asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Mercantile Marine Bill, providing for bounties upon French shipping, which was passed on the Second Reading in the Chamber of Deputies of France in the month of July, has passed the Senate, and become Law; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government upon this subject?

The Bill referred to by the noble Lord has not yet passed the Senate, and has not, therefore, become law. I have this afternoon laid upon the Table further Correspondence on this subject in continuation of that contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 31, commencement of this year.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to place the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers upon the same footing as respects aid from the State as the other Volunteer Forces?

In comparing the assistance given by the Admiralty to the Naval Artillery Volunteers with that given to other Volunteers by the War Office, it should be recollected that the Admiralty lends the use of gunboats, with the attendant expense of coal and victualling, to the members of the corps when on board, as arranged when the corps was formed a few years ago. The question of further assistance has not since been raised or discussed; but will probably be considered before next year's Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided on the question of the frontier to be maintained between India and Afghanistan; and, if so, whether he would state to the House the proposed line of that frontier? He also asked whether there is any truth in the telegram in the papers that General Stewart has been ordered to arrest his retreat?

The House will remember that early in June, I think it was, I gave an answer in the House of Commons, with regard to the position of the frontier, from which this is an extract—

"As to the positions of the frontier occupied" under the Treaty of Gundamak, the Government are not satisfied that they add anything to the strength of the Frontier; they appear to involve a very considerahle addition to the Frontier Force, which we should regret. Lord Ripon will obtain the best military advice at his disposal on the military question, and on this advice he will act independently. He will consider the question of their retention or abandonment on its merits, political and military, and will not be influenced by the mere fact of their having been acquired and occupied under the Treaty of Gundamak, which must be considered to have ceased to exist."—[3 Hansard, cclii. 1343.]

I am informed that the question is at this moment under the consideration of the Viceroy and his Council, and I am not able to state what will be decided. I have no confirmation of the alarming telegram which has been published in several of the newspapers yesterday and to-day. I have received a telegram from the Viceroy, dated to-day, in reply to one of mine yesterday, and he makes no mention whatever with reference to the report mentioned in the newspapers.

Will the noble Lord be good enough to inform the House, when he receives the information, of the quantity of military stores, including guns and rifles, that have been left behind by General Stewart in retiring from Cabul?

assented.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to the important effects which Railway construction might be expected to produce in Asiatic Turkey in promoting the prosperity of the inhabitants, in opening out fresh regions to British commerce, and in improving the means of communication between Europe and Asia, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps having for their object the promotion of Railway enterprise in that country?

Her Majesty's Government have no intention of taking any steps at present for the promotion of railway enterprize in Asiatic Turkey; but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been in the habit of giving such assistance as is consistent with his official position on behalf of any bond fide scheme for that purpose in which British subjects may be interested, and which has a fair chance of being carried out.

said: Information was received from Sir Henry Layard, before he left Constantinople on his return home, of the publication of a newspaper called The Peih-ul-Islam, intended for circulation among the Mussulmans in India, and containing articles of a nature calculated to influence them against British rule. As this newspaper was printed at the Imperial printing-office at Constantinople, and was stated to be subsidized by persons connected with the Turkish Government, Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to take such steps with regard to it as he might think advisable. Before this instruction reached him, however, his Excellency had been in communication with the Turkish Prime Minister on the subject; and on the 11th of July Her Majesty's Government were informed that the subsidy had been stopped and that the paper would not appear again.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the important Despatches on the Chefoo Convention, which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was expecting when he received the Deputation from the Anti-Opium Society on the 14th of June, have been yet received; and, if so, whether he is able to state their purport?

I regret that the despatches referred to by the hon. Baronet have not been received; and, in justification of the statements made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself, I may state that on the 6th of May Sir Thomas Wade telegraphed that the re- port in question would be forwarded by the French mail leaving Shanghai on the 19th of that month. As it had not reached the Foreign Office at the end of July, Sir Thomas Wade was instructed to inform Lord Granville when it had been despatched; and in a telegram received on the 11th instant he states that "the report is not yet complete, but will be forwarded at once, with explanation of delay."

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the case of James Bell, a miner, aged 17, who, having been charged on the 18th inst. before the Justice of Peace Court at Airdrie with stealing a turnip from a field, and having pleaded guilty, stating that he was out of work and led to commit the theft by hunger, was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour; and, if so, whether it is intended to order the remission of the remainder of the sentence?

in reply, said, that he had considered the matter in consultation with the Lord Advocate, and the sentence to which the hon. Member referred would be remitted.

said, he hoped he might be allowed to make an appeal to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). He understood he had a Notice on the Paper relating to the state of the Navy which he intended to bring on. He believed the right hon. and gallant Member was not in the House at an earlier period when an arrangement was come to with respect to the Business of this evening. Two Motions had been withdrawn by the hon. Members for Louth (Mr. Callan) and Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) for the purpose of enabling the Irish Estimates to be taken this evening. If those Notices were proceeded with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not bring on his Motion; and he hoped, under those circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be induced to take another opportunity for bringing on his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was a party to that arrangement; and he believed he would join with him in the appeal made to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to avail himself of the opportunity which a mere accident had placed at his disposal.

said, that certainly in the course of this morning there was a very clear understanding that the Irish Members having Notices down upon going into Supply would waive them in order to facilitate the arrangement come to with regard to the consideration of the Irish Votes; and he hoped, therefore, that his right hon. and gallant Friend would acknowledge the force of the appeal made by the noble Lord, and withdraw his Notice of Motion.

said, he had no wish to obstruct the Business of the House; and if he could be assured he should have an opportunity for bringing on the question on going into Supply on Tuesday, if it was put down, he would, with great pleasure, postpone his Motion.

said, that on Tuesday there would either be Supply or the Report on Supply; and he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Member would then have his opportunity.

said, he should be happy to postpone his Motion till then.

asked if the President of the Board of Trade intended to force on the Corn Averages Bill this Session, as the feeling in the country was that the Bill should receive a considerable amount of discussion?

said, he had certainly no wish to force on the measure if there were any serious opposition to it either in the House or in the country; but he had not heard of any objections to the Bill, so far as it went.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was opposition to the Bill in several quarters.

said, that, under those circumstances, he would not attempt to set up the Bill again this Session.

said, until he saw what stood on the Paper for Tuesday he could not make any other arrangement; but he might point out it was proposed to take the South African debate on Tuesday.

I beg to move that this Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of inserting the following clause in lieu of Clause 3—

"It shall be lawful at any time, or from time to time, for the occupier to let or to lease the right of killing and taking ground game by this Act vested in him, or otherwise appertaining to him, for a valuable consideration to the owner of the land he occupies, or to any other person having a concurrent right to kill and take ground game thereon: Provided always, That such letting or lease of his right to kill and take ground game to be granted by such occupier shall be in writing, and shall be stamped, and shall in all respects be held to be distinct and separate from the terms or conditions, whether in writing, by custom, by common law, or otherwise, under which such occupier holds his occupation, and that such letting or lease of the right of the occupier to kill and take ground game shall in all cases absolutely cease and determine at the expiration of a year from the date thereof."

It appears to have been thought by some hon. Gentlemen that, on a previous occasion, when I moved the rejection of the 3rd clause of the Bill, I did so without proposing an alternative; and that, taking this view of my action, they considered it was merely a phase of Obstruction. I then spoke when the House was very thinly attended. I have reason also to believe that what then occurred has led to considerable misunderstanding out of the House. My constituents were perfectly aware of the course which I intended to pursue in the matter; but I have received communications from some of them regretting my failure, as they suppose, to propose the clause which stands in my name, in following the course which they had approved. I should not, Sir, but for the confusion and misunderstanding to which I have referred, have ventured to obtrude myself again upon the attention of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in the few words which he uttered, seemed to consider that the 3rd clause of the Bill contained the principle of the measure, and that I ought to have brought forward my Amendment when you, Sir, still occupied the Chair. I look upon that clause as altogether a disabling clause; and I do not think anything has occurred which would justify the right hon. and learned Gentleman in depriving the farmers of this country of the right in the game, which is one of the primary conditions of their tenure, without a substitute, unless they are enabled to part with that right by contract. The Bill, in an arbitrary manner, directly invades that right; and I certainly think that a much stronger justification than any which has yet been given is needed to warrant such an arbitrary and uncompensated interference between the parties. I did not believe that this arbitrary clause contained the whole principle of the Bill. I thought that it—the principle of the Bill—consisted in a division of the ground game between the landlord and the tenant. It would be highly inconsistent on my part if I were to oppose the object of the measure, which, as stated in the Preamble, is to promote good husbandry, and thereby to increase the production of home-grown food. There are few Members now remaining in this House who have made such sacrifices as I have made in the cause of home production. I am not one whit less anxious now than I was when I first entered the House to insure the increase of home-production of food for the nation. I accept the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to create a joint possession in ground game as between landlord and tenant; but I object to this 3rd clause, because it disables the tenant from dealing with the share of the property—I mean of the ground game—which the Bill assigns to him. The clause, in fact, is one of the most arbitrary and stringent provisions I have ever known introduced into any Bill since I have been a Mem- ber of the House. I admit that the operation of the present law is imperfect, and that there is reason for creating a concurrent right in ground game, instead of a sole right, on the part of either the landlord or of the tenant; but I object to this 3rd clause, because it precludes the tenant from disposing of his share in this property, as created by the Bill, to his bestcustomer—namely, the landlord. It, therefore, in great measure, renders valueless the gift which the measure seems to give him. But I have this further objection to the clause —that while it declares a joint right in ground game, it does nothing to assign the proportion of that property to be retained by either party. It gives a concurrent right in the game to the landlord and the tenant; but it leaves the parties to scramble between themselves as to whom of the two should have the whole or a part of that to which both are entitled. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to create differences and heart-burnings between landlords and tenants than a provision which precludes them from coming to a legally recognized and intelligible agreement with each other, either in writing or otherwise. As, Sir, having had a wide experience— an experience of 40years in these matters —I hope the House will not consider it presumptuous on my part to suggest the alternative which I now do by my Motion. There is no disability which my clause would inflict. On the contrary, it is altogether an enabling clause. I accept the principle of the Bill, as I have explained; and I propose to enable the tenant, if he should feel so disposed, by an instrument, distinct from his lease —an instrument which shall be stamped and producible, if called for, in a Court of Law—to let his share in the ground game to the landlord; but to let it only for a year from the date of the agreement. The last is, perhaps, the most important provision contained in the clause which I suggest. My experience of 40 years tells me this—that within a year it is not probable that ground game should be increased to the serious detriment of the tenant. Still, injury may occur; and if the House should be pleased to adopt my clause, it will have provided that, at the expiration of the year, all the tenant will have to do, instead of adopting the invidious remedy of prosecuting his landlord for damages, or acting upon the dangerous alternative of giving notice to quit his farm—all, I repeat, that the tenant will have to do will be to remain perfectly quiet, his right under the Bill will revive; and the landlord should desire to make a fresh agreement at the end of the year, he will have to go to the tenant, who will thus have the opportunity of making new terms with his landlord, and of demanding such compensation for the past excess of game — and I think it improbable that it would be large — as might seem just in the circumstance. I would thus enable the tenant to deal with his natural customer in this matter —the landlord; and provide that, at the close of each year, merely by inaction on his own part, the tenant should be in the position of making fresh terms with his landlord, or of himself restricting the ground game, if he should think that necessary. Sir, my desire is that landlords and tenants should agree with each other, and act towards each other in a friendly spirit and manner. My great object is to avoid differences between landlords and tenants; and I am quite sure that this 3rd clause, as it stands, is calculated to excite differences. I am anxious to attain the purpose of the Bill as set forth in the Preamble. I do not believe that it is for the promotion of good husbandry that landlords should become non-resident; but if you sow the seeds of difference between them and their tenants, I am convinced that these differences will result in the non-residence of many landlords. We have an example in Ireland. Dissension has been sown between the landlords and the tenants of that country, and we have seen the ill-effects there of non-residence. I have had conversations on this subject with every Prime Minister, from Sir Robert Peel to Lord Palmerston; and they have all agreed in regarding the non-residence of the landlords as one of Ireland's greatest misfortunes. And what is the state of Irish agriculture? Since the year 1847 the average of cereal crops in that country has decreased by 1,500,000 acres. It is true that the cultivation of green crops, including potatoes, has increased by 500,000 acres; but that is not a very happy increase, when 1,500,000 acres have been totally thrown out of cereal cultivation. I speak after careful examination of the Reports before the House; and I say that the non-residence of landlords in Ireland has materially contributed to the decrease of corn cultivation in that country. It has not been the sole cause of the diminution; but the eminent men to whom I have alluded must all have been totally mistaken if the non-residence of the landlords has not contributed to the result I have described. In my opinion, the 3rd clause of the Bill is adverse to good husbandry, inasmuch as it will lead, if adopted, to the non-residence of landlords, who will by it be tempted to withdraw their capital from the improvement of their estates. This is the effect of sowing dissensions between landlords and their tenants. I repeat, that it is because I am sincerely anxious to maintain and attain the object of the Bill, as stated in the Preamble, that I have placed my Amendment on the Notice Paper; and because I am desirous of hearing what reply the Home Secretary may make, I move that Amendment; but, after the House has been sitting all night, at this period of the Session, and after the misunderstanding which was evident in the division that has been taken, I shall not again press my Motion to a division, unless I am compelled to do so.

said, he was glad that the hon. Member did hot intend to go to a division, because his object could be just as well secured by voting against the third reading. He did not wish, any more than the hon. Member, to see the landlords driven from the country. The fact was, the hon. Member was a sort of Jeremiah of the landed interest. According to the hon. Member, ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws every measure affecting Land Laws had been calculated to lead to the emigration of the landlords. Thirty or forty years ago the hon. Member told them what would happen upon the question of Protection; and, therefore, he did not feel alarmed at his predictions on this occasion. The truth was, that the landlords of England took a very different view of their estates from that which was taken by the hon. Member. They enjoyed sport; but they did not consider that their whole existence was dependent on shooting hares and rabbits. They recognized the existence of bipeds as well as quadrupeds; and they thought that living in England was still worth something, even though there might be a diminution in the hares and rabbits for them to shoot. The Amendment of the hon. Member would destroy the Bill altogether; because, instead of a clause being introduced into the lease in the old way, it would be drawn upon a separate piece of paper with exactly the same result—namely, that the landlord would be able to reserve the shooting and to preserve the game. The proposal of the hon. Member to limit the letting of the right of shooting to a year was, in itself, an interference with the freedom of contract. He must oppose the Amendment.

remarked, that no Bill had excited more interest in the country than this, it being discussed in every parish in England and Scotland. He thought that the operation of the Bill had been misunderstood. If he thought that it would put an end to sport, or would conduce to the entire destruction of hares and rabbits, he should vote against the third reading; because the first he considered a necessary means of enabling a busy man to obtain his necessary recreation, and hares and rabbits he regarded as a very valuable article of food. Babbits were one of the few luxuries which the working classes were able to purchase. As to the money compensation system he looked upon it as an utter failure, because in nine cases out of ten, in the result, it gave dissatisfaction both to the landlord and tenant. As a rule, the landlord knew nothing of the history of a crop, and could not check the claim, which the tenant was apt to put down to destruction by ground game, the damage caused by wire worm, weather, and other causes. The objection that applied to a fixed rent for ground game was that neither party could foresee at the time when the rent was fixed whether the season would cause ground game to increase or not. He could not, he might add, concur in the objections which had been raised to the Bill on the ground of its interference with freedom of contract, and he might instance the Truck Act to show how beneficially such interference sometimes operated. The fact that a concurrent right was given by the Bill would enable the tenant, if he pleased, to keep down ground game to any point which he might deem necessary; while upon poor land he could let the rabbits increase and sell them in the market. He did not believe that the Bill would interfere with the moderate preservation of foxes; while there was nothing in it to prevent the landlord and tenant from agreeing as to the mode in which ground game should be destroyed.

admitted that the Amendments introduced by the Home Secretary had considerably modified the Bill and removed some of the most serious objections to it.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Alluding to the Amendment introduced on Wednesday last on the Motion of the Home Secretary, the hon. Baronet said he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite grasped its extent. His attention had been called to it through The Standard newspaper. This Amendment was to the effect' that the Bill in Scotland should not take effect during the currency of any contract made before the passing of the Act, whereby any other person than the occupier would be entitled to kill ground game. That, of course, was a much more serious change than anything that really affected the occupier. He was quite prepared to admit that there was no serious danger of leases or agreements being made between landlord and tenant for other than a "valuable consideration;" and, therefore, he did not intend to offer any more opposition to the clause as it stood. He must point out, however, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the addition to which he had referred were allowed to stand, there was nothing to prevent any person who had the right of letting game from entering into a contract which might not be for a "valuable consideration," but which might be a losing contract, whereby he would part with his right to kill ground game for an indefinite number of years. Such a person might enter into this sort of contract at any period between this and the time that the Bill received the Royal Assent. He knew such a thing would not be generally done; but he was certain that it would take place in some cases. He was assured, indeed, by an agent in Scotland that this certainly would be done. That gentleman had told him that there were individuals who would avail themselves of the clause as it now stood, and that such agreements would be entered upon. He could not regard this error of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as other than a mere oversight. He proposed, in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire being withdrawn, or negatived, to move—

"That the Bill be re-committed, in order to amend Clause 5, by leaving out the words 'passing of this Act,' page 3, line 8, in order to insert the words 'twenty-fifth of August, 1880.'"

He might have proposed the date at which the Bill was introduced, and which was suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself; but he wished to be moderate in his demands, therefore he limited it to the 25th of August. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider that to be a moderate and reasonable change, and would consent to it being made upon the third reading.

said, the present was a most unfortunate time to bring in a Bill of this nature, when landlords as well as tenants were suffering from a depression which was all but unprecedented, and tenants had been able to get farms also on any terms and conditions they asked. He objected to the Bill on two main grounds. He objected to it, in the first place, on the ground that it interfered with freedom of contract. The tenant farmer would be the first to have reason to complain, when he came to understand what the principle of the Bill in that respect really was, that this was but the thin end of the wedge, and that by-and-bye it would be pushed further, being applied to freedom of contract between the tenant himself and his labourer. The other reason why he objected to the Bill was because it directly interfered with the rights of property. It did so only in a small degree, no doubt; but it made a beginning in that direction, and raised a question which required the serious consideration of the House. The proposals of the Bill in regard to those points were mischievous, and the object the Government had in view might have been met in a very different way.

said, that several hon. Members, especially the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), had addressed the House usque ad nauseam on the virtues of freedom of contract. The noble Lord had presented a Petition to the House bearing a name honourably known, and they all of them knew that that name bore the reflex of a Gentleman on the Liberal side of the House; but that Petition had only the 127th part of the signatures appended to the Petition presented by the Premier on the same day in favour of the Bill. The noble Lord had made this formula of freedom of contract a divinity before which he was prepared to bow down and worship. He had not seen the noble Lord in the House so frequently of late, and it would almost seem that he came down only to worship at the peculiar shrine he had indicated. The noble Lord must know that under his unlimited recognition of freedom of contract the most infamous traffics might be carried on with impunity by wicked men. The truth was, that the recognition of the welfare of the community must have precedence to unlimited right of contract. Had the noble Lord been a burgess of Liverpool during the last century, as, unfortunately, he was at present the Tory Representative of a Scottish constituency, he would, uudoubtedly, have been a pertinacious advocate of freedom of contract for the supply of labour to the landed proprietors of the West Indian Islands. That labour would have been slave labour, and yet the noble Lord would be the first to recognize that his principle had limits, and that the public welfare must be respected. He trusted, therefore, that that Toryism which had so long infected Liverpool, and which largely had its origin in the cry for freedom of contract, would not cling to Haddingtonshire so long as it had done to the great seaport on the Mersey. It was well known that the political sustenance of that town had been largely made up of the dregs of slavery dissolved in rum, and flavoured with orange tincture, or the essential oil of Newdegate. The noble Lord had read to them a model lease touching game on a property with which he was, no doubt, connected. Undoubtedly, that deed had a semblance of fairness about it; but it would not be difficult to show that even that liberal lease might be made in the hands of unscrupulous landlords, whose lands were intersected by belts of wood, and overstocked with pheasants, an instrument of oppression. He regretted that there was no intention of dealing with leases in Scotland, because, as matters now stood, the Scotch farmers, instead of reaping any benefit, would do the reverse.

did not see how it could be contended that this Bill did not interfere with freedom of contract. The great objection he had to the measure was that no necessity existed for framing it on the lines upon which it had been drawn. The tenant was already upon an equality with his landlord in regard to contract; he could enter into any agreement to protect himself from the ravages of game, and therefore the Bill was not required to give him protection.

denied that the Bill was unnecessary. The Bill might not go as far as he could have wished; but it was a measure which was much needed by the farmers of England, and to which he consequently gave his cordial support.

expressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment.

thought some reply should be given with respect to the question he had raised.

replied, that when they got to the Motion for the third reading he should say something upon the subject.

called attention to the omission of the Home Secretary to bring forward on Report the Amendment which proposed to make the Bill apply as from its introduction instead of from the passing of the Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had stigmatized anyone who might enter into a contract with the purpose of defeating the operations of the Act as dishonest—at least, inferring from their indignant repudiation of the possibility of such conduct on the part of country gentlemen as had been suggested by the Home Secretary. Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seemingly withdrawn his proposition, and it now behoved hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the responsibility which their protests attached to them.

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had somewhat anticipated the remarks he should have made on the subject. It had been suggested to him (Sir William Harcourt) that during the progress of the Bill some individuals might have been induced to make contracts for the purpose of defeating its operation, and it was with the view of preventing such proceedings that he had suggested the alteration referred to. That suggestion had been met by a chorus of indignant remonstrance, as being a proposal calculated to cast a reflection upon the honour and honesty of country gentlemen. In the presence of that declaration and of that repudiation, he had felt that it would not be advisable to proceed with the proposed limitation. He had felt, indeed, that a declaration of that kind on the part of hon. Gentlemen was as great a guarantee as could be had, and it was for that reason that he had not reproduced it. If he had thought that any person pretending to the name of a gentleman would have adopted the procedure that had been suggested, he certainly would have proceeded with his limitation, and, indeed, have pressed it to a division.

in rising to move—

"That this House, while admitting the serious damage sometimes occasioned to crops by ground game, and the just right of the tenant to the fullest protection therefrom, disapproves of a Bill which seeks to accomplish that object by imposing harsh and needless restrictions upon the rights and liberties of individuals, and which deprives the owner of land, who is farming his own occupation, as well as the tenant of land already enjoying the sole right of sporting thereon, of the power of letting the sole right of sporting, without compensation,"

said, he desired, in the first place, in reply to the challenge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, to state that he held himself entirely and absolutely free from anything that might have been said with regard to the dishonesty of making a contract to evade the operation of the Bill. It was a case of "much cry and little wool," however; because the Bill, if ever it became law, would become law within a week, and it would be impossible for any landlord to enter into such a contract, even if he wished to do so. But he objected altogether to the proposition laid down that if a Bill were introduced which some hon. Members thought to be of an objectionable and oppressive character, it was a dishonourable and dishonest act for anyone to endeavour to guard against the operation of what might be a silly and badly-drawn Bill by entering into a contract which would protect himself from injury by that measure. It had been said that he was one of those who came under the ban of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), because they had agreed to abandon the principle of freedom of contract. He admitted that he was not one of those who were always crying out against interference with freedom of contract. He should not object, provided that interference was for an adequate object which could not be otherwise attained; but he was not prepared to admit that the present Bill fulfilled either of those two conditions. He had little to add to what had been already stated in the course of the discussion; but he wished to avail himself of this opportunity to correct some very considerable misrepresentations of which he had been the subject in connection with this Bill. The misrepresentations to which he referred had appeared in portions of the Liberal Press. It had been charged against him that he considered this Bill a measure of confiscation, because in future it would prevent landlords eating up their tenants with ground game, and prevent them letting the shooting to third parties over their tenants' heads. He indignantly denied that accusation. No man disapproved of these things more than he did. He regarded the practice of letting game over the heads of the tenant as one of the most reprehensible practices a landlord could indulge in. One of his strongest complaints against the Bill was that, so far from removing that evil, it would allow one of the worst features of game preservation to continue unchecked. His complaint of confiscation was directed to two cases, and to two cases alone, which were different from those where the landlord reserved the right of shooting on the farm of his tenant. He never said it would be confiscation to take that right away from the landlord, because the latter would be able to compensate himself by raising the rent. The cases in which he thought the measure would amount to confiscation were where the owner occupied his own land, or where the tenant enjoyed the sole right of shooting on his farm. In the case of the owner it was an infringement of individual liberty, against which the House of Commons ought to protest; and he did say that it was a monstrous interference with the principle of individual liberty to prevent a landlord who was his own tenant, farming on his own land, from dealing with his own property in the way which seemed to him best, and to declare that by no means should he be able to divest himself of the power of killing hares and rabbits on his holding. Let him take, again, the case of a tenant who had the sole right of sporting on the land in his occupation. That right, where he was allowed to let it, was valuable to him, and he was to be deprived of that property without any compensation. Why was this done? Because, as they were told by the Home Secretary, if they allowed the tenant to dispose of his right he would only let it to the landlord. The landlord, he said, would be the inevitable customer for the shooting— that was his expression. Now, the opponents of the Bill had offered to accept a Proviso that would prevent the tenant letting the shooting to a landlord; but the Home Secretary said that would be such an absurdity that he could not entertain it. That, however, was not the fault of the opponents of the Bill. It was the fault of the Government in introducing a measure of such a character that they could not carry it out without doing injustice to the tenant unless they attached to it a condition which in itself rendered the Bill ridiculous and absurd. He denied that there was any adequate reason for this Bill. Hon. Members spoke generally about the damage done by ground game, but they had produced no evidence on the subject; and he denied that at the present day any appreciable injury was caused by ground game. Mr. Clare S. Read, one of the greatest agricultural authorities, distinctly stated in his speech last Session that ground game in the Eastern Counties had, to a great extent, disappeared, and had little or nothing whatever to do with deficiency of crops. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) had, on a former occasion, informed the House that the tenant farmers in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge were weak and helpless, and totally unable to protect themselves; but that was a statement to which he rather demurred at the time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, further, that a tenant might as well ask a landlord for the use of his drawing-room or cellar as for the right of shooting. Now, he happened last evening to see in an Ipswich newspaper advertisements relating to 23 different farms which were to be let, containing 6,140 acres. As hon. Gentlemen knew, the selling of a farm was one of the last things to which a landlord had recourse; and when he found himself in that position he was ready to accept almost any terms. But not only were the farms to which he referred advertised for sale, but in one case there was a proviso to the effect that the farm was protected from ground game, while in five cases the right of shooting was to be given, and in four the exclusive right of sporting. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to contradict what appeared in those advertisements; but, if true, they were totally destructive of the pitiable case which he had presented to the House with regard to the helpless position of the tenant farmers. For himself, he hoped the effect of the Bill in the greater part of the country would be that the landlord and the tenant would forthwith enter into amicable arrangements with each other, and that matters would continue to be much as they were before. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the fact that it was the opinion of a vast number of tenant farmers that the Bill was calculated to engender something like ill-feeling between landlords and tenants. At the present moment the tenant had matters almost entirely in his own hands, but days of prosperity might soon return; and when that was the case, if an amicable arrangement were not arrived at, there might be that which the tenant farmer hated above all things in the world—a general re-valuation of farms; and, if so, he would not have much for which to thank the Government. Before he sat down he begged to offer to the right hon. and learned Gentle- man the Home Secretary the tribute of his respect for the tact, ability, and good temper with which he had conducted through the House a measure of a most intricate character, which, without the exhibition of those qualities, might have given rise to much more prolonged and irritating discussions. But they would be doing the right hon. and learned Gentleman an injustice if they did not acknowledge something else besides, not, perhaps, so acceptable to him —and that was the knowledge which he possessed of poor, weak, erring human nature, as well as those qualities of statecraft which had led him to propose the introduction of this measure. A Colleague of the right hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench was exulting lately upon the great number of counties which were slipping away from the Tory Party; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not content apparently with this, did not scruple to come forward with this daring and audacious bribe, in order to capture the remainder. He said nothing as to the morality of this political manoeuvre. As a Party coup he was not ashamed—and no hon. Member on that side of the House need be ashamed—to acknowledge that for the present this move had apparently been entirely successful. Notwithstanding that, however, he would offer one word of warning to those whom he still regarded as his brother agriculturists—the tenant farmers of England. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but if they had had as much experience of the relations between tenant farmers and their landlords as he had had they would recognize the fact that, notwithstanding temporary differences, the interests of the two classes were identical. He would address one word of warning to the farmers throughout England, and what he would say to them was this. "It is true you are to-day the proteges, the petted darlings if you will, of the extreme Radical element of the community. Take care you are not made their tools, and nothing but their tools, to-morrow." For his part, he mistrusted the sincerity of men who were so false in power to the principles which they professed in Opposition. Men like those, who, when in Opposition, never ceased to ridicule and to denounce—aye! and even within a month of the General Election—any Tory Motion and any Tory proposal to repeal the Malt Tax, and then within a week of their return to power flashed it on a startled and astonished House of Commons. He had no faith in those new allies of the farmer, who, when in Opposition, offered an obstruction, never equalled, to the best and most beneficial measure, which in his (Mr. Chaplin's) time—and he believed for 50 years before—was ever carried in the agricultural interests. Men, he meant, like the author of this Bill, who, clever politician and statesman though he be, did not scruple three short months ago to drive Danish cattle through the streets of Oxford, placarded with denunciations of the Tories, for introducing, as they said, "a vile measure of Protection," although it suited them now to call it from the safe haven of the Treasury Bench, and in the new character so conveniently assumed, an immense and magnificent success. "Timeo danaos et dona ferentes," he was convinced should be the motto of the farmers towards their new-found Liberal friends. Those novel principles of legislation, and especially when gilded and when baited as they were for them on this occasion, were sweet and pleasant doubtless in their mouth to-day; but rest assured that they would leave a bitter after-taste behind them, and do not suppose—do not for a moment be so infatuated as to suppose—that the legislation and the principles advanced to-day would rest where they were now. It was the Hares and Rabbits Bill today. Yes ! to smooth for the Government, no doubt, the passage of some other measures less agreeable to them. It might be county suffrage, and all that county suffrage meant, for them, tomorrow. That which was taken from the landlord and given to the tenant today might be taken from the tenant and given to the labourer to-morrow. "Ground game," said the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "is inseparable, and must be made inseparable, from the cultivation of the soil. That is the principle of my Bill. That is the very foundation on which it rests." Yes, undoubtedly it was so; and it would be a nice distinction for the farmer to explain, when the question would be asked in future, as rest assured it would ere long be asked, if those principles were to continue to prevail-—Whether the tenant farmer or his labourer was the actual cultivator of the soil. He (Mr. Chaplin) knew well that every county Member who adopted the course which he had taken in relation to the Bill might be said to stand on ticklish ground, and he was not ashamed to acknowledge that he had been warned himself—that'slrish, and possibly might lose the seat in consequence which it was his pride and honour to possess. But neither that nor any other consideration in the world would deter him from stating, fearlessly and frankly, to the House of Commons what he honestly believed to be the truth in relation to this question; and, come what might, he was determined he would give his vote against the measure. Not for one moment, for the sake of the worthless, wretched creatures with regard to which it legislated, or the sport, and poor sport too, in his opinion, which something they provided. But he did resist the measure to the utmost, because of the fatal precedent it would establish, and the evil principle which it contained.

said, he did not share in the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to the alarming changes which would result to our agriculture by the passing of this Bill. Every man who had studied the subject knew that the changes in the agricultural system of any country could only be brought about by slow, very slow, degrees. For instance, neither the small farm system of France, nor the gigantic farm system of Hungary, could be hastily changed by either legislative enactments or at the caprice of owners. It was idle to maintain that sweeping changes in our land system would result from the passing of this Ground Game Bill. The hon. Member had stated that he did not object to interference with freedom of contract when sufficient reasons existed. He (Mr. Howard) thought that no Member on either side of the House would object to this view; but then it happened that what the hon. Member thought was not a sufficient reason at one time was quite sufficient at another. For instance, some six or eight months ago he had had a long correspondence with the hon. Member upon the question of tenant right. At that time the hon. Member contended that no sufficient reason existed for State interference between landlord and tenant; yet, early in the present Session, the hon. Member brought in a Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, which Bill directly interfered with freedom of contract between landlord and tenant.

explained, that he had seen reason to change his views; that important information had since been communicated to the Royal Commission on Agriculture.

The hon. Member had admitted that, upon being better informed, he had changed his views upon the subject in question. He (Mr. Howard) did not find fault with the hon. Member for having thus changed his opinion; on the other hand, he applauded him for his boldness in coming forward with a Bill in opposition to views he had so recently expressed, and he had no doubt that when the hon. Member was better informed upon the question before the House a similar change of opinion might be looked for. With respect to the opinions of Mr. Clare Read, quoted by the hon. Member, he had been in frequent communication with the late Member for Norfolk, and he had expressed no such opinions to him. But what were the real opinions of Mr. Clare Read could best be gathered from the evidence he gave before the last Select Committee of this House which sat on the Game Question. What said Mr. Clare Read on that occasion?—

"In a great number of cases of insolvent farmers in Norfolk their ultimate ruin is attributable to the over-preservation of game."

He (Mr. Howard) did not believe that any great diminution in ground game had taken place of late years, except in particular districts. As to the grievance which the hon. Member contended the Bill would entail upon both owners and occupiers by depriving them of the value of their sporting rights, he maintained that any such fears were altogether ideal. The occupier, who would have conferred upon him by the Bill the right to the ground game, and upon whose farm the game was not reserved, would have no more difficulty in letting his shooting than at present; indeed, the value of the sporting rights would be entirely in his own hands, as it was at present. For instance, if a farmer allowed his shepherd to keep three or four sheep dogs the sport on the farm would not be worth much. Although the Bill vested the right to the ground game in the tenant, it did not compel him to exercise that right; he was at liberty to use it or to waive it at his own pleasure. The value, too, of the shooting would depend upon how he behaved to the man to whom he let it; and what was true in this respect of the occupier was especially true of an owner who was also an occupier—he had the power entirely in his own hands of making the shooting valuable or otherwise. Turning to the question of freedom of contract, the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross) said, the other day, that the farmers of the Kingdom were treated under this Bill as women and children. It occurred to him that it was the late, and not the present, Government which had treated the farmers as women and children. The late Government, when the Agricultural Holdings Bill was brought in, evidently thought that the farmers of England were so much like women and children that they had not penetration enough to see through its hollowness. In that, however, they were greatly mistaken. Warned by the operation of that Act, the present Government had taken steps to prevent the Ground Game Bill from becoming a sham and a delusion. He would ask, from whom did this cry freedom of contract emanate? Was it from the farmers? He had been a diligent reader of the agricultural newspapers, especially since this Bill had been before the country, and not a single letter or speech from a farmer had appeared advocating the retention of this so-called right, and surely the farmers understood a question which so deeply concerned them; they did not object to the proposed interference. On the other hand, he never remembered a subject brought before the Legislature upon which the farmers of the Kingdom were so united and unanimous. Last week there was an agricultural meeting at Kingscote, Gloucestershire, at which the hon. and gallant Member for that county (Colonel Kingscote) was present, and who, it would be remembered, had not looked very kindly upon the Bill. One of the judges at that meeting—a land agent and farmer—stood up before the hon. and gallant Member, and expressed strong approval of the measure. The speaker, who avowed himself a Conservative, said—

"He had long been an agricultural valuer, and had been continually called upon to assess damages done by hares and rabbits. He bore witness, from his personal observation, to the lamentable, and in many cases ruinous, loss which had been brought upon farmers by these animals. In answer to the question which had been put to them—What do the tenant farmers think of the Bill?—he would say that never in his life could he recollect any measure brought into Parliament which had given such general joy and satisfaction among farmers."

