said, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) to allow a little more time for the consideration of the proposed Amendment of the Standing Orders. It was altogether impossible for hon. Members who were in attendance in their places until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to appear in the House again at half-past 3 in the afternoon to consider a series of proposals which, for aught they knew, might effect an entire revolution in the existing Standing Orders relating to Private Business. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not object to a postponement of the discussion, which, under the circumstances, was a most reasonable request.

said, he supported the appeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). He (Mr. Warton) was altogether opposed to undue haste in legislation. He was quite willing to accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) that these alterations were only of a formal character; but even formal things were sometimes improper. He scarcely thought it was proper to lay before the House proposals for the wholesale alteration of the Standing Orders without even allowing as much as a day for considering their effect. If the hon. Member for Hythe would divide the House against the consideration of these Amendments now, he (Mr. Warton) would support him.

said, he wished to know whether, as the further proceeding with the proposals of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) was objected to, it must not, as a matter of necessity, stand over?

These proposals do not come under the Standing Orders which apply to opposed Private Bills.

said, that, under those circumstances, he would join the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) in going to a Division if necessary. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) would not force the House to take such a course.

said, that one part of the proposed alterations stood in his name; and it had reference to artizans' and labourers' dwellings. The object was simply to render operative certain Rules which had been passed by the House of Lords on the Motion of Lord Salisbury.

rose to Order. He desired to know whether the right hon. Baronet was in Order in referring to a Motion which he had down upon the Paper, which related to another subject, and did not apply at all to the Motion they were now discussing?

I apprehend that all the new Standing Orders hang one upon another in such connection that it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman were to state his view of the matter.

said, he had been about to state that the Motion relating to the Standing Orders, which appeared in his name upon the Paper, especially those which applied to artizans' and labourers' dwellings, were suