asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a case recently before the Guildford County Magistrates, in which a labourer named Bulchin was prosecuted for neglecting to send to school his daughter (described as an exceptionally neat and cleanly girl of six years of age), and in which it appeared that he had sent her, but that she was not allowed to attend because she had a small ornamental flounce or fringe to her frock to which the manager of the school objected; whether the accused was ordered by the Court to either remove the flounce or send his child to another school; and, whether it is true, as stated, that the Education Department had been appealed to, but replied that it had no power to interfere; and, if so, whether, while amending, as he proposes, the Scotch Education Act, he will endeavour to obtain powers to prevent the waste of State grants on schools regulated in such a way as to offer unnecessary impediments to public education?

My attention had not been called to the case in question until the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow placed his Notice on the Paper. The rule of the Department is not to interfere with regulations which the managers deem necessary to secure the discipline of the school. If these regulations were harsh and unreasonable, and imposed obstacles to school attendance, we should require their abandonment on pain of forfeiture of annual grant. In this instance, judging from the reports in the papers and the decision of the magistrates, the managers have pushed their requirements beyond reasonable limits. I think it is much wiser to trust to the influence of the teacher to secure neatness and plainness in dress than to set up arbitrary regulations on the subject. The exclusion of the child from the school, and the subsequent prosecution, were, in my opinion, a mistake; and I have caused the managers to be so informed.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that 108 officers of the Excise are men of over forty years' service, and that, before the close of the year, the number will have reached close upon 200; whether any representations have been made to him respecting the inefficiency from old age of many of these officers, who are supervisors and collectors, whereby the public service suffers; and, whether he proposes to take any steps for the retirement of these officers?

Out of a total of 4,400, there are at present 115 Excise officers who have served for 40 years and upwards; but it is most improbable that this number will be increased to anything like the extent anticipated in the Question. No representations have reached my right hon. Friend or the Treasury as to the inefficiency of any of these officers. Under these circumstances, there appears to be no reason for interfering with the discretion of the Board of Inland Revenue in the matter of retirements.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a certain order made at the petty sessions held at Stoneyford, in the county of Kilkenny, upon the 8th day of February 1883, in a case, at the suit of the Board of Guardians of the Union of Thomastown, against James Walsh, of Ballinamona, requiring him to repair the roofs of certain houses in the occupation of one Catherine Mylett and Patrick Sheelan, and wherein the presiding magistrates framed the order so as to be conditional upon the payment of certain arrears of rent due by these occupying tenants, and the lodgment of the same with the clerk of the petty sessions; and, whether there is any objec-jection to the production of such order?

I have received a communication from the clerk of petty sessions at Stoneyford, which shows that no such order as the hon. Gentle- man mentions has been made in this case. As a matter of fact, no order whatever has been made, as the case stands adjourned for further hearing.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Commissioners of National Education of Ireland in disallowing portions of salaries of National teachers, owing to any temporary decline in the average attendances of schools caused by a prevalence of epidemics, whereby the teacher of the Smithstown National School at Castlecomer was mulcted recently in a loss of three pounds, in consequence of an outbreak of scarlatina in the locality?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that the Commissioners of National Education are not in the habit of making deductions from the salaries of National teachers owing to any temporary decline of attendance of scholars caused by the prevalence of epidemics. In the case of the Smithstown School, the Commissioners inform me that the full salary would have been paid if the manager had made any representation that an epidemic prevailed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether at any period since 1868 application has been made by the Government of Cuba to the Government of the Bahamas for the surrender of political refugees from Cuba who had sought asylum in the Bahamas; and, whether at any time during that period any Cuban refugees residing in the Bahamas were forcibly taken away from those islands by a vessel belonging to or chartered by the Cuban Government; and, if so, whether any representation was made on the subject to the Government of Spain?

In August, 1869, application was made by the Spanish Consul at Nassau to the Governor of the Bahamas for the arrest and detention of five Cubans who had landed there. This application was refused by the Governor. In April, 1870, the Governor refused to surrender two deserters from a Spanish ship of war. These are the two sole cases at all resembling applications such as those mentioned in the Question. There is no record in the Colonial Office of any such occurrence as that mentioned in the latter part of the Question.

May I ask whether the Governor was not reprimanded either by Earl Granville or the Earl of Kimberley for having refused to surrender?

I do not think so. There is no record of it; but if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the Question I will answer it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the Assizes for the county Leitrim commence on the 5th instant; whether the Chief Land Commissioners have fixed the same and following days for hearing appeals in county Letrim land cases at Enniskillen; and, whether, in view of the impossibility of persons interested in appeal cases, and who are obliged to attend the Assizes in various capacities, being also able to attend at Enniskillen, he will represent to the Land Commissioners the propriety of postponing to a later date cases from the county Leitrim?

I believe the Assizes for the county of Leitrim are appointed to commence on the date mentioned. I communicated with the Land Commissioners on this subject, and have received, in reply, the following telegram:—The Land Commissioners arranged long since to sit at Enniskillen on the 5th instant, to hear appeals from Fermanagh and Monaghan, and from portions of Leitrim, Cavan, and Donegal. They intend to sit at Enniskillen from the 5th to the 8th, and then adjourn on account of the Assizes till the 12th. The Fermanagh cases will be taken first when the sitting commences on the 5th instant, and it is possible the Leitrim cases may not be reached before the adjournment on the 8th—by which time it is presumed the Assizes for that county will have concluded.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he has read a Report, in the ordinary sources of information, of the serious injuries which are said to have occurred to H.M.S. "Neptune," and requested him to state accurately what is the real amount of damage which that ship has sustained?

Yes, Sir; I have seen the Report to which the right hon. and gallant Admiral refers, and it contains a great exaggeration of the facts regarding the Neptune. The practical officers, who have examined the ship in dock, report that some defective arrangements and workmanship exist in the fastening of the wooden sheathing with which the hull is cased. These defects will, at no very distant period, require remedy; but any evil that exists does not extend to, or in any way affect, the iron hull itself, and the ship is quite in a condition to proceed to 8ea, and join the Channel Squadron as intended.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Why the brick arching of the new reservoir in Hyde Park has not been kept below the ground level?

The reservoir which supplies some of the Public Offices with water is there, and every foot gained in height is of very great importance for the safety of those buildings. The ground, however, will be made to slope gradually towards it, and I think the reservoir will then be quite invisible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to contradictory Tables in the Suez Canal Report, No. 41; if he has observed that the French Table (D. VII.) shows the trade of France with China to have been in some years from two to ten times greater than the Chinese Table (D. V.) states China to have had with all the continental Countries of Europe put together; and, if he can say which Table is correct?

in reply, said, his attention had been called to these Tables. He did not think that they were necessarily contradictory; but they, no doubt, required some explanation to make them intelligible. The Tables (D. VII.) were from French Official Returns, and the Tables (D. V.) were from the Returns of the Chinese Imperial Manager of Customs; and he thought that these were Tables referring only to the exports from Treaty ports, and that, probably, they excluded from consideration all the exports from Hong Kong and Macao, and some other ports, and that in that way the discrepancy might be accounted for.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any immediate prospect of the Trinity Board taking into their favourable consideration the question of establishing communication between out-lying lighthouses and the shore by means of electric cables, which was first brought under their notice in 1875?

I have made inquiries, and I find that this subject has received for a long while the careful attention both of the authorities of the Trinity Board and the Board of Trade. For myself, I am not quite certain that the result to be attained by such a communication as proposed would justify the very large expenditure which would be incurred; but, at the same time, we have been anxious that the experiment should be made; and, accordingly, as I learned some time ago that the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company were willing to try the experiment for 12 months, at their own risk and cost, I sanctioned the experiment, with the proviso that, if it were successful, the Trinity House were to purchase the cables and apparatus for the sum of £3,730; but I thought it necessary that the determination of the question, whether the experiments were successful or not, should be left to Sir James Douglas, the engineer of the Trinity House Corporation, and I find that the Telegraph Company have objected to that condition, so that for the moment the negotiations have been suspended. I hope, however, it will still be practicable to make some arrangement by which the experiment will be tried.

I wish to ask the indulgence of the House for one moment, while I take this opportunity of expressing my very great regret that I had, through inadvertence, left the House this morning before the announcement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews of his intention to resign the Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means. I extremely regret to have missed the proper opportunity of expressing, on behalf of myself and many Friends, the feelings of regret with which they heard the cause which has led the right hon. Gentleman to retire, and, at the same time, to express our sense of the great labour which he has undergone during the time he was in the Chair. It is an office which we all know taxes very severely the powers of everyone who undertakes it; and certainly the time during which the right hon. Gentleman—whom I have known in various capacities for many years—has held that office, has been one of no insignificant severity. I hope we shall for many years have the advantage of the assistance of his services in the conduct of other Business in this House, of which he has been a most valuable Member.

I should be glad now if Government would tell us what the arrangement of Public Business will be to-night, and what will be the course of Business on Monday, especially with regard to the Egyptian Estimates? I see the Parliamentary Oaths Bill stands for second reading then. I presume it will not be taken; but I am anxious to know authoritatively?

I hope the House will be willing to go into Committee of Supply, or, at all events, to commence the consideration of the Estimates at any hour up to 12 o'clock to-night. The Business on Monday will be Supply. The first Business will be the completion of any Supplementary Estimates not disposed of tonight.

Will any other Estimates be taken then?

On Monday we could not take any but Supplementary Estimates.

Then it will be distinctly understood that the Parliamentary Oaths Bill will not be taken on Monday?

Yes.

asked whether, it was intended to take the Army Estimates during the next week?

I hope, if sufficient progress is made, to take them on Thursday next.

asked if it would be regular under the New Rules of Procedure, when the Supplementary Estimates were taken on Monday, for an hon. Member to make a Motion on first taking each of the three classes of Estimates—Army, Navy, and Civil Service?

The New Rule provides that the Speaker should leave the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays without Question put, except on first going into Committee of Supply upon the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates.

asked if the Rule in regard to first going into Supply would apply to the Supplementary Estimates, and justify an hon. Member in making a Motion on each class of Estimates?

If Supplementary Estimates are proposed on Monday as the first Order of the Day, it will be my duty, as soon as the Order for going into Supply is read, to leave the Chair.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When, according to his promise, he would place the House in telephonic communication with the Exchange?

I hope before long it will be done.

How long? Any mercantile house in the City can have it in 24 hours.

I hope it will be done in a few days.

in rising to move—

"That it is expedient to introduce into Ireland the principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require,"