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had spoken of the principle of the Bill. What, he would ask, was its principle? If he understood the object of the Bill, it was to strengthen the legal position of the farmer in respect of the ground game upon his holding. That he took to be the fundamental principle of the Bill; and what, he would ask, had been the object of nearly all the Amendments which had been proposed from the opposite side, as well as some from his own side? Why, the design of all was to weaken the legal position the farmer would otherwise occupy under the provisions of the Bill. That, unquestionably, was the object of nearly the whole of the Amendments which had been proposed—nothing more, nothing less—and that, he hoped, the country would understand. In conclusion, he congratulated the Home Secretary upon the firmness he had throughout displayed in dealing with these Amendments; and he had no doubt that when the Bill came into operation it would give unqualified satisfaction to the farmers of the United Kingdom.

concurred in the compliment which his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had paid the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary on the tact and good temper with which he had conducted the Bill through a crossfire of opposition. He rejoiced that the former, who had come in like the lion, was going out like the lamb. His hon. Friend had stated some facts with regard to the letting of farms in Suffolk, throwing doubt on a statement he (Mr. Rodwell) had made as to the difficulty of farmers obtaining the right of shooting over their farms. But the facts quoted by his hon. Friend only confirmed his statement. It was said that there were 23 farms advertised with the right of shooting; but the acreage was only 3,000, which did not look like much shooting. No doubt, it was seen that this Bill was looming in the distance, and the landlords were making a virtue of a necessity. He was certain that one of the greatest difficulties in the letting of farms was this question of game. The Bill was not brought forward for the purpose of reserving the sport to the tenants, but to remove the grievance that existed. It was somewhat late in the day for his hon. Friend to say that he never heard of any grievance, for the grievance was admitted on all sides—that was the Report of the Committee of 1872—and the only question was what should be the remedy. The principle of the Bill seemed to be a sound one, seeing that it was preventive rather than remedial. It gave a weapon of defence, not of offence, to the tenant, which he might or might not use, and would only be used to protect his crops. Hon. Members who talked in such lugubrious tones about the Bill showed that they did not understand it. There was nothing to prevent the tenant saying to his landlord—"I forbear to exercise this right, and there will be no interference with your sport so long as the hares and rabbits do not interfere with my property." He had supported the Bill throughout, and should give his vote for the third reading, because he thought the Bill was necessary and just, because it would strengthen the cordiality between landlords and tenants, and because he believed it would have effect only where the tenant was likely to be wronged by the acts of a selfish landlord.

wished to make a very few observations to the House. He confessed that he had some difficulty in understanding the precise position taken up by the advocates of the Bill. The point upon which he felt most reluctance to accept the Bill was the one upon which he was almost ashamed to speak, so often had it been referred to; he meant its interference with freedom of contract. But he had in the course of the debate heard expressions used which made him doubt what the effect of the Bill was intended to be, and how far it was really intended to be that which it professed to be. It professed to confer an inalienable concurrent right to kill ground game upon landlord and tenant. But the House had been told in the arguments addressed to it that although the right conferred was to be inalienable, it did not prevent arrangements being made on the subject between landlord and tenant. Did the expression as to giving an "inalienable right" mean anything, or did it mean nothing? It had been so watered down, especially by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), that it seemed to mean no more than that there was to be a certain presumption in favour of the occupier. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had, in reference to the Bill, made use of a familiar classical quotation. He thought he might suitably substitute the word "Donalds" for "Danaos"in that quotation, in order to indicate the hollow character of the Bill. As to the question of freedom of contract, he allowed that in many cases freedom of contract might with perfect justice be interfered with. But it was only when the contract was injurious to the public interests in the same manner as if a man contracted to keep a pack of wolves. But no such reasoning was used in this case. It was not because hares and rabbits were mischievous animals that the Bill was supported, for they were told that there would not be much less game than there was before. He denied also that the late Government had ever interfered with freedom of contract. They had, on the contrary, protected that principle where, of two contracting parties, one possessed a controlling power over the other. That, however, could not be said to be the case with the farmers of England. What he objected to was that the measure intro- duced a principle which would very probably be carried further. The Government said, in effect, that the landlord was the controlling power in a contract, though the tenant had to bring his capital and skill to the management and development of the land. Would not the same underlying argument be applied to the relations of labourers and employers of labour? Would they not be told that the labourer must not be left free to make his own bargain, and that Parliament must step in and create an inalienable concurrent right which should override any bargain he might make? He hoped that the dangerous consequences of such a principle would be clearly realized. If the tenant farmers looked into this measure carefully they would see that, though apparently in their interest, it had two sides. He desired to repudiate, in the name of the country gentlemen of England, the idea that if they were to lose their rights of sporting they would be induced to shrink from their proper position and from their proper duties in the country. He was perfectly certain that nothing of the kind would be the case. The Bill was, in his judgment, absolutely unnecessary, and its object might have been attained by arrangements of a much simpler character than those which it proposed. He had done what he could to dissuade his hon. Friends from dividing against this Bill; because he clung to the hope that they would be allowed in Committee to discuss Amendments which would obviate unnecessary interference with freedom of contract while providing a remedy against the excessive encouragement of ground game. Up to the last moment he had followed the same course; but he now saw that the arguments adduced from the opposite Benches were arguments which showed that a diminution in the quantity of ground game and the promotion of good husbandry were not the main objects—at all events, not the sole object of the friends of this measure. On this occasion, therefore, he hoped that a very decided protest would be entered against the Bill. He accepted the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire as affirming the main propositions which they ought to hold on this subject.

I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, to follow the example of hon. Members opposite, by speaking on the principle of this Bill on the third reading, nor will I stop to answer any of the arguments that have been adduced against the Bill. Had I any such intention, I should have been greatly tempted to remark upon the extraordinary statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), who asserted that Mr. Clare Read had declared that the quantity of hares and rabbits had been so greatly diminished that little or no damage was now done by them. But my object in rising has been to protest, in the strongest terms that I can use, against the assertion—repeated on various occasions, and reproduced today—that the principle of this Bill is one of confiscation. I regard that assertion as at once feeble and futile. Feeble, because it is not based on fact; and futile, because this cry of confiscation meets with but little respect or sympathy within this House, and with none whatever in the country. The people now well understand that confiscation is the cry raised by privilege whenever its unjust monopolies are threatened. How true this is has been illustrated by the opposition raised to every great measure of reform which has been carried, or which yet remains to be made law. When national funds—long misappropriated to sectarian purposes—are proposed to be devoted to national interests, at once you raise the cry of confiscation; nay, even if it is proposed, by an extension of the suffrage, to bring all citizens within the pale of the Constitution, hon. Gentlemen opposite actually seem to think that this, too, is a confiscation of their political privileges. Now, what does the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) exactly mean by the term confiscation, to which he is so greatly attached? The hon. Gentleman has told us, with great distinctness, that he considers it is confiscation to take from anyone that which he possesses.

explained, that this definition of confiscation was quoted by him, but was not his. His idea of confiscation was the taking away from one person what he possessed in order to give it to another without compensation.

But does not the hon. Gentleman perceive that that which is possessed by somebody may be stolen property; and, in that ease, confiscation is only the cry of the brigand when the soldiery are entering his cave, the shout of the pickpocket when the policeman's hand is on his collar. Now, this description, I maintain, is precisely applicable to the property in wild animals possessed by the landowners, and of which property this Bill makes a very feeble effort towards restitution. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) has already declared that if the word confiscation is, in any degree, applicable to the objects of this Bill, it is now that the fitness has arisen; for, as he said, we must go back to the time when the property in game, apart from special agreement, was given to the occupier. But I, Sir, would go much further back than that, and charge with confiscation the owners of the soil—predominant in Parliament —who robbed the population of this country of their property in the wild animals that lived in it, and which, by the natural customs of the world, and by the Common Law of England, were their rightful inheritance. With unparalleled audacity they first confiscated for their own pleasures the property of the people in the wild animals of the country; they then taxed the community to maintain the game for their sport; and then they consigned thousands upon thousands to prison or exile if they ventured to assert their natural proprietorship by snaring a rabbit or shooting a pheasant. But perhaps it may be said that hon. Gentlemen attach a very peculiar value and sanctity to any property connected with the land. But that cannot be maintained after the experience of the last few weeks. I assume, of course, that if such special reverence exists for property connected with the land, hon. Gentlemen would, of course, feel as deeply interested for the tenant as for his landlord, for the money which the tenant has invested in the land as for the money with which the landlord purchased it. But what have we seen? A Bill introduced into this House—the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill—whose sole object was to prevent confiscation—the confiscation of the property of tenants by landlords who should take advantage of their present deplorable condition— that Bill has been ignominiously rejected by the very men who now oppose this Hares and Rabbits Bill, and who have declared that to prevent the con- fiscation by them of the tenants' money invested in the soil is in itself an act of confiscation of their land by privileges. In sitting down, I would venture to renew the suggestion with which I started, that this parrot cry of confiscation should no longer be made use of in regard to such measures as that which is now under consideration; its meaning is now too clearly understood by the people of this country. In "confiscation," they hear the cry of a privileged class who have proved throughout the centuries of their country's history that they value more highly the pleasures of sport than the interests of their country, or the rights of their countrymen.

said, he had spoken several times already on this Bill. But he did not think the Government could apply the term "Obstruction" to the legitimate criticism which the Bill had met with. This Government had never until last night had a taste of real Obstruction. Now, he considered this Bill to be a direct sham in the way of legislation. The Preamble said that the Bill was required to keep down ground game in the interests of good husbandry. But he wished it to go forth to the public, by whom it would shortly be discussed, that there was not a line or clause in the Bill which would prevent any landlord and tenant agreeing to grow nothing else than hares and rabbits. During the sifting and shaking of the Bill in Committee, they found that the Preamble was a pretence, and that the real object of the Bill was to transfer to the farmers sporting rights which they had yielded up to landlords for a valuable consideration. If the measure had been an honest one, for no other purpose than to keep down ground game, the Home Secretary would have accepted the Amendment in favour of limiting the farmers to trapping and snaring, and the other Amendment, that where there was an agreement made between landlord and tenant to keep down ground game this Bill should not apply. Instead of this being a Bill to promote good husbandry, it was simply a measure to transfer sporting rights. In its operation it would strike at the very foundations on which the social and commercial system of the country rested. Freedom of contract was the basis on which free men conducted their transactions; and his objection to the Bill was the position in which the farmer and the owner of land—men of full age and competent understanding—would be placed under its provisions. If there were a sound-headed, sane set of men in the United Kingdom, they were, he maintained, the farmers of England and Scotland, and the same remark applied to the owners; yet such men were declared by the Government to be unfit to make a bargain, and freedom of contract in their case was done away with. In short, the doctrines of political economists like Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Mill were set at naught by the Liberal Party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had twitted him with some remarks which he had made with reference to freedom of contract, and had asked him what answer he would give to a cabman who demanded on a wet night£5 to drive him from Westminster Hall to his home? But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he talked in that way, did not seem to understand what freedom of contract was, or sought to throw dust in the eyes of his audience; for the Railway and the Cab Acts, as he ought to be aware, dealt with privileges and monopolies which they created, and, in consideration of those privileges and monopolies, made certain provisions for the benefit of the public. It was not worthy, therefore, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use such an argument as that to which he had referred, while he was the last man in the House who ought to sneer at anybody for standing up in defence of freedom of contract, of which he was at one time one of the most able and eloquent advocates; for in a speech delivered some eight years ago he had complained of the disposition which appeared to be growing up day by day to invoke the interference of the Government in the relations of life, in opposition to that which had always been the tradition of the Liberal Party, who had consistently, he said, maintained the doctrine of individual liberty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman added that he did not admire that grand-maternal sort of government which insisted on putting a nightcap on the grown-up people of a nation by Act of Parliament. He had followed the teaching of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but every man was the best judge of his own political consistency. For his own part, if he had made such a speech, he would rather have had his tongue cut out than turn round, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done, and introduce a Bill supported by such arguments as those which had been advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of the present measure. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Liberal Party were thus prepared to depart from their principles, let them not imagine that the policy of interfering with freedom of contract would stop until an attempt was made to introduce it into the other relations of life. At all events, he and his Friends had the consolation of knowing that they had endeavoured to do all in their power to resist a measure which he would forbear from characterizing as it deserved; because, in doing so, he might say something which might be offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, perhaps, not quite Parliamentary.

said, he adhered entirely to the sentiments to which he had given expression in the speech to which the noble Lord had referred. The real difference between the noble Lord and himself was involved in the elementary question when the principles for which he contended were to be applied. The noble Lord had eulogized what was known in Scotland as "M'Lagan's Bill;" but when that Bill was first presented to Parliament it alarmed the easily-frightened imagination of the noble Lord quite as much as did the present measure, and in 1876 he spoke of it in language stronger than that which he had employed in regard to the measure before the House. He said that Bill was an interference with freedom of contract. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear !] So it was. It was a Bill to compel landlords to make agreements for compensation, which they were not obliged to do before. But not only that measure, but half-a-dozen others which had been introduced into that House had equally interfered with freedom of contract. The noble Lord said he confessed that, like St. Paul, he was born free, and wished to die a free man. The noble Lord did in one respect resemble St. Paul—he was a great apostle; but in another respect he did not resemble St. Paul, who had said of himself that in bodily presence he was weak, and in speech he was contemptible. The noble Lord made the same kind of speech on every occasion when it was proposed to give the smallest compensation or protection to the tenant farmers. In 1876, the noble Lord had done him the honour of calling him the real farmer's friend, and he was glad that his orthodoxy on this question had been recognized so long ago. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had referred to Mr. Clare Sewell Read as having said last year that there was no real grievance with respect to ground game; but Mr. Read moved a Resolution, which was unanimously accepted by the Chamber of Agriculture, declaring that the Council approved of this Bill, as it secured to the farmers power to protect their crops from ground game. That did not look as if he did not think there was a grievance; and, in fact, he had expressly said that there was a grievance, which ought to be redressed. The hon. Member had again used the word "confiscation." The noble Lord himself once proposed to transfer the presumption of law from the landlord to the tenant in Scotland, and he did not propose any compensation. It was said that this measure would interfere with the right of the tenant to freedom of contract; but the tenants were the best judges as to whether their interests would be injuriously affected by the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said he did not trust those dreadful Liberals, and that the Bill was a Party coup. "Well, it was rather assuring to think that it had been so successful. The hon. Member had stated that he had been warned that his opposition to this measure would possibly lead to the loss of his seat; but whose fault was that? Did he remember the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) for the abolition of the Game Laws before the General Election, when one of the most respected Members of the Conservative Party, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), proposed an Amendment to the effect that it was "not desirable" that there should be an amendment of the Game Laws; and that when he (Sir William Harcourt) proposed to leave out the word "not" from the Amendment, the whole Conservative Party voted that there should be no Amendment of the Game Laws. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Not then.] No; that was just before the General Election. But did not the hon. Member suppose that the farmers knew very well what that meant? The Conservative Party put it off to some more convenient season. That was a phrase taken from —at all events from the history of—St. Paul. The hon. Member said—"We will oppose every practical measure of the kind, and will always say 'not now;' and when we come in with a great majority, and can do something for the tenant farmers, and get a Report from the Committee of the House of Commons, then we will go on from 1873 to 1874, 1875, and so on to the General Election, and will still even then vote 'not now.'"

The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that the hon. Member for Leicester did introduce his Bill.

said, no doubt, that was so; but where was the Bill of the hon. Member or of his Party? And why did he and his Party, as a body, just before the General Election, vote that there should "not now" be a Bill? The hon. Member said that it was very bad of the Liberals to take the farmers away from the Conservatives. Why, the proud history of the Liberals showed that they had always done their best to redress just grievances all over the country, and he saw no reason why they should not attempt to redress the grievances of the farmers. The hon. Member said that he knew the farmers better than the Liberal Party did, and that those of them who talked Latin would say—"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." There was another Latin phrase, however, which the Romans were fond of using, and which might be quoted on the other side—namely,"Bos locutos." When the Legislature had passed a law to grant relief to one class of the community, and another class tried, not by bonâ fide but colourable contract, to defeat that law, he did not consider that a creditable transaction, If this Bill were defeated by colourable contracts, hon. Members might rely on it that this Bill would not be accepted as a settlement, and application would at once be made to the Legislature, which would at once supply drastic measures. He desired to thank the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire for the generous way in which he had referred to him— words, the spirit of which he desired to reciprocate. In the course of the contest they had had over the Bill, he (Sir William Harcourt) had had many javelins upon his shield, and he confessed that he had winced under some of them, and he hoped he would now be excused if he had used any hasty words during the contest. He could say that the object he had in introducing the Bill, whatever the noble Lord might say to the contrary, was the genuine purpose of protecting the crops of the farmers, and not to pare the thing too closely by depriving the tenants of any share in the sport of killing the ground game they found eating up their crops. He maintained that there was nothing in the Bill inconsistent with the Premable; and, as it commended itself to the great majority of the House, he hoped that when the Question was put from the Chair the Bill would be carried by a large majority.

said, as classical quotations appeared to be the order of the day, let him remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of another quotation —"Veniam petimus-que damusque vicissim." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been wounded, he should not forget that he had discharged whole flights of envenomed darts at the Opposition. But that was a long time ago, and he only referred to it now to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the temper in which he had commenced that discussion. At the period to which he referred, he thought the Bill a very bad one, and he was prepared to give it a most determined opposition. Afterwards, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a different appearance to the Bill on the second reading, and later still he produced Amendments. While he still objected to the principle of the Bill in interfering with freedom of contract, he would not, at the present time, anticipate the serious practical inconveniences that would result from it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Mellor) in his statement that if the Bill resulted in the extermination of rabbits no one would suffer so much from it as the working classes, for in Leicester alone no less than 50,000 dozen home-grown rabbits were consumed by the working people last year. If he thought that the Bill would have that result he should oppose it; but he still objected to its principle. If, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the British farmer was going to support him in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, far be it from him (Lord John Manners) to dissipate so agreeable a delusion; but he was quite content to take his chance, as a Representative of an agricultural community, while he protested against the principle of the Bill.

said, the more intelligent agriculturists were not so much in favour of the Bill as was supposed by the other side. He should vote against the measure, although a good many of his agriculturist constituents had been led away by the popular view; but he believed they would be undeceived by its practical working.

appealed to hon. Members to accede to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair in order that the House might resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. The substance of the Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee that had been placed upon the Paper could very well be considered in Committee; and as the end of the Session was now within a measurable distance it was a matter of importance to expedite Business when it was possible to do so. Once in Committee, he would consent to Progress being reported, and the measure could then be proceeded with tomorrow.

said, he could not agree to the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Had the Bill been left as it was when it came down to them from "another place," he should have accepted it as a compromise on the long vexed question dealt with by the measure. But, as the Bill which they would discuss in Committee, with the Amendments proposed by the Go-ment, would be quite a different Bill from that which left the House of Lords, he must protest against it on behalf of the clergy of the Church of England. He had the honour of presenting to the Archbishop of Canterbury a Memorial against the measure from 15,000 of the clergy, and he could not treat it with indifference. It was, however, one of those occasions when nothing remained to be done but to enter a protest against the course proposed [to be taken by the Government, and to take a division upon going into Committee The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, that he had an Amendment upon the Paper affirming—

"That no Burials Bill can be satisfactory which deprives any section of the community of their civil rights on account of their religious opinions."

