusement. Heaven only knows the sorrows and disappointments of the Opposition. It is not merely by study, or by the consumption of the midnight oil, that we can hope to qualify ourselves as legislators. We must study men, and men's follies and vices, as well as their virtues, if we are to legislate for them in a proper manner, and, therefore, it is our duty to observe them under all forms and under all circumstances. Therefore I say, that wherever the people are, there, too, should their Representatives be, and to-morrow they will certainly be on the Epsom racecourse. Therefore we should say, not "Away with the Derby," but "Away to the Derby." The whole world looks up to England for the preservation and perfection of horse-racing; and, therefore, it is not unnatural that we should observe among our most eminent statesmen decided proclivities to support it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a living example of this, for I am happy to find that last year the right hon. Gentleman won at York the celebrated Gimcrack Stakes. I would ask the opposers of this Motion if they are aware of the inconveniences which they create for their fellow Members? If they succeed in defeating this Motion, what is to become of the well-appointed drags with those mysterious hampers on the top labelled "Fortnum and Mason?" Have they no sympathy for the occupants of a well-packed 'bus, or those of a non-pretentious hansom? As I have before said, this House is a great National Assembly; horse-racing is a great national pastime; and the Derby is the race, above all races, to which the people of this country look forward with the greatest pride and the greatest gratification. Under these circumstances, this great National Assembly should give a national support to the Derby. This I should expect to hear from the Radicals, who pride themselves upon their proclivities; but, on the contrary, while the Conservatives proclaim—"Let everything alone," the Radicals, on the other hand, proclaim—"Do not let anything alone." My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), however, suggests that those who wish to go to the Derby might do so, and leave the Business of the House to him and the supporters of his Bill with respect to Sunday Closing in Ireland. I am afraid that would be a dangerous proceeding, and an unconstitutional one, as I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman would not find a quorum left to make a House to enable him to proceed with his measure; but if hon. Gentlemen will undertake not to divide, I think they might be made a present of the House, and they can have a grand day of unlimited talk. Tomorrow the minds of hon. Members will be unequal to the task of legislation. Their thoughts will run in a far different channel—and the first favourite, the second favourite, the third favourite, the outsider, the dark horse, and the one that "could have won, only something happened to him," will be in their minds; and if they are called upon to legislate, I really think they may do a great injury to the Empire. Some of my hon. Friends have such an antipathy to the Derby, that I really think they must have lost a fortune at Epsom in their younger days. They are not genial spirits, who can enjoy the many various amusements which characterize the classic grounds of Epsom. My hon. Friends love to call themselves the Party of sense. They love to look upon horse-racing as a silly amusement. Would they like to know what a wise man once did—a wiser man than even the hon. Member who has given Notice of opposition to this Motion—I mean King Solomon? King Solomon kept 40,000 horses; he had 12,000 horsemen or jockeys; and, better than all, he had races every day in the week after dinner. But, seriously speaking, the House has already made penal nearly all the sports and pastimes of our ancestors—cock-fighting, dog-fighting, bull-baiting, man-fighting, and nearly all kinds of fighting except that of Armies, when one-half the world is prepared to slaughter the other half in the name of civilization. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire has told us that this Motion has been sanctioned since 1847 by Lord Palmerston, Lord Beaconsfield, the right hon. Member for Greenwich, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and good, indeed, must be the cause to unite so many elements of warfare. But hon. Members around me are super-excellent; they are anxious for a little more talk—a little more debate. We have already had too much talk. We can have talk any day of the year; we can have the Derby only once. In conclusion, I would remind the House that horse-racing was sanctioned—in fact, to some degree established—by James I.; and so far back as the reign of Charles II. races were held in Hyde Park, and I think they created more amusement and caused less annoyance than the "peace" meetings and the "war" meetings which have been lately held there. In the midst of great social changes, let us be left at least something manly. This is an effeminate age; we are becoming too ladylike. There are men of the present day—strait-laced, tight-buttoned, eye-glassed, gingerbread sort of creatures—who would frighten our ancestors, if they could only see them. The origin of horse-racing is ancient, and by no means inglorious; it has grown up among us and become a great institution; we have carried it to a state of perfection hitherto unknown; and I hope the day is far distant when the House will refuse to sanction a pastime so manly and so noble.

opposed the Motion. The hon. Member who had moved the adjournment, and the hon. Member who had spoken in support of the Motion, had put the cart before the horse. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had done so, when he advanced the preposterous proposition that the onus probandi rested, not on the Mover of the Resolution, but of the Amendment. He had always understood that the onus probandi rested on the person who made a Motion, not on the man who opposed it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. Power) also put his cart before his horse, because he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) on the ground that the opposition to the Motion would not be introduced with originality or humour. How could the hon. Member possibly tell how he (Mr. Assheton) was going to introduce his opposition? He would leave the hon. Member's humour to the hon. Member himself, because the matter was far too serious to be made a mere matter of jest; and he would, also, leave his originality to the hon. Member, because he had told the House that "All work and no play made Jack a dull boy." He thought he had heard that before. Members who believed it beneath the dignity of the House to adjourn for so trifling a cause might congratulate themselves that this Motion was no longer brought before them by the Prime Minister as an Imperial concern and essential to the welfare of the country; but that it was left to a private Member because it was a private Member's day. If hon. Members wanted a holiday, there were many more appropriate days on which they could adjourn. He had never heard a weaker case than that which was made for the Motion; and he thought they should at least have some better reason before giving up a working day. He could not admit that a thing which had been going on for 100 years was a timehonoured custom. The race itself was not of that age, and the custom of adjournment not half so long. It might be true, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had said, that many of the horses were now owned by Members of that and the other House of Parliament; but the general run of racing was not what it was 40 years ago, nor was the Business of the House, for there was more to be done now; and a question of a day more or less was a matter of far more serious import now than it was at that time. When the other House of Parliament, some time ago, found that important Business was coming on upon the Derby Day, it agreed to postpone the Derby, in fact to postpone its pleasure to its Business, and so ought the House of Commons to do now. No one grudged a holiday less than he did; but they were going to take their holidays very soon. Those who kept the officials of that House, not from 12 to 6 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon, but up all night, to discuss at what time Irishmen should drink whisky, were the persons who might fairly incur the charge of infringing on the holidays of those gentlemen. And as for the Members themselves, did anyone imagine that one the less would go to the Derby whether they adjourned or not? The Derby Day was one of the most disgusting days in the year, unless you went to the Derby, for you could do no business on it; and if you went to any place of amusement, it was so crowded as to be disagreeable. He would sooner see a holiday given on the day of the Oxford and Cambridge cricket match or the Queen's ball than on that of the Derby. He should protest, if no one else did, when the Question was put, and divide the House.

said, he had no intention of detaining the House for more than a moment before going to a division, if they were to go to one. He only wished to explain that in abstaining from making the Motion which, as usual for a good many years past, had been made by the Leader of the House for the adjournment over the Derby Day, he was not actuated by any desire or intention to oppose the adjournment. On the contrary, he had every intention of voting for it. But it seemed to him that the old practice of the Motion being made by some one unconnected with the Government—a practice which was superseded for a certain number of years from 1860, or, at all events, at a time when the House was unanimous on the subject—was, upon the whole, a better practice to revert to than that which had been adopted of late years. His hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) was not quite correct in referring to the case when Lord Palmerston moved the adjournment for the Derby Day in 1852. It was perfectly true that Lord Palmerston moved the adjournment in 1852, but he was not then in Office—Lord Derby's Government were in Office at the time—and Lord Palmerston moved it as a private Member. But in 1860, when there was a general feeling on the subject, he believed it was the best course that the Leader of the House should make the Motion. Anyone, however, who referred to what had occurred of late years must have seen that there was more opposition; and as the day was not one usually devoted to Government Business, he thought it was better that the Motion should be made by some independent Member, and then all could vote for it on grounds of perfect equality. For himself, he would vote for the adjournment as a custom which, whatever might be said against it in the abstract, had prevailed very long, and which there was no good reason for setting aside. As far as the unfortunate Members of the Government were concerned, as it was a day always selected for a Cabinet Council, an adjournment was of no advantage to them.

said, he should very much enjoy a Derby Day or a holiday; but he should be sorry that a vote of the House should compel the Business of the country to wait upon the horse-racing Members of the Assembly. Tomorrow was the day for his Bill, and he was quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the end of the Session, would make this excuse for the fact that a number of measures had to be abandoned—that there was no time to pass them. A good deal of time had been taken up by this discussion, and thus the consideration of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill would be interfered with. He was ready, however, to withdraw his Bill in favour of the Bill of his Scotch Friends and in order to facilitate Public Business. If the House adjourned for the sake of seeing horse-racing to-morrow, he wanted to know whether his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not have some answer to the accusations that would be hurled against him? Within the last 24 hours he had heard a Minister of the Crown say that he could not go on with a most important measure because he had not time. Those who wanted to go to the Derby might go there; but let those who wished to transact the Business of the country be allowed to do so. He knew he was speaking against the proclivities of many in the House; but he also knew he was speaking what was right in the face of the country and of Europe. He would not say that they were going to fiddle while Rome was burning; but he would say they were going to trifle while Europe was on the verge of the most critical events. Would the Government make this Motion if it were a Government day? He protested against the adjournment as a waste of time. He could not endorse what the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power) had said, that the Representatives of the people ought to go where the people went—that they ought to go to horse-races, man-fights, and dog-fights.

explained that he had never said any such thing.

said, that no one could be more startled than the hon. Member at the extension of his own logic.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having resolved to discontinue the practice of themselves moving the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day. This is a hoyeful sign. If the Motion is a good Motion, the Government should still move it. If it is not a good Motion, the House should reject it. The Government evidently regard it as a doubtful matter. Some of us regard it as positively mischievous. It is a sad waste of time. It sacrifices a private Member's day, one of the Wednesdays, of which only about eight remain. This is in itself no small objection. The chief objection to it is that it gives the sanction of this Assembly, whose high character we are all so jealous to maintain, to an amusement which, though it may be innocent in itself, is the cause of enormous evil in almost every town throughout the country. It is impossible to estimate the distress and misery caused by the speculation and gambling which attend all horse races, especially those on the Derby Day. A series of celebrated pictures in the Royal Academy, entitled "The Road to Ruin," are now attracting much notice. I fear, Sir, it is a fact beyond all dispute, that the road which has led thousands of our countrymen to ruin has run to a very great extent, if not mainly, along the race courses of the country. This, with us, is a matter of conscience. I hope the House will abandon a custom which is grievous to many of its Members, and to a very large number of the people of this country. Those hon. Members who wish to attend the race can readily obtain the leave of the House to absent themselves. Or they can do, what they not unfrequently do, absent themselves and go without leave. But do not let them stop the legislative Business of the House. To this we very strongly object. It does not tend to the honour, and dignity, and credit of the House, that this should be done. In 1872, the minority against adjournment over the Derby Day amounted to 58. In 1874, it was 69. In 1875, it was 81. In 1876, it increased to 118. I trust, Sir, that the House will to-day still further increase this minority, or, better still, convert it into a majority.

considered it his duty to vote for the adjournment. If it had been simply a question of horse-racing he would not have voted for it; but gambling had decreased to a very great extent, and the Derby was now a mere picnic.

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, after line 38, to insert the following section:—"Every tenant of land of the yearly value of one hundred pounds or upwards," said, his object in moving this Amendment was to bring tenants to take a more complete and thorough part in the management of roads. As the Bill at present stood, the management was left far too much in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, who consisted entirely of the proprietary class. He wished to make tenants of £100 and upwards road trustees; whereas the Bill ignored tenants altogether, unless, perhaps, Corporations who paid £800 and upwards, which was going too far, and was a proposition to which he hoped the Committee would never consent. He wanted to see the Road Boards popularized, and it was high time that something in that direction were done. There was no reason, that he could see, why their counties should not be exactly like the municipalities in their great towns, and until they were so they would not be perfect. In the meantime, when a Bill was being introduced for creating one system of management for the whole of the roads, he thought it was a pity not to recognize the popular element a little more, and with that object he proposed the Amendment.

said, he effect of this Amendment in the county next to that in which he resided would be simply disastrous, for it would give an overwhelming majority to a particular class of persons who would, practically, swamp the Board. There would be, he calculated, 1,585 persons on the Road Board instead of 290. These persons would be made up as follows:—The Commissioners of Supply for that county, at present, were 187; the factors, 10; persons appointed by each Corporation or incorporated Company, 4; two persons out of each parish elected by the ratepayers from their own number, 86; one person for every police burgh in the county, 3; total 290. Under the hon. Member for Glasgow's Amendment the Commissioners of Supply would remain at 187, the number of tenants on the valuation roll, paying a rent of £100 or upwards yearly, would be 1,128. Six persons out of each of the 43 parishes elected by the ratepayers from their own number 258, and 4 persons elected by the Commission of the Police of each police burgh, 12; total, 1,585. He need not point out the absurdity of such an arrangement, and he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

said, he did not at all approve of the principle that persons should be on the Road Board not as representing any body, but simply because they occupied property of a certain amount. The Amendment, too, instead of making the Boards more popular and representative, would operate in the adverse direction.

hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not press his Amendment, and if he did that the Government would not assent to it. He thought the Amendment was dictated rather by opposition to the Commissioners of Supply than by a desire to give the tenants representation. It was a fact, also, that there were many local Acts, the terms of which were practically settled by the tenants, which were so far from being representative, that they were very much less liberal than the proposals of the Government.

said, he had had very little time to consider the Amendment, as it had not been put down on the Paper. He doubted whether it would have the effect desired by the hon. Baronet, even if carried. An unincorporated Company could not hold land except through trustees.

said, the trustees could not vote for Commissioners of Supply.

said, he would not press the matter now, but would bring up the Amendment on the Report.

said, he did not understand why £800 was chosen as the limit in the Bill, and why it was not £700 or £600, or any other sum. In his opinion, £800 was too much; but as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) intended to move to reduce it to £200, he should not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, the professed object of the Bill was to place corporations who held land in the position of landed proprietors, yet while an ordi- nary proprietor would have a vote for comparatively small rental, a corporation would not unless it came within the £800 class. Now, a corporation was regarded by the law as exactly similar to a private individual, and why should they not be treated as other individuals? He considered that every corporation whose landed estates were worth £200 a-year should have the right to vote in these matters; and therefore he moved to substitute the word "two" for the word "eight," in page 8, line 42.

also thought that the valuation of £800, required by this clause of the Bill, in order to enable a corporation or a corporate Company to appoint trustees, was too high. He was in favour of reducing the amount as proposed, while, at the same time, restricting the title of the Company to ownership qualification.

said, as the Bill now stood any Company assessed at £800 for taxes of any kind during the year could appoint a representative. He thought it would be desirable to define the right of Companies more clearly.

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh ought not to be accepted. The question raised here was really as to what parties might be represented by proxy. In the case of incorporated Companies, their position was the same as that of Commissioners of Supply, who could be represented by the factors of their landed estates if the rentals were £800 a-year. If the Amendment passed, the Companies would be entitled to vote for any part of their rental, whether received from houses or other sources.

replied, that a rental of £200 a-year from landed estates should be sufficient. Every corporation had an official—their treasurer, who represented the trust—who was altogether different from an ordinary factor. If the Lord Advocate thought that £200 a-year was too small, he was willing to take a larger sum; but he thought £800 a-year perfectly preposterous. There might as well be a clause to the effect that no corporation with a landed estate should have any representative, as pass the clause as it at present stood.

, in page 8, line 42, proposed, in order to make it clear that Companies must be owners of land and not tenants only, to insert after the word "assessed" the words "as owners."

said, he did not in the least object to the addition of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire.

said, with reference to the 3rd subsection in the clause relating to the appointment of county road trustees, there should be only one person instead of two elected by the ratepayers in each parish situated wholly or partly in the county. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 1, sub-section 3, to leave out the words "two persons," and insert the words "one person, not being a Commissioner of Supply, or otherwise a trustee." His reason for moving the Amendment was, that he regarded the persons constituted as trustees under the Bill as so numerous that the Boards would be unwieldy, and he thought it would be almost impossible to get the Bill fairly worked under them. He therefore proposed to substitute one trustee for the two provided for by the Bill.

said, he had refrained from moving his Amendment to increase the number of trustees to be elected by each parish, because he was informed that in some counties where the number of parishes was very large, any increase of the representation would make the number of elected members cumbersome and unworkable. But he hoped the Government would not consent to reduce the number of trustees appointed by the Bill. He would have preferred that three members should be elected by the ratepayers of each parish in the place of two; but he should certainly oppose the appointment of any smaller number.

pointed out that in several counties within his knowledge the election of two members by each parish would completely swamp the other representatives. In some counties which had private Acts, it was found that they could not even give one elected member to each parish, because it would make the representation unfairly great in comparison with the other constituents of the Board. He thought the best way to avoid this difficulty in the present case would be to reduce the number of trustees to one.

said, the object of having these elected members was to secure that a certain number of persons representing the ratepayers should take part in the business of managing the roads. He, therefore, thought it very important not to reduce their number to an extent which would prevent their getting proper members. In Lanarkshire the number of elected members would be only four or five, as the number of parishes in that county was comparatively small. He wished to ask the Government a question, which he begged to apologize for not having put into a more workable shape—namely, why the number of elected members should not be made to depend upon the size of the parishes? He thought that it might be easily laid down as a rule that a parish with less than 1,000 or 500 inhabitants should have only one representative; but that as the population increased to 5,000, 10,000, or 50,000, the proportion should be larger.