said, he did not think that primary education would ever enable the Irish people to deal with great political questions. It was quite true that a little learning was a dangerous thing; but he thought that a mass of ignorance was a far greater evil. There was very little crime of the ordinary character in Ireland, and the little crime that did take place there was the result of drink. He thought that primary education was a powerful instrument for good; and if, as he believed, education would make the Irish people more sober, then there were good reasons for considering it. It was not necessary to say anything in proof of the assertion that education was necessary to the body of the people. There was at present a movement in favour of technical education; but such teaching would be of little use unless founded upon general education—and this was particularly the case in regard to agriculture, the principal occupation of the Irish people. He did not mean to say that teaching a man to read and write would teach him agriculture; but the general education would assist him in the technical education in agriculture. The great majority of the people were Celts, with all the impulsiveness and impetuosity which belonged to the race. In a primitive community, men of this temperament might be allowed to guide themselves; but in a more complex society, and especially in a country where every man was a politician, they required reason and education to enable the people to act with moderation and prudence. The statement of a few facts was necessary to the discussion of the question of education in Ireland. According to English experience, the school age was between the ages of 5 and 13, and the number of children in Ireland between those ages was 1,100,000; but the children in Ireland went to school at an earlier ago, about three or four years of age, and he thought it might be said that the 16th year might be regarded as coming within the school age in Ireland. That would add another 300,000 to the 1,100,000 he had already mentioned, thus bringing up the total to 1,400,000. Deducting from that the children of the middle and upper classes, he estimated that about 1,300,000 children in Ireland were within the range of primary education, to accommodate whom there were 9,100 schools, national and denominational in character. In 1881 there were about 7,615 national schools, and about 1,500 schools unconnected with the State. The national schools at that period had no less than 2,066,000 children on the rolls, and there were at least 100,000 children on the rolls of other schools, making, roughly, a total of 1,150,000. Thus, about 90 per cent of the children who ought to go to school were on the rolls of one school or another; but what they wanted was to make the children who did go to school put in a sufficient number of attendances. The National Board gave some statistics it was worth considering. In the first place, they gave the number who attended on any one day during the last 14 days of the year, and that number was 674,200. That number would contain every child who had any chance of gaining results, and it was also pretty certain it would contain a large number who came there casually. The average daily attendance was given at 453,000. He found a few figures in the Census Papers of 1881, which threw a very clear light on that important question. It might be taken for granted that the attendance at the national schools, which were more largely and regularly attended than the rural schools, was not much higher than the figures he was about to give. Out of the children who attended school 12½ per cent made less than 20 attendances in the year; over 23 per cent made less than 40; 41 per cent under 80; 51 per cent under 100 attendances; and only 49 per cent, just half the number on the roll of the schools, made 100 attendances and upwards. There were many reasons why good attendance at the schools in Ireland was desirable. A good many of the children were taken early from school to discharge domestic duties and to work on farms, and unless they attended school with regularity they never learned anything. A large number of children went late to school, and if children were absent for an interval of a week or a month, they naturally forgot all they had previously learned; and it was therefore for the purpose of increasing and regularizing the attendance that they wanted compulsion in Ireland; and he submitted that if compulsion was introduced and employed generally and rationally, it would involve no revolutionary change in Ireland. Nearly all the children were upon the roll, and had the idea of school in their minds, and what they wanted to do was to make them attend more frequently. What should be the average attendance? Any proportion of 80 would certainly be inadequate. Experience in this and other countries had pointed to 100 at the lowest, and men of education and experience had fixed on not less than that number as being adequate in Ireland, especially as in the educational status of the country 100 was the minimum which entitled a child to go in for results. He would not, however, ask the House then to fix on any number. He would simply say that the present rate of attendance was insufficient, and should be raised. The degree of illiteracy existing in Ireland was a cardinal test of the necessity of compulsion, and he must explain that what he meant in this instance by illiteracy was being unable either to read or write. In 1841, 53 per cent of the population could not read or write; in 1851, 47 per cent; in 1861, 39 per cent; in 1871, 33 per cent; and in 1881, 25 per cent. The reduction from 53 to 25 per cent looked very large; but the House must recollect that that was over a period of 40 years, a great space of time in the history of a nation in the present day; and, again, in 1841, the population was greatly in excess of what it was now, and there was a greater amount of distress prevailing. Again, that percentage of illiteracy was not universal in Ireland, being much lower in some portions than in others. For instance, in Ulster the percentage was only 20, while in Con-naught it was 38, and in this respect Connaught to-day was in the same condition as Ulster 40 years ago, although Connaught had lost a large number of that class of the population among whom ignorance was chiefly found. In 1881, 28½ per cent of children between the ages of 5 and 10 could read and write; 73 per cent between the ages of 10 and 15, and 77 per cent between the ages of 15 and 20. Surely every child between the ages of 5 and 10 should be able to read and write, yet at present only 28 per cent could do so in Ireland; and as to the other figures, it was a serious prospect that 25 per cent of the population should be growing up in almost absolute ignorance. Other countries had determined there should be no residuum of ignorance in their land; they had taken steps to that end, had sacrificed parental authority, and had undergone great expense, and he did not think it would be wise on the part of Ireland to remain behind them on the march. The compulsion he proposed would only involve an expense of £70,000 a-year, which would represent the increased expense of teaching staff consequent upon a moderate system of compulsion. If there was an increased demand for accommodation in denominational schools, he had no doubt that the religious zeal of the community would meet that want to a large extent. He must, however, remind the House that nothing could be done in Ireland to enforce compulsion unless it was consonant to the feelings of the Irish people. He was not deputed to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, nor was he in any way competent to do so. But he could speak from what he knew of the course which the Catholic Church had taken on the subject of education, and from sympathy with Catholic feeling which, as a member of that Church, he entertained. The national system of education was largely used by the Roman Catholic Church; but it had never been thoroughly accepted as satisfactory in principle. There were some branches of it to which special exception was taken—namely, the model schools and the system of training; and the friends of education in Ireland had heard with pleasure that the question of training would soon be dealt with by the Government. He might, however, state that it was quite possible that the rules of the national schools of Ireland might be so altered under new management as to be highly objectionable to the Roman Catholics, who might, consequently, have great hesitation in sending their children to those schools. Were the compulsory system adopted in Ireland, it would be necessary to provide special exemptions in many cases where parents, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might object to send their children to the only school in the neighbourhood on the ground of religion, because it was well known that in many instances secular schools became denominational schools. If these special exemptions were not provided for, compulsion would do more harm than good in Ireland. Other exemptions ought to be provided in reference to the condition of the country, because it might so happen that want of food or clothing might prevent parents sending their children to school. He would leave it to persons in the locality to set the law of compulsion in force in gross cases of neglect on the part of the parents, and he thought no proceedings should be allowed to be taken without the permission of the tribunal before whom the case was ultimately to come. With respect to the tribunal, he acknowledged that the magistrates of Ireland were not as popular as the magistrates of England; but in a purely social matter of this kind he believed the magistrates would have regard to the feelings of the people, and would not do anything that would impose hardship upon them. There were many delicate topics connected with the subject, all of which he had endeavoured to avoid. It was always well, in dealing with educational matters, to steer clear of questions which might give rise to conflict. Public opinion had of late years greatly ripened with respect to this question. He believed the course he advocated would succeed, because it was now recognized that the general spirit of education among the people of Ireland was necessary to enable them to enjoy free institutions, to promote their industrial progress, and to enable them to rise and hold that position among civilized peoples worthy of their hopes, their capacities, and the old traditions of their country. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

rose to second the Resolution. He said, that the first real difficulty that would confront the State in any attempt to enforce education unreservedly was the poverty of the Irish people. This consideration doubtless weighed with the Commission of Inquiry of 1870, which reported that it would be inexpedient to pass any law compelling attendance at school in rural districts, and that in towns the application of any such law should be limited to children who were not actually at work. His hon. and learned Friend now recommended the adoption of the principle of compulsory education for rural as well as urban districts, recognizing, however, that there was need for discrimination in certain cases, as where a child was too destitute to appear at school, or where occupation afforded grounds for exemption, or where exemption might be claimed on the ground of the distance of a child's dwelling from a school. With regard to the demand for exemption based on the ground of destitution, he held that the poverty of the West of Ireland must itself prove the primâ facie impossibility of any absolute system of compulsion. The average day attendances at the schools in Ireland in 1881 was 465,567, which was a decrease of 14,000 in comparison with 1880. There had been, however, an abnormal increase in 1880, as compared with 1879, of 33,000—an increase which was due to the desire of the children to receive the rations distributed during the period of distress. As to exemption on the ground of distance from school, he believed there were few places in Ireland where there was not a school of some kind or other within two miles. He, therefore, did not anticipate much difficulty in connection with this ground for exemption; but he would, taking into consideration the roughness of the roads, and the fact that the poorer children in Ireland had not shoes, be inclined to as great leniency as the utmost limits of prudence would sanction. The third social exemption which he would make would be that of occupation. It should be remembered that the capital of a cottier was his own industry and that of his family; but he did not be- lieve that children would be debarred on this ground, except on particular occasions such as the hay-making time. There was another element in regard to the question of poverty which should not be lost sight of, and that was the importable character of the food of the poorer classes, such as the pototo or its substitute in some cases of Indian corn. The validity of a claim to exemption ought to be determined by the Resident Magistrates. He was aware that the magistrates were subject at present to considerable popular dislike; but they were a resident body, and in the performance of these duties of a now political character, he could not conceive that they would be likely to act with other than intelligence and impartiality. He now came to the question of exemption on the ground of religion. In 1832 the policy of a denominational system of education was distinctly sanctioned. In that year, a conference was held between Mr. Stanley (then Chief Secretary for Ireland) and the members of the National Board for Education upon the subject of the admissibility of schools into the national system which were conducted by men described as monks. The result was that no objection to assist those schools was made by any members of the Board or the Chief Secretary. Nuns and monks who were teachers received salaries, and schools under such teachers obtained the same assistance on the same terms as other schools. The National Board said—

"We have assisted in building and repairing their school-houses, and we have given salaries."

Mr. O'Connell, in accepting Mr. Stanley's proposal, observed—

"Let the Protestants and Presbyterians be educated in Scripture or any other course of study they please. All the Catholics asked was the benefit of education accompanied with their own mode of religious instruction."

It was not from the Catholics as a body that the opposition to the national system came so much as from the Protestants. The Presbyterian Synod would not accept the proposal of the Board to separate the reading of the Bible from ordinary instruction. The Rev. Mr. Rogers, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Synod in 1837, told the House of Lords Committee that they could not act with the National Board, which maintained the right of separate religious instruction being given to Roman Catholics by ministers of their own persuasion. The same opposition on the part of the Protestant laity was expressed by Mr. Royton, Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, in reply to a question addressed to him by the Prime Minister as a Member of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1837. The attitude of the Established Church was no less hostile. Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Tuam, denounced "this effigy of a system of national education as an unclean thing." The Protestant landlords in some cases refused sites for school-houses, held meetings to denounce the system, and exercised such moral pressure as they could to prevent their tenantry from sending their children to the schools. This opposition of the Protestant Party led to two results. In the first place, the Presbyterians and the members of the Church of England set up their own schools, a circumstance which explained to some extent the fact that in 1860 nearly 84 per cent of the children attending national schools were Roman Catholics; and even, in 1881, though there was an improvement, the proportion of Roman Catholics in mixed schools, after making allowance for the far larger proportion of mixed schools under Roman Catholic teachers exclusively, was as 71 to 50. But the second result of the Protestant opposition was a direct concession on the part of the National Board to denominational education, in accepting the principle that religious instruction might be given during any of the school hours, and not requiring managers of non-vested schools to give the use of their school-rooms to clergymen or laymen of other denominations for religious instruction. It seemed to him clear that from the first the peculiar religious condition of Ireland—the political as well as the doctrinal character of the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism—was taken into consideration, and the State was forced into accepting in reality a system of denominational education. There were national convent schools, there were nearly 3,000 national mixed schools under Roman Catholic teachers exclusively, and there were 1,304 under Protestant teachers exclusively, as compared with 85 only under Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers conjointly. In Ireland the attitude of the Roman Catholics towards the national system was one of increas- ing confidence. In the mixed schools, under Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers, in 1881, the proportion of Roman Catholics to the total mixed attendance was a fraction over one-half. Of the 138 schools added to the list of national schools in 1881, 75 were due to the operation chiefly of the Roman Catholics, and in the year 1881 over 814,000 Roman Catholic children attended national schools out of a total of 1,100,000 of school age—namely, from 5 to 16. He held that it would be most unwise to check this advance among the Roman Catholics—the vast majority of the Irish people—by any Act which would not fully appreciate their religious susceptibilities. He believed there was a desire on the part of some to substitute for the National Board of Commissioners a general Minister of Education for the three countries. That desire shaped itself into a definite proposal when the Duke of Marlborough brought forward a Bill in 1867 to provide for this change. The Commission of 1870 went into the point, and examined Mr. Macdonell, who stated in his evidence that it would be extremely difficult to get any person who would be able to understand so clearly everything connected with Irish education as a Board of Commissioners, representing North and South, town and country, and the different religious denominations. The Commission reported that an unpaid Board representing the different sections of the community ought to be maintained. There were objections to any Government official taking the place of the National Board, or assuming to control them, stronger now than in 1870. In the first place, the system of Irish education if it was to succeed must be plastic, and not controlled by fixed official rules. If controlled by a Government official, there would always be a temptation—which would certainly engender distrust in the Irish mind—to bring the Irish into uniformity with the English system. Another objection was a political one—namely, the odium which any direct interference of Government officialism would create in dealing with so delicate a problem. He was glad that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend did not involve the imposition of an education rate. The failure of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), when he was in Office, by which the State was to give to successful schoolmasters a grant of two-thirds, the first absolute, the second conditional upon the Unions contributing the remaining third, was due to the practical difficulty of raising local rates, and the money which it was then intended to bestow on education had to be raised in another way. It was very noticeable that the local aid to schools in 1881 had fallen to £9,840, as compared with £27,918 in 1875. Again, the local taxation of Ireland, which was already very oppressive, had increased out of all proportion to the very slight increase in the valuation of property. In 1872 the total local taxation of the country was £2,905,000, and the valuation £13,329,000; in 1876 the taxation was £3,242,000, and the valuation £13,512,000; and in 1880 the taxation was £3,292,000, and the valuation £13,769,000, illustrating that while the local taxation had nearly doubled, the valuation of property had remained nearly stationary. These figures showed that it would be most imprudent to endeavour to raise the additional sum required by means of the local rates. The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was perhaps open to criticism, on the ground that it had not specified the mode of compulsion more clearly. It appeared to him that his hon. and learned Friend had gone into the mode of compulsion as far as prudence would justify, for the House must bear in mind that, in regard to so delicate a question as that of compulsory education in Ireland, it was necessary to build up public opinion in its favour. Without such an alliance, it could never be carried out, and to obtain its assistance, great circumspection, patience, and avoidance of offence was requisite; but, whatever might be urged in criticism of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, it had, at any rate, done good work in showing the necessity of improving the educational condition of the Irish people, and that, he believed, was a task that could be accomplished only by acting in sympathy with the great social and religious peculiarities of the country. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