The 6th clause limited the Services in churchyards to such as should be Christian and orderly. The supporters of the Government wished that the limitation which was now in the 6th clause should be abolished, because it excluded from the relief afforded by the Bill, Jews, Deists, Positivists, Secularists, and all who could not, or did not, choose to call themselves by the name of Christian. In the face of the speech of the Judge Advocate General on the second reading of the Bill, a clause was introduced which violated what he declared to be the principle of the Bill; and, on the face of his arguments, it deprived a section of the community of the right which he declared to belong to all. Would not the Government pay some respect to the wishes of their followers? They were citizens before they were Nonconformists. If there were one principle more than another underlying Nonconformity it was the principle of religious equality; and this Bill now asked them to accept what was almost a bribe in the shape of relief from disabilities which weighed upon them on condition that they would assist in depriving a section of their fellow-citizens of the liberty which they claimed for themselves. He had placed his Amendment on the Paper with great reluctance. The Bill was a brand new Religious Tests Act passed in 1880, but with the spirit of 1828. If the 6th clause was right, then the law as it stood was right. As Nonconformists who had not forgotten their own trials, they objected to co-operate with their former persecutors in the prosecution of classes not included in the scope of the Bill. The Advanced Liberals and Nonconformists, to a man, were against this limitation in the Bill; and they now asked for some assurance from the Government that it should be removed.

I have been requested by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to read the following telegram, which has just been received from the Viceroy at Simla:—

"Following from Sandeman, Quetta, dated August 27:—"I have received information that Ayoob Khan has withdrawn his army from the positions taken up in front of Candahar, and has retired to Sangiri, eight miles west of Candahar. Roberts arrived at Khelat-i-Ghilzai on the 24th.' I have received letter dated Khelat-i-Ghilzai, the 19th."

said, that at an early period of the morning he offered to give up the position he held on the Paper for the purpose of facilitating Public Business; and though his offer was not accepted at the time, he found that in his absence it was taken for granted that his offer would hold good. He would not withdraw from what he believed to be a bonâd fide arrangement, and, therefore, would not proceed with his Motion. But having had precedence to-night both of the hon. Member for Galway and the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), he thought he had a claim on the Government to give him facilities for bringing on his Motion.

said, the hon. Member was aware that he was not in a position to be able to make any arrangement with regard to the conduct of Public Business; but, of course, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was also perfectly aware of these two facts. First, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth stood first on the Paper for that night; and, secondly, that he, with great regard to the public convenience, most kindly made an offer that morning to waive his right to bring it forward on the present occasion. He, therefore, recognized that if there be any claim at all to the consideration of the Government, the hon. Member had the greatest.

said, that if the hon. Member for Louth was first to-night he (Lord Henry Lennox) was first yesterday; but on an appeal made by the Secretary to the Treasury, he consented to postpone the Question which stood in his name, and which excited some public interest. The removal of the Collections to the new South Kensington Museum would commence in the course of next month, and it was highly desirable to know how far these Collections could be made avail- able to the public. He should like to know whether he would be able to bring forward his Motion next week?

said, he was well aware that the noble Lord had yielded to the appeal made to him. He could not, however, give his noble Friend an absolute pledge; but he thought an opportunity might be found for bringing on the question on the Re-port of Supply, or on some other occasion in the course of next week.

said, that before the Vote was passed, he wished to put one or two questions to the Government. He saw, under sub-head "13" for "new works and alterations," the sum of£325 put down on account of additions, alterations, and improvements at certain Coastguard stations. This included a re-Vote of£300. Well, when he turned to the Appropriation Account for last year, as to which the accounts were complete, he saw that under a similar head there was voted two years ago£2,000 for the station at Innislyre—a re-Vote of a sum which had already been granted by the Committee. Going back so far as 1876, £3,000 was taken for a station at Kilmichael, and there were other stations for which money which had already been granted was re-voted. Of the£3,000 voted for Innislyre,£428 would be returned into the Treasury, and the explanation of this money not being expended was that the excessively severe weather had prevented the buildings from being completed. Of the sum of£13,000 voted since 1876 for a number of stations, and which had been voted and re-voted,£5,000 had been re- turned to the Treasury. Of the£2,000 voted and re-voted for the station at Kilmichael,£1,900 had been returned into the Treasury. The reason alleged was that the works had been prevented by difficulties which had arisen last year. Only 60 per cent of the amount of the previous year was returned to the Treasury unexpended. This year the sum was only£325, including a re-Vote of£300, which gave only£25 on account of fresh demands. It was perfectly evident, therefore, that a large number of these works had been abandoned. In many cases the works intrusted to the Board of Works in Ireland were going to rack and ruin for the want of the expenditure on them of the means which the Committee had over and over again voted for those purposes. He wished to know from the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) what was the condition of the buildings at Innislyre and Kilmichael, for which the Committee had voted such large sums of money since 1868? The works were still incomplete, and this year the Treasury did not make any allowance for them.

said, the Vote under sub-head "B" was not for repairs, but for additions, alterations, and improvements. He presumed that those who prepared these Estimates were carefully investigating this subject, and that it was not necessary at present to add to, or improve, these Coastguard stations. There was no reason to believe that they were not properly maintained. As to the exact sum voted last year not having been spent, and the sum voted in previous years not having been expended, everyone acquainted with the work of buildings would know that it was impossible to take the exact sum which a certain building would cost. When the accounts were prepared some months before, it was impossible to put down the exact sum that would have to be expended, therefore a margin was always allowed.

admitted he was wrong with regard to repairs; but he wished to know whether these buildings, for which money had been voted, and not been expended, had been abandoned? He wished to ask with reference to a hut at Greenore, which figured on page 46—£120 which had been voted and re-voted in these Estimates year after year for, he believed, four years—whether the building had been yet taken in hand? He did not think it had.

said, the buildings in question had been sanctioned by Parliament; but he was unable to make a statement as to the exact condition of the Coastguard buildings, as he was not perfectly acquainted with them. The decision was come to as to what additions and alterations were required when the Estimates were prepared.

said, what he wished to point out was this— that in regard to this Vote, as was the case with many other Votes connected with works in Ireland, though the Committee voted the money, the Board of Works in Ireland did not use it. Very frequently they were told—and reference was made to these Votes to prove the statement—that Ireland received a fair share of public money. Now, his contention was that this was entirely fallacious. Reference to these Votes was fallacious, because, though the Committee voted the money and intended it to be spent, the Board of Works in Ireland neglected the opportunities which were so placed in its hands, and did not lay out the money. There was another instance of this. This year there was a demand made for Constabulary Barracks; and in reference to the Appropriation Account of last year, he found that, whereas£200 was voted for certain barracks,£120 was not spent. The explanation was such as was hardly worth printing—namely, that the progress had been slower than had been anticipated, owing to the weather having been very bad. Then there was a sum of£280 voted for stables at Sligo and only£245 expended, the explanation being the same—namely, the impossibility of making the anticipated progress owing to the state of the weather. It seemed to him that this was a perfect farce. Money was voted for certain works in Ireland; but the Board of Works neglected to use it. In England the state of things was just the opposite. Whatever sums were voted, in nine cases out of ten, the Votes would be exceeded and the excess wiped off by a Supplementary Estimate, or by the appropriation of other items. As to Constabulary Bar- racks, it would be mere affectation on his part to appear willing to allow the Vote to pass without challenging it. Under the head of Constabulary Buildings he found an item of£630 for two moveable huts in Phoenix Park, an item for Constabulary Barracks at another place, one of£4,000 for the conversion of certain bridewells into barracks, another item of£790 for barracks. This was hardly the time at which to raise the Constabulary question; therefore, he would not raise it, but would merely content himself with entering that protest, which, he thought, as an Irish Member, he ought to enter against the Constabulary system, by moving the reduction of the Vote by£2,300, the amount mentioned for Constabulary buildings.

said, he had proposed to call attention to these Votes; but, being bound by the understanding which his Leader had entered into with the Committee, he did not think he could do anything more than offer a very brief protest against Ireland being dotted all over with these various police barracks, or "military brracks," as they ought more properly to be called. He would merely call attention to the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works, in which they referred to no less than seven large barracks which they had erected throughout Ireland, and to several bridewells which they had converted into barracks. When the Government, in furtherance of its assurances, proposed to take into its serious consideration the alteration of the whole police system in Ireland—or, rather, of the military system in Ireland—he trusted that something would be done to remove the barracks, so that the country might not be covered with them as though it were one vast English camp. He was quite sure if the Government really wished to enter into pacific relations with Ireland, and to rule the country in the interests of the people, and not as if they were foreign masters, they would find no use whatever for the Constabulary barracks. They would find the best Constabulary would be the respect to the law which their conduct would engender.

said, he wished to attract the attention of the Government to the advisability of reducing the Vote by£936, being the sum fixed upon for the maintenance and support of the Royal College of Science in Ireland. He would not occupy the Committee more than a few minues; but he thought it necessary to put a few facts before them upon the question. The Vote for the Royal College of Science amounted altogether to£6,424, and they might expect something to come from that expenditure; but, on looking at the recent Report of the Science and Art Department, he found that, although the salaries and wages came to over£4,600, the results might be judged from these examples, that last year, in the first class, there were 58 lectures, which really ought to be called lessons, in Mathematics, delivered to six students, and, in the second year's class, 155 lessons in Chemistry were delivered to seven students, and, in the third year's class, 86 lectures in two subjects to three students.

This Vote does not refer to the lectures of Professors of the Royal College of Science.

I was drawing attention to the results obtained from the institution endowed by this Vote.

That question does not arise under this Vote.

said, he would speak with regard to proposed expenditure on the building, which was altogether unsuitable for such a small number of students. The cost was great, and they would find in some eases when gentlemen obtained prizes they were given to the only persons who presented themselves to compete for such prizes. He considered it absurd to give a first prize to a person who was the only one who put in an appearance to contend for it. To maintain this public building with a paid Professor for only two students in Mineralogy and one in Mining was a simple waste of money. It was stated on the authority of a most distinguished scientific gentleman "that it was worse than useless to keep up a great institution of this kind if there was nothing for it to do." The institution was one that deserved to be most carefully and particularly inquired into; and he trusted that the Government would give him a promise to look into the matter. If they would do so, he would withdraw his opposition to the Vote.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Ross (Mr. Foley) had raised a question which excited a considerable amount of interest in Ireland; and he, therefore, trusted the Government would find it convenient to make some reply. For his own part, he did not wish to oppose the Vote, although he wanted to say something with regard to the College of Science and Art. They had not been able to elicit satisfactory information as to the art progress. Then, with regard to teacher's residences in Ireland, two years ago a sum of£2,500 was granted; but it was not all spent. He found that this year£2,500 was asked for, and he thought it desirable that the Government should inform them whether it was probable that a large proportion of this sum would be spent, or whether they were only likely to spend an equal amount to that which they spent last year. Then, with regard to£5,000, for the Science and Art Department, he should like to have information respecting that item. There was another item he should like to have explained—that having reference to the harbour at Ardglass. A sum of money had been voted for the last year which had not been spent; and he protested against money being voted that was not required, because it gave the authorities to whom it was handed over an unconstitutional power to withdraw from the House the supervision of the expenditure of the public funds.

said, the hon. Member for New Ross made an inquiry as to the working of the Royal College of Science in Dublin. Well, all these Votes bearing on Science and Art were taken on the same night as the Education Vote. However, he was anxious to afford the hon. Gentleman all the information in his power. He had said on a previous occasion, in reply to questions put to him by hon. Members from Ireland, that when the present Government came into Office they found a great deal of Correspondence going on with reference to this College, and also with regard to the Royal Dublin College, and the Science and Art Department, altogether; and the course which they decided to take was this—that immediately after Parliament had adjourned, his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) should visit Ireland himself, and institute a searching inquiry into the whole working of these matters. Next year he hoped to be able to render an account of what the noble Lord had seen and had done. The Committee might rest satisfied that the Government would not be content to ask for Votes without having adequate results. As far as they were concerned, they were anxious that Ireland should benefit as much from Science and Art institutions as any other part of the United Kingdom; but the relations between the Royal College and the Educational Department were very strained. There was a Correspondence going on with relation to it, and the Government were doing the best they could to bring the matter to an amicable settlement, and to put the institution into working order, and establish harmony between the various departments. He hoped before the end of the Session to be able to do this.

thought he could accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not think the Royal College of Science had any part in the Correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. The observations he had formerly made to Members of the Government related to utterly different transactions—namely, to a correspondence going on between the Royal Dublin Society and the Science and Art Department in London. If he was successful in drawing the attention of Members of the Government to this institution—namely, the Royal College of Science for Ireland, his objections to which stood on totally different grounds, his object would be gained.

said, it appeared this was a new thing. The College of Art and Science had been dismissing its Professors, and there had been a public trial and a great deal of unpleasantness on the matter. These things had to be put straight, and the Government would do the best they could to rectify them.

thought it necessary to make just one observation on the subject, because what had taken place would lead some hon. Members to suppose that the Irish people were indifferent to technical education, or to the course of education that these institutions were established to give in Ireland. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee that it was the intention of the Lord President of the Council to visit Dublin for the purpose of investigating all these institutions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had promised some time ago that he would himself pay a visit to Dublin; and, no doubt, if he fulfilled that intention, he would find that there was considerable room for improvement in the management of the different institutions referred to by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Foley), and institutions of a similar character in Dublin. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had commented on the fact that there were only a few students in the College of Science in Dublin; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) confessed that he was decidedly of opinion that, until the whole system of Science and Art education in Ireland under this institution had been radically altered, the benefits which it was calculated to confer would never reach the masses of the population of the Island. Instead of having a very expensive central institution in Dublin, he should like to see some efforts made that would bring education of this kind more directly home to the masses of the people. Really, what was wanted in Ireland was an education which would teach the people to make their homes more comfortable and their farms more productive. The money voted by Parliament for the maintenance of Science and Art classes in Dublin had found its way into the pockets of well-to-do students of the middle class, who had merely utilized these classes for a limited period in order to qualify themselves for high positions in England or in the Colonies.

I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that if we get into a discussion upon these subjects it will be impossible to consider the Estimates in their proper order. This is simply a Vote for the erection, repairs, and maintenance of public buildings.

said, he would answer the question of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). As he had said before, there was a great difficulty in putting down the exact amount which would be required for buildings, to be constructed in the course of the year. Then there were large local contributions for some portions of the work; and it was impossible to foresee how much these local contributions would amount to. It was never desirable to spend, in the course of the year, the sum voted, as, if they did that, it would lead to an increased. Vote at the end of the year. That applied to the harbour referred to. It was decided, some time ago, £1,500 should be granted for the harbour at Ardglass. Well, that amount was spent as rapidly as they could; but there were a thousand circumstances which tended to delay the works. As to the Vote for the Census, the items had been occasioned by the largely increased staff which it had been necessary to employ.

said, that, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), he thought the people of Ireland would be quite satisfied. They had selected as a special Envoy, to go over, and to look into these institutions in Dublin, one who, for some years, had filled the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and who, therefore, must have some knowledge of the circumstances of the buildings. He did not think they could have anything more satisfactory to those who really wished well to the institutions. Of course, he need not say that, while on the Vote for Buildings for Science and Art, to be called on to discuss comfortable homes and profitable farms was quite irregular, and was beyond the scope of the inquiry. He certainly did think that Irish Members should be perfectly satisfied with the assurance given them—that he who was for so many years Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was going over to see for himself how he could improve these institutions.

thought the statement of the noble Lord was incorrect. He did not know that anyone wished to discuss the question of comfortable homes, or profitable farms, or that the Irish Members wished to continue the discussion as to Science and Art institutions in Ireland. The noble I Lord might, therefore, have spared himself the allusions. He wished to point out that they had not been informed whether any official from headquarters in London proposed to go and inquire as to the efforts which had been made in connection with the progress of other buildings—for instance, the Museum of Science and Art. As to the harbour at Ardglass, he had no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury really did believe that all reasonable efforts had been made to get on with the work. He (Mr. O'Connor), however, was none the less convinced that it had been disgracefully neglected for a great number of years. Year after year they had voted money in Committee for these works, and year after year they had seen the money returned into the Treasury. It had been said for years they did not proceed with the harbour because they could not get labour. Well, it was perfectly well known that last year there were hundreds of men about the works who could not get employment. The herring fishery was hopelessly bad—so bad as to be un-remunerative. Ardglass was one of those places in Ireland which were standing memorials of the evil effects of British interference. It was the English Crown that ruined Ardglass. Years ago it was a thriving and prosperous port—so much so that in the Reign of Henry IV. the London Companies established factories there; and a considerable amount of commercial enterprise was developed in connection with London houses. In the Reign of Edward VI. it was the most important of all parts of Ireland. But the Crown interfered, and gave all the advantages Ardglass had enjoyed to Newry, and other places; and Ardglass became the small place it was now. He would urge on the Government to do their best for this port, for, before all, those who most benefited by it were the Manx men and the Cornishmen. The principal trade there was in connection with the herring fishery. During the present week, if they sent over to inquire how things were there, they would find hundreds of fishing boats at the place— one-third from the Isle of Man, one-third from Cornwall, and the rest belonging to Ireland. So that it was as much to the interest of England as of Ireland to support the place. If the Government would only send over, from the Treasury in London, someone to look after the harbour of this place, besides sending over officials to examine into such things as Museums of Science and Art, and kindred institutions, they would have great reason to thank the Treasury for their intervention in the matter.

said, the Report of the Commissioners of the Board of Works had been referred to. Well, he had that Report in his hand; and it was evident from that that, so far from neglecting the place, it was evident that they had looked after the works very carefully. They declared that the men had worked by day and night, and had taken advantage of the low tides, but that their labour had been necessarily very slow by reason of the heavy seas they had had to encounter.

The hon. Member was not in the House when it was pointed out that, this Vote being for buildings, the general policy of the Government as to the Colleges cannot be discussed.

said, that with reference to the residences of the Government officials in Dublin and London, he found that the Under Secretary's Lodge was charged for to the extent of£761. Now, the Under Secretary, he believed, received a salary of£2,000 a-year, and he was not a temporary but a permanent official. In addition to this£2,000 a-year he had in the park a house and a demesne where he gave himself a great many graces and entertained a large number of military colonels. He had no objection to getting a large amount of plunder from the enemy. He did not see why they should not take for Irish objects as much as they could get; but he had an objection to plundering the Consolidated Fund for a mere English official resident in Ireland, receiving a salary of£2,000 a-year, in order to give him a house and estate and offices. They gave him a free house and gas— he did not know whether he had an allowance for coal—but, at any rate, he had a house, rent free, and a private demesne in which he could rear a large number of cattle. He could never pass by the Under Secretary's grounds without admiring his good taste, for he always seemed to have a great many good fat cattle. Why, however, should this official be allowed£761 for the maintenance of his house? He appealed to the economic tendencies of his Radical Friends on the other side of the House to join him in objecting to this plunder of the English taxpayer. If he (Mr. Callan) got a free house to-morrow he should be most happy to live in it and keep it in perfect order at his own expense. He did not see why the Under Secretary should not be prepared to do the same. He should like to have an explanation of this Vote. Mr. Lingen, of the Treasury, who was certainly not one of the best paid officials, had no free house.

said, that before the noble Lord answered the question, would it not be as well—seeing that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had based his attack on the fact that the present Under Secretary was an Englishman—to inquire, first of all, whether the present holder of the office was an Englishman or an Irishman. If he (Lord Henry Lennox) was not mistaken, he was an Irishman, belonging to an old Irish family. Before the noble Lord answered the speech of the hon. Member, he should like him to state of what nationality the Under Secretary was. He must say that some of the Irish Members, many of whom were very great Friends of his, appeared to him to be a little unreasonable to-night. First, they complained that the money that was voted for Ireland was not spent, then there was a complaint that there was too large a sum spent on the Ceresus Order, and now they had another hon. Member get up and complain and ask why a certain sum that was spent in Ireland was given, the recipient being an Englishman.

cordially recognized the sympathy with Irish Members of the noble Lord who had last spoken; but he hardly thought they ought to enter into an ethnological disquisition that evening. He wished to point out that there was an amount here in the Estimates for Post Office buildings in Dublin. The noble Lord would, perhaps, consider that a small matter; but he would draw his attention to the condition of the pavement beneath the portico of the General Post Office in Dublin. The Solicitor General for Ire- land would bear him out when he said that 10 years ago the Corporation asked the Government to put down new flagging —at any rate, to keep the place in such a condition as they would be bound to keep it in were they private owners, and were the Post Office private property. For years this pavement had not been put in order, and the result was that it was in a wretched state, as anyone who had to go there to post a letter would see.

said, it was the invariable rule, wherever there was an official residence, that it was maintained. It was only right that such should be the case, because, if the maintenance of the building depended upon the occupier, it might be well taken care of by one person and neglected by another. An in-coming tenant might find it in a condition of terrible dilapidation. With regard to the flagging round the Post Office, he would promise that it should be attended to.

said, that the Under Secretary had a salary of£2,000 a-year. Well, the commercial system was that, whatever a person's income might be, the expense of maintaining his residence did not exceed one-fifth of it. One-fifth of£2,000 would be£400—any commercial man earning£2,000 a-year would not spend more than£400 on his house. Yet the permanent Secretary, who had a free house, was allowed over£700 a-year for its maintenance.

The amount is not exceptional.

said, that last year the amount allowed was£713; but this year it was£761. They had no right to vote this money, except under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Why were they obliged to pay so much for the gas and water in the lodge?£95 for such items, in the case of a man receiving a salary of£2,000, was too much. From£20 to£30 would be quite enough, unless the official burned the midnight oil very considerably. He should be very sorry if his gas bill came to more than£20 during the winter season. He saw there was a certain item of£17 for gas. He should be much surprised if the late occupant of the Under Secretary's Lodge mulcted the public funds in a charge for gas of that amount. Why, then, should the present occupant? He could not find what the amount was last year; but it was£17 this year. In the name of common sense, if the Under Secretary got a free house and grounds, and a salary of£2,000 a-year, why should they have to pay for his gas? If they paid this official a handsome salary, why should they pay close on£100 a-year for the gas burned in his establishment? If economical principles were to operate at all, the Liberal Government ought to assist in the rejection of this Vote; and he would now move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of£95, being the amount charged for gas consumed in the Under Secretary's Lodge in Dublin.

There is already an Amendment before the Committee which must be dealt with first.

said, he could not quite understand how this large charge for gas appeared in the Estimates, for he had a distinct recollection, during the last three years he resided in the Lodge, of paying for all the gas consumed.

said, that the largeness of the item might be accounted for by the fact that gas was used in the hothouses in the Lodge grounds.

said, that before the Question was put, he might be permitted to say that he thought sufficient attention had not been paid to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), which were to the effect that all the charges in this Vote were very extravagant. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said he did not care how much the Public Exchequer was plundered. Plundering, in any shape, had a most demoralizing effect upon the people of Ireland, as upon any other people, and he had never advocated a system of plundering. He had always opposed it, for he thought it was a most undesirable thing that large sums of money should be voted for uncalled-for purposes in Dublin. The Vote this year for Dublin Castle amounted to£4,349. Dublin Castle was an extensive building; but he could not imagine how such a large sum as this was expended. It seemed to him an unreasonably large sum, and that this was just one of those cases in which money was voted for one purpose and spent for another.£3,588 was asked for in respect of the Lodge. The Lodge was a very small building; and he could not understand how this sum had been spent upon it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) knew the Viceregal Lodge, and would be able to tell them whether such a sum was exorbitant.

said, he did not make any charge of misappropriation of public money; and he had said, and still maintained, that the items contained in the Vote were extravagant. The Under Secretary for Ireland received£2,000 a-year. He was an Irishman—a Galway man, and he never knew any men more fond of plunder than Galway men. He had had papers put into his hands in the last few moments having reference to a meeting held in Sheffield during the election there in December last. The meeting was one of Irish electors, and was addressed by Mr. A. M. Sullivan, M.P., Mr. Justin M'Carthy, M.P., and Mr. Finigan, M.P. But there was a much more eloquent speech made by an English Member, and a Member for the present Government, than that made by any of the three hon. Gentlemen he had mentioned. The eloquent speech was that of the senior Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who addressed the constituents in favour of Mr. Waddy.

Is the hon. Member referring to public buildings in Ireland?

said, he was referring to public buildings. He was referring to the opinions of Members of the House in respect to public buildings; and he would ask at the hands of the Chairman only one-tenth of the laxity he allowed to hon. Members last evening. ["Oh!"] Yes, he would ask just one-tenth of the laxity; for last night they really ought to have had a debate—["Order!"]— upon the Irish Constabulary Vote, and the debate really turned out to be one upon the Irish Land Question. He thought he had a right to refer to the opinions of the right hon. Member for Sheffield. [Mr. WARTON: No, no !] He had that right. He promised the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that he would not refer to his opinions on the subject. Now, what did the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) say with respect to this Vote, which appertained to the maintenance of State and official residences of the Vice-Royalty sham in Dublin? What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said he was bound to do all he could, as an honest man, to wipe out the memory of these crimes, and to obliterate all the traces of English misrule in Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to aid them in getting rid of some of the barnacles which attached to Ireland. It was extravagant to pay£700 a-year for the maintenance of the Viceregal Lodge; and, therefore, he asked for the support of the right hon. Member for Sheffield when he rose to reduce the Vote, as he intended to do in a few moments.

appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give them some explanation with regard to the Viceregal Lodge—some explanation which would really give the Committee an excuse for voting this sum of money. He did not move to reduce the Vote because he did not wish to give the Committee the trouble of dividing on the question. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to know something about the Viceregal Lodge, and he could, no doubt, tell them how this large sum was spent. He did not object to official residences in Dublin, but he did object to considerable sums being voted without explanation.

said, there really could be no explanation of a Vote like this. If they had a Home Rule in Dublin they would keep up these officials.

said, that he might be able to afford the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) a little information. The Viceregal residence was surrounded by very extensive grounds, in which there were a great many roads. These grounds and roads required a large sum to keep up. The ordinary outgoings connected with the lodge were those in respect of the extensive grounds—too extensive grounds, in his opinion. He did not think there was any extravagance in keeping up the residences themselves.

said, that it was no part of his duty, in a matter of this kind, to point out in what branch of the expenditure extravagance had occurred. All he asked was that some explanation should be afforded by the Government. So far, the Government had not been able to give the slightest information on the point. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had had some experience of the Viceregal Lodge, and he had given some explanation which was entitled to very considerable attention; but, at the same time, the Government should at least have made some effort to explain the matter, for the Committee had a right to expect explanation at their hands. It was no argument to say that the system had been going on for many years; the system might be bad although it had been in force for years.

said, he was unable to give the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) perfect explanation in this matter. What he knew of the matter was known to everybody, and that was that the Lord Lieutenant was very largely out of pocket every year. With regard to his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) own residence, all he knew was that he had got a large garden for which he got some grant from the Government, but nothing like what was required to keep it up. As regarded the Under Secretary, there, again, all he knew was that of all the officials he ever came across, the Under Secretary was decidedly the most hard worked, and he supposed that the keeping up of his house was part of the bargain under which he served. He appealed to the Committee whether they had not all the information they could reasonably expect?

said, he had no intention to move a reduction of the Vote. He only wished to say that the Vote contained no charge for insurance.

said, that it was only in exceptional cases where public buildings were insured, and Ireland had not been expected to insure the public buildings.

said, that the other day he asked the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) if he would furnish information with regard to the number of men engaged as gatekeepers and park constables; and if he would also specify the names and religious persuasions of the particular individuals? The noble Lord said he had not time to get information before this Vote came on; but some time had elapsed since he gave that answer, and it was possible that he had now some information to give. The noble Lord, however, concluded his answer by saying that the appointments to these offices were not at all influenced by the religious persuasions of the candidates. His information was entirely opposite to that. He was assured by correspondents, who ap- peared to know something about the matter, that the appointments were invariably filled up by Freemasons. He would not ask the question if he did not think he had some justification. His information was that no Catholic had been appointed to one of these offices during the last six years. He himself believed it was even a longer period. He did not want to move any reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had pressed them not to move reduction connected with any question involving reference to the Constabulary, either directly or indirectly. In deference to the wish of the hon. Gentleman, he would refrain from moving to reduce the Vote. Had it not been for the expressed wish of the hon. Member, he should have moved that the Vote be reduced, because he felt that this was another instance where the fact of a man being a Roman Catholic was quite sufficient to exclude him from any advancement. He would content himself by asking the noble Lord to give an undertaking that the favouritism of which he complained should not operate in future.

said, he would inquire into the question raised, but would now say that he could not conceive that the gatekeepers and park constables in Dublin were appointed on account of the religious belief they might hold.

said, there were some important matters connected with this Vote which he thought it would be well to mention. He would refer first to the actions that were brought last year by the late Government against Messrs. Daly, Miller, & Brennan. This was a proper opportunity for asking Her Majesty's Government what they proposed to do with reference to these proceedings which were still pending, as far as he had been able to gather. The late Government broughtthese gentlemen before the magistrates at Sligo, and they were committed for trial at the Sligo Assizes. The Crown then applied to have the cases removed by writ of certiorari to Dublin; and consequently, when the time for the trials came on, no further proceedings appeared to have been taken by the Crown. He thought it very desirable that it should now be known whether it was intended to proceed further in the matter or not. If the Crown intended to proceed, then the proceedings should be undertaken within some reasonable time, so that these charges should not be kept hanging over the heads of the gentlemen implicated by them. He, therefore, ventured to ask the Law Officers of the Crown whether it was intended to proceed further with the actions which had already been commenced or not.

said, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cork he might state that it: was not the intention of the Government to follow up the matter further.

hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse him if he called attention to another matter. He wished to know if there was any Vote in these Estimates for the expenses of private or detective reporters at public meetings in Ireland? There was no doubt that the Government did employ these private or detective reporters, and sent them round Ireland for the purpose of attending meetings and providing the Government with information; but he could not find any item in the Vote for the payment of their expenses or in remuneration of their services. He should very much like to object to the Vote for the payment of these peculiar reporters. Could the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland inform him where he was to find the item for the payment of these gentlemen, who were, in a certain sense, Government informers, and whose employment, as an old Press man, he regarded as incompatible with the dignity of the Press? He also wished to make a remark upon the Office of the Attorney General for Ireland himself. He desired to direct the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend to a matter which was of considerable public importance, and he had no intention of bringing it forward in any hostile spirit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be aware that there had been a very serious litigation going on in reference to the foreshores at the Skerries, near Dublin. He believed that some scores of people in that district had been prosecuted and interfered with, though they were only in reality asserting what he believed to be a public right. If he was correctly informed, it turned out that it was a bonâ fide public right, as the rights of foreshores had never, in this case, been granted to any particular landlord. He, therefore, respectfully submitted that it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland) to take care that the public rights were not abrogated or allowed to lapse. He was glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) in his place, because he believed that the question affected that right hon. and learned Gentleman more than the present holder of the Office. If he was correctly informed by the public Press, a very curious act had been done on the part of the late Attorney General for Ireland. In England, wherever a public right was questioned, the Attorney General would at once appear, and take care that a claim was put in on behalf of the public and of the Crown, and that the public rights were not given up to particular landlords. But in this particular case, so far as he understood it, the Crown had acted in a most peculiar and extraordinary way, having intrusted someone to appear on their behalf to concede away the public rights in the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord claiming these rights was unable to adduce any grant from the Crown. Thus it would seem that, in the year 1880, the rights of the Crown were allowed to go by the board, and the rights of the public were openly compromised. What was particularly objectionable in the matter was that no one on the part of the present Attorney General for Ireland had remonstrated, but that an arrangement, agreed to under the instructions of the previous Attorney General for Ireland had been tacitly agreed to. He should be delighted to hear that it was not so; but it was so reported in the public Press, and he only wished to have some light thrown upon the subject, which had given rise to very serious complaints in Ireland. If it was not too late, he wanted to know that the Attorney General for Ireland, without prejudicing the case of the Crown or of the landlord, would take care that the rights of the Crown and of the public would not be prejudicially affected by any lapsus or concession which had already been made in the case. If the landlord had any substantial and just rights, let him establish them; but if not, then let the public rights be protected. He hoped the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would be able to explain this very curious transaction which was established in the Dublin journals of the day.

was understood to say that personally he knew nothing of this particular suit before the Vice Chancellor of Ireland, but that he had made inquiries about it; and, as far as he could make out, the case was as follows:—There had been a series of proceedings between the owner of certain seaside lands and various members of the ordinary public as to the right of the latter to cut sea-weed on the shore. The matters in dispute had been going on for some time. Indeed, he believed that one action was tried as far back as 10 years ago, and there had subsequently been a case in the Rolls Court arising out of the transaction, as well as other suits. It was right he should state that in the suit in the Rolls Court to which he referred the Crown was represented by Council, who contested the plaintiff's title, which, however, was established, and the Crown left by the Court to pay their own costs. As far as he was able to ascertain, the facts connected with the last trial were these:— No notice of the suit was given to the Attorney General for Ireland or anyone representing him; but counsel appeared on behalf of the Crown, instructed not by the Attorney General or his solicitor, but by the Solicitors of the Board of Trade. He presumed this strange course was adopted because the jurisdiction in regard to the foreshores had been by Statute vested in the Board of Trade. Under these circumstances, the Solicitor of the Board of Trade or his counsel retained by him, acting probably under the directions of the Board of Trade, seemed to have appeared at the hearing of the cause, and to have formally stated that the Crown made no claim to the foreshores in question. As already explained, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had no personal knowledge of the transaction, never having been consulted in regard to it.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had clearly shown that his Department was not to blame in the matter, but he had shifted the responsibility upon the Board of Trade. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) did not know whether anyone on the part of the Board of Trade could account for the transaction. It seemed that the authority of the Board of Trade was unknown to anybody in Dublin; but the legal gentleman employed by that Board was instructed to appear on behalf of the Attorney General for Ireland, although it now appeared that he was instructed without the Attorney General for Ireland ever having appeared in the transaction. He would not say it was a very Irish transaction; but it certainly bore a strong resemblance to a Board of Trade transaction. If nobody was present to explain this peculiar transaction, he should on some future occasion call attention to it. He would not take the extreme course of objecting to the Vote on the present occasion, because it was one which arose upon the salary of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but he should certainly put a question to the President of the Board of Trade in reference to it.

wished to have an explanation of the following item in the Vote—Crown Solicitors,£16,350; Ses- sional Crown Solicitors,£5,825. This was exclusive of£12,000 paid as fees for counsel. As a matter of fact, the Sessional Crown Prosecutors or Solicitors did a considerably larger amount of work than the Crown Solicitors; but they frequently heard from the Judges of Assize that the amount of the salaries paid was not at all regulated by the amount of work done. He wished to know from the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government intended to take any steps for a revision of the salaries of the Crown Solicitors and the Sessional Solicitors in Ireland, having regard to the great difference which now existed in the amounts paid to each, and the similarity of the business transacted by each. Indeed, the bulk of the work in conducting prosecutions fell upon the Sessional Solicitors, and the Crown Solicitors were merely instructed to prepare briefs.

asked, what was the particular item the hon. Member referred to?

I refer to the item of£16,350 paid to Crown Solicitors, and of£5,825 paid to the Sessional Crown Solicitors.

At what page of the Estimates?

Page 24.

But the hon. Gentleman has been referring to a paper.

said, that it was simply a paper which had been placed in his hands in order to enable him to put the question. He had not had an opportunity of giving Notice of the Question, or he would have put it on the Paper of the House.

understood that the hon. Gentleman wished to know what was the difference between the nature of the work transacted by the Crown Solicitors, by the Sessional Crown Solicitors, and by the Crown Prosecutors.

said, that the salaries paid were so very disproportionate that he wished to have an explanation of the reason why such a difference existed. The Crown Solicitors received enormous salaries in proportion to the Sessional Solicitors. He wished to know if it was intended to take any steps in order to apportion the salaries to the amount of work done?

said, that these several gentlemen, whose respective duties were of a somewhat different description, were paid in proportion to the importance of the work they performed. The work done by the Sessional Solicitors was of a less responsible and difficult character than that done by the Crown Solicitors. The difference in the amount of remuneration was, therefore, according to the different character of their respective work.

said, he had received no answer to the question he had put to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland with regard to the payment of reporters at country meetings—police reporters.

did not find that there was any special Vote for these services. He believed the persons referred to were employed to take down the language used at certain land meetings. He presumed that they received only the wages of policemen.

said, he understood that the members of the Constabulary referred to were employed to attend certain public meetings for the purpose of informing themselves as to what took place at them. No question was now raised as to the policy of the Vote. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) only asked for information as to the principle on which the expenses were paid. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would not be so well able to explain the matter as the late Attorney General for Ireland, as it was the late Government that introduced the practice of employing the police in this capacity.

was disposed to think, but could not say so with any certainty, that the charge for the expenses of the police employed in this way were included in the very last item of charge. The payment of reporters came under the head of that Vote. He had no doubt of that, and it was a very moderate sum indeed that was required. He thought it came under the last head—"General Law Expenses"—which comprised various items. He was quite sure that the charge was comprised in this Vote, and he should say that it came under this particular head.

said, there was a matter connected with this business to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He did not deny that the Government were entitled to have correct information as to what took place at the land meetings; but there was another practice of a very objectionable character which prevailed throughout the country —namely, the practice of directing sergeants of police and other police constables to take rough notes in a notebook of statements made by public speakers and otherwise. That was a much more objectionable practice, from all points of view, than the employment of special reporters by the police. In the first place, a policeman, under such circumstances, could not take a note that would be of any value or importance. He took out a note-book and scribbled down a few words in it, very often hastily, in the dark, and the note simply represented his idea of the nature of the observations made. Now, he did not think that that was the kind of reporting which the Government ought to encourage if their object was to obtain correct information as to what might be said at a public meeting. If the Government desired to have reports, he thought they ought to employ skilled shorthand writers, as undoubtedly they had done in many cases. The practice, however, had repeatedly been to send a sergeant of police who stood in the crowd and scribbled down a few words under the most unfavourable circumstances, just as he happened, in the most fragmentary way, to catch them. This was an objectionable practice from more points of view than one. In the first place, when the people saw a sergeant of police or a constable produce his notebook for the purpose of taking notes, they were apt to look upon him as a sort of spy; and if he was standing in a crowd, unsupported by his friends, there was, to some extent, a temptation to molest the officer in the execution of his duty, although it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that it was a duty which was entirely unnecessary. He had often himself, in travelling about the country, had to say a few words to the people, and he had soon the police enter the crowd, take out a note-book and commence to jot down what he was saying. Someone in the crowd was immediately tempted to jog his elbow, and a dispute and a disturbance might, under such circumstances, very easily arise. If the Government wanted reporters, there was no reason why they should not have them; but the reports should be taken by regular shorthand writers. He was strongly of opinion that the system adopted of placing note-books in the hands of the police, under these circumstances, was wrong and ought to be discontinued.

quite agreed with the hon. Member. The Government felt that, as a matter of duty, they ought to know, as far as possible, what was said at these meetings; but it would be better to employ professional reporters, who could not be charged with any prepossession one way or the other in making their report. On the other hand, he was sorry to say, it was desirable that the police should know what occurred at these meetings, and he did not think it would be quite fair towards the police to ask them to trust altogether to their memory. All that the policeman did was, instead of trusting to his memory, he put down what he heard at the time, so that he might afterwards be able to make a report to his superior officer.

said, he saw the services of the Crown Solicitor put down at£300 in one place as Solicitor of the Valuation Department, and, on turning to another item, he saw the same gentleman's services put down at£400. He should like to know which amount was the correct one. On turning to sub-head "H," he found that that was an item of£500 for the expenses of actions taken against resident magistrates, divisional and other justices, and the Constabulary for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. That Vote for enabling magistrates and other public officials to sustain actions taken against them by members of the public was one of much interest to the public; and it would be very much to the interest of the Irish Members if the Government could give them any information as to the meaning of the Vote and as to the nature of the actions. In sub-head "I" there was an item of£2,540 for the lodging of the Judges on circuit. Even that amount did not appear to have been sufficient, for in the last Appropriation Account, after paying that sum, there appeared an additional charge of£400, paid under the head of rent. Well, he should imagine that if they paid for a man's lodgings they also paid for his rent; and he could not quite make out the distinction between the two. He should to know on what basis that Estimate was calculated. There were 12 Judges on circuit. Supposing£2 a-day each was paid for their lodgings, and they were on circuit for a month in the year, the total amount would be£720. The amount put down appeared to him to be about three times as much as ought to be paid. The last point he had to raise was one of principle, and of much greater importance. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the late Government instituted last year prosecutions for seditious language against several gentlemen who had taken a prominent part in conducting the land agitation in Ireland. He thought there was no chance of his being contradicted when he said that public opinion in Ireland had condemned these prosecutions as a very serious blunder. It was generally recognized that these gentlemen were earnest, conscientious men, who had no other object but the welfare of the people; and it was generally felt that the Government, before instituting these prosecutions, ought to have taken some steps towards alleviating the miseries of the people. Now, he should like to know what was the extent of the cost to the country caused by that blunder of the prosecutions, how much of it was included in the Vote of last year, and how much in the Estimate then before the Committee? He found such items as "support of Crown witnesses," and printing of briefs with the sanction of the Attorney General for Ireland; and he thought that such expenditure ought to be most strenuously questioned, because these prosecutions ought not to have been instituted until the Government had taken some remedial measures to relieve the distress.

said, he was disposed to go even further than his hon. Friend behind him. His late Friend Mr. Butt steadily refused every Vote of that kind during the time that he had a seat in that House. He asked hon. Gentlemen who represented English constituencies if they could produce to him any item such as that of expenses of actions taken against resident magistrates, divisional and other justices, and the Constabulary for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. It was a most unconstitutional Vote. It amounted to an indemnity to public officials for breaking the law. Such a proposition as that struck at the root of all civil right and usage. It was nothing less than the claiming on the other side of the Channel of what liberty-loving Englishmen on this side would never submit to. He remembered supporting Mr. Butt in opposition to a similar Vote in the case of Mr. Keogh, a magistrate of Derry. In that case there was a verdict against him of£100. They had an evening's debate over that upon a most important principle. Mr. Butt pointed out that it was unconstitutional and radically vicious to give public officials carte blanche to go ahead, right or wrong, and that Parliament should vote the money for defending them when they were wrong. Nothing could more tend to render them headstrong and reckless in their conduct as public administrators of justice; and accordingly he should like to know how that£500 was made out, and what it consisted of? As for the lodgings of the Judges, he thought there was a great deal in what his hon. Friend had said. There were some newspapers in Ireland that said the law could not be administered in Ireland if it were not for the pomp with which the Judges went about.

said, he observed one item where the Crown Solicitor got£200 extra as Public Prosecutor. He had already expressed his opinion as to the undesirability of one man occupying two offices. He was of opinion that there was quite enough talent in Ireland to furnish a man for each office, and he objected to the duplicating system.

said, he wished to ask whether it was not the fact that there was no single item similar to the one for the defence of magistrates and others in the English or Scotch Estimates; and he also wished to know whether English and Scotch magistrates against whom actions were brought had not to pay the costs themselves?

said, he understood it to be the fact that in the case of actions against police magistrates the costs were paid or not, according to the result of the action, and the expenses were in all cases examined by the Crown and Treasury Solicitor. With regard to the question as to the lodging expenses of the Judges going circuit, it must be remembered that their lodgings had to be paid for at special rates. It was not possible to obtain lodgings for a Judge at the same rate as for private persons.

asked whether they were to understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in the English Votes they could find any Vote for that indemnity money. He knew that there might be a point of difference between the two cases in this respect—namely, that something like it was done in the English towns; but what he wanted to know was whether the money appeared in the English Votes passed by Parliament.

said, there was no such ease last year; but he would inquire into the matter. He believed the practice to be the same in other countries.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that there was a very important Constitutional difference. In England the costs and expenses of magistrates in the boroughs, or wherever it might be, were paid by the local authorities, and they were under the control of the persons who paid the money. That was all that they wished to have in Ireland—namely, that those who paid the bill should have the control of the expenditure.

said, he should like to add a sentence or two. If the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had fairly put his question as did the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), he should not have thought it necessary to add a word. But the hon. Member had made use of observations that he could not pass by without a protest. The hon. Member had asked whether any part of the sum spent in the prosecutions he had referred to would be found in the Vote. As a matter of fact, the prosecutions had cost very little, and he should think they were comprised in last year's Votes. It was right that he should say that the inauguration of these proceedings was undertaken after full consideration by the late Government. They were distinctly answerable for them, and he was quite prepared to defend them. He believed that they prevented the repetition of the seditious speeches that were being made, and the beneficial result of them was immediately shown in the moderation of the language that was subsequently made use of. As to the dropping of the prosecutions, he would not criticize so serious a step when it was taken on the responsibility of the Executive Government. They would be distinctly responsible for that step, and he would not say anything further about it except that he sincerely hoped it would be justified by the result. Now, there was another point to which attention had been called by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) —namely, sub-head "H," that of the expenses of magistrates and others against whom actions were brought. He believed the history of that sub-head was as follows:—When his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, there was a discussion on that point; and his right hon. Friend said that, in future, he would raise a new sub-head in the Estimates. Previously to that these expenses used to be placed in the Miscellaneous Charges. That, he believed, was the history of that item. Previously, however, to that sub-head being introduced, he had no doubt that the House was paying these charges in Ireland precisely in the same way that it paid them in England. With regard to the particular case that had been mentioned, it was ascertained, after full consideration, that the officer in question was not to blame, and that he was not in the wrong; and he (Mr. Gibson) should be greatly surprised if public funds were not to be made available for recouping the gentleman for the expense to which he had been put by the mere fact that he was a public official. The only difference between the Estimate now and formerly was that now it was made a separate sub-head of. There was one other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in relation to expenses of the Judges on circuit. He must remind the hon. Member that there were six circuits in Ireland, and that two Judges went each circuit. In addition to that, there were now always Winter Assizes. Sometimes there were three or four, or even five, according to the business to be disposed of; and, of course, on all these occasions, provision had to be made for the Judges' lodgings. He might mention that it was not very easy to get Judges' lodgings in Assize towns. It was not his experience that families were very ambitious to upset themselves in order to accommodate the Judges and their Registrars for two or three weeks, and it was only by offering very liberal terms that the lodgings were to be obtained. He had known cases where the terms were refused altogether.

said, he could not help interposing with one observation on what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had informed the Committee that the policy of the late Government in entering upon the prosecutions had been proved to be a good policy by the result. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement across the Table in the face of the present Attorney General for Ireland; and he would warn the latter right hon. and learned Gentleman against acting upon the implied advice of the late Attorney General for Ireland, because he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had had opportunities of judging of the state of public opinion in Ireland, and also in England, at the time those prosecutions were going on. In his judgment, the late Government never made a greater mistake than when they entered upon those prosecutions. He could not recollect any Government, responsible for the affairs of Ireland, who ever made a greater mistake than that. Now, what was the real fact? Why, not 10 hours after the commencement of the prosecutions had elapsed, arrangements were made for a great demonstration of Irishmen in the Metropolis of England, and in a few days not less than 100,000 men assembled in Hyde Park, to do what? To protest against the action of the Government, and to endorse the sentiments of the men who were prosecuted. He would not describe what was the feeling in Ireland. The Government entered upon a contest and were beaten in that contest. They were ignominiously beaten, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman came down to the House and told the Committee that the Government were exceedingly successful in the action they took. He trusted that the present Attorney General for Ireland would not be drawn into undertaking any prosecutions on grounds so flimsy as those on which the last were based.

moved to reduce the Vote for the£500 he had referred to. He would not trouble the Committee with any observations, as he had expressed his views in a previous speech.

said, that if they wished to test the principle, would it not be better for his hon. and learned Friend to move to omit sub-head H?

said, that it was his intention. He moved, therefore, to omit sub-head H.

said, that it was the practice in Liverpool to pay all those expenses out of the local funds. If the Judge certified that there had been no ground for bringing the action, then the local authorities paid the expenses of defending it. The only difference was that in England the money was paid out of local funds and in Ireland out of Imperial funds.

said, that he had another objection to point out which was still more serious. He wished to ask who received the£500? Under what circumstancss the payment was made they had not the slightest information. If a Return were laid on the Table of the House showing the particulars of the expenditure, probably a great portion, perhaps the whole of it, would be found to be of a character that no one would object to. But, as it was, they were entirely in the dark, and the official to be indemnified against the cost of an action might be some pragmatical policeman who had drawn an action upon himself by gross misconduct. In local cases in England such as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had referred to, it was well known that there was no liability to any such abuse or the scandal of the public money being handed over to defend unworthy persons.

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. That was an Estimate of£500 in regard to a number of resident magistrates and police. He could quite conceive that an Executive Government, honestly administering the funds of the community, might very well find£500 a very small sum indeed for a number of just defences which it might deem it right to authorize on behalf of its officers. He would also remind the hon. and learned Member that if the rank of the officials in question was of an Imperial nature and not of a local character, then the Treasury was especially called on to defend them.

said, he understood that the special objection to the Vote was not that a sum of money should be given to indemnify magistrates or policemen in cases where it had been proved to the satisfaction of a jury that they were not to blame for the offence charged against them. What was objected to was that, in some cases, where a jury, after an investigation in a public Court, had come to the conclusion that an official had been guilty of an offence that was liable in damages, the Executive Government should afterwards, in an underhand way, decide that that official should be indemnified. Now, it seemed to him that the best test for the Government should be whether there was a verdict for or against the official. If the official was acquitted by the jury, he thought it could not be said that costs should not follow the finding; but if, on the other hand, it was proved that he had acted improperly, and he was mulcted in damages, then he thought it was thoroughly outrageous and indefensible for the Government to step in and indemnify him. Unless the Government would give them some assurance that where damages were given against a party they would not indemnify him he would have to divide against the Vote.

said, that before the Vote was passed, be should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he would lay upon the Table a Return showing the items of expenditure under the last head last year? He should like to have some further information; but he did not apprehend there was anything wrong.

said, the hon. and learned Member might rest assured that the expenditure was all bonâ fide.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a question. He had laid it down that it was the duty of the Government to administer the law as regarded evictions for non-payment of rent and ejectment processes. A short time ago, he (Mr. Biggar) asked a question with reference to a certain John Fox Goodman, who held an office in the Courts at Dublin under a stipulation that he should not hold another appointment. But he did hold another position, and the right hon. Gentleman gave him what he conceived to be a rather peculiar reply. He said that he did not consider it to be his duty to see that the law was enforced. If that were so, he (Mr. Biggar) might personally take the initiative in proceedings against him. He was under the impression that it was the duty of the Government to see the law enforced; and since the answer of the right hon. Gentleman he had received a letter, in which it was stated that the gentleman who wrote it was willing to prove upon oath that Mr. John Fox Goodman acted, not only as examiner of candidates for solicitor, but also carried on the business of a solicitor under the name of Birley, Moore, and Co. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether or not he would insist upon the law being carried out, or whether he was going to enforce what was not a righteous law in the case of tenant farmers, and yet refused to enforce the law in the case of a gentleman who held an official position with a large salary?

said, that, from the information he had received, that was not a case where the question arose as to carrying out the law or not. The fact was that the occupation to which the hon. Member alluded—namely, examining pupils—was not considered to be an office under Government, and, therefore, was not one over which he could exercise any control.

said, that when the hon. Member called attention to that matter it had already been discussed in Dublin. He knew that the gentleman to whom his hon. Friend had alluded discharged his duties in an exceptionally efficient manner; and he was bound to say that he considered the Profession would suffer injury if the gentleman were removed from the office he held, and which did not appear to interfere, in any way, with his official duties. He knew nothing about the technical part of the question; but he could testify as to the manner in which Mr. Goodman performed his duties.

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand his question. He might say, however, that he believed that Mr. Goodman had taken counsel's opinion, and that he did consider that he was justified in holding the double appointment.

said, he had intended to direct the attention of the Committee to the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate who was supposed to have given the order to fire on the Catholic procession at Dungannon; but, on consideration, he had thought that his speech would, perhaps, come better into the discussion on the Constabulary Vote. Therefore, he proposed to make a suggestion to the Government which might, perhaps, avoid a lengthened discussion hereafter. There was a good deal of feeling with reference to that matter. Certain Catholic processionists were celebrating the day at Dungannon when they were attacked by Orangemen. The police appear to have fired on the processionists, although it had been stated that no stones were thrown by the processionists after the attack. It seemed remarkable that when the procession had been broken up by the mob, the policemen, whose duty it was to protect the processionists as long as they behaved themselves, should have killed a number of people who sympathized with the procession, while he believed none of the attacking party was injured. He would suggest to the Government that they would issue a Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances, which appeared to be exceedingly serious. He could not help thinking that, after the way in which the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to that case and the hint thrown out, he would not fail to take action as regarded inquiry into the matter. At any rate, he certainly thought it most desirable that the Government should see who was responsible for the order to fire.

said, he did not wish, nor did he believe that the hon. Member wished, to enter into discussion upon that matter. He could not altogether accept the hon. Member's version; but he was going to say at an earlier part of the evening that, at present, he thought it was rather premature to have an inquiry. Some time ago a question was asked, and he had replied that he was strongly in favour of an inquiry being held. If there were any misconduct on the part of the officials, the hon. Member would see that an inquiry should not be instituted until after the result of the trial. If there were any charges to be made, they should come before a legal tribunal. When that was over, he thought it was desirable that an inquiry should be held into all the circumstances connected with the affair.

thought that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had very fairly replied to the observations of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). But it appeared no distinct promise had been made to the Committee that a stringent inquiry would be held into the origin of these unfortunate riots. If the statement in The Times was correct—and he thought it might be assumed that the report in that paper was not likely to be too favourable to the processionists—a well-grounded belief existed that the attack was made upon the Catholic procession by an Orangemen who had been a servant of the sub-inspector.

said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member; but he was quite sure that he would see the inconvenience of discussing that matter, considering that an inquiry was then pending.

said, he had no wish to prejudge the case, but only to. point out what had been stated by The Times' Correspondent, and to show the necessity for a full and searching inquiry as soon as possible. Unless a promise to this effect was made by the Chief Secretary, he thought it would be his duty to show to the Committee that it should be made.

said, he had already made it.

said, he should be inclined to doubt what had been said about the processionists. The magistrates of the North of Ireland belonged exclusively to the other Party. He thought the Chief Secretary would do well to punish, severely and strictly, those who interfered with those processions; but the matter ought not to be left with the local magistrates. He believed the best thing would be to put a stop to such processions; but, if that were not done, all those interfering with them should be severely punished.

said, they could not discuss that matter then; the best way of avoiding those disgraceful occurrences was, undoubtedly, by putting a stop to the processions. He had not, however, got the power of doing that. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last; and he thought it would be the business of the Executive Government seriously to consider how best the law could be altered, so as to prevent those disgraceful proceedings taking place.

said, there were one or two points which he thought he ought to bring before the Committee. They were as to the offices, and the efficiency of the County Court system in Ireland. He was about to refer to the Registrars of the County Court. It was a matter of great importance. When the County Court Act came before that House, in the last Parliament, a Select Committee reported that it was desirable that the officers should be appointed for the purpose of taking the Equity duties in the County Courts. The Government gave way to that, and certain officers, called Registrars, were appointed The primary duty of those Registrars was that they should take accounts, and other Equity business, leaving the Clerks of the Peace to take the other business, in accordance with the suggestion of the Select Committee. It would not be denied by the Attorney General for Ireland, or the late Attorney General, that the object of those appointments was that there should be a practical and useful officer to help the County Court Judge. What took place? The Bill had no sooner passed than the officers appointed were ordered to receive, not a permanent remuneration, but so much per day for each day they were required to be in Court. The result was to render them perfectly useless. They took no accounts, and did no business when the Court was not sitting; and when the Court was sitting, and the Judge was hearing cases, they had nothing to do. Consequently, the office was simply a sinecure; and unless a radical change were effected he should be inclined to vote for the entire abolition of the office. What ought to be done was to give instructions that those Registrars should take accounts between the sittings of the Judges. The primary duty should be thrown upon them, and they should not be allowed to continue to hold sinecure appointments. A proposition had been made by the Treasury in order to effect that object; and it was suggested that the Registrars should be paid so much a-day, not merely for attendance in Court, but for those days on which they were necessarily occupied on matters connected with the County Court Judge. That had never been carried out. The attempt to make adequate provision for the carrying out of the equitable jurisdiction had proved a complete failure. On that account, he hoped that attention would be given to the matter, which was a most important one.

said, he wanted it to be quite clear with regard to those processions. He knew that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not the power to stop them; but he had dropped a hint, which he hoped would receive attention, that those matters should not be dealt with by the magistrates of the North of Ireland. He sincerely trusted that one of two things would be done; either that those local magistrates would be restrained from interfering, or that the processions would be put a stop to altogether.

said, he hoped that what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had called attention to would receive attention. They knew perfectly well that the jurisdiction of the Courts would be extended in other directions; and it was, therefore, reasonable that those gentlemen might know that their duties were likely to be increased. It would be well if they were informed that they would be really required in the future, and would be expected to do good service.

said, that with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, there could be no doubt that the original intention was that the Registrars should be appointed to assist the County Court Judges, especially in regard to Equity business. The pay at so much per diem while the Court was sitting had, very probably, prevented their being of so much assistance as they might otherwise have been. The question was undoubtedly an important one, and should receive the consideration of the Government.

believed that it was essential that strong measures should be taken for the putting down and rendering illegal Party processions in Ireland.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to have referred particularly to the remuneration. That, certainly, was an important question; but it was not the one to which he wished to call attention. The Clerk of the Peace had a variety of duties, and the Registrar had been appointed to assist the Judge in all matters, especially in those of Equity; and it ought to be left to the Judge to draw up rules for the transaction of such business. When attention was first called to that matter, it was pointed out that rules of that nature should be drawn up. The primary duty was, as he had said, the taking of accounts; and if the Registrar was unable to do that, then the Clerk of the Peace should be the officer specially designed to carry out the jurisdiction as regarded taking accounts. That work ought, however, to be thrown upon those Registrars, and they ought not to be allowed to shirk it. If they were incapable of performing the duties, representations ought to be made to the Lord Lieutenant to that effect. The Treasury might settle the remuneration as they liked; but the County Court Judges ought to be made to frame rules, so that the business might be carried out as was originally intended.

said, that, no doubt, the hon. and learned Member meant that representations should be made to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Lieutenant had nothing to do with the matter.

said, he did not know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) to bring that matter before the Lord Chancellor. He had not the slightest doubt that any representation made to the Lord Chancellor would receive the attention which the merits of the case deserved. He rose more particularly for the purpose of referring to the question of processions. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gal-way (Major Nolan) that such processions should be held to be illegal—that was to say, that persons taking part in such processions should be indicted for causing a breach of the peace. However, there could be no doubt that Roman Catholic processions had been attacked by Orangemen; while there was no record, he believed, of Orange processions being attacked by Roman Catholics. The Catholics were the party in the majority; and he thought it was the duty of the Government to see that those who interfered with those processions were punished. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, as to the local magistrates, he thought nothing worse could be suggested, because the people of Ireland had no confidence in them, and the result would be the processions of one sect only would be put down. That would only lead, he believed, to a fresh series of annoyances for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He really thought, with his hon. and gallant Friend, that either those processions should be put down altogether—as had been also suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) —or else they should be protected when they were not acting contrary to the law. Vote agreed to.

said, that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question with reference to a matter which he had previously brought before the House, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. He wished to know if he intended to carry out the promise of the late Government that they should have a convict establishment in Galway? They were very anxious to have one there, as there was a good deal of water works and others to be done in that district. The late Government repeatedly promised that one should be established there. He should like to get, if possible, a decided answer to the question.

said, he was sorry that he was unable to give a decided answer to his hon. and gallant Friend. He did not consider that there was an actual pledge. The whole question demanded close attention on the part of the Government; and when the subject was taken up, the claims and advantages of Galway, which were, no doubt, considerable, should receive every attention. He could not say further than that.

said, he was sorry that it did not appear to be the intention of the Government to carry out that proposal. The removal from Cork to Galway Bay would probably be attended with advantage; and the works at Haulbowline Dockyard, for the completion of which they had waited 80 years, might, perhaps, during the next 20, 30, or 50 years, be finished. Ireland would then have a Dockyard. He wished to point out with regard to that Vote that there was a charge for prison chaplains. For Protestant chaplains£1,491, for Catholic£2,100, and for Presbyterian£746. It appeared that there were Roman Catholic prisoners to the number of 3,259, Protestant 1,525, and Presbyterian 142. Hon. Members would find that that represented something like 16s. per head for Catholics,£4 for Protestants, and£5 for Presbyterians. That was the capitation rate. Considering that Ireland was a Catholic country, it did ap- pear to him to be an extraordinary tiling that Protestant and Presbyterian chaplains together should get more than the Catholic chaplains. He hoped that the Government would undertake that the matter should be looked into, in order to see that there was no injustice. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some assurance with regard to that.

said, he could not promise to have that matter inquired into. He could not admit that chaplains were paid so much per head. The service had to be performed whether there were four prisoners or 40; and, therefore, it could not be calculated in that way. It must be obvious to the hon. Member that that was so.

said, that the point was this. In Scotland or England the number of prisoners who were Protestants far exceeded the Catholics; but in Ireland the great majority were Catholics, and yet he found that the Protestant chaplains were receiving greater sums in the shape of salaries. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "Oh, oh !" but if they would take the trouble to look at a Return furnished by the Government on the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), which gave every single prison chaplain's salary in England, Scotland, and Ireland, they would see that what he had stated was correct.

said, if the hon. Gentleman would look at page 283, he would see that Protestant chaplains began at£40 and ended at£80, Roman Catholics began at£60 and ended at£200, and Presbyterians began at£40 and ended at£80.

said, that it was impossible to calculate that matter fairly on a capitation rate.

said, there were one or two questions he wished to ask. In the Report of the Royal Commission it was recommended that an independent inspection should be provided for convict prisons, and a number of gentlemen of high position and character had been appointed to that office for England and Scotland. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether similar steps were being taken in Ireland; and, if not, whether he intended to take the matter into consideration? He should be glad to see gentlemen se- lected who would take an interest in the subject, and who were able to afford the time for proper inspection.

said, that that matter had come before him and his noble Friend. The consideration of the matter was not yet complete; but he hoped it would be so in a short time.

was glad to hear that the Government were going on with that matter. It ought to have been concluded long ago. He did not wish to throw any blame, he only wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of those visitors being appointed. He wished to ask a question with regard to Spike Island. That prison was absolutely condemned long ago. That subject had been brought forcibly before their attention, and a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into it, and they reported most strongly against its maintenance. He wished to know whether it was to be abolished, and, if so, how soon?

said, he was sorry not to be able to give a direct answer. When he came into Office, there were so many matters pressing upon his attention that he had not had time to look into the question. He believed there were strong reasons for the rejection of the place. The right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that he would personally look into the matter when he inspected that part of Ireland.

said, that he had omitted to ask a question. He ought to have given Notice of it; but he only asked it in order that the matter might be considered before the next time it came up. Under the Irish Prison Law, flogging was not permitted, while it was permitted in England. They found that they were able to get on very well, and enforce the discipline of gaols without that punishment. But in military prisons in Ireland the prisoners could be flogged for breaches of prison discipline. An inspecting officer could give the order for a prisoner to be flogged, while a civilian could not be. He wished to ask whether the Government would consider the desirability of extending the exemption to the military prisons which prevailed in the civil prisons? Possibly the fact of the abolition of that punishment in the Army and Navy would have some effect in the prisons also. He believed there was a pretty general feeling against the maintenance of that punishment; and he, therefore, did trust that the Government would consider whether they could not abolish it from the military gaols of Ireland.

said, that all he could say was that he would confer with the Secretary of State for War upon the subject, and see what could be done.

said, he had a few remarks to make with respect to the Treasury Regulations as to the teaching of the Irish language in the Irish National Schools. He had had a Motion on the Paper to call attention to the matter, but had been unable to find an opportunity of bringing it on. About two years ago, the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in consequence of a Memorial which had been addressed to them, agreed to admit the Irish language into the programme of the National Schools; but they agreed to do so on the same terms as those on which the Government taught Latin and French—namely, upon the payment of a fee of 2s. per head extra. Now, it must be apparent to anyone that such a fee as that must prove an absolute prohibition. He was referring to the last Report of the Commissioners, which showed that out of 1,000,000 children on the rolls of the Irish National Schools, only 304 were examined in Irish, or hardly 1 in every 300. The National Commissioners had resolved themselves against the teaching of Irish; and, therefore, he thought that if the Government wished to prevent the teaching of the language from falling into utter abeyance, they should do away with the imposition of the extra fee. It might, perhaps, be contended that the smallness of the number of children learning was due to their indifference on the subject; but he could refer to numerous instances in proof of the contrary. He might refer to the case of Mayo, where there were 48 children in the Irish class; also to a school in Cork taught entirely by the nuns, where a most brilliant examination in Irish was held—27 passing out of 29 scholars. But with regard to the latter case, though the children had passed, and were certified as being entitled to results fees, the Commissioners discovered that the school fees had not been paid; and they, therefore, disallowed the results fees. He thought that from that it would be apparent to the Committee that some sort of effort was being made to teach the Irish language in schools. He stood upon. the principle that the Government should agree that in any case where parents wished their children to learn Irish they should be allowed to do so without putting upon the teaching of the Irish language a fee which was double the amount of that paid by any other branch of learning. There were still 800,000 people in Ireland who spoke the Irish language, and of those 200,000 were of school age. Now, he submitted, as an educational principle, that instead of those children being taught the English language imperfectly—for they never did learn it perfectly—that they should be taught the Irish Grammar first, and afterwards they should proceed to the English Grammar. They would in that way acquire a grasp of English which they could not obtain under any other circumstances.

said, that the Amendment that stood in his name on the Paper grew out of a most important question—namely, the condition of the National School Teachers. He had hoped to have been able to move it had not circumstances prevented him from doing so. He owned he was placed in a somewhat difficult position. There was a season for all things; and he doubted very much, considering the circumstances in which the Committee was placed, whether one would be advancing very much the interests of that most important matter by bringing on a Motion at that time. He had to consider it all the more, because he had not brought it forward entirely on his own responsibility; and now, after consulting with the eminent persons in Ireland who were most interested in the question, he was obliged to come to the conclusion, at their special request, that he would be doing best for the interest of education in Ireland, which depended so much upon that particular question, in not wearying the Committee in asking them to enter upon that most extensive and elaborate question. Under those circumstances, he did not purpose to move his Amendment. He merely hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would give the subject his attention during the Recess. He was sure his right hon. Friend would be the last person to undervalue the importance of it. He would, however, take the opportunity of giving Notice that he would, on the earliest possible occasion next Session, call attention to the matter and move his Resolution. He should, however, like to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one point, which was the training of Workhouse National Teachers. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had exerted himself very much in improving the condition of the National School Teachers. But the position of the Workhouse Teachers was very inferior to that of the general body. He knew that the question was a very complicated one; but he would ask his right hon. Friend to consider it, and especially with regard to one point—namely, the introduction of a moderate but fair system of payment by results. By their regulations, the Workhouse Teachers were excluded from the benefit of those fees, and they were anxious that it should be extended to them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might see his way towards giving them their share in those fees, which would do a great deal towards the advancement of education in Ireland.

said, the question alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) was one deserving of the serious attention of the Chief Secretary. The question of these grievances of Workhouse Teachers had been brought before Parliament on a previous occasion, and the then Chief Secretary thought that he would be well inclined to come forward and assist the cause of education in Ireland. The way the Workhouse Teachers were paid was this. The workhouse officials fixed the salaries, which were to be paid out of the workhouse funds; but, unfortunately, instead of throwing the increased salaries upon the same fund, they were thrown upon the Poor Law Guardians, and, in consequence, they remained a dead letter. At present, the workhouse teachers had a very real grievance. The extra remuneration was intended to be paid by the Poor Law Guardians; but instead of making it compulsory, it was only made permissive, and, therefore, they had been deprived of that remuneration. The amount paid by the Guardians had been practically nothing. Now, he could not let those Estimates pass without calling attention to the much larger question of the condition of the National School Teachers in Ireland. Notwithstanding the exertions that had been made by the Irish Members, and the promises that were given to them by the late Government, and by that House, he was sorry to say that their condition remained still bad enough. In 1875, the late Government admitted that the Irish National School Teachers had three grievances, and that those grievances ought to be redressed. The first was that of salaries, the next that of residences, and the third that of pensions. Now, he was not going to say anything with reference to the pension scheme. But he must say only one or two words on the question of salaries and residences. In 1875 the Government then in power admitted that the National School Teachers had a grievance, and brought forward a scheme for the removal of that grievance. A portion of that scheme was the payment of results fees, and the scheme which the Government proposed was, that there should be a Parliamentary grant to the extent of one-third of the results fees of the teachers; that that should be paid unconditionally, and that the House should provide a further sum to pay the second third of the fees to be paid to the Teachers, but only conditionally upon the Guardians providing the remaining third. Now, it appeared clearly from that that two-thirds of the amount was only to be paid conditionally, for nothing was said as to the Guardians being obliged to contribute the sum or not. The question was left simply to the Poor Law Guardians. If they came forward and voted the money, then the teachers were paid the whole of the results fees; but if they did not do so, then the teachers lost 2s. 3d of the amount intended for them. Now, it was supposed that the Poor Law Guardians would be found willing to come forward and vote that contribution in the cause of education; but what had the result been? In 1879–80, out of the entire Unions of Ireland, there were only 20 Unions who had thought it their duty to contribute under the powers of the scheme of 1875; and the necessary result of that was that, except in the case of 20 Unions, the whole of the National School Teachers in Ireland would be deprived of 2s. 3d. of their results fees. How did the case stand in the present year? There were but 13 Unions which had become contributory during the present year, leaving 150 non-contributory. Therefore, the teachers had been deprived, with the exception of those 13 Unions, of at least one-third of the money it was intended they should have. The reason they were not deprived of the other third was that the Government, seeing that the majority of Unions were not willing to become contributory, introduced a scheme whereby in those Unions which refused to become contributory if the teachers provided a certain percentage towards the fees in comparison with the results fees, the Government would pay that one-third of the results fees which was made conditional upon the Unions becoming contributory. Therefore, the entire extent of mischief had not been done to the teachers in the non-contributory districts, because the Government paid 2s. 3d. of the results fees; but still the teachers were absolutely deprived of one-third of the fees except in 13 Unions. Now, that was a state of things that could not go on. Sufficient time to act upon the recommendation of Parliament had been afforded, and he trusted that that portion of the grievance would not be allowed to continue any longer. Unfortunately, owing to the poorness of the districts, there were 254 schools in 1879–80 that had actually been deprived of giving these subscriptions towards the 2s. 3d. of the results fees. That was a state of things at which, he thought, should no longer be allowed to remain. Last year, owing to the pension scheme being introduced, there was an addition of something like£40,000 for the purpose of enabling the teachers to draw their pensions. The other question he had referred to was the question of residence. Now, he was of opinion that it was not Parliamentary action that was required in the matter at all; but it was rather a question of administration which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take up. It was admitted that one of the greatest grievances the teachers had was that they had no residences; and certainly Parliament did its work extremely well in passing the National School Teachers Residences (Ireland) Act. What was the prin- ciple of that Act? It was this — That if the managers of schools that were non-resident schools chose to contribute one-half to the building of a residence the State would contribute the other half. The payments were made by the Board of Works to be repayable at 5 per cent per annum. The teacher had to pay half of the instalment, which was 2½ per cent, and the National Board of Education contributed the other 2½ per cent. Now, that was an exceedingly fair thing to propose, as he thought that Parliament had done its work remarkably well; but what had been the result? That Act had substantially been a dead letter. Generally it had not been availed of, and the question of the teachers' residences was just as bad now as it was in 1874. How did the figures stand? It appeared that in the first year after the National School Teachers Residences (Ireland) Act was passed there was a sum of 5,000 granted, in order to meet the instalments that would be required for the building of those residences. He believed that of that£5,000 every penny was returned next year, and not one farthing was expended. The next year£2,500 was taken, and returned. Then it fell to£250 a-year, and that was a much greater sum than was required, owing to the bad administration of the business in Wardour Street. Now, in Ireland, out of 7,522 schools, there were but 1,267 with residences, towards which the State had contributed nothing. That was to say, that about one-sixth of the schools were provided with residences with which the State had nothing to do. There were, altogether, about 152 residences erected since 1875, which had not been in any way assisted by the National School Teachers Residences (Ireland) Act of 1875. The figures of 1875 were as follows:—There were 39 applications in the entire of Ireland, and 27 granted; and, since 1875, there had been altogether 152 applications under the Residences Act, of which 127 were granted. Those were now vested schools. Of the vested schools there had been 47 applications, and 37 grants. Now, that showed that the object Parliament had in passing that Act had been completely frustrated, and that some remedy was required. If schools wished to be put under the national system, and obtain the State money, they must have a proper school house, proper furniture, and all requisites for the education of the children. But was not a residence for the teacher quite as essential for a good school house? His impression was that that question would never be settled unless there were some stringent regulations that residences must be provided for the teachers. Now, he thought he had shown, upon the whole of those points, that there was absolute necessity for immediate action; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who was distinguished for his efforts in the cause of education in England, would do for Ireland as much as he had brought about in England, and that next year that question would be finally settled. With reference to the pension system, he had to say that the age at which pensions were granted in Ireland was altogether too high. They went into the service at 18, and it was not until they had reached the age of 65 that they became absolutely entitled to the pension fund, to which they themselves had been subscribing. Again, the teachers could not possibly understand how£1,300,000 could be required as the nucleus of a pension fund. He hoped the question would receive consideration at the hands of the Government, and that the Chief Secretary would see during the Recess whether the matter could be effectually dealt with.

said, taking first the remarks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that he could not pledge himself to any action as regarded the details of the result fees. In fact, after having made up his own mind, he would still have to see his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the matter. The hon. Member would, however, agree with him that the first point they had to consider was the teaching which was likely to be most useful to the children who received State aid. Undoubtedly, in almost all parts of Ireland, the main thing was to enable them to gain their own living, and that really meant learning reading, writing, and ciphering. Reading and writing in English he meant. Unless they had those three things, he thought they would be under a very great disadvantage in the struggle for life. He was perfectly well aware that there were still districts in Ireland where the Irish language might be said to be predominant, and in all those cases he thought the State ought to see that there was a fair amount of teaching of the Irish language. But even in those cases it would be a cruelty to the children not to give them an opportunity of thoroughly learning English. He, however, admitted the probable correctness of what the hon. Member said—namely, that in many cases the children would gain English better by having learnt Irish at the same time. But then there came the other case of the English-speaking districts, in which the parents wished the children to learn Irish. Well, he understood that those gentlemen who were much interested in the Irish language had asked that Irish should be put under the same conditions as other branches of study—such as French, for example. He should be glad to look into that question; but he could not say more upon that matter. Now, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) had raised a most important question, to which, on that occasion, he did not think it was possible to do justice. In fact, it would require almost a whole evening to itself. He did not pretend yet to have been able to master the question of Irish education; but he had seen enough of it to feel that the training of teachers required the closest attention. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) referred to the present working of the result system, and his practical suggestions should have his best consideration. It was to the interest of the children and of the teachers that the result system should be fairly tried; but it was a serious matter to make further claims upon the Exchequer. Not merely as regarded money; but if they once admitted that the whole amount had to be paid out of the Imperial Fund, it was as good as to say to local bodies that they had nothing to do with the matter. The great difference between English and Irish education was that in England every locality was responsible for the education of the children in it, and he was strongly inclined to believe that at last they would have to come to that in Ireland. But it was a matter to be approached with considerable caution; they must not anticipate public opinion. Then, as to the question of residence, the same arguments applied. He had said they must try to tempt localities, and they must not give up the notion that this tempta- tion would succeed. He would bear in mind the administrative suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare; but it would be a serious thing to make it an absolute condition to a school, for they knew how necessary a school must be, and they might sometimes have no school at all if this was made an absolute condition. Still, it was a matter which must be borne in mind. Then, on the other subject of pensions. That was a matter upon which, he thought, an inquiry should be made. There was a much better system of pensions in Ireland than in England; but then, on the other hand, he was aware that the original salaries were much less. In the number of schools there had been an increase to 504,000 from 445,000— the number two years ago—so far that was an improvement.

called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent recommendation of the Local Board, which had considerably diminished the number of assistant teachers, by increasing the number of pupils which entitled the teacher to have an assistant. Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the wisdom of persevering with that course? It had created considerable controversy, and it was the general opinion that the efficiency of the schools would be impaired if the rule was preserved.

said, his opinion of the number of children in such a case would be founded upon his English experience; but he really could not give any definite answer until he had more practical information.

hoped this matter would not be lost sight of.

thought it would be a good deal felt in Ireland if the rates were made to contribute. To educate under the Guardians he did not think there would be any great objection; but he did not think they would like to be called upon to contribute. That was the opinion he had often heard expressed in the Union with which he was most acquainted, and he believed the same opinion existed in other Unions. He went into the figures last year to show that if they took the Census as the basis of population, Scotland had more per head than Ireland, and Ireland, again, a little mere than England. But while there had been an increase in the last five or six years in the other two cases, there had been no corresponding increase in the Irish Estimates. And it must be considered, in comparing England with Ireland, that the population was small in the latter as compared with England; and, consequently, it was much easier to educate a given number of children on the same sum of money. Taking this into account, it might be said that Ireland received less per head than England and Scotland; so until Ireland had an equal sum in proportion to its population it would not be fair to put the money on the Votes. Unfortunately, too, there was not the class in Ireland there was in England to give their voluntary subscriptions. The feeling in Ireland was that it should be done by Parliament; that the surplus Revenue should go to support education. The Chief Secretary expressed a fear that to make a residence the condition to a school might stop education. But he might compel landlords to sell a small piece of land at a fair valuation for the erection of a residence. A short Act, introduced for the purpose of enforcing the sale of land when it was required for the addition to the school, would be valuable; and a certain number of residences would be built if that were done. There were some who would not dispose of ground for such purposes, and he knew an instance where a nobleman refused even to sell ground for the erection of a chapel. He thought the hon. Member had done right in not going into the question; but, so long as English public opinion insisted on training up teachers in the way they wished, and in which the Irish people did not wish, so long as they insisted on meddling in education to the extent of training teachers in a way to which the great mass of the people and of the teachers objected strongly, so long as that was done, they must take the responsibility upon themselves. Education was mixed up a great deal with the whole state of Ireland, and it was idle to say the responsibility did not rest with those who insisted on this control. However, he would not press this troublesome and delicate question this Session; but the Government ought to take it up next Session. The want was, to have a few schools throughout the country where the teachers might be trained as the mass of the people desired—thoroughly voluntary schools. There was another matter to which the attention of the Government should be called. There was a policy to get rid of the agricultural schools. That would be most injurious. He was on the Committee with reference to the Potato Crop, and the evidence given before that Committee led him to think that an extension of these schools, rather than a diminution, was much wanted in Ireland. It was only a question of a few hundreds to the Exchequer, and it was to be hoped the Government would not allow them to be abolished. The French Government posted up in every Commune directions to the peasantry as to the sowing of their crops, in the true spirit of a paternal Government. But, perhaps, a much better plan would be to give instructions through agricultural schools. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when he visited Ireland, would look at the model school near Dublin, and would see that the system ought to be extended. This was not a "burning question;" but still it was one that the Chief Secretary ought to entertain.

could not allow the Vote to pass without some observations in respect to the model schools. They had been condemned by a Parliamentary Commission; and if the late Government had continued, he believed they proposed to remedy, at least in part, the grievances in respect to these schools of which the Catholics had so long complained. He would not ask the Chief Secretary to make, at present, any definite statement of the intentions of the present Government; but he had expected to receive from him a promise that he would look into the matter, and see that the recommendations of Lord Powis's Commission were substantially, at least, carried into effect. From the answers of the Chief Secretary recently given, it appeared that in two of these schools a Protestant head-master had been appointed because there were no Catholic pupils. Poor Catholics derived no benefit from these schools, which were kept up at enormous expense for the advantage of those who, from their position and standing, were not entitled to have their children educated at the expense of the State. The educational results attained by these schools were miserably inadequate. The Catholic schools, supported, to a great extent, by voluntary aid, had produced in most instances a larger number of qualified teachers than those establishments whose expenses were defrayed out of this grant. He would not now enter at large on the matter. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give a pledge to look into the matter, and endeavour to give some fulfilment to the recommendations made, not merely by Lord Powis's Commission, but by more influential ecclesiastics, both Protestant and Catholic, who had the real educational interest of Ireland at heart.

could only say that he would look into it; and the hon. Gentleman had strong security that he would do so, for he knew the deep interest it excited, and that he would not have an easy life if he did not do so.

asked the Chief Secretary if he could inform him where the office was, if there was such an office?

was afraid he could not answer the question now. He could not tell the hon. Gentleman; but he would be much to blame if he was unable to answer next year.

said, the reason he asked was because he believed there was no such office. It consisted apparently of a superintendent, who, in addition to his salary from the Army Votes as a master in the War Office, received£200 a-year. Then there was a first clerk who received£500 a-year, a second clerk with£335, and some lower division clerks. But was there such an office in London or not? For, practically, the gentleman who superintended it was located at the War Office. He was an excellent and efficient public servant, as he could say from personal knowledge; but that, in addition to his salary of£700 to£800, to receive another£200 for superintending an office that did not exist, was a position he did not understand. If there was such an office in Dublin, the Superintendent should be there. He sought to elicit the facts; but, of course, without these he could offer no comment.

said, if there was no office, he could not understand an item of£35 for cleaning it.

observed, that it was a quaint Vote altogether, for the second clerk received£35 above the maximum. He would ask the Chief Secretary, or whoever was responsible, to look into these items. If the increase was£15 a-year, it would seem he had got beyond his maximum in a very short space of time.

said, he found that the office was in the Castle, Dublin. He observed there was no increase this year except the natural increment to the second clerk. The object of the office was to take charge of the grants made under the Act lately passed. A fund of more than£1,000,000 could not be distributed without an office in connection with it.

felt it his duty to oppose this grant; and, in doing so, felt it necessary to refer to the course of the University Question in Ireland during past Sessions. Hon. Members had heard, he should say, quite enough of the Irish University Question, and Irish Members were thoroughly tired of bringing it forward in the House. As they were aware, it was a question that for 20 years had been debated in the House, and without any tangible result. In the last Parliament a measure was introduced by the O'Conor Don, which did not at all satisfy the demands of the people of Ireland. However, it was brought forward with the approval of some Members for Ireland; and though it was generally considered that it was a measure which would injure most seriously higher education in Ireland, and would practically result in placing the higher education of the Catholic population on a much lower level than that of the Protestants, still, so great was the despair that had been instilled into the minds of Irish Catholics by the treatment the question had received in the House for upwards of 20 years, that influential men in Ireland induced support to the modified demand. But it would be remembered how this demand was met by the Government in power, how they shifted backwards and forwards, and finally ended by opposing and throwing out this measure. And it would be also within the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that, hastily, at the end of the Session, a measure was brought in which professed to be a settlement of the Irish University Question; and he must say that, in his recollection, it was the most inadequate, wretched solution ever produced. Everyone must acknowledge the question was one of the greatest magnitude, the unsettlement of which had injured generation after generation of young lrishmen. It had sent successive generations of young men out into life deprived of the benefit of higher education simply because Parliament refused to settle this question. The Government, although they acknowledged the gravity of the case, brought in their measure, which, professing a settlement, settled nothing at all—in reality, gave nothing. He regretted to say that the measure, was permitted to pass through the House without the determined opposition it ought to have received from the Irish Representatives. That also was the result of that feeling of despair which had settled on Irish Catholics. They felt the hopelessness of an approach to equality in University Education, and felt that their best course would be to accept whatever the Government were willing to give. The protests of himself and others, that it would do no good whatever, were smothered in the cry —"Take this as a little concession; you will get something by allowing this to pass, and that will be better than nothing." But he did not consider that it was better than nothing; and, further, he considered if the Catholics of Ireland acted with courage and resolution, they would, in the long run, view the right of equality with Protestants in the matter of University Education. To enter fully into this question was impossible now; but it was only right to tell the Government that this question of Irish University Education had not been settled, and that the time of the House must be continually occupied with it until the Act passed last year was repealed. He was well aware that a simple protest would never come to any good; and, therefore, he wanted to impress on the Government that the wisest course to pursue would be to prepare some scheme, and lay it before Parliament early during the coming Session. And if they wanted information, as probably they would, as to the real demands of Irish Catholics, and the circumstances and merits of the case, let a Committee be appointed for the purpose; and he would suggest that that Committee should consist of Irish Members, selected from the three Parties into which they were divided, in due proportion. If it were not that the right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair was occupied in labours too arduous to permit of his assisting, his wish would be to secure his assistance; for he took this opportunity of saying that he should be quite willing to place the whole of the case in his hands. He (Mr. Dillon) had listened to speeches made by the Chairman in the House; and all he could say was, if the Liberal Government would take his advice and suggestions for settling the claims of Irish Catholics, they would save themselves a great deal of trouble, and the House a deal of waste time. He remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, made on the occasion of the discussion of the O'Conor Don's Bill; and, on the part of those who shared his feelings on this University Question, he was prepared to say they accepted that speech as an expression of their views. He had thought it right not to allow this Vote to pass without warning the Government that next year, when they would have more time at their disposal, if a measure was not brought forward which would give to the Catholics of Ireland perfect equality with Protestants in the matter of University Education, Irish Members would oppose the grant of any money to the Queen's University, and avail themselves of every opportunity that occurred during the Session of pressing upon the attention of Parliament those claims which had too long been allowed to remain unrecognized. He would conclude by saying it was impossible to exaggerate the evil that had. been done to Ireland by the treatment of this question. Only within the last six months it had come to his knowledge how hundreds of young Irish Catholics had gone to Australia, to America, and elsewhere, in search of that which they had been prevented from receiving in Ireland.

said, he had no intention of adding anything very great to the speeches; but wished to say that he hoped the Estimates now before them would not be considered at the same time of the Session next year. A great number of English Members were of opinion that the Committee should not deal with the subject at this time of the Session. The discussion had been very inadequate, and he hoped next year the Estimates would be brought forward earlier. He agreed with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) that the present arrangements for the Universities in Ireland were bad. He, however, understood very little about the subject, and he did not believe it was really understood in Ireland at all.

wished to call attention to what had been said by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and to remind him of the Bill which was brought in last year by the O'Conor Don, which had on its back the names of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, of the hon. Member for the County of West-meath, of the hon. Member who preceded the present hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and of the hon. Member for Carlow. That Bill received the unanimous support of the Irish Parliamentary Party of that time, although it was said to be a measure of such a doubtful character. It was most difficult, therefore, to find what was really wished to be done. The hon. Member for Tipperary had been occupied in an attempt to condemn in the most sweeping way the very Bill which had been so brought in and approved.

admitted that it was quite open to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) to make the comments he had done on the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but his comments might lead to some misconception. The want of satisfactory legislation on the subject arose from the failure to understand the wishes of the Irish people. But now, if the question was not settled, it could not be because they had not obtained a knowledge of the wishes of those people whom they represented. The action of the O'Conor Don did not at all exonerate the House from blame in the matter; and he hoped the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard would not prevent remarks being made by him upon the subject. No one ever thought of stopping the progress of additional measures in England because no such reasons were brought forward in respect of them as had been the case with Irish matters. He could not hold out any hope of agreement between themselves and the hon. Member for Liskeard.

thought the remarks of the hon. Member for Liskeard required some explanation. It was well known that the measure referred to was a bad one, and that it came from the Castle of Dublin with the understanding that if it was accepted it would be passed through the House. Hon. Members, therefore, put their names on the back of a Bill which was a bad one in their own view. That seemed a very absurd state of things and somewhat lamentable; but it was better than nothing, when they knew that if it was brought in they would be allowed to pass it. The draftsmen were instructed so to frame the Bill that it might be passed, and it was accordingly brought in.

wished it to be understood that the Irish people required Protestant, Presbyterian, and Catholic Colleges, and that all their institutions required an equal proportion of endowments. They had been compelled to bring forward such compromises as that proposed by the O'Conor Don in the hope of passing them; but he wished to see perfect equality in the matter, with the amounts set out in separate Estimates.

did not wish to delay the passing of the Vote; but to state, on behalf of some hon. Members, that they had not understood it was the intention of the Government to proceed with all the Estimates that evening. It was understood that only the Irish Votes, with the exception of that for the Irish Constabulary, would be taken. He did not understand it was proposed to go into the remaining Estimates that evening. He was perfectly aware they were on the Paper; and although he had had a number of notes upon which he had wished to furnish some remarks, he had taken them away thinking the Votes would not be dealt with. The Votes were certainly being passed very rapidly; but he would not like to offer any criticism upon them without his notes. He did protest, however, at the very short notice which hon. Members had had with regard to this matter. The Notice had not been on the Paper long enough to allow them to be generally aware that the Votes would be taken. Hon. Members beside him had not at all understood that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Votes now taken. They had abstained from moving to report Progress, inasmuch that they had agreed not to do so that morning. Unless a man stood alone and watched Vote by Vote, there would be seen, what they saw now, the Committee voting away£250,000 at a time without a criticism. They had been recently several hours discussing a Vote of£750,000; but if he had not risen they would have passed it in five minutes. He merely rose now to draw the attention of the Committee to the system of voting away millions of public money without any discussion at 2 o'clock in the morning.

said, necessary Notice had been given that the Votes would be taken. He was entirely in the hands of the Committee, and unless the Government received any Notice of opposition they would be proceeded with. He proposed to take all the Votes to which there was no Amendment.

wished to draw the attention of the Committee to two or three things in connection with the Vote. With regard to American refugees having special claims, there was an allowance of£80. He believed the names of a number of retiring officers were sometimes retained on the list after they were dead; and, therefore, he would like to know whether the persons mentioned in the list of the present Vote were really alive? Then, with regard to the distressed Spaniards who were in that condition at the time of the Peninsula War, it was somewhat remarkable that they should be still receiving allowances. An item was included under the name of Refuged Clergy. Although it was a very excellent thing that the minister of St. Paul's, Blackenbury, should be receiving£210, yet he could not see why such an item should be included in these Estimates. Why should he receive that allowance from the Government? There were a number of refuged clergy in England receiving allowances; and he would like to know, therefore, whether the Government proposed to assist any of the refuged Jesuits? Then, again, the Corporation of Berwick received a sum of£90 a-year for repairs to a bridge. Why should that be included in the Estimates? He believed the only reason was, that James the Scot crowned that bridge when he came to England. There was no reason why it should be continued in the present day. There were also many other such items in the Vote which might, at all events, be dealt with by some principle of commutation. There was a Motion by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to reduce the Vote by£300; and he wished to point out that, although the Government had received Notice of opposition, the noble Lord was still taking the Vote that night.

said, he had communicated with the hon. Member for Northampton to the effect that he would take the Vote that night; but the hon. Member was not in his place. The matters referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) were of an exceptional nature. The American Royalists were refuged by an Act of George II. They were virtually dying out, and the only surviver was Captain Macdonald, who received£80 a-year. Those claims were never paid until after they had been properly advanced. In 1833, it was decided that no new names should be placed on the list of French refugees, and the only two pensions now being paid were to two widows. The grant to the Corporation of Berwick was an old grant of Charles II. to maintain the bridge of James I. It was paid from the Civil List up to the time of George IV., when the Committee of the House of Commons thought it should be annually voted. That small grant was now charged on the Revenue as a matter of good faith. It was one of the last charges of the kind binding on the country, as the remainder had died out.

did not dispute the proposition that the Estimate was made in good faith; but he would ask whether it was not possible— as it was one of the great objections to these pensions that the country paid the sum over and over again, was there no means by which these pensions could be commuted, and so disposed of?

said, no doubt, it was desirable; but it was not always possible.

asked whether the stipend given to the minister of the French church at Portarlington was not charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and discontinued some years ago, when it was discovered that the congregation no longer existed?

said, that the sums granted before the Union by the Irish Parliament disappeared with the disappearance of the congregation, with the exception of Portarlington. Under the circumstances, the Treasury felt they would no longer be justified in charging the stipend on the Consolidated Fund. The present recipient was appointed in the belief that the stipend was attached to the office. The Treasury regarded it as a ease of vested interest, but would take care that no successor was appointed to the present holder.