said, it might be that the number of the road trustees would be inconveniently large; that was part of the framework of the Bill. It must be remembered that elected members and non-elected members represented different interests, and he hoped that the House would not consent to reduce the proportion of elected members. It would be remembered that tenants were not directly represented. The only representation of the ratepayers was secured by this clause. He was quite sure that if Scotland were taken as a whole, it would be found that the number of Commissioners of Supply much exceeded the total number of elected members that would be elected at the rate of two to each parish.

quite admitted that in many counties—indeed, he might say in most counties—the body of trustees would be very unwieldly, and not the best possible for the despatch of business required in the management of the roads throughout the county; but, at the same time, it was exceedingly necessary to have a fair representation by elected members, and he did not think that could be secured by adopting the Amendment proposed for reducing the number of representatives to one for the ratepayers of each parish. Of course, the ratepayers were not tied down to parochial representatives, and he hoped they would be able to furnish a sufficient number of trustees as members of district committees for the management of local roads.

said, he deprecated any suggestion of a conflict of interests between the elected trustees and the Commissioners of Supply. In the county of Aberdeen there were two tenant trustees elected by each parish, and that number had been found to work very satisfactorily. In the case of For-farshire, which was a county of small parishes, they desired to have two elected trustees, and the Commissioners of Supply were by their experience quite satisfied, after the experience they had, of the great advantage of having two tenant trustees elected by each parish as tenant representatives. These trustees were held responsible by their neighbours to have the roads kept in good condition, and for seeing that the money spent upon them was economically and well spent. It was believed that the election of two trustees would insure economical and judicious management. The elected trustees had no voice whatever in regard to the payment of debt, or in regard to the assessment, therefore, both of which affected the Commissioners of Supply alone. There was, therefore, no conflict of interests between the two classes of trustees. It would be practically impossible, without a very nice machinery, perfectly to balance the powers in the road trust, because the number of Commissioners of Supply was so various in the different counties of Scotland, that what was found to suit in one would not suit in another. He thought, judging from the experience gained from private Bills which had passed, that the proposal to elect two trustees would work perfectly well.

said, he did not suggest that there was any conflict of interests between elected trustees and Commissioners of Supply. It appeared to him that their interests were identical; that, however, in his opinion, was no reason for withholding a fair representation from either.

had not alluded to any remark of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate concerning a conflict of interests between the elected trustees and the Commissioners of Supply, but to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell).

said, in the absence, for domestic reasons, of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), he begged to move the Amendment of which he (Sir George Balfour) had given Notice—namely, to insert, after the provision for the election of two representatives by each parish in the county, the words—

"And in counties where the tenants are at present trustees for the commutation roads, on the qualification of paying certain rentals, these tenants shall be trustees for all roads."

said, it was hardly possible for the Government to assent to the Amendment. The proposal was really, that in all cases where a county had a local Act by which the tolls were abolished, the machinery of the old Act should be retained for certain purposes, instead of the new. It was quite competent for these counties to retain their present local Acts, and their local machinery by which they were worked; but, on the other hand, if they discarded those local Acts, and superseded them by the adoption of the present Bill, he did not see why the Committee should import confusion into the Bill by allowing the old machinery to operate.

said, the Committee having adopted the principle that each parish should have two representatives, he begged to propose that the same measure of justice be extended to police burghs and he would therefore move that in the 4th sub-section of the clause in reference to trustees, instead of one person only being appointed as trustee by the Commissioners of Police of any police burgh within, or partly within, a county, there should be two persons. The parishes in Scotland would be found, as a rule, to be considerably smaller than the burghs; and, besides that, the rental of the parishes was very much smaller on the average than the rental of the burghs. He thought, therefore, it would be exceedingly anomalous to say that every parish, however small, should have two representatives, while every burgh, however large, should have only one. This appeared to him an oversight, and the provision should have been the other way—namely, that while parishes might have one representative, the burghs, being larger and more important, should have two. He begged to move that the word "one" be omitted, and the word "two" be inserted.

asked, with reference to the proposal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), whether, in cases where the provost or chief magistrate was ex officio trustee, another person would also be deputed to represent the burgh? If this were not so, he should be inclined to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh; because it seemed to him that burghs should have more than one representative.

said, he had an Amendment coming immediately after the present one, on the same question, but going further than that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh; and it was, therefore, almost needless to say that he entirely approved of giving a larger representation to burghs. He wished to impress on the hon. Member for Edinburgh to take a division on the point, which was a very important one.

said, that while there might be exceptional parishes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), where the population was larger than in many burghs, yet the burghs in Lanarkshire which he (Mr. Ramsay) had the honour to represent, were certainly more populous, not only than some parishes, but than almost any rural parish in Scotland. It would be only giving the burghs a fair measure of representation if the Lord Advocate would accede to the Motion.

was decidedly of opinion that the parish representatives having been fixed at two, the burgh representatives should be increased to the same number.

said, that the larger burghs, which would have a separate Road Trust, did not need the representation sought for them. He could not see that any burgh had a right to be represented by a road trustee, unless it contributed to the keeping up of the roads.

said, his only objection to the clause was that there were too few representatives of ratepayers, and too few representatives of burghs. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren).

thought that the representatives of the burghs should not be on the County Road Trust at all. The burghs managed their own affairs, and it seemed to him that the County Commissioners should be left to manage the landward district roads, and that the burghs should have no voice in their management. At all events, he should distinctly oppose the appointment of a second trustee.

said, it seemed to him that the question would come to be one of statistics, and that the hon. Member (Mr. Dalrymple) had entirely misapprehended it. The clause related not to burghs in general but to police burghs, which were defined as populous places having a population not exceeding 5,000. These should in some degree be represented. The roads in these burghs were managed by the County Trust, and the question really was, did their population on an average exceed the population of parishes?

said, there had been a good deal of misapprehension as to the import of the clause. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) to the population of some of the burghs which he represented; but he (the Lord Advocate) asserted that none of these burghs were at all likely to be in the position of throwing themselves into the arms of the County Trust, instead of managing their own roads. Some of them might do so, but they certainly would not be populous burghs. The only case contemplated was that of a burgh which could not manage its own roads, except at great expense, and which availed itself of the provisions of the Bill in order to make common cause with the county. He believed that this class of burghs would not only be limited in number, but in population. The suggestion of the Bill was very fair. It dealt with Royal and Parliamentary burghs and with police burghs. It provided that where a Royal and Parliamentary burgh took the step alluded to, it should have as representatives the Provost, the chief magistrate, and one member of the town council. In the case of a police burgh, the Provost or chief magistrate and one of the Commissioners of Police should be the representatives, so that in each case there would be two representatives. In those localities intended to be benefited by the provisions of the Bill, there was not much probability of the population being larger than in the parishes.

thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had lost sight of the fact that there was a clause in the Bill which enabled all burghs of a population not exceeding 10,000, to make an arrangement with counties to keep up the roads and streets in that burgh upon such terms as the counties might think fit to agree to. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate thought that a burgh of 10,000 inhabitants was to be placed in the same position as regarded representation as some petty parish in Scotland with 500 inhabitants, or even less? The burghs ought to have two elected representatives, in addition to their chief magistrate. He thought the clause an unjust one, and felt it his duty to divide the House upon the question.

believed there were two classes of burghs which came under the operation of the clause. The sub-section, on which the Amendment was founded, dealt with the case of the police burgh, which had no choice but to be of necessity a part of the county. This police burgh had under 5,000 inhabitants, and would get one elected member. The proposal now was to elect two. The rest of the clause referred to Royal and Parliamentary burghs or police burghs of over 5,000 of population, and for these there existed a different set of circumstances altogether. In their case, the Bill contemplated their coming to an agreement with the counties to have their roads kept up and their representation on the County Board was a separate affair altogether; but the case of the small police burgh was not met by the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.

opposed the Amendment in its existing form, as likely to give the same qualification as that of a Commissioner of Supply to persons whose property was situated in burghs which might not contribute to the support of the county roads.

wished for some further explanation of the effect of the section.

understood the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) to be, that where a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh of over 5,000 inhabitants agreed with the county that the county should manage its roads, every owner of property of £100 value within the burgh should in that case have a seat at the Board of Trustees. Such an arrangement between county and burgh would be voluntary, and it would be desirable that it should be easily terminable. He therefore urged that, as the provisions of the Bill already provided for a sufficient representation of a burgh, in these circumstances, it would be undesirable to accept an Amendment which would have the effect of making the trustees a cumbrous body, and of prejudicing voluntary arrangements between burghs and counties.