said, that when the noble Viscount who had just sat down concluded by saying he should second the Motion, he removed a doubt in his mind whether he was not going to oppose it. During a very considerable part of his speech the noble Viscount was like another Balaam; and although it appeared he really came to bless the Resolution, he seemed all the time to be cursing it. The noble Viscount addressed himself rather to the question of denominational education than compulsory education, and spent considerable time in denunciations of Protestant landlords and Roman Catholic clergy. From what had happened in the controversial times long by, he was glad that those controversies had gone by, and glad, too, that the first opportunity of addressing the House of Commons since his last election was from a platform on which he thought all friends of Ireland could meet, and that was, that the education of the children was deserving, at any rate, of consideration and improvement. It was a sad fact that 25 per cent of the rising generation were growing up in ignorance. For his part, he was entirely in favour of some limited degree of compulsion which would oblige children to attend regularly to receive their instruction. He believed that the habit of regularity which would thus be enforced would be almost as valuable to the children as the actual knowledge they would acquire. There was no greater weakness in the character of the Irish peasant than his fatal habit of irregularity. Now, if the children were forced into a school at fixed and stated hours, a habit of regularity would be given to them which would not leave them in after life. Though they might forget their ABO, or their pot-hooks and hangers, the habit of discipline and obedience to orders would remain. For that reason, among many others, he advocated compulsory education to a certain extent. But compulsory education in Ireland must be guarded. In the poorer parts of Ireland the children could not be taken away from their parents at certain times of the year. At the time of setting the potato crop, at the hay harvest, and at corn harvest, the children were necessarily wanted in the fields. But he believed the number of attendances specified by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy)—namely, 100 per annum, were not too many, and would enable the children to assist their parents in all necessary field pursuits. Again, great care was necessary in dealing with the question of religion; but in the present case there need be no real difficulty. Here and there there were districts containing a scattered Protestant population, living at a great distance from schools of their own denomination. But he knew, from his own experience as manager and patron of four national schools, that in such cases the Protestants did not object to their children going to a properly managed Roman Catholic school, in which the rules of the National Board were strictly observed. The same thing could be said of Roman Catholic children attending Protestant schools, and there was nothing which the Inspectors more looked after than that the instructions relating to religious teaching were observed. He had risen merely to give his hearty support to the principle which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down; and he could only express his regret and astonishment that there was not a larger attendance of Irish Members at a discussion which so much affected the welfare of the rising generation.

The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) has been opportune in bringing before the attention of the House the imperative need of carrying to the homes of the Irish population the blessings which arise when education becomes universal among a people. In one respect Ireland has been far ahead of both England and Scotland in the possession of a system of national education. Both these sections of the United Kingdom long struggled with imperfect systems of voluntary education, supplemented by small and fluctuating aids from the National Exchequer, for it is only within about 10 or 12 years that the nation has extended to and imposed upon them really national systems of education. But Ireland has had a national system for half-a-century. It is true that England and Scotland, by their voluntary efforts, had lessened the ignorance of their populations, so that even before 1870, when education became national in England, the Irish system was still behindhand. The National Board of Education for Ireland has been unremitting in its efforts to lessen the mass of ignorance among the population, and every decade of the Census shows a marked amelioration. If this is still slow and unsatisfactory, the system of education is more responsible than the Commissioners who superintend it. And the result of all these efforts must surely be deemed insufficient when we compare the work of half-a-century in Ireland with the 10 years of the English system, even though its compulsory powers have been extended slowly and with considerable timidity. The Census Returns for Ireland show that on the work of the Census only 47 per cent of children from 5 to 15 years of age were actually at school; or, if we take the numbers from 5 to 13, there were found 54 per cent actually present. We have no similar Census Returns for Great Britain; but, according to the Education Reports, England has 83 per cent, Scotland 87 per cent, of their children at school. England has now a powerful means, through compulsory laws, of lessening these school absences; but Ireland has not this advantage. She has had other and greater aids—I will not call them advantages—to promote education than either England and Scotland, for though local aid has been insignificant, the Imperial funds have been lavished on Irish education. This is scarcely an educational advantage, for it lessens local co-operation, which is so necessary to the spread of education. Hence the National Board has been working at a disadvantage; and, notwithstanding its persistent efforts, the educational results, measured by its half-century of existence are melancholy small. As I have said, they improve in every decade, but still at a slow rate of progress. In 1871 rather less than half the population above infancy (exactly 49 per cent) could read and write; and in 1881, 59 per cent could do so. So that still 41 per cent of the population in Ireland cannot read and write. Does the House realize this terrible fact—that after half-a-century of national education, 41 out of every 100 of the people of Ireland above the age of five years cannot yet read and write? You cannot take a lower test of education than the ability to read and write, though there is a lower depth still, that of absolute ignorance, or of inability to do either. Of course, there are parts of Ireland in which the education is better and the ignorance is less appalling, but there are others in which it is worse. In the county of Dublin, which stands highest in the Educational Census, there are still 23 in the 100 who cannot read and write; while in the County Mayo, which is the worst, there are actually 60 out of every 100 of the population above five years who are still unable to read and write. Gratifying, therefore, though it be that every Census decade shows an amelioration of the illiteracy, can you be surprised that a true lover of his country like the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) should come forward and ask you to strengthen the hands of the National Board, by compelling parents not only to send, but to keep their children at school, in order to obtain the benefits of education which the State has so liberally provided? It would be out of place, in a limited Motion of this kind, to discuss the merits and defects of national education in Ireland. I am no admirer of that system as a whole, though I admire the efforts of the National Board, and in 1875 I expressed my views very plainly in regard to it. Perhaps I may have another opportunity this year to discuss this subject in a broader way than I can do on this limited Motion. But at present I understand the question to be whether compulsory education is required, and should be introduced into Ireland? It is well known that, if scholars leave school after merely acquiring a knowledge little above that of infants, such as that embraced in the three first Classes of the Code, this extremely thin veneer of education rubs off very rapidly in the wear and tear of life. That this is the case in Ireland, as it is elsewhere, is obvious from the fact that while among the population at ages between 5 and 20, shortly after they have left school, 78 per cent can read and write, although of the whole population above infancy only 59 per cent can do so. Unless, therefore, the school children are kept at school sufficiently long to get a lasting amount of education, it is useless to expect any large educational result. This is the reason that we extend the school age by compulsion to 13; but in Ireland many parents think that a mere smattering of letters is sufficient, and promote neither regularity nor continuity of school attendance. But, much as compulsion is required, can you secure the efficient working of a compulsory law? Unquestionably experience shows that it is difficult to carry out compulsion to a successful issue in Roman Catholic countries. That is a fact, whatever is the cause. It is among the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who chiefly include the humbler classes, that great deficiency of education prevails, for little more than one-half (or exactly 54 per cent) of them can yet read and write. Among the Protestant Episcopalians and Presbyterians there seems much room for improvement; but still 75 per cent of them can do so, and among the Methodists 84J per cent can read and write. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick sees this religious difficulty, and wishes to have compulsion with a safety-valve. He would allow parents whose consciences did not approve of schools within easy reach to escape the obligation. I do not know what such a law would be worth, or who is to administer it. But I would give great concessions to religious opinions, if I believed that they would lead to any good result. In no country that I know of are the schools so intensely denominational as they are in Ireland at present. To all intents and purposes, with few exceptions, they are all denominational schools, with a Time Table Conscience Clause. To a large extent even they are managed, not by committees, but by the priests and other ministers of religion. To make them secular schools is impossible, even if it were desirable. I have no desire to see religious teaching lessened in Irish schools. But I think the time has come when the Government should take firm control of the secular results of education in these schools, and insist that the large contributions of the State should only be paid for efficient and sufficient secular education, secured by regular attendance, and enforced by compulsory provisions. The State has the right to do this, because of the whole cost of education the State pays 81 per cent, the pupils pay in pence 18 per cent, and the localities themselves and religious bodies, which assume entire management and control of the schools, pay little above 1 per cent of the cost. Yet, insignificant as this local contribution is, the denominational managers assume all the power to appoint the master, to dismiss him, and to regulate the schooling. If we could hope to create school boards in Ireland, with contributory powers of rating, we gladly would lessen the State management and increase the local government of schools. But when the experiment was tried by Statute in 1875 to interest Boards of Guardians in school work, how disappointing was the result. They did contribute about £28,000 in 1875; but already that sum had dwindled to less than £10,000. How stands local aid in Ireland, say, even as compared with Scotland—the former having a population of 5,170,000, and the latter of 3,730,000? In rates, subscriptions, and endowments, Ireland contributed to national schools £40,573, and the children in school pence £91,830, or together £132,403. Scotland, with a much smaller population, contributes £30,300 in subscriptions, £196,500 in rates, and £260,500 in school pence, making in all £487,300, or nearly four times the local aid to education given by more populous, but certainly poorer, Ireland. It would, therefore, be hopeless to expect the formation of school boards at present, with the responsibilities and duties attached to them in Great Britain. But for the limited purpose of carrying out a compulsory law, it ought not to be difficult to form School Attendance Committees out of the Town Councils, Board of Guardians, or sanitary authorities of the country districts. These Committees, though a very inefficient substitute for school boards, would be one step at least in interesting the localities to promote education. I would go a very long way in any efforts not only to promote the co-operation of localities, but also of religious bodies, in the promotion of education in Ireland. But under the present state of Irish education, the State cannot be relieved of its responsibility. It provides the funds with great liberality under a system which Parliament has laid down, although it has forgotten to retain efficient Parliamentary responsibility for the results. A nominal responsibility there is in the Chief Secretary; but what time has he at his disposal to be an efficient Minister of Education for Ireland? Clumsy as is our educational administrative machinery in Great Britain, we have some definite Ministerial responsibility for its success; for under one Department we have grouped the cattle on a thousand hills and the juvenile population of cities and country districts, and under this composite administration of cattle and human children, we have a sort of Ministry of Education. But in regard to Ireland, we shovel about £700,000 a-year into the coffers of a National Board, and hear no more about it till the Census startles us one day by telling us that, after half-a-century of this kind of education, 41 per cent of the population above infancy cannot yet read and write. If the State choose to pay for education in Ireland without local aid, at all events it has a right to obtain good secular results for its money, both in the attendance of the population and in the sufficiency of the secular education. No maxim is better known in Ireland than the one "That he who pays the piper should name the tunes." But the state has not followed this maxim, for though it pays the piper, it has taken no interest whatever in the tunes; for these practically are named by the denominational managers of the schools. Let the ministers of religion in Ireland be freely allowed to take care of the religious education; but let us have full Parliamentary responsibility that the secular results of the education give us an adequate return in the universality, as well as in the efficiency, of education among the Irish population. I shall allude further on to the causes which, in my opinion, prevent me having that confidence which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick has, that if we trust to the issue of religious indulgences to break the compulsory law, we may nevertheless obtain a practical universality of education. But before we consider this point, we must examine the proofs as to whether the present system has produced, even among those educated, as well as among those whose education has been neglected, those consequences which the State has a right to expect when it pours out its treasures for the education of the people. What induces the State to spend so much money in education? It can only have one purpose in view when it goes between the duty of the parent to the child, and that is to develop good and orderly citizens. To test whether this result is achieved, we must look to the social wrecks as seen in the judicial statistics. Now, I admit that for a long time Ireland had the glory of having, apart from agrarian and political crimes, a less black calendar of crimes than either England or Scotland. If I took the statistics of crime since the ferment of political agitation, beginning in 1879, the demoralization of the nation over the whole field of crime would show very black results. In all classes of crime, from 1879 to 1882, the Returns are very bad. Formerly Irish crime was much lower than Scottish crime in proportion to the population, and about one-third less than English crime. But in 1880, in proportion to population, Irish crime stood, in regard to the more serious crimes, as 7,745 for Ireland, 4,477 for England, and 5,615 for Scotland; and as regards minor crimes, 156,958 for Ireland, 95,387 for England, and 75,522 for Scotland. In all classes of crimes in these recent years of melancholy agitation, Ireland has terribly blackened her calendar. The normal number of criminals in Ireland was 11 to 10,000 of the population; now it is above 21. But we may well hope that this deterioration and demoralization are only temporary; and I mention the fact, because I do not wish my remarks in regard to crime in relation to education to be based upon these exceptional years. As the normal criminal population of Ireland is less than that of Great Britain, we have a right to hope that the same consequences which we have seen in the marked lessening of crime in Great Britain since compulsory education was introduced, should become proportionately apparent in Ireland as education spread under the action of the National system. Of course, as education in Ireland is much less universal than that of England, we must expect more absolutely ignorant persons among their criminals; and accordingly we find that among men, 46 per cent of Irish prisoners are wholly ignorant, and among English male prisoners 31 per cent. Among women, 49 per cent of Irish, and 40 per cent of English, prisoners are wholly ignorant—that is, they can neither read nor write. In every Report, the Irish Commissioners of Prisons ascribe this to want of compulsion. The remark repeated in every Report is as follows:—

"The Irish National School system seems to be successful for the class that falls within its reach; but the want of compulsory education leaves a considerable substratum not reached by the Irish National system, allowing a wholly ignorant class to grow up to form such a large proportion of those committed to prison."

This opinion is, undoubtedly, true; but it, of course, announces a truism that ignorance and crime are frequently but cause and effect. It is less to this than to a remarkable anomaly in the crime of Ireland that I desire to draw the attention of the House. In Great Britain, crime decreases in proportion to education. Of course, when a country becomes generally educated there will be far fewer prisoners; but there will will be more educated prisoners within our gaols. At present in Great Britain, where compulsion has only reached the younger classes, we still find that only from 3 to 4 per cent of the prisoners are able to read and write, while at least 96 per cent are imperfectly educated, or are wholly ignorant. In Ireland, where education is still far less universal than in Great Britain, we should expect to find this difference still more accentuated. We are entitled to expect that in the ordinary crime of Ireland, separating it from agrarian or political crime, the number of educated prisoners should become a vanishing quantity. Going back to 1878, so as to avoid the recent years of terrible criminal demoralization of all kinds, we find the astounding fact that the percentage of prisoners in Irish gaols, who are able to read and write well, is no less than 41 out of every 100. In the year 1881, it was 33 per cent among men, and 29½ among women; while in England it was only 3½ per cent among men, and 2½ among women. Speaking generally, how are we to explain the astonishing fact that in Ireland, with a less diffused education than in Great Britain, there are 10 times as many educated prisoners in its gaols in proportion to the committed criminals? If this were confined to years of political excitement, the explanation would be sufficiently easy. I could then reply that the smattering of education implied in the ability to read and write enabled the criminal classes to read the seditious papers which are circulated in such numbers, and that the unhappy prisoners who committed outrages might turn upon the State which gave them this inefficient education, and could say, like Caliban in The Tempest—

"You taught me language, and my profit on't

Is, I know how to curse; the red plague rid you,

For learning me your language."

I wish that this explanation were sufficient. Much may be forgiven to political excitement. An ordinary educated criminal is a monstrosity like Caliban; and I wish we could turn to the rest of the scholars educated in Irish schools, and say to all of them—

"To the most of men this is a Caliban, And they to him are angels."

But this we cannot do. There is but one conclusion—that though in normal times crime is absolutely less in Ireland than in Great Britain, the education given in the national schools does not prevent the glaring anomaly that there are ten times as many educated prisoners proportionately in Irish gaols as there are in the gaols of Great Britain. The explanation of this startling fact is extremely difficult, and I am not at all sure that I can give it. Certainly it is not ascribable to any want of zeal in the Churches in neglecting religious education in schools, for that is the chief thing they look to, and they do their duty in that respect religiously and conscientiously. When the priests in Ireland can point with proud satisfaction to the fact that in ordinary times they have done so much to keep their flocks, even though without education, moral and religious, it cannot be from any want of zeal in their religious superintendence of the schools that educated persons are found to be so common in the gaols of Ireland. I rather ascribe the fact to the circumstance that they have not fully realized the truth that the low education implied by ability to read and write only produces low results, and is comparatively worthless to make good and productive citizens. The "three R's" are the mere tools of education, not education itself. If education be not carried further than this, as is the case among nearly three-quarters of school children in Ireland, three-quarters of the £700,000 which Parliament votes yearly may as well, as far as the purposes of the State are concerned, be thrown into the "melancholy ocean" which washes the coasts of Ireland as into its schools. But ecclesiastics do not encourage anything beyond the mere elements of education in Roman Catholic schools. Cardinal Cullen has said—

"Too high an education will make the poor oftentimes discontented, and will unsuit them from following the plough, or for using the spade, or for hammering iron or building walls;"

and when asked to what, then, he would limit education, he replied—

"The 'three R's,' and to the history of Scriptures and of the Church."

The Roman Catholic Church claims the control, as Bishop Cloyne told the Commissioners, of every part of the education of the school except the multiplication table. Well, the Churches—not only the Roman Catholic, but the Protestant Churches—have had the practical control of Irish education, and have produced the result which an eminent Roman Catholic layman, Sir Robert Kane, told the Commissioners, when he said—

"I consider it to be the fact that in every country where such a course has been adopted it has resulted in the social decay and political debasement of the people."

At all events, it is a palpable fact that the "three R's" are insufficient to keep boys who have passed through Irish schools from adding to the criminal classes. It is time that the State should assume its sovereign functions, and administer, through a Minister of Education, responsible to Parliament, the education of the people, which has so woefully failed, under the present system, to produce those results for which alone the State contributes nearly the whole of the cost. It is not a question of race, and perhaps not of religion. In the United States the children of Irish parents, educated at excellent public schools, become, in the second generation, prosperous and productive citizens. How rarely in this country do we find Irish workmen in our large centres of industry becoming anything else than "hewers of wood and drawers of water?" If you ask as to the nationality of foremen and overseers, it is very rare to find that they are Irish. But that is not the case with the Irish of the United States, where you constantly find them in positions of responsibility and importance. The difference is that in Ireland the idea of elementary education is a low one, and in the United States it is broader and higher. Thus, in America, as in Scotland, the fuller and wider conception of education gives to the recipient of it a greater productive value. A poor ignorant peasant has within him no spring or resource for improvement. One cannot be surprised at the melancholy condition of the Irish emigrant who complained to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) that he was unfitted to work in Minnesota, because in Ireland he used to spend one-half his time in standing outside the door of his cabin, and the other half in fighting his landlord. It is precisely among these ignorant or half-educated peasantry that it is difficult to introduce the idea of emigration. They understand their own miserable surroundings, but have not capacity to cast their vision beyond them. It is the same in regard to industry. The Irishman is content to be a mere unskilled labourer, and does not aspire to take skilled work. When an Irish hodman wrote to his friend in Ireland—

"Dear Pat,—Come over here and earn your money. All you have to do is to carry bricks up a ladder, for there is a fool at the top who takes them from you and does all the work."

you have an idea of the content of ignorance. If you introduce compulsory education into any country up to the age of 13, you must bear in mind that the State is bound to give the fullest and most effective education which a child can receive up to that age. Because, if you do not do this, compulsion is tyranny and unjustifiable. I thoroughly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that compulsion in some form must be applied in Ireland. But it will be useless until you bring the educational systems of the three parts of the United Kingdom under one common responsibility, and make it the special duty of a Minister of Education responsible to Parliament. I do not speak with any bigotry on this subject. In regard to higher education, I have always advocated the extension of education in Ireland through agencies acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church, because I believe that the conception of higher education does not differ much between the educated ecclesiastics of any religion. But in regard to the education of the people a national system has been tried for 50 years, with only nominal responsibility to the State through the Chief Secretary, who is overburdened with the cares of administration. I do not wish to lessen, but to increase, the interests of the Churches in education in Ireland, and in the amelioration of the Irish people. But I desire to see one Minister for Education over the whole of the United Kingdom, so that the educational development of Great Britain and Ireland may go on pari passu. The conception of what education should be is rapidly growing in Great Britain, and I wish to stimulate it in Ireland. If I had time I could point out how the low education in England still fills the prisons with 65 per cent of prisoners who can only spell out the words of a sentence, showing that they have been at school, though they have left it too soon. But I must draw my remarks to a close. I would venture to make only one other appeal to the House to show the importance, even in the interests of England and Scotland, of getting a wider and better education in Ireland. The Irish labourers in both parts of Great Britain are becoming a factor with which we have to deal. The slow way in which our English and Scotch Census is brought out does not enable us to refer to the figures of 1881; but in 1871 there were 750,000 of Irish in Great Britain. In our chief towns in England one out of 14 adults was Irish, and in the Scotch burghs one out of six. Therefore, in my own country of Scotland we are immensely interested that one-sixth, representing the adult Irish population of the towns, should be educated and orderly citizens. If we take the proportion of Irish throughout England and Scotland, and suppose that they contribute equally with the native population to our prisons, we ought to find 3,500 Irish prisoners in English prisons, and about 500 Irish prisoners in Scotch prisons. But, as a fact, we find 22,000 Irish prisoners in English prisons, and about 9,000 in Scotch prisons. Why is this? Irishmen in normal times are much less criminal than either English or Scotch. But Ireland throws upon our shores an uneducated and turbulent population less under the control of their priests. It is, therefore, vastly important in the interests of Great Britain that we should ensure a universal and sufficient education for the Irish people, so that when they come to us as permanent residents to aid us in our industries, they should be law-abiding and productive citizens. All modern experience tells us that the position and prosperity of a nation largely depend upon the efficient education of its people. I am, therefore, entirely in accord with the major part of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, that compulsory education must be applied to Ireland. I do not so heartily go with the latter part of his Motion in regard to the modifications of a compulsory law, because I think the solution of the religious difficulties is of less importance than the establishment of direct responsibility to Parliament for the administration of the law. I think the solution of the difficulty is that the State, as represented by a responsible Minister of Education, should be bound to see that the large funds voted by this House for the promotion of the education of the people are applied equally in Great Britain and Ireland, so as to secure the educational training of a peaceful, law-abiding, and industrious population.

said, he thought the House might be well congratulated at having once more restored to its debates one who was able to speak with such authority and power on the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself also might be congratulated on having escaped from the disagreeable servitude of the Chair, and being enabled to take part in the discussions of the House. All debates on Irish education wore necessarily conducted with a certain amount of reserve by those who were connected with Ireland, and who were acquainted with the special difficulties which surrounded it. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling his recently acquired liberty, had spoken with a freedom and amplitude of instruction to which the House had listened with great pleasure. There was, at least, one fact gratifying to Irishmen, and that was that comparing one period with another there had been steady educational progress. There had been a real, if not a conspicuous increase in the percentage of children who were acquiring education; but that progress had not been so great as could be desired, or as great as had taken place in England and Scotland. What were the remedies proposed? When those were discussed we found ourselves face to face with the real difficulties of the situation. Clear and forcible as was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he did not think it indicated a remedy for those difficulties more efficacious than did the speeches of those who had preceded him. He regretted to say that the local aid to education in Ireland, as compared with the State subvention, was by no means what it ought to be. That was a fact of which Irishmen ought not to lose sight, and the reproach of which they ought to seek to remove. Another deplorable circumstance was that the action of parents as to sending children to school was absolutely unfettered. Thus there was nothing like continuity in the system of education. That was a state of things for which they were bound to discover a practical remedy. There was now the suggestion of compulsion. He remembered that that was a question which was introduced some eight years ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It was one in which it was necessary carefully to examine and watch the progress of public opinion in Ireland. He was not sure that public opinion had been keenly directed to the matter. The hon. Member did not profess to be acquainted with the views entertained by the Roman Catholic dignitaries of the country. He was not aware that during the last six or seven years any clear expressions of opinion had come from that quarter. But Sir Patrick Keenan, a distinguished Roman Catholic, and a man of great experience and acquirements, who was Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, had read a most important paper at the Social Science Congress at Dublin, a year or two ago, which, he regretted, had not been communicated to Parliament. Sir Patrick Keenan favoured what might be described as a safeguarded compulsion. It was most desirable to devise some means of increasing the attendance of children. What remedies had been suggested? They had had three speeches. First, there was that of the hon. Member for Limerick, in which he looked almost in vain for any practical suggestion. The hon. Member for Limerick suggested that compulsion should be safeguarded by permitting an exemption to be granted to every child who pro- duced the certificate of its parent that there was no school within a reasonable distance to which it could be sent without danger to its religious convictions. But the compulsion must apply to the parent; and if they allowed the parent who was to be compelled to exempt himself from its operation, the compulsion would be of a very vague kind indeed. The hon. Member said he would allow of some kind of proceedings by the permission of some tribunal, after certain warnings to the parent; but that, again, was rather indefinite. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion (Viscount Lymington), and who left them for a considerable time in doubt as to the course he meant to take, did not attempt to grapple with the crucial point—namely, what kind of compulsion was to be applied, how it was to be exercised, and at whose instance. The noble Lord told them that Irish education should be elastic, and not bound by rule. That was practically what it was now; it was elastic, and the parent was as free as air.

said, that he had only spoken of its not being bound by official rules.