understood that the Amendment was suggested to meet the case of Selkirkshire, It seemed, however, to him that the provision would admit too many to the County Road Board.

understood the proposition to be, that in the case of arrangements between burgh and county, the landward part of the county and the burghs should be put on an equal footing, and that the burghs should be represented by proprietors, plus the elected members, in the same way as the counties were.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it Would indirectly change the law of Scotland as to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply, which was fixed at £200.

assured the Committee that he was not desirous of raising any abstract question for discussion. He only wished that the course which had generally been followed hitherto in these counties where burghs were included in the Road Trust, should be followed under the new Act. That course had been found very advantageous in Selkirkshire and Dumfriesshire. Other counties than Selkirkshire would be prejudicially affected by the Bill if their position were not protected by this Amendment; and a large number of exceedingly useful road trustees would be disfranchised. He did not think the burghs should be placed in a position less advantageous than that which they at present occupied, and if he received sufficient encouragement to do so, he would take a division.

said, the Amendment would apply not only to the burghs in these counties, but to the burghs in all counties, and where there was a large number of proprietors holding this qualification they would swamp the trust. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

did not think the Government could accept the Amendment. The counties referred to by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) were exceptional counties in the South of Scotland, generally of a pastoral character, although they were dotted here and there with centres of industry; and he doubted whether the arrangement which was said to have suited them would suit the industrial counties. In the larger and more populous counties to the North, the species of representation described by the hon. Member was not known, and the more recent local Acts abolishing tolls had approximated to the lines of the present Bill. He had no desire to disfranchise these trustees, and, indeed, they must, to be disfranchised, disfranchise themselves. They were at present county trustees, within the meaning of their local Acts; but if they came within the scope of this Act, they came under legislation of quite a different kind, that contemplated separate management by burghs. He had understood that the burghs in these counties were rather desirous of having that separation, or the means of effecting it for themselves. If the Committee adopted the Amendment, it would simply come to this—that, in addition to Commissioners of Supply and elected trustees, every person who was owner of property of the value of £100 within a burgh would be added to the County Road Trust. In many counties that would render the County Trust cumbrous and utterly unworkable, and would extend the county trusteeship far beyond the limits to which the Government could agree.

, though believing it desirable that the burghs should have a voice in the management of the county roads with a view to their being able to make representations as to the management of roads adjacent to the burghs, advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, if for no other reason than that, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), it virtually altered the legal qualification for being a Commissioner of Supply.

thought that as the proposed Amendment would unduly extend the dimensions of the Board of Trustees, it should not be persevered with. While suitable to the pastoral counties mentioned, it would be unmanageable in the industrial counties.

, remarking that Selkirkshire would probably take an advantage of another Amendment to the Bill which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had frankly placed on the Paper, and that the discussion would not justify him in delaying the Business of the Committee by taking a division, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said, that this, and two other Amendments by the hon. Member being improvements in the wording of the Bill, he did not object to them.

thought there could be no doubt that the proposal which had just been made raised an important question, and he regarded it as essential that the constitution and existence of a Road Board should be made imperative. He quite admitted that in some, if not most, of the counties of Scotland, the general management of the trustees was satisfactory. He quite admitted that when any question of importance arose, the trustees would become alive to its importance, and would discuss and deliberate fairly as to what should be done; and he would be no party to limiting that right of determination on the part of the general body of road trustees in a county. But those who were acquainted with the proceedings of such bodies must be aware of the fact that if they were left to themselves, the management devolved upon a few active persons who conducted the whole business of the trust without any personal responsibility, and who practically constituted the supreme authority within the county. His proposal was, that a Road Board should be instituted as a standing committee, which should have administrative powers, but which should still be subject to such regulations and instructions as the trustees might direct and provide. The Board would be able to carry out the directions which the general body of trustees might choose to give, and whenever it might happen to act in a manner which was not in conformity with the desire of the majority, it would be liable to have its actings set aside, and to have a plain rule laid down for future guidance. He did not propose that the Board should be left to take the entire management in districts and parishes; but he believed that, to the extent to which the Bill went, the proposal now under consideration was necessary to the satisfactory working of the measure.

said, he regarded his proposal as so reasonable, that he thought the Government would have agreed to it. He could speak from considerable experience of one county in Scotland—he referred to Forfarshire—and he asserted with the greatest confidence that there was no room whatever for such a Board to occupy between the district and the general body of trustees. It would, in short, prove altogether a trumpery Board, and would be more likely to cause difficulties than anything else. Indeed, so far as he knew, there was not only no necessity for it in Forfarshire, but no necessity for it at all in any of those counties which had adopted private Acts, and he had not seen it urged in any Petitions which had been presented to the House that such a Board should be appointed. For what imperative duties would the Board be called into existence? Simply these—that the district committee must report to the Board, and the Board to the trustees, instead of the committee reporting to the trustees directly, and that the Board should constitute a court of appeal. These were the only two imperative duties which were set out; but clearly the Board could not have any greater knowledge of the wants of the district than those districts themselves, and the general body of trustees might appoint a committee from among themselves to hear appeals. If, however, the Government were determined that there should be such a Board, he hoped that they would agree to this—that the trustees themselves should be allowed to appoint it, provided they found there was any necessity for doing so. If there were thought to be any such necessity, no doubt it would be appointed; but, for his own part, he regarded the proposal of the Bill as objectionable, and as being a cumbrous piece of machinery for which there was no necessity whatever.

thought that if effect were given to the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), the machinery would be much more cumbrous than it was at present.

said, it had been stated that there were counties in Scotland in which the proposed Board would be an advantage. That might be so; but he thought there were other counties with very large bodies of trustees in which no necessity whatever for any such Board existed, and to that extent his own experience concurred with that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. He also agreed with the hon. Gentleman that if there were to be this appointment at all, perhaps the permissive method of procedure might be the best. The matter might be left to the trustees without any risk of inconvenience.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 10, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words, "and not less than one-third and not more than one-half of the Board," in order to insert the words—

"Of whom one-third shall be Commissioners of Supply, one-third shall be tenants, and one-third."

said, it was evident from the Amendments that had been placed upon the Paper, that there might be room for a good deal of difference of opinion on the matter; but he thought that the provisions of the Bill, as drawn up, constituted a fair compromise.

said, it would be very unfair if the elected trustees were to be reduced in number, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) proposed. He thought that as the tenants were going to pay as much money as the Commissioners of Supply, they ought not to have any less share in the representation than one-half. The proposal made by the Bill was extremely unfair, and still more unfair and unreasonable was the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. If the hon. and gallant Member did not press his Amendment, he would move to leave out "one-third," in order to insert "one-half." As the elected trustees were, in any case, the representatives of those who paid at least one-half of the taxation, it certainly was a manifest injustice that they should have a smaller representation at this Board than the Commissioners of Supply. If the argument of his hon. and gallant Friend were correct, the Commissioners of Supply ought to pay a larger share of the taxation than they did at present. Instead of paying one-half of the rate, they ought to pay two-thirds, and in that case he would be willing that they should have a representation of two-thirds on the Board. The proposal embodied in the Bill was, in his judgment, contrary to the principles of sound legislation, and could only be carried by a majority of members of that Committee who were determined that the Commissioners of Supply should have an ascendency on the Board.

said, it was evident there were conflicting views upon this subject; but he thought that what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposed was a fair medium course; and he, therefore, hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would adhere to his proposal. It had been said that the elected trustees would not be adequately represented; but, if they were not, it would be their own fault. The Road Board was to be appointed at a general meeting of the body of trustees, and it was at that meeting that those gentlemen should look after their interests and the interests of those whom they might be called upon to represent. If they had a majority present at the general meeting, there could be little doubt that they would receive there a full representation—namely, one-half, on the County Road Board. He hoped the Government would stand by the clause, which appeared to him to be just and fair.

thought there could be no doubt that in this case the "one-third" represented the principle that the elected trustees should be in a minority at the Board. ["No, no!"] The expression was "not less than one-third and not more than one-half." The general effect of that would be that the elected members would be in a minority. ["No, no!"] Well, on an average they would. They could not be more than one-half, and they might be less than one-half. The elected members would clearly represent the greater part of the taxation under the Bill. One-half of the taxation was paid by the tenants; but the elected members would represent not only the tenants, but small proprietors under £100 a-year and the burghs, and that being so, it was indisputable that it was unjust they should be put in a minority.

said, that while he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) would not press his Amendment, he desired to point out that hon. Gentlemen who spoke of the elected trustees representing the body that paid more than one-half of the total charge, seemed entirely to forget that the tenants practically received back part of what they paid in the shape of diminished rents. This came, therefore, to a large extent out of the landlords' pockets.

said, he desired to supplement what had been stated by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken. Under Clause 65, proprietors would also have to pay for all new works—for new roads and new bridges. In addition to that, the whole burden of the debt would fall upon them; and, in all these circumstances, it was not at all fair to say that the elected trustees would pay a larger sum than the other trustees, and were consequently entitled to a larger representation. He hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would perceive that—"In medias res tutissimus ibis."

hoped that the proposal of the Bill would be allowed to remain as it was. It would appear, from the manner in which some hon. Gentlemen had spoken, that there was actually an antagonism between the tenants and the Commissioners of Supply; but such an idea was a perfect delusion. The tenants would be represented at the Board, their interests would be duly considered and cared for, and matters would be conducted with as much economy as possible. In these circumstances, he really thought that they need not waste more time in discussion as to the word which should be put into the Bill.

said, the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Graham Montgomery) had protested against the idea that there was any difference of interest between the Commissioners of Supply and the tenants. He (Mr. M'Laren) would admit there was no antagonism between them; but, because of that very fact, why should the tenants be stigmatized as they would be, if they had not an equal vote and an equal representation? There could be no reason for it. He appealed to the Government to give way to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire.

wished to point out to the Committee, that as the Amendment was now put, it would have an effect which, perhaps, was not contemplated—namely, that it would not equally divide the representation; but would provide that, while one-half of the Board must be elected trustees, more than one-half might be elected trustees. Therefore, the Amendment, if carried, might have the effect of giving more than one-half of the representation on the County Boards to the elected trustees. If it were true, as had been suggested, that there would be no antagonism between the two classes of governors, and that, if left alone, a fair proportion of each class would be appointed, he saw no particular reason why either the clause should not be allowed to stand in the form in which it appeared in the Bill, or why the words regulating the proportion of elected trustees should not be entirely omitted. If there were to be no antagonism, no harm could be done by either of these courses being adopted.

pointed out that as the Amendment was originally drawn, it contained more words than were necessary, in that It laid down that not less than half and not more than half of the body should be elected trustees. He thought the object would be attained by shortening it to the words "not more than half."

said, he did not intend to turn the scale in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. Parker); and if the words which he had moved were found to have a different signification from that which he attached to them, they could be amended on the Report. The object of his Amendment was to give an equal representation on the Board to the parties interested. He proposed that the Board should consist of half elected trustees and half Commissioners of Supply. If the Government were prepared to leave out the clause altogether, without specifying the numbers in any way, he should be quite content to accept this part of the Bill in that form, and trust to the sense of justice which he had no doubt pervaded the general body of trustees to do what was right in the matter.

said, it seemed to be conceded that the interests of the landlords and tenants in this matter were not antagonistic. Well, they certainly were not antagonistic, but they were not identical. The one was permanent, and the other was temporary and fleeting, and only extended to the duration of his lease. If a road were allowed to go down for four or five or six years, it required at the end of the time a good deal of money to put it again in proper condition, and the cost must fall upon the landlord, the tenant who had not paid a fair proportion during his tenancy, but had used the roads, having probably moved away into another district. Therefore, he was inclined to take a middle course, and support the clause as it stood in the Bill.

hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would not agree to the Amendment; because, if it were thought right that there should be a County Board appointed in every case, it was equally requisite that there should be a division into districts in every case. He thought that if the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would just consider the circumstances of the county which he represented in that House, he would feel that, unless it were divided into districts, some injustice would be done to the inhabitants of very large areas. It was expedient, therefore, that this obligation should continue to exist.

pointed out that in Scotland there were some counties so small that it would be very inexpedient to divide them into districts at all. Their number might not be large; but, at the same time, he thought the power referred to in the clause should be permissive.

reminded the hon. Baronet that it was not imperative to make the division in any counties where there were not more than six parishes.

said, that being so, the result of passing the clause in its present shape would be, that in the case of any small county which happened to contain seven parishes, it would be imperative to divide those parishes into more than one road district. That would be undesirable, and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be adopted.

supported the proposal to divide each county into districts. If the Amendment were not adopted, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate might consider the desirability, in certain cases, of extending the limit which he had introduced into the clause relating to the number of parishes. It was quite proper that as regarded all larger counties, at all events, they should be divided into districts.

thought it would be well to consider the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for For-farshire (Mr. Barclay). At the same time, he thought it was exceedingly desirable that in some counties in Scotland, at all events, this should be made imperative; and he would remind the Committee that there was provided an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to see that the boundaries were rightly laid down. The present exception would exclude several of the smaller counties in Scotland; but it was impossible for him at that moment, without looking into the statistics of the case, and ascertaining the number of parishes in each county above that limit, to say what should be the proper figure in the clause.

insisted that great harm would be done to many counties by dividing them into districts. He thought it should be left to the whole body of the inhabitants in each county to decide whether the county should or should not be divided into districts.

suggested that after what had been said, a fair case had been made out for a re-consideration of this particular question. He would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Orr-Ewing), that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had undertaken to look into the matter; but he could not say whether the number "six" should be altered before the Report.

agreed with the suggestion, remarking that, if passed in its present form, the clause would work great injustice in many parts of the country.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate recommended the clause—with reference to the point now raised—between the present stage and the Report.

said, he would do that, but added, it was possible that the statistics, when examined, might not enable the Government to propose any alteration in the limit contained in the clause. In that case, it would be open to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire again to propose and to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.

said, he would point out to the Committee that there were a hundred and odd clauses in the Bill. They were now on the 16th, and that day had been given to them for the purpose of making progress with a measure which, he supposed, they were all anxious to pass. Well, the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had adduced in favour of his present Amendment had already been urged by him in reference to a former Amendment, which the Committee, notwithstanding, had rejected, and affirmed the principle of the clause. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that if they wished to make progress, they would simply adopt or negative the Amendment of the hon. Member.

, in whose name the next three Amendments stood upon the Paper, said, they were intended to make the district committees precisely the same as to their construction as he desired the Board to be—namely, that they should be composed of one-third proprietors, one-third tenants, and one-third elected members. The Committee, however, had already entirely ignored the tenant-farmer, and precluded him from having any existence on the Board, except by accident. In two divisions it had declared its approval of the proposal that the Board and district committees should be so constructed that in no instance would the landed proprietors be left in a minority. It was, therefore, absolutely useless for him to move his Amendments, and he would not take up the time of the Committee by doing so.

said, he must protest against the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that the tenant-farmers had been ignored in the Bill.

replied that they were ignored as a class, inasmuch as the only means which were open to a tenant-farmer to obtain a place on the Board were that he should be among the elected members. As a tenant-farmer he had no status, and it might easily happen under the Bill that the elected members might all be proprietors under £100 a-year, and not a single tenant on the Board.

expressed a hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. It appeared to him to be quite out of the question that the Secretary of State in London could satisfactorily discharge the duties which the clause would impose upon him. The people of Scotland managed their own affairs very well, and he, for one, strongly objected to the tendency which prevailed at the present day to the system of centralization. It was quite evident, he thought, that the Secretary of State could not be so well acquainted as the Sheriffs of counties with local circumstances, on which the proper arrangement of boundaries very much depended; and he hoped the Government would think better of it, and not compel the Committee to divide.

hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. Under its operation, the words "Secretary of State" would in reality mean the Lord Advocate; and there would, in his opinion, be a great disadvantage in having questions which might arise with respect to the division of counties decided by a person who might be, to a considerable extent, mixed up with local affairs.

asked if it was necessary to have the clause at all, and stated that he had an Amendment to omit it altogether. He maintained that no necessity existed for giving a power of appeal at all. The greatest harmony, as a general rule, prevailed at the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply. There were, of course, from time to time, points on which differences of opinion existed; but the minority were always disposed to give way to the views of the majority. But, apart from that, what, he should like to know, could a Secretary of State understand about the intricacies involved in questions of boundary in each county in Scotland? What, again, did the Sheriff of a county know about local matters? He, of course, travelled about the county; but it by no means followed from that that he should possess the requisite information to enable him to be an efficient court of appeal under the Bill. The result of the adoption of the clause, too, would be, he firmly believed, to lead to no end of intrigues and expense in order to have questions settled in London, instead of having them disposed of, as at present, by one vote of the Commissioners of Supply, and, if necessary, re-settled at the expiration of a period of three years. The clause, in fact, would give rise to all sorts of plotting and nagging, which, in his opinion, it would be extremely desirable to avoid.

said, the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) would not be in Order in making observations which were directed to the rejection of the clause as a whole, inasmuch as the Question before the Committee was a proposal to amend it.

would, of course, at once bow to the decision of the Chairman, and would simply say, in conclusion, that he greatly doubted whether the Sheriffs of counties in Scotland were competent to pronounce an impartial opinion on matters which, so far as he could see, could only be satisfactorily decided upon by the members of the Commission of Supply.

said, that if the hon. Member for Wigton (Mr. Mark Stewart) intended to cast any general reflection upon the administration of justice in Scotland, his remarks would not be in Order. He did not, however, understand that to be his intention.

believed there was only one hon. Member in the House who would have objected to the words which he had used. What he meant to say was, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get men of judicial mind to decide with advantage on the vexed questions which might have to be submitted to them under the Bill. That, he might add, was not only his own private opinion, but the opinion of many persons who had had large and long experience in county matters in Scotland, who had brought the subject under his notice, and whose views he had promised to lay before the House.