said, the conscience of the parent was to be got at in some tangible way; and yet he was not to be constrained by any rule to obey his conscience. Therefore, although the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution had raised an important discussion, they had not very exactly communicated to the Minister of Education any principle on which compulsion was to be applied. Neither had the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). While the right hon. Gentleman recognized the social and religious difficulties which surrounded the question, and said he was not opposed to a safety-valve, he did not express himself very definitely as to how he would apply compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested the formation of School Boards, which were not looked upon with favour in Ireland, but, failing them, the appointment of a School Attendance Committee; but he (Mr. Gibson) was at a loss to know how they were to be composed, what were to be their duties, and how were their duties to be enforced. Those were matters on which they could not give an opinion off-hand without any definite information. The right hon. Gentleman had adduced some in- teresting and curious facts about the education of Irish criminals, but they hardly supported his argument. Education of a low type was, he had told them, easily rubbed off; but the education which those criminals carried with them to gaol did not appear to have been rubbed off. No doubt, when the State contributed such large sums for education, it had a right to see that it got proper value for its money, and as to payment by results, that was a proposition which was accepted in Ireland; but he asked the right hon. Gentleman how would that principle operate on those who did not and who would not attend school? They might secure that those attending school should come up to a particular standard; but that would not of itself ensure them a larger attendence at the school. At the same time, he thought it well that that question had been brought under the consideration of the House. The debate would, he believed, tend, in the first place, to bring into prominent relief the fact that local bodies in Ireland did not take sufficient parting that burden; and, in the next place, it would serve to show that parents did not exert themselves as they might do to send all the children to school who ought to go there; and he thought that such a pressure would have good results, because there was a great love of education in Ireland, and the parents, and even the elder children, were anxious that the younger children should be taught. He believed that that discussion would be useful in giving a healthy stimulus to opinion in Ireland on that subject; and it would be the duty of those who were responsible for the government of the country closely to watch the progress of that opinion, and be ready in every reasonable way to assist its advance.

said, that after the last two speeches he felt rather painfully the comparatively hampered position in which he stood. He must say that there were several points which he should like to start for discussion in connection with that question, including that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had mentioned—namely, contribution from local funds towards national education in Ireland. He confessed that he was a little disappointed at the general course of the debate; indeed, he was much disappointed in one respect, and much pleased in another, and perhaps his pleasure exceeded his disappointment. From the position in which that subject stood at present, two contributions he had hoped might be made towards it by Parliament; the first was the elucidation of the practical question of how compulsion could be applied; and the second was the affirmation or the negation of the principle of compulsion. He was disappointed by the way in which one of those points had been treated by the different speakers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down having been more emphatic than those who preceded him only in refusing to give them advice in regard to it, although he did not say that he was called upon to do so. The Government were deeply interested and concerned in the state of education in Ireland; indeed, they would not be fit to be the Government if they were not interested in it. He thought his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh had exaggerated the state of education in Ireland in several important particulars. In the first place, he entirely objected to the state of education being tested by the very interesting figures given in the Census Report. It was quite true that 25 per cent of the people were illiterate; but they must not forget that in 1841 there were 53 per cent, and that the number had rapidly diminished since that date. Before 1833 they had no national schools. In that year there were only 700 or 800 schools; in 1840 there were still under 2,000; in 1860 there were 5,000 or 6,000; whereas in 1880 there were 7,590. He thought it was evident, by the great rapidity of the increase in the schools and the diminution in the illiterate persons, that what had happened was that the unlettered generation, by no fault of their own, was passing away, and that the rising generation was very much better read than his right hon. Friend said. Last year his right hon. Friend gave figures which were perfectly appalling. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a smaller number of the children on the rolls in the Irish schools were able to read than those on the rolls in England and Wales. The answer to that was very creditable to Ireland, and that was that the number of children on the rolls in the Irish schools was so very large. At this moment, while the number of children of school age in Ireland was about 1,300,000, the number in attendance at one time or another was some 50,000 or 60,000 in excess of that number. The reason was that, in his opinion, a number of young men and young women, who felt their earlier education was neglected, went into the rural schools and joined in the classes with the children for the sake of improving themselves. Whenever he had gone into an Irish rural school he had seen people of that sort up to the age of 20 actually standing in the class. He did not mean by this to say that Ireland was sufficiently well educated. There was another test that his right hon. Friend took. He said that, while the average attendance was 87 per cent in Scotland and 83 per cent in England, it was only 45 per cent in Ireland. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had taken a different basis for his calculation—namely, the entire population; but he could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at that result. In England and Scotland the average attendance of the children was one in nine of the entire population; whereas in Ireland it was one in eleven. That was bad enough, but it was not the difference between 87 and 45 per cent. But when they came to the question of proficiency, Ireland did not stand in the position that he would wish to see her. As far as he could make out, about 350,000 passed in the three highest classes in England, 82,000 in Ireland, and, oddly enough, exactly the same number in Scotland. If it were the case that the higher standards were the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland, though he was afraid they were not, then Ireland would stand very well by the side of England, though very badly by the side of Scotland; and, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, though he was a Scotch Member, he should not be satisfied until Ireland had got much nearer, and, if possible, quite up to the standard of Scotland. The fault was not in the Irish children, whose natural cleverness and brightness was beyond all question. If they took proficiency in essential subjects—reading, writing, and arithmetic—the Irish children were decidedly better than those of England. The defect in Irish education was really that which was pointed out in the Reso- lution of his hon. Friend. The inferiority of average attendances was not so great as was implied by his right hon. Friend, but it was quite enough to make the friends of Ireland uneasy. The causes of this appeared to the Government to be two. Last night he heard language, which he should be sorry to characterize, directed against him for saying that the taxpayer ought not to pay money to Ireland when it was not for the advantage of Ireland. But when it was for the undoubted advantage of Ireland the Government were quite willing that it should be paid. Ireland had been kept too long waiting to share in the advantages accorded to England and Scotland in the matter of the training of teachers. One great cause that the children were badly trained was that the teachers were not themselves trained. But they did their work wonderfully well considering that fact. In England £110,000 a-year was spent for 42 Colleges, which educated 3,150 teachers. In Scotland £27,000 was spent for educating 851 teachers in seven Colleges; while in Ireland only £7,755 was spent on 220 teachers in one College. That was the provision made to meet the requirements of 7,648 schools, manned by 10,600 teachers. He would not enter into the reasons for that; but it was a very great misfortune for Ireland, which all that had the interests of education at heart must recognize. It was a matter which was only, to a certain extent, the business of the Government; but the question was—Was the Government willing to give the necessary funds? The Irish Government had made a recommendation to the Cabinet, which had been accepted at the Treasury, and they were willing to provide those funds. It now passed to the Education Commission in Ireland, and they would approach the subject with the knowledge that if they thought it right to alter the system of grants towards the training of teachers in any direction they thought desirable, the Government and the Treasury would find the money, unless the direction was one with which they strongly and entirely disapproved. That was a subject which had been well thrashed out in that House; and he was very much pleased to think that his hon. Friend the Member for County Longford (Mr. Erring-ton), who had pressed Parliament so often on the question, would be able to road the line which the Government proposed to take. He now passed to the second method of improving education in Ireland—namely, compulsion. No doubt, if masters were well trained, that alone would attract children to the schools; but whether compulsion should be applied was a matter which was all but novel. It was true that those who regarded compulsion as a remedy had against them the Report of the Royal Commission—Lord Powis's, of 1870. But he must own that the Government did not attach very great weight to the Report of that Commission, because in that year this country was in quite the Dark Ages of education. The Royal Commission, by the light of early and inchoate ideas on the subject, discussed it little, and decided against it on, perhaps, not sufficient experience of its operation, for it was only in 1871 that it began to be applied in England, and a year later in Scotland. But they now had the experience, not of Germany only and of Switzerland, but of the whole of that Island, and that experience was of a more than encouraging nature. In England, in 1870, before the introduction of the compulsory system, the average attendance was 1,152,000. In 188!, after 11 years of compulsion, it had risen to 2,863,535. The scholars who passed in reading were 691,763, as against 1,776,059, an increase in culture of 3 to 1 where the population had increased in the proportion of 9 to 8. In Scotland there was less room for improvement. In 1872, the year before compulsion was made general, there wore 213,000 in attendance. There were now 410,000, and the children who had passed in reading had risen from 137,000 to 286,000; so that culture had doubled, while the population had only increased by 400,000. But it had been good for England and Scotland, because it had been carried out with regard for the feelings of the population, and for the feelings of those interested in conducting education. Compulsory education could not possibly be set on foot, certainly could not be worked to any good purpose, unless the arrangements under which it was conducted commended themselves to the people themselves, and to those to whom the people looked up for guidance. If in this matter hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had been indefinite, the Government could not set the example of being definite; and all he could say was that if they were to have compulsion in Ireland they intended that it should be of a practicable character, and be of great service to the country. The Government did not intend to take any step in the delicate subject of national education which would shock the religious sentiments they so deeply respected. At the same time, they would not be untrue to the principles on which education could be effectively and practically conducted. They were not going to act in a hurry in this matter, or without consultation in Ireland with representatives of those of all religions and classes who must be consulted. The measures which already had left the anvil, having been beaten out as far as they could beat them, would require all the aid and co-operation of Irish Members to pass that Session. On the question of compulsory education the debate had thrown much light; but there were points in it and difficulties in it which, if rashly and hastily handled, might make it an apple of discord and discomfort indeed; and he must say plainly that the Government would be glad to have till next Session to consider the question. Even if they had had a debate more fruitful in suggestions of detail it would still have been necessary to have more time, so that those who understood the people, and whom the people understood, might be consulted. On one point he thought his hon. Friend made a rather modest proposal—namely, with regard to the number of attendances. In Ireland, if they deducted Saturdays' holidays and vacations, there were 220 days of school. If they took out seven weeks at spring time and autumn for rural work that left 150 days, and he should be glad if they could contrive to get the children into school during those 150 days. The Government were determined they would not force people's consciences, or hurt their religious opinions; but they did not see any reason why compulsory education should not be carried out in the great towns of Ireland, and over Con-naught, Munster, and Leinster. He had now said not all he could say, but all he really dared say; and assuring the House once more that in this matter they were really practical, he must say, at the same time, they were determined to work in accord with the best Irish ideas. The Government would be very glad if, by approving this guarded but sufficiently emphatic Resolution, Parliament gave it a commission to apply itself to consider how compulsion could be applied to Ireland with due regard to the social and religious conditions of the country; and if it received that commission it would pledge itself to discharge it in the spirit and according to the very letter in which it was worded.

said, he had waited with some anxiety for the concluding portion of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for it was not till then that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated the intention of the Government to accept the Resolution. Those who were not satisfied that a case for compulsory education for Ireland had been made out might, nevertheless, say that it was a distinct advantage to have the Government committed to a Resolution which, while in one part it assented to the necessity of compulsory education, also took great care in another part to assert that that compulsion should be carried on with strict regard to the social and religious condition of the Irish people. He must say, on the part of those who were not satisfied that a case had been made out for compulsory education, that he could have wished that the Government had distinctly explained the manner in which compulsory education should be carried out. Whatever advantage they had derived from this discussion, they were not a bit nearer than they were at the opening of the debate to a conception of the means and methods by which compulsion could be carried out in Ireland. If there was a Division, he could not vote for the Resolution, as it was so vague and uncertain. Anything coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) on education deserved attention; but he did not think he ever heard a generalization more misleading in its character than the one with which he opened his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said in Ireland they had had half-a-century of primary national education, whereas in England they had only 12, and in Scotland 10 years; and was it not melancholy to contemplate the great disparity observed in Ireland in the results as compared with England and Scotland? He objected to that generalization, as it was not founded upon real facts of general application. Before the right hon. Gentleman could argue in that way, he ought first to inquire whether the three countries started upon an equal footing, and whether, during the half-century, Ireland had possessed those educational endowments and advantages generally belonging to the people of England and Scotland. Before they could pronounce a reliable opinion upon the illiteracy or the state of education amongst the people of Ireland, they must look at the question from the historical standpoint. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt at considerable length upon the paucity of attendance at Irish schools; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was surprised that in the anxiety of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken to account for this paucity of attendance nobody had ever referred to what seemed to him to be the great essential cause of the backwardness of education in Ireland. He referred to the chronic poverty and serious distress of the mass of the people. If he were told that 25 per cent of the population were illiterate, he would answer that 50 per cent were under-fed. It was once said by the founder of a great religious order that no man could pray on an empty stomach. He did not know if that was true or not, but he thought that if they were to get the boys and girls of Ireland to walk miles across country to school they ought to secure that they should have their breakfast first. He certainly agreed that if it were attempted to apply compulsory education vigorously in the country districts in Ireland the poverty of the people would be one of the greatest obstacles which the School Board, or the Attendance Committees, would have to encounter. He objected to the comparison of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh between Scotland and Ireland upon the test of population. The right hon. Gentleman had contrasted the large local contributions in Scotland with the small local contributions in Ireland, notwithstanding that Ireland had the larger population. In his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) opinion, it was no question of relative population at all, but of relative wealth and means. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh had invited the Irish Representatives to account, if they could, for the extraordinary circumstance that a larger proportion of Irish criminals knew how to read and write than those in England and Scotland. He did not know if he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was under the delusion of one idea, and that he was prepared to account for everything by the poverty of the people; but he would account for this extraordinary circumstance from the want of remunerative employment. Boys who went to school for a short time might generally be counted upon to lead virtuous lives up to a certain period, but if there was no field for their abilities or powers to gain an honest livelihood, they were naturally attracted to criminal courses; and it might, therefore, follow that a large proportion of Irish boys and girls might be drawn into crime because of the want of substantial occupation. Reference had been made to the large proportion of Irish criminals to be found in the English and Scottish gaols, and it seemed to him that the very same fatal misfortune accounted for this difficulty also, because if they looked at the class of the people who formed the bulk of the Irish immigrants to England and Scotland, they would find that they landed in this country with no means whatever, and because of their poverty they were obliged to take lodgings, and to reside in the very lowest quarters of the English and Scottish towns. He had called attention to these few general considerations, in order that hon. Gentlemen might realize the causes which, to some extent, had operated to diminish the success of educational efforts in Ireland hitherto, and in order to prevent them from abandoning themselves to a fatal despair with regard to every Irish question. He did not despair of his country in any sense. He did not despair of its ultimate peace and tranquillity, of its ultimate prosperity, and of its progress in education. On the contrary, he had faith in the power and the capacity of his countrymen and countrywomen to work out a better and brighter destiny for themselves; and though he was somewhat dissatisfied with the position in which the Government stood towards the question of compulsory education, because they were not yet able to define any regular method of carrying it out, he would hail any efforts that were made legitimately, and with a due regard for the social and religious convictions of the Irish people, which might enable them to acquire a higher standard of education in their native land.

said, that, having in view the example of compulsion in England, the enormous expense it had involved, and the inconvenience to which it had put those who had to support voluntary schools, he was not strongly in favour of the Resolution when he first saw it. The whole matter had been so carefully guarded by the Chief Secretary and other Gentlemen, especially as regarded the religious aspects of the question, that there remained but the merest shadow of compulsion to apply, affecting very few persons; and, consequently, there seemed to be little to object to in the application of those powers. There could be no doubt that due deference had been paid to the religious aspect of the question and to the Roman Catholics. The present Government must remember, however, that any movement on their part in this direction would be viewed with suspicion by the Irish people. Their sympathies in that matter, however much they differed in other respects, were rather with hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Education in Ireland had improved in recent years; the number of those who could read and write had increased 50 percent, and the numbers of the illiterate had decreased more than 50 per cent. With the increase of schools the generation of the illiterate was vanishing from the land. The impression conveyed by the figures of the National Board in Ireland was very erroneous, and as a proof of it he stated that they had entered on their rolls 1,000,000 children, not including various denominational and private schools, whereas the population of children in Ireland was only 1,003,000. They took credit for children duplicated and re-duplicated, owing to their removal from one school to another. But he believed that the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Ediuburgh, comparing the attendance in the three countries, were grossly in error, for it was well known—putting aside all other considerations—that the age of attendance differed. In Ireland it was three, in Scotland and England it was five. But it would be found that the percentage of attendances in the three countries did not differ as widely as had been supposed. In England it was 75 ·2, in Scotland 70·8, while in Ireland it was 67·3. Now, the question was whether, if these figures were correct, the game was worth the candle; and whether such a radical measure would produce a result commensurate with the difficulties at every turn. While in Great Britain 63 per cent of the people lived in towns, in Ireland only 21 per cent lived in towns. The great bulk of the population were employed in agriculture, and, the assistance of the children being necessary at harvest time, it would not be easy to enforce attendance upon them. In these circumstances, he submitted whether it was worth while pushing the matter further, and suggested that it would be a cheaper and more easy remedy for the irregularities if a small expenditure in the shape of rewards were given to the masters to secure attendance, and a very small award to the children who gave regular attendance. It would also become necessary, if compulsory attendance was insisted upon, to greatly improve and enlarge the existing schools; for, at the present time, having regard to the general character of the children, and the tender age at which they were admitted to school, the accommodation was wholly inadequate for the needs of the country.

said, he rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the announcement he had made with regard to the better training of teachers in Irish schools. He thought, at the same time, that there would be a general feeling among those interested in education that the principle of compulsion should not be applied until the training system had had a little time to work. The want of trained teachers had been one of the most fertile causes of irregular attendance at the National Schools in Ireland; and another main cause was the very inadequate and often wretched accommodation. In his opinion, if all the children in Ireland were to go to school the accommodation would be quite inadequate. He admitted that the results of half a century of education were unsatisfactory, but thought that was due, first, to religious diffi- culties; and, secondly, to the insufficient school accommodation. In conclusion, he would express a hope that there would be no unnecessary hurry in dealing with this question of compulsion.

said, he rose to express gratification at the tone of the debate, showing, as it did, a satisfactory progress of opinion since the time, not many years ago, when a Ministry was threatened to be destroyed, because of the difference among its supporters as to what should be the character of education in Ireland. He was glad to find, from all sections, the opinion expressed that if the people were to be educated, the great point was to educate them, and that they should not dispute as to the manner in which they should force the education down their throats. Large districts of the country had been left absolutely uneducated, because the Government and the representatives of the religious denominations could not agree between them as to the education of the people. In connection with the evidence in the Maamtrasna murders, nothing more painfully impressed him than the fact that a witness, 12 years of age, was totally unable to be sworn, because totally devoid of education. He was also glad to hear the reply made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), whose speech was a most able and interesting one; and though he had the misfortune often to differ seriously with the Chief Secretary, he rejoiced to find him in a position in which there was great play and scope for the great abilities he possessed. He thought they might congratulate themselves that, on all sides of the House, there would be no opposition to a well-considered scheme of compulsory education.

said, he had placed on the Paper the following Amendment:—

"That this House regrets that it should be called on to place increased burdens upon the people, in consequence of the late Military operations in Egypt."