, in regard to the argument as between the Secretary of State and the Sheriff, might point out that this was not going to be an annual or general duty, because they had a new Act before them. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had pointed out that there were great inequalities in the different districts. At the same time, he should be prepared to support the idea that the Sheriff of the county would be better fitted for this duty than the Secretary of State; but he would like to know whether this Secretary of State was to be the English Secretary of State or the new Scottish Secretary of State? As to what had been said, that the Sheriff was not a good court of appeal on local matters, because he might, though not intentionally, be under local influences, he might say that the Sheriff was a local magnate, and he did not think that would be the case. He might, however, remind the Committee that the Sheriff was a Law Officer, appointed by the Court in Edinburgh, whose position in the country was merely temporary, and who, although he might not possess any special knowledge of local matters, was supposed to be acquainted with questions relating to lands and heritages. He would, therefore, so far as he could see, be about the best person to decide in cases of appeal. He should support the Amendment.

noticed that it was a charge against the former Lord Advocates that they always put the Sheriffs in the Bill they introduced. Now, here was a case where the Lord Advocate exercised his discretion in another direction, and hon. Members stepped in and objected. For his own part, he believed the Secretary of State would be a very suitable authority to whom to give the proposed power of deciding in cases of appeal.

thought it probable that any reference to the Secretary of State might be found to be unnecessary; but, in the event of the clause remaining part of the Bill, he would prefer that it should pass in its present shape, because, without for a moment impugning the way in which the Sheriffs discharged their duties, and although he had full confidence in them, he must say he did not wish to see them take part in the settlements of any local differences of opinion with respect to the sub-division of counties.

said, that if there had been the least affinity between the duties imposed by the clause and those which appertained to the judicial office, he, for one, should not have hesitated to give the matter to the Sheriff. No such affinity, however, existed. The duties which would have to be performed under the operation of the clause were far from being judicial, and would involve the Sheriffs in unpleasant disputes in the endeavour to arbitrate between the two halves of a county, with the certain result of giving dissatisfaction to one of them. He might also observe that, under certain public Acts, the duty had been imposed on the Sheriffs of defining burgh boundaries; and that, in all such cases, it had been provided that their decision should not be final, but that a right of appeal should be given to the Secretary of State. He hoped, he might add, that questions of the kind dealt with in the clause would, generally speaking, be settled by agreement, and that references to the Secretary of State would be exceedingly rare. The clause, he maintained, had in no way a centralizing tendency. It was not proposed to vest the administration of the law in the Secretary of State, but to enable him to decide between certain parties, and to make his decision final for a considerable time.

said, the clause would give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to the extent of which he altogether objected. These powers, too, it should be borne in mind, were to last for 10 years. It appeared to him to be giving powers to the Secretary of State in London, and taking power from Scotland; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

wished to draw the noble Lord the Member for Haddington-shire's (Lord Elcho's) attention to the fact that a great deal of time had been occupied by useless Amendments on the noble Lord's side of the House.

seconded the Amendment, and expressed a belief that if the clause were omitted from the Bill the Commissioners of Supply would settle disputed matters among themselves without the aid of the Secretary of State.

pointed out another objection to the clause. It would, in his opinion, give rise to persistent opposition on the part of small minorities. It would, in his opinion, be much better that the clause should be omitted from the Bill, and that each county should be allowed to manage its own affairs through the voice of the majority.

hoped the Government would abide by the clause. The case was one in which, in his opinion, a majority might in a mixed county or town population and suburban districts do a great deal of injury, unless the minority were invested with a right of appeal such as the clause proposed to give.

thought the islands had been very fairly dealt with in the Bill. It was very difficult to say that a part of the county should be exempted bearing its share of the outlay. He thought that, to the extent of a reasonable sum, it was impossible to see any principle for not laying a proportion of these expenses upon the islands.

said, the only reason for which he proposed the Amendment was that the clause imposed upon the islands a payment, while no benefit could be received from the mainland parts of the county. He thought it unreasonable that they should be made to pay a part of the general expenditure.

said, he would not move the Amendments to the clause which stood in his name on the Paper. He wished, at the same time, to suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the desirability of empowering the trustees to supply any vacancies which might arise among their own number as well as in the Board.

said, he would take the matter into consideration.

said, that a Commissioner of Supply who had £800 a-year according to the valuation roll, might be represented under the operation of the present law by his factor in his absence. If, then, two proprietors could vote if they sent two factors to a meeting, was it not reasonable that for the sake of convenience they should be enabled to vote by means of one?

was of opinion that the effect of the Amendment, if passed, would be to disfranchise a considerable number of proprietors who were represented at road trust meetings by their factors.

supported the Amendment. The clause in its present shape appeared to him to be most unjust. It would result in a revival of the old system which used to prevail in the House of Lords, when a Peer carried a majority of proxy votes in his pocket.

, in seconding the Resolution, said, he was quite sure that those who had heard the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would feel that they owed thanks to him for having called attention to such an important subject, and for having introduced it in so able and interesting a speech. For his own part, as an English Member, he (Mr. Chamberlain) would make no apology for seconding the Resolution, for he felt sure that Irish Members would welcome any proof that English Members were interested in Irish grievances. It would be admitted on all sides that the state of education in Ireland was thoroughly unsatisfactory in all its branches, and he was unable to share in the opinion of his noble Friend that no charge of apathy respecting it could be made against the Government. He certainly thought it was hardly creditable to a strong Government that it had done nothing in five Sessions to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Irish people in the matter. The Resolution proposed by the noble Lord might have gone further, seeing that it dealt only with the fringe of the subject; but it was none the less important on that account. He imagined that the Government would see that they could not deal with interme- diate education, unless they arranged to take the greatest possible advantage of existing foundations. These foundations were of considerable importance in Ireland, their total income amounting to nearly £70,000 per annum. In comparison to English endowments they sank into insignificance, for the Endowed Schools Commission reported in 1867 that the gross income of the English foundations was nearly £600,000 per annum; and they reported upon nearly 3,000 endowments. But the comparative smallness of Irish endowments was an additional reason why the most should be made of such facilities as existed. They found that in the Royal Free Schools of Ireland there was accommodation for 1,500 students, while less than 700 were offering themselves, and while the grammar schools could accommodate 1,200, they only contained 800 scholars. It was, therefore, evident that there was great room for such an inquiry as had been suggested, and the Resolution of the noble Lord did not in the slightest degree prejudge the nature of the reforms which might be recommended. Precisely the same allegations which the noble Lord made against Irish endowed schools were made some years ago against English endowed schools, and an exposure of the abuses of the latter led to their reform. The abuses connected with the endowed schools in Ireland had been pointed out many years ago in various Reports; they were proved up to the hilt in the Report of the Irish Commission of 1854, and it was very difficult to see how such a Report had been permitted for 20 years to remain waste paper. It was stated, with regard to many of the smaller endowments in England, that the teachers had become mere parasites and pensioners upon the fund, and that the accounts were found to be most inefficiently kept, and there was not one of these charges which could not be brought with equal truth and force against the Irish endowments. They knew that in England abuses were long-lived; but in Ireland they seemed to have the life of a cat. From the Report relating to the Erasmus Smith foundation, the whole thing seemed to be regarded as a gigantic practical joke, and was quite worthy of the philosophers of Laputa. From a Report of the Commission of Lord Powis, in 1870, it appeared that the same official was still in charge of the accounts; but it was not stated whether he yet knew what double-entry meant, or that he could distinguish between assets and liabilities. The original intention of that foundation was to provide middle-class education in the localities in which the Erasmus Smith schools were established; but in 1858 only 10 per cent of the total endowment was applied to middle-class education, and the whole of the rest was devoted to elementary instruction, and therefore to the relief of the rates—to the saving of the pockets of those who might fairly be regarded as responsible for primary education. It was perfectly evident that the system of education in Ireland concealed abuses which at least were as great, and probably greater, than any disclosed by Schools Inquiry Commissions in England; and he could not but conceive why what was sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander, or why the legislation which had proved beneficial in England should not be applied to Ireland. Since the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, there was no proof that these institutions had voluntarily reformed themselves—in fact, there was every reason to suppose they had not; for experience taught him that self-electing and non-representative Bodies were rarely capable of self-improvement. He ventured to call the attention of the House to the part of the Census Commissioners' Report, which dealt with the fact that, while almost the whole of these endowed schools were strictly confined to the members of the Protestant Church, yet there had been an actual retrogression in the matter of Protestant education. On the other hand, the Roman Catholics had progressed in education. In fact, these endowments had acted as a hindrance to education instead of a benefit. From 1861 to 1871, the Report showed that there had been a diminution to the extent of 14½ per cent in the number of Protestant Episcopalians receiving intermediate education. The effect of these endowments had been, and still was, to discourage voluntary effort and individual enterprize. With such an indictment as had been brought against these endowments, it seemed to him impossible to understand on what ground the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock could be resisted. If it could be alleged that the grosser abuses to which they had pointed, and which existed at the time of the Report of the Commission in 1858 had now ceased, still there would be this reason for a Committee of Inquiry—that it was desirable to revise these foundations in order to ascertain whether they could not be made more generally available for the whole population, in order to remove the exclusive character they now possessed. Those who managed these endowments should not be permitted to fritter away the income at their disposal by making petty doles to small and comparatively useless institutions, instead of employing them in promoting really important educational institutions. The Amendment about to be proposed by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) was entirely alien to the object of the Motion, and, to an extent, it was deficient in meaning, and therefore he saw no reason why the House should accept it. For what purpose should an inquiry be held into the practicability of establishing denominational schools in Ireland? These very establishments, with regard to which an inquiry was asked for, were denominational institutions. They were Protestant Episcopalian denominational schools. Perhaps the noble and gallant Lord wished to inquire into the practicability of establishing Roman Catholic denominational schools in Ireland? But there was no need for inquiring into that subject, inasmuch as it was perfectly practicable to establish such schools, if the necessary private endowments were forthcoming. If, however, the noble and gallant Lord wished to know whether it was practicable to establish Roman Catholic denominational schools by means of State aid, the answer was—"Certainly, the moment that Parliament chose to sanction such a proceeding." The noble Lord who had brought forward this Motion had acted very considerately towards Her Majesty's Government in limiting its terms to a demand for inquiry, seeing that he might have asked for immediate legislation. But, probably, he had compared the promises made in the Queen's Speech with their fulfilment down to the present time, and if he had done so, he would have found that of eight measures so promised only one had as yet passed into law—namely, the Factories and Workshops Bill. The others were hung up, like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, and the prospect of their being realized was very doubtful. It was wiser of the noble Lord to ask for inquiry, and, his Motion being confined to that, in his (Mr. Chamberlain's) opinion, the Government could not refuse it, unless they desired to have it believed that they were anxious to conceal abuses the existence of which they could neither deny nor defend.

, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to add to the Motion—"and also into the practicability of establishing schools upon the denominational system," said, the noble Lord's (Lord Randolph Churchill's) Motion touched Irish education only in a certain part; but it was desirable that the whole subject should be inquired into, and with that view he should divide the House upon his Amendment. He believed that what was wanted was not only a new system of endowments, but a new system altogether—a denominational system, which he believed would be found more efficient than that which at present existed, and which did not please anybody, either Protestant or Roman Catholic. The question ought to be taken in hand as soon as possible; and he hoped that more was to be expected in this matter from the Conservatives than had yet been offered by the Liberals—they being pledged against the denominational system—that the Government would, at least, give that system a fair trial. For a system of education to be useful, the teacher and the pupil must be of the same religion; and no system like the present, under which the pupil must look upon his teacher as either a heretic or an idolater, could work efficiently. The strongest argument in favour of denominational schools was that they were admittedly the best managed educational institutions. The real difficulty with regard to the denominational system was, that the State did not like to make grants for educational purposes unless it had control over the manner in which that education was given; and, on the other hand, neither Protestants nor Catholics were prepared to give up to the Government their control of the education to be given to their, children. That, of course, was a very great difficulty; but he believed that if a Committee were appointed to inquire into the subject, they would find the way to a compromise. He could not help thinking that this religious principle was too much talked about in connection with education debates. ["No, no!"] Why, the whole question of religion was a matter of the accident of birth, the children generally inheriting their religion from their parents. His father and mother happened to be Protestants, and therefore he was a Protestant. So it happened all the world over. Why not live and let live? For his own part, he believed that a Mohammedan or a Bhuddist, or any other man, if honest and conscientious in acting up to his convictions, had as good a chance of getting to Heaven as a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. At all events, the denominational system, he believed, would be found to work well; and, with a view to the adoption of a new system in that direction, he begged to move his Amendment.

seconded the Amendment, affirming that the only hope for checking the spread of revolutionary principles in Ireland was a sound religious education, which the present system failed to supply. He could not agree with the noble Lord who had moved it, that too much was said in these education debates on the question of religion, for he could not imagine how that could happen. Education without religion was, to his mind, worse than no education at all, and he thought it would be a good thing for the country, and he should like to see established in Ireland a system, by means of which the children of Protestants and Catholics could be educated together; but he feared that was not possible, as they would not work harmoniously together. There could, however, be no reason why the whole question should not be referred to one and the same Committee, with good hope that satisfactory results would follow.

said, he was glad to hear the Conservative Representatives of Protestant constituencies contending for the denominational education which the Liberal Members representing Roman Catholic voters had so long contended for. While he thanked the noble and gallant Lord who had moved the Amendment (Lord Charles Beresford) for it, at the same time he would ask him not to press it. He did so for the reason that he could not help thinking that it was inopportune to mix the question of denominational education with the question whether large sums left for the endowment of education had not been misappropriated and ought not to be applied in accordance with the will of the people. If Her Majesty's Government refused investigation into the entire subject, they would be shirking their responsibility, and he should know how to regard their promises with respect to that of intermediate education.

thought that inquiry into the subject of the disposal of the enormous funds devoted to denominational education in Ireland was urgently needed; but the Amendment which had been moved went too far, and dragged in questions which it was advisable at present to avoid. The object of those who supported the original Motion was simply to raise the standard of the present denominational schools in Ireland, by giving them an opportunity of attaining a greater degree of efficiency; but that object would be endangered by raising wider questions on which there were great differences of opinion. The adoption of the Motion would interpose no obstacle to the promotion and passing of any measure which Her Majesty's Government might have in contemplation on the subject of intermediate education.

cordially agreed with the views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord who had moved the Amendment (Lord Charles Beresford). He (Sir George Bowyer) regarded the idea of carrying out a system of mixed education in Ireland as an idle dream. Mixed education was a good idea in itself; but, practically, it could not be carried out, and no education could, in his opinion, be beneficial which was not founded upon religion. Mixed education was inconsistent with a religious system, and, so far as pure secular education was concerned, they had now seen some of its results. Secular, or godless education, was radically bad, and all over Europe they saw the spread of Socialism as the consequence of its establishment. Under it, the young grew up without being amenable to any authority. It had especially been found most disastrous in Germany. The Governments of Europe thought that in increasing secular education they were increasing their power; but they had discovered that they had raised a monster which they could not guide. He hoped, however, that the noble and gallant Lord would withdraw his Amendment, as, if agreed to, the labours of the Committee would be interminable, and therefore fruitless. This was a question of policy, and the House should decide it.

also hoped that the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) would withdraw his Amendment. It was, no doubt, very good in itself, and might be usefully considered at a subsequent period; but, at present, it could only tend to hamper the Committee, and he did not think it should be mixed up with the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).

thought injustice was done to the Amendment by calling it irrelevant, and that it really supplemented the Motion in an important particular. The Motion contained an instruction to the Committee to proceed on certain lines; and this rendered the further instruction contained not only relevant, but opportune and necessary. He, therefore, hoped it would be pressed, unless the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock agreed to leave out the words in his Motion "without distinction of class or religion."

thanked the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for his speech, which would become an historical document in Ireland. This was a most diffi- cult matter for the Irish Members to consider at the present moment. The Amendment would suit his views if it could be carried, and in that view he would heartily support it; but he was afraid that the Government would vote both against the Amendment and Resolution, and that would leave the Irish Members in some difficulty. He did not wish that this question should be made the pretext for shelving that of intermediate education. He hoped that the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) would withdraw his Amendment, unless the Government supported it.

believed there was need for an inquiry into these endowed schools; but he hoped Ministers would be careful in dealing with the subject, and that the Protestants of Ireland would not be deprived of the endowments which they now possessed, and to which they were entitled. He supposed the wish of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) was to preserve the denominational character of the endowments, but he should recommend him not to press his Amendment. If the mixed system were "rotten," it was the result of the determination of the Catholic Hierarchy to exclude from the schools the Scripture extracts in the use of which the Catholic and the Protestant Primates had concurred.

said, he had not been fortunate enough to hear the speech of the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion (Lord Randolph Churchill); but he understood that he had made out a very powerful case for an inquiry. It was acknowledged that the great educational want of Ireland was that of secondary and intermediate education, and he trusted that the discussion would be confined to the manner in which that want was to be met. There were certain endowments for the purpose, and the question was how they could be best utilized. There could be no doubt that great abuses existed in reference to the endowed schools of Ireland, and the only objection that ought to be urged against the Motion should be either that a case had not been made out—which no one suggested—or that a Commission would be better than a Committee. He should have supposed that a Commission might have been better than a Committee, if it had not been that there was a Commission 20 years ago, whose Report had furnished many of the facts, but on which Report no action had been taken. The matter, therefore, seemed one for a Committee. If the Government thought its inquiry would militate against the progress of their promised Bill, perhaps the general opinion would be that the Motion ought not to be pressed; but he could not conceive that inquiry could be otherwise than useful in facilitating legislative action. There was a strong case for making a similar inquiry by a Committee for Ireland to that which had been made by Commission for England and Scotland. With regard to the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford), it appeared to him that the pressing of that Amendment would be a mistake, and that it would be almost fatal to any educational object in that matter. For himself, he had a strong opinion in regard to separating religion from education; but he thought the true question ought to be considered appropriately and at the right time. They had a case for inquiry as to how far certain endowments had been misused, and the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford wished the Committee also to inquire how they were to put up denominational schools. But if they put that second subject of inquiry on the back of the first subject, the first would be utterly lost sight of. Lot them first ascertain the facts as to how these endowments had been abused, and afterwards the important question of religious education could be considered. In dealing with the question they should not forget that they were legislating for Irishmen, and not for Englishmen or Scotchmen.

thought the House would not complain of the manner in which that evening had been spent, as they had had some very instructive, and—he was bound to say, speaking for himself—very amusing speeches. They had had, first, the able and amusing speech of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had devoted great attention to that subject. Most hon. Gentlemen must have thought the noble Lord's statements were of a somewhat startling character, and might also have felt some curiosity to see the proofs by which they could be established. Next came the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford), which was supported by that ability and wit for which he was so well known in the House. His noble and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford had scarcely been used fairly in that discussion. Hon. Members had urged that the Amendment was inconvenient, and he could fully believe that to many of them it would be most inconvenient. But the Motion was also inconvenient. Now, speaking for himself and the Government, he need hardly say they could not accept the Amendment, whatever course they might adopt as to the Motion. At the same time, representing, as he did, an important Irish constituency in which strong feelings were entertained on the subject of that Amendment, his noble and gallant Friend was not only justified in raising, but bound to raise, that question; and he (Mr. Lowther) could not agree with those who said that if the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock were adopted, the Amendment would be out of place. Now, there were parts of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock which the House generally would admit were deserving of their serious attention. His noble Friend had alleged against the Endowed Schools maladministration of the temporalities in their hands, and had suggested that a Committee of that House should inquire into their management. He did not deny that his noble Friend had made out a primâ facie case for an inquiry of some kind, although he had prudently reserved his proofs for a tribunal competent to deal with such details. But a Committee of that House would be one of the most inappropriate bodies to conduct such an investigation. ["No, no!"] His noble Friend had mainly based his case on maladministration in regard to the management of farms, the collection of rents, the audit of accounts, and various other details, many of them involving local elements; and a Committee of that House was hardly the tribunal to which matters of that kind should be referred. His noble Friend had referred to the great question of the policy which was to regulate Parliament on the subject of intermediate education. With regard to it, it was his (Mr. Lowther's) duty last night to make an announcement of the policy which Her Majesty's Government intended to submit to Parliament. He stated that it was the intention of the Government at an early period to introduce in the other House of Parliament a measure dealing with that important subject. He could not imagine that the noble Lord had any means of knowing what that measure would be. He (Mr. Lowther) was not going to avail himself of the present opportunity by attempting prematurely to divulge its details. But he thought the House would be disposed to agree with his contention, that there were two distinct branches involved in the Motion of his noble Friend. There was the question of the administration of the temporalities in the hands of the Commission, and there was the question of the policy which should guide Parliament in dealing with the question of education. With regard to the question of policy, he thought the Government had already expressed their intention of dealing with it. If the House were to appoint a Committee, it would be the duty of the Government, out of respect to that Committee, not to introduce any measure in anticipation, of its Report. He thought the Government could hardly be expected, in the face of a Committee appointed by one of the Houses of Parliament, to introduce a measure and take the subject out of its hands. He would admit that his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock had made a statement with regard to the management of the temporalities of these academies, which he thought deserving of inquiry; but he thought a Committee of that House could not undertake properly those limited and merely local functions. He thought inquiries would be more appropriately conducted by a small Commission appointed for the specific purpose of inquiring into the management of the temporalities. If that suggestion would fall in with the views of his noble Friend and those who supported him, he should be quite willing to undertake that a Commission of the character which he had mentioned should shortly be appointed to inquire into and report upon the management and conduct of the temporalities and revenues of those bodies. He hoped that, in these circum- stances, his noble Friend would be satisfied with the important discussion which he had raised upon this question, and would not press his Motion. Of course, some alterations would be required to adapt his Motion to the limited inquiries to which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had referred. He hoped, also, that his noble and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford, who had contributed so ably to this discussion, would see that, in the circumstances, he would certainly be consulting the interests he had at heart, and also the convenience of the House, by not pressing his Amendment.

said, he must express the deep obligations of himself, and he thought he might say of all the Members connected with Ireland, to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), for the great interest he had taken in this subject, and for the manner in which he had introduced the Motion. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He entirely concurred in the remarks he had made, and was glad to learn that the inquiry which he had suggested would not interfere with the intended measure of the Government.

consented to withdraw his Motion, on the distinct understanding that there would be no limit to the inquiry of the Commission, and that it would have full powers to inquire into the existing condition of the schools, their management, and their revenues.

said, it must be understood that he did not propose that there should be a Royal Commission. What he was prepared to agree to was a small Commission to inquire into the subject of the management of the property. He would be happy to communicate with his noble Friend as to the terms under which such a Commission might be appointed.

seconded the Amendment.

said, the moment chosen by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Kidderminster (Sir William Fraser) for making his proposal was most inopportune, as the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company were at that moment engaged upon some costly experiments, which, if successful, would prove a great boon to those travelling between Dover and Calais. It had been found impossible, in the present state of Calais harbour, to use ships with single keels of larger size than those at present employed in the service. The Company had therefore purchased the the Calais-Douvres, a twin ship of considerable size, in order to carry on a difficult service in a satisfactory manner. He denied that the accommodation afforded was so bad as it was represented to be; and with respect to the increase in the amount of the contract, he explained that it was necessary by reason of the fact that they had to carry a much heavier quantity of mails, and that their expenses had largely increased through the increased cost of materials and wages. It was the desire of those who conducted the Continental service between Dover and Calais to do so in the most efficient manner; but to do so at the rates the Companies were at present receiving involved a great loss, and he was sure that the House would not require such a sacrifice from any Company. The French Government were making a large increase in the size and capabilities of Calais harbour, and when those works were completed, as they would be in about four years, the Company would be able to have larger and more powerful boats than could be employed under existing circumstances.

said, he could not admit that the answer of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dickson) on behalf of the Company was satisfactory, for the reason that the only answer they had made to offers on the part of the Government of assistance in the work they had to perform was a demand for an increased subsidy. This had resulted, he supposed, from the fact that the railway communication was practically in the hands of one Company, which rendered it difficult for the Government to do anything except submit. At the same time, however, he wished to point out that the service in question was a very peculiar one, and that there had to be considered the disadvantages of the harbours at both sides of the Channel. He thought that what had been done in the matter was the best that could be done in the circumstances. On the whole, therefore, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Kidderminster (Sir William Fraser) would be satisfied with simply having called attention to the subject, and would not press his Motion to a division. There was no doubt that great public good would result from the improvement of the harbours in connection with the service, and that when those harbours were improved larger boats could be employed, and the service could be conducted more satisfactorily. Meanwhile, he hoped that the proposal of the Government to continue the existing contract would meet with general approval, and that it would be seen that the course taken by the Government was the only one that could well be adopted in the circumstances.

thought it rather lard that the hon. Member should make that Motion. Four months ago the Bill gained its second reading, and, during that long interval, not a single Amendment had been proposed to any of its clauses. Moreover, all the Amendments asked for by the Government had been incorporated in the Bill.

resumed the Chair; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,