He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the function of voting money was about the most important duty they had to fulfil. It was the original object and design of Parliament, he believed, to vote money, and although they had other duties now it still remained their central duty. The question he desired to discuss was, whether the large sum of money which his noble Friend would move for directly they got into Committee in regard to the Egyptian War was money which was really spent for the national interest and the benefit of this country. The theory of those who defended the war was that the money expended had done good to England and to India also; and further it was contended that we had done a great deal of good to Egypt. In order to accomplish that good, we had to spend at least £4,500,000, and we had been the means of taking away the lives of a large number of Egyptians. It had been calculated that we slew about 5,000 of them, and we likewise lost a great many of our own valuable soldiers in the war. Comparing the origin of the war and the defence that was made of it with the present state of things, he found that Gentlemen on the other side of the House, especially those who sat on the front Opposition Bench, had stated more than once that they were misled as to the causes why we went into the war. They asserted that the Government made statements which were not now borne out by the evidence, and that that was why the large Party opposite gave their sanction to the war. Perhaps they were misled. In his opinion, the country was also misled very much as to the real object and cause and origin of the war. He remembered going to a meeting at Glasgow to denounce the Egyptian War a little before the decisive battle. He made his speech, and thought he had conclusively proved that the war was wrong. When he had finished, a working man got up and moved an amendment, saying—"This gentleman has read the Blue Books, and thinks they know all about it. What do we want with Blue Books. We have read the newspapers." The amendment was agreed to, and a copy of it forwarded to the Prime Minister, who, in acknowledging the receipt of it, said he was very glad it had been carried. He did not mean to charge the Government with having misled the Opposition or the country, but he felt sure that they were misled themselves, and that they did not know the exact bearing of the Egyptian Question. This, however, was no reason why they should not take the Government to task and call them to account for what they did in the matter. When a railway accident occurred, and a number of lives were lost, there was always a very close inquiry to see whether the slightest blame was to be attached to anyone; and in the same way, to take a still more appropriate illustration, when one of Her Majesty's ships was lost a court martial was always held. It seemed to him that the House was only doing its duty—certainly it was not doing more than its duty—in calling the Government to account for what had occurred in Egypt, and seeing whether they or any other persons were to blame. Now, his case was this, that the Government were misled by the officials whom they employed. Their diplomatic agents were continually giving wrong information and leading the country into trouble. It was so in the Afghan War and also in the Zulu War. The Transvaal was even a stronger case. They knew how everyone was persuaded for a long time that the Boers were longing to be taken under British protection. The facts came out afterwards, and showed how grossly they had been misinformed. His complaint against the Government was that they did not make more inquiry before taking the fatal steps that led the country into all these wars. He thought also it was a pity that the Government did not consult the House before going into these wars, which were almost all to be attributed to secret diplomacy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite shrank from condemning the war, although they said they had been misled; and the Leader of the Opposition said it would never do for them to condemn it, because if they did move a Resolution he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would probably vote for it, and that, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, would be a dreadful thing. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not so afraid. He would move a Resolution, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could go into the Lobby with him if they pleased. He objected altogether to this system of calculating who would support a Resolution and how many votes would be given for it. It would be much better if they went into these questions with the desire simply of discovering what was right and what was wrong, and voting accordingly. He condemned this expedition to Egypt, and would give the House his reasons for so doing. Let them see how the £4,500,000 had been spent. The first event of importance was the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria; and what were they told about them? Why, that it was absolutely necessary to bombard these forts in self-defence; but that argument was hardly a proper one to use in a meeting of rational men. Just before the bombardment two smooth-bore guns were being parbuckled—that was, rolled along the sand to the forts—and to say that this parbuckling was justification for what took place was one of the most extraordinary reasons that could be adduced. He knew it was very wrong to talk about the "bombardment of Alexandria "—it was called firing on the forts—but, although the phrase was so much assailed, he had heard the Prime Minister make use of it. Certainly, the result was pretty much as if we had bombarded the town. The correspondent of an English newspaper stated that he went over Alexandria several weeks after the bombardment, and saw in the centre of the town four shells of the Inflexible that had not exploded. He thought it might fairly be concluded that other shells were discharged into the town which had exploded. After the bombardment of the forts, from some cause or another, the town was burned, and thousands of persons were driven into the Desert, many of whom, no doubt, perished miserably. The horrors of this bombardment were pressed upon the Government even by the unspeakable Turk. The Egyptian Army then took refuge in the open country, and we carried on a military operation against thorn, which resulted in a wholesale massacre of the Egyptian soldiers, who fled before us as a flock of sheep would before a dog. These operations concluded, the troops were brought homo, and there was the greatest rejoicing in this country. People seemed as much pleased with that slaughter as though our troops had conquered the combined forces of Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, and the United States. The next step was to catch Arabi. We went to Egypt as the detective of the Khedive, and having caught Arabi, banded him, a political prisoner, over to his bitterest enemies. When that act was fully and fairly understood, he believed that every right-minded Englishman would regard it as one of the greatest crimes that ever disgraced the history of this country. They had been told that our action was due to international engagements; but he challenged any hon. Gentleman present to produce a scrap of evidence to show the existence of any such engagement. When the bombardment took place, and the French Fleet steamed majestically out of the harbour, there was an end to the international engagements. Then, they were told that we must interfere in order to procure the freedom and safety of the Suez Canal. He again challenged any hon. Member to show one iota of evidence that before these warlike operations there was any attempt, or suspicion of an attempt, or even a desire, to do anything to interfere with the safety of the Canal. The next thing was that they had to put down anarchy. He denied that there was anarchy. One of the first things that anarchists did was to commit robbery; but it was an extraordinary fact that there was no robbery here, and that the Treasury Chest remained untouched throughout. Perhaps it might be said that the action of the Government was owing to the riots at Alexandria. But there was nothing whatever to show that Arabi had anything whatever to do with them. Lord Granville had admitted that the charges against Arabi in reference to the burning of Alexandria had broken down. That being so, he wished to make a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), whom he did not see then in his place. He said, when it was necessary to get up a feel- ing in favour of the war, that there was no doubt that Arabi was guilty of complicity in the attack on Alexandria. Now, his right hon. Friend made that remark in cold blood, and not when he was in a scatterbrained condition. He knew his right hon. Friend to be an honourable and upright man, and he quite expected that before very long he would come down to the House and either withdraw the charge he had made, or produce some further evidence. Then there was the official statement of the Prime Minister of the cause of the war—he begged pardon for calling it war in that House, he should have said "military operations." The Prime Minister said that we went to war to keep up the rights of the Sultan, the rights of the Khedive, the rights of the people of Egypt, and the rights of the bondholders. Were those proper objects for which to spend the treasure and the blood of a free nation? To keep up the rights of the Sultan. What rights had he in Egypt? None, except the right to draw from the ground-down and oppressed people of Egypt a tribute of £700,000 a-year. And we went, cap in hand, to the Sultan for weeks and weeks begging him to help us to keep up his rights. Then came the rights of the Khedive. What had we to do with them? What earthly reason was there for spending the lives and money of the people of this country in keeping up the rights of the Khedive? Did anyone know of any good the Khedive had done? Then there were the rights of the Egyptian people. Why, that was almost as ridiculous as all that we were told about the Suez Canal. The first right of any nation was the right to govern itself. Even in Ireland we gave some semblance of self-government. ["No!"] Well, we let people out of prison occasionally. The first right of a nation was self-government, and the day would come when most of the people of this country would look back with horror to what they had done when they saw that we, a free nation, that England, the mother of Parliaments, spent her blood and treasure in putting down the first rising hope of freedom in a long down-trodden and oppressed people. Then came the rights of the bondholders. That was what the right hon. Gentleman put in last; but that they were the first consideration he had very little doubt. Was there a sane man in this country or out of it who believed that, were it not for the bondholders, this country would have ever gone to war? It was in the interest of the bondholders, and in order to collect their debts, that we kept up those miserable Controllers, who led us into war because they feared that their influence and power would be taken away if the popular movement was to go on. But we were told in the beginning of the proceedings that we went to war on account of the status quo ante. What had become of the status quo ante? It was gone—as dead as Henry VIII. Arabi fought to get rid of certain things, and now, having got rid of Arabi, Her Majesty's Government had gone and done what he wished so much to do; but they had done it after spending £4,600,000, sacrificing 5,000 lives of the Egyptians, and many lives of our own soldiers. That was the result of their status quo ante. Arabi was in prison a long time, and they were obliged to let him out. They dared not execute him or let the Khedive execute him. And now Arabi was in exile, and the President of the Local Government Board, who had conducted all these things to such a successful conclusion, had risen to a high position. One had gone to Ceylon and the other to the Cabinet, but the man who had succeeded was Arabi. He in his dungeon was more powerful than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, backed up by an enormous majority of the House and the country. What Arabi demanded was being now carried out in Egypt, and for no other reason than that he had right on his side, while we fought on the side of wrong and injustice. For his own part, he could only say, now that they were called upon to vote this money, that never since he had been a Member of the House had he been called upon to vote money for so unsatisfactory a purpose. They might say that the money was spent. He knew it. He knew that the evil was done. But why he wished to refuse the money now was, because he did not desire to see these things repeated. When the London mob rejoiced, he never heard any expression of regret or abhorrence on the part of the Government for the crimes committed last summer, and there was no guarantee that if they found a people weak or oppressed they would not attack them to get money for the bondholders, Jews, and usurers. Therefore, he would take a division in order to obtain an expression of opinion against such intervention in the affairs of other countries. That was not a policy which became a Liberal Government, and all true Liberals should oppose it. In doing so they would be supporting the principles by which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench got into power three years ago. Gentlemen on the opposite side sometimes condemned the principles of the Mid Lothian campaign. He believed these were the right principles on which the policy of this country ought to be conducted, and just as the Government had been true to them had their course been honourable and satisfactory, and just as they had departed from them had they been landed in discredit and disgrace. The Prime Minister said that in our foreign policy we ought to proceed on the principle of recognizing the equality of nations and the absolute equality of public rights. That was the right policy, and if we departed from it we should not only have troubles abroad, but should never do justice at home, because if we did not act justly abroad there was very little chance of getting justice at home by domestic reforms. Some in that House were bound to show their condemnation of this policy—a policy more disheartening than any adopted by a Liberal Government for years past; and holding these views he should venture to propose the Amendment which he had read at the beginning of his speech, and take a Division upon it.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. It might be said that they were crying over spilt milk, that the money was spent, and we should have to pay it. That might be very true; but what cut him to his heart was this—that the position and interests of the bondholders were, after all, the main cause of the war. If the Egyptian people were left to act freely, the bondholders would have run the risk of losing their money. Instead of these bonds being very low, as they were before the war, they had now risen to a very high point; and it seemed to him unjust and unreasonable that if we were to be at all the expenditure of blood and treasure, we should not take some return from the bondholders by way of salvage. He denied that there was anything like a direct international pledge for the security of these bondholders. The only pledge was the establishment of the International Courts, by which the claims could be enforced, and the agreement for those Courts came to an end on the 1st of February, 1883. Her Majesty's Government, for reasons best known to themselves, had resolved to continue the International Courts for another year. He was very glad that the Government had limited their continuance to another year. He hoped when the year had expired that they would not continue these Courts on the same footing, by which they gave international guarantees for the debts of foreign money-lenders and usurers. The House was told the other day that Her Majesty's Government hoped to remove the British troops within six months from the present date. He wished it had been stated, at the same time, that they would also remove the British officers and the British control. He sincerely hoped that they would be able to clear out of Egypt, "bag and baggage;" but he believed that there was a very great difficulty in this matter, and it was this—that we had by our isolated operation, and in practically for the time taking possession of Egypt, placed ourselves in so delicate and difficult a position with regard to foreign nations, and especially France, that we could not hope that the French would abstain from action unless we satisfied the bondholding interest in France by insuring that they should have their money in full. It was that necessity which seemed to make the hope of an effective and secure Administration in Egypt exceptionally difficult and, he was almost afraid, exceedingly remote. Let them look at the financial situation of Egypt at this moment. They knew that one-half of the gross revenues of Egypt wore pledged to those bondholders. But he found that there was, in addition, a very large claim by the bondholders who had mortgages on what were called the Daira and Domain lands; and then there was the claim on account of Moukabalah, than which there was never a more shameful transaction, the enormous indemnities, and a claim of £240,000 for the maintenance of the English Army since the 31st October. It therefore appeared to him that probably there would not be one-fourth, or more than one-fourth, of the gross revenues left for the administration of the country. That being so, it appeared to him that the administration must be starved, the people must be discontented, and there would be the most extreme difficulty in establishing a stable Government. His hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) told them that having spent £4,500,000, we were about to do that which Arabi wanted to do—namely, to grant a Constitution. He wished he could quite agree that that was so. Why was not Arabi allowed to grant a Constitution? Because we were afraid that these Constitutional Egyptians would not pay the Debt. He was afraid we were in the same difficulty. It seemed to him that if we were to arrive at the point within six, or nine, or twelve months, or within any measurable distance which would admit of our leaving Egypt a settled and self governed country, we must not only establish a Constitution, but a Constitution on a very broad basis. He had been a good deal alarmed by what had been communicated to them—the narrowness of the Constitution which had been suggested by Lord Dufferin in his preliminary Reports. He had not the least doubt that Lord Dufferin was a very good and liberal man; but he feared that he was hampered by events, and that he dared not give a sufficiently liberal Constitution, lie was very much at a loss to understand what the noble Lord referred to when he observed that he wanted to give the Khedive a Council of the same character as existed in British India. The Councils in India were not of that representative and powerful character Lord Dufferin seemed to suppose. They were merely this—With the great officers of the Government were associated certain persons nominated by the Government, and whose advice and assistance they were over ready to have. They were nothing but nominee Councils. He could not understand why Lord Dufferin should not have called together the Notables, who were, perhaps, as fairly representative a body as could be convened at first. In Egypt, the Chamber of Notables having been got together, they began to ask questions about the debts and the foreigners, and made themselves disagreeable to the autho- rities, the result being not only that they were sent to the rightabout, but that the war resulted.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going far beyond the scope of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.

said, he would not pursue that subject further. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, if they were to maintain peace and quiet in Egypt, and avoid a greater question in the future, must give a much more liberal system of administration to Egypt than we had yet been able to give to India. It might be asked, why did not we give in India a more liberal administration? The answer was that we did not expect to leave India within six months. If we hoped to leave Egypt within six months, and to leave a stable Government behind, we must leave a Constitution, and put it on a very broad basis.

said, he intended to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, for he believed that the war was a mistake all through. If we went to Egypt at all, we ought, in his judgment, to have installed Arabi instead of the Khedive. He had never been able to understand from any Member of Her Majesty's Government precisely the position in which our troops in Egypt were now placed. They had been sent to support the Government of the Khedive; but when Questions were asked of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he put all the responsibility on the Khedive for what was happening in Egypt. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that so long as the British troops supported the Khedive, and supported him, moreover, against his own subjects, England was absolutely responsible for what was going on in Egypt. As meetings of the Egyptians would not be allowed, we were obliged to receive all news from official sources. No doubt, Lord Dufferin did his best to procure trustworthy information; but he was necessarily very much in the hands of the Europeans, and of the Ministers and friends of the Khedive. He did not gather from the despatches that his Lordship had in any way consulted the people of Egypt. The hon Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said he had "read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested," Lord Dufferin's scheme of government. For his own part, although he had read, marked, and learned it to a certain extent, he could not digest it, because it was objectionable to a Radical stomach. His Lordship's scheme was a perfect sham of Constitutional government. If any species of representative government were established in Egypt it must be based on a control of the purse; but when anything was said to the noble Lord the Under Secretary on this subject, he vaguely alluded to representative government and international obligations. What were those international obligations? Was Lord Dufferin prevented from doing what he thought desirable for the country by any obligations which the Egyptians were supposed to be under to pay the interest on their Debt? If there were an international obligation on their part, it was not our business to go there to carry it out. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that the people of Egypt were bound by any such thing; but, supposing they were, it was not England's business to deprive them of the most elementary and necessary basis of representative government—the power of the purse. He had risen to try to elicit a clear statement on this subject, either from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, or from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

said, if the House were a mere debating society with nothing else to do, he could understand this discussion being raised tonight. There had already been two debates on the subject since the opening of the present Session. The Government were most anxious to go into Committee of Supply, and the country desired that some practical legislation should be proceeded with, and yet they were now wasting their time in an idle and a fruitless discussion, which could end in no- thing. He was not going into the general question. The proper time to have raised this question was when the Vote of Credit was proposed last year. Nothing had transpired since then as to the general policy of the Egyptian War that could not have been raised at that time. The House accepted that policy, and they were now discussing whether they should pay for that which they had themselves ordered the best that could be said for this debate was that it was premature, because the Leader of the Opposition intended to bring Egyptian affairs under the notice of the House when Lord Dufferin's despatch was presented. He appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no!"] Well, if he took the judgment of the House upon it, that judgment would be formed on an imperfect kuowledge of what the Government was going to do in the future. If the Opposition had raised this debate they would have been severely criticized; and he held that those who had done so ought to be ashamed of their proceedings. He had risen in the interests of Public Business to make these few remarks.

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the manly and practical speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He only rose to express his concurrence in the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and to ask the House to take note that an Amendment of this sort, which was likely to produce delay in the conduct of Public Business, had not originated from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was, no doubt, entitled to claim the credit of consistency, because on this occasion he was expressing the precise opinion which he expressed last year. He (Mr. Raikes) thought one word ought to be said, at least by those who were anxious to see Egypt take her proper place in the future, against such a speech as had been delivered by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If there was one thing more necessary than another to Egypt it was something of public credit; and if speeches were made with the view to obtain from the House and the country an admission that Egypt was free to repudiate the engagements into which she had entered, it could not fail to be most injurious to the future of that country. He had no doubt that the hon. Member for Northampton had a perfect right to express his views; but if he had any concern for the future of Egypt he should be a little more chary in making speeches which, when read in all the bazaars of the East, had the effect of undermining the credit of a country which was struggling into a better position. There was this difference between the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Carlisle—that the former was anxious to bring forward a particular financial view, and the latter a particular political view. But while the House received the opinion of both, he could not see what useful purpose it served to be continually stating that those two hon. Gentlemen were more consistent in their views than other hon. Members who were more highly placed.

said, he felt that, whatever difference of opinion there might be amongst hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, upon the policy—past, present, or future—of the Government in Egypt, they would all be agreed that, so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was concerned, there was not only no Member in the House, but no man in England, who was so perfectly free from inconsistency on this question, having from the first taken one particular line, which he had stood to. Feeling great respect for that consistency, and for the character of his hon. Friend, he regretted that he could not adopt the same view. His hon. Friend had gone over ground which was already familiar to the House in repudiating what he had termed a bondholders' war. He had said that the Government were misled by their own diplomatists, and that they ought to have the frankness to acknowledge the error into which they had fallen. But that was not his own view or that of the Government. The Government still held the opinions which the Prime Minister had expressed last year, and which had also been expressed by the President of the Local Government Board—that the cause of the war was that there was growing up by steady degrees a condition of affairs in Egypt which could only be described by the name of anarchy, which threatened British interests, and which ultimately, with great regret, compelled Her Majesty's Government to depart from the principle of the Liberal Party—namely, the doctrine of non-intervention. His hon. Friend did not think that a sufficient justification, and said that if they had done certain things in a different way they would not have been compelled to depart from the attitude of non intervention. But in the several speeches of his hon. Friend lie had heard no detailed statement of facts which warranted his opinion. The hon. Baronet had chiefly relied on the order of events at Alexandria, and had said that the massacre and the bombardment, following pretty closely upon the arrival of the ships, were related to that arrival as effect to cause. But his hon. Friend forgot that a little further back there was a condition of growing confusion even before the arrival of the ships. The arrival of the ships was caused by the existing confusion, and did not itself cause that confusion. He recollected a remarkable speech made by one who had the singular advantage of being at Alexandria at the time of the events in question. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart) had made a very interesting speech on July 27 last year, in which he expressed a totally different opinion from that which was entertained by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford gave a general description of the condition of things at Alexandria previously to the arrival of the ships, and stated, with his usual accuracy of description, that a condition of anarchy existed which was dangerous to British interests, because dangerous to the Suez Canal. There was, he said, a state of circumstances which threatened the existence of civilization in Egypt. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had expressed disbelief that any such state of things existed previously to the arrival of the ships. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could show that there were movements threatening the Suez Canal, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Canal; and though he was willing to grant that the dates of these were two days after the bombardment, nevertheless, it was perfectly clear that the organization and intention of these movements had originated before the bombardment—at any rate, there was quite sufficient evidence of the facts to justify the Government in taking the steps they did. But what he mainly based the case of the Government upon was that the whole condition of Egypt was one of rising anarchy, which they felt Arabi, whatever his intentions might be, was quite unable to control. It was said that the Prime Minister and the President of the Local Government Board had made charges against Arabi in that House, the details of which were contained in one of the Blue Books, and which were summarized in Lord Granville's despatch. But the Government had never rested their policy on those charges alone. Even if Arabi had been an angel of light, he was entirely unable to direct a movement the elements of which had got entirely beyond his control. The history of the movement did not exhibit Arabi in the light of a great General or statesman. Whether his intentions were good or not, he came forward as one capable of governing Egypt; but his incapacity was such that in a very short time he would have left no Government at all in the country. In other words, he very soon produced that state of things which, as Lord Granville had said, was the only circumstance that could make us depart from our neutrality. The hon. Member went on to ask what the position was in regard to the other reasons of the war, besides the condition of Arabi; and he said it was stated by the Prime Minister that, this condition of Arabi having arisen, it was the intention and desire of the Government to go back on the status quo. The Prime Minister did not state that the maintenance of the status quo was the object of the Government in going to war, or that they declared that after the war they were going to restore everything to the condition in which it had existed before. If the House would reflect on the great knowledge and experience of affairs of the Prime Minister, they would feel that he was not so rash as to be likely to make such a statement. When war had taken place, it was almost impossible to go back to the condition of things which existed before the war.

The Prime Minister says it was not a war.

My hon. Friend says it was not a war.

The Prime Minister said it was not a war.

What the Prime said was this—that it was not a war between two civilized and recognized Governments. ["No, no!"] He said it was not——

The words were—"We are not at war with anyone."

said, that was precisely the distinction he intended to draw. The Prime Minister declared that there was not a war in the sense of there being that international condition of affairs which was known and described as a war. [An hon. MEMBER: The operations of war.] There were military operations going on, although there was not a war. Supposing the English Channel suddenly became full of pirates, and English ships went out to destroy them, there might be a condition of warfare, although not war; and that was a perfectly legitimate description of the operations in Egypt. The Prime Minister said our business was to indicate the ends we had in view, and not the means by which those ends should be attained. These ends were the general maintenance of established rights, whether of the Sultan, of the Khedive, or of the people. But the specific measures ought not to be indicated. The Prime Minister specifically guarded himself against saying that, consistently with the maintenance of those general ends, he was going to keep himself down to the maintenance of the status quo. The moment it became clear to the Government that they were obliged to enter on military operations, they held, after these operations were over, it would become absolutely necessary to reconsider the whole position; and no Member of the Government, he was sure, suggested the maintenance of the status quo. The Resolution related to the past policy of the Government; and he was afraid that he could not, without transgressing the Rules of the House, reply to the various questions raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the future finances of Egypt. All these points were receiving the close attention of the Government and Lord Dufferin. There was a legitimate expectation that if, on the one hand, there were certain reasons to apprehend, in regard to the indemnity claims, and the cost of the arms, an in- crease of expenditure, there were equal reasons to apprehend in regard to other matters a considerable diminution of expenditure, and also increased efficiency in the services. There could be no doubt that the Egyptian Army Budget would, before long, show a very great reduction; and there was hope that there would be a brighter side to the picture in regard to the taxation of foreigners, and Egyptian Customs dues, and other questions. As to the question of the Courts, if they had not continued the tribunals for a year, a condition of legal anarchy would have ensued. In assenting to a temporary renewal, they had shown that the question was fully before them, and that it would receive their best attention. As to the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there was no intention on the part of the Government, through their troops, to be a party to any illegitimate interference with the right of public meeting and public discussion. On the contrary, the object of the Government was, as much as possible, to develop free discussion in Egypt. As for the larger issues that had been raised in the course of the debate, involving delicate and complicated questions of International Law, he had rather defer his reply till they could be more fully and fairly discussed on the Motion which was to be brought forward from the Front Opposition Bench. He hoped, in conclusion, that they had now arrived at a stage when they might be permitted to look more to the future than to the past. Differences might have divided various sections of the House in regard to the past; but they were all agreed, he thought, in the sincere desire that the delicate and difficult task of Lord Dufferin might be brought to a successful termination, and that the principles of liberty and stability, which had their champions equally on both sides of that House, might find at length, after many centuries, a home in Egypt. He had to assure the House that those views which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Carlisle—namely, those of consulting the views and wishes of the people of Egypt—now formed the animating principle of Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that in the future there would be little or no difference between them. As far as was in his power, nothing would be wanting to contribute to the happy consummation to which he had alluded.

said, he would not attempt, especially at that hour and in the present circumstances of the House, to follow the noble Lord through the remarks he had made on various points involving matter of controversy. The debate had arisen very suddenly and unexpectedly, and it was not looked upon as a Motion of a serious character, as was shown by the fact that hon. Members left the House at the time the hon. Baronet announced his intention of carrying his Motion to a division. As a division would be required, he desired to put on record the feeling which he himself, and, he believed, some others who sat around him, entertained on the subject. The feeling was that they should be compelled to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The terms of the Motion expressed regret that they should be called upon to place increased burdens on the people in consequence of the recent military operations in Egypt. Anyone who reverted to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet which was dealt with on the 16th of last month would see that his present Motion, though slightly different in form, was practically identical with the one which the hon. Baronet proposed on the former occasion.

explained that through an inadvertence he was unable to go to a division on that Motion.

said, that on his own part, and on the part of those who sat around him, he thought their position was best described by the Amendment which was lately moved from that (the Opposition) side of the House to a paragraph of the Address. They felt now, as they had felt then, that although there was a period when, in their opinion, the war in Egypt might have been prevented and military operations avoided, yet, at the same time, when the Government, acting on their responsibility, had decided that the operations were necessary in the interest of the country, they could not deem it their duty to record any opinion in opposition to the course which the Government then considered it requisite to pursue. The sentiments which hon. Gentlemen on his side expressed in the debate the other evening were those which they entertained on the present occasion; but the House had thought fit to negative them by a substantial, though not an overwhelming, majority. That being the case, and the House having negatived the views which it was then their duty to take, he and his Friends now found themselves in this position—that they were called upon, on the occasion of the Estimates being brought forward, to do that which would practically refuse to the House at a later date the means of carrying forward the operations which it had itself approved. Considering, then, that the general sentiments of hon. Gentlemen on his side upon the question were expressed on a former occasion, he wished now only to say that, while on the one hand they entertained the opinion which they had placed on record the other day, on the other hand, if the hon. Baronet went to a division, they would think it necessary to support the Government.

doubted not that the House would, by a large majority, decide to vote the expenditure incurred in the military operations in Egypt; but they had had evidence, both in the House and from the state of the Revenue, that both locally and Imperially the taxes were now at a height very difficult for the impoverished people of this country to bear; and he was most willing to express his sympathy for the overburdened taxpayers of this country, and his deep regret that it should have been necessary to have increased the expenditure and taxation of the country on account of the expenses of the military operations in Egypt. At the last General Election the Conservative Party suffered more from its rash and reckless foreign policy than from any other of its mistakes; while the Liberal Party were carried into power through the declarations as to foreign policy contained in the Prime Minister's Mid Lothian speeches, even more than by any of the domestic reforms indicated in their manifestoes. He was much concerned for the consistency and honour of the Government; and whilst he would not say that the Egyptian War was as reckless and wanton as those in which the late Administration engaged, he would say this—that he held that no Government was free from blame which did not keep the country entirely out of foreign entanglements. Every such dis- cussion had an effect in preventing a Government from entering so lightly upon war. There was a great change in the judgment of many people, in the House and outside of it, as to the merits of the campaign. The Government did not hold the position it did in regard to the character of the rebel Arabi and the present Khedive. Would the Government deny that if the British troops were withdrawn the Khedive would not be obliged to flee? If so, were they not maintaining a Government distasteful to the Egyptian people? In that case he wanted to know if they were pursuing a policy of true Liberalism, or one consistent with the principles and professions they put forward? In voting with his hon. Friend, he would express a hope that the Liberals who would support the Government on this occasion were not going to throw their principles overboard; and, at the same time, he trusted a check would be put upon the readiness of the Government to engage in warlike operations.

announced that if the hon. Baronet went to a division he should support him. It was natural to feel pride and satisfaction in the prowess which our soldiers and sailors had displayed in Egypt; but the fundamental question as to whether the war was necessary must not be lost sight of. He held that the war was unnecessary, and was due to the mistakes of Her Majesty's Government. Owing to the policy which was forced upon them by M. Gambetta, and to their dislike to operate in conjunction with the Sultan of Turkey, who was the Suzerain of Egypt, they found themselves face to face with what everybody now admitted to have been a national movement. It was no use to abuse Arabi. He was for a time the representative of the national movement, and he was forced into that position by the determination of Her Majesty's Government to quarrel with the Chamber of Notables and all the popular leaders. There was no doubt that that national feeling still existed in Egypt, and that the Khedive was only kept up in his position by the bayonets of the British troops. If that were so, Her Majesty's Government had been fighting against the Egyptian nation; and he was quite certain the House must regret extremely that this great, free nation should have been engaged in putting down by mili- tary force the budding aspirations of a free people. Therefore, he thought it was not unreasonable, before voting Supplies for that Expedition, that the House should express its regret, and thus place on record a lesson to this and future Governments.

said, he was content to leave the matter where his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) had left it but for one consideration. From the first he had taken a strong view with regard to the policy that led to the war. He regretted at the time of the Vote of Credit that the policy of the Government could not be separated from that Vote. He believed that that policy was distinctly the cause of the war. That being so, the Amendment simply declared a truism, and, therefore, he felt the greatest difficulty in voting against it. At the same time, as one must be allowed one's own opportunity to express an opinion on a matter of so grave importance, he did not intend then to vote for it, as he had recently voted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). There was one point which the noble Lord had cleared up in his speech regarding an unfortunate expression which occurred in several of the despatches of Her Majesty's Government. It had been stated in despatches and speeches that the only object of Her Majesty's Government was to return to the status quo. He always thought that a most imprudent observation; and it was a considerable relief to him when he heard the noble Lord say that that was not their only object, but that they intended to review the whole question. It was a comfort to those of them who felt an interest in Egypt that the Government were no longer to be trammelled by their previous imprudent pledges with respect to the status quo. But he wished it to be observed that they had heard this for the first time to-night, and it was a matter of interest to them to know what the future policy of Her Majesty's Government was to be. The noble Lord had also referred to the difficult task now in the hands of the Earl of Dufferin. He was perfectly well aware of that, and he did not know of any statesman whom they could more cordially trust than that noble Earl; but he should like to know how long the noble Earl was to remain in Egypt. He (Mr. Bourke) hoped that he would be left there for a considerable time, and that he would not be recalled to his post at Constantinople until Egyptian affairs were thoroughly organized. It was no use throwing dust in the eyes of the English people by saying the troops would be withdrawn from Egypt at present. He was perfectly certain that if they wished for liberty and for anything like good government in Egypt—if they wished foreign intrigue to be kept out of that country—an object which he believed to be of the greatest importance—it would be absolutely necessary for a considerable time indeed to leave the British Forces to keep order there, and to bring about a state of things which they all wished to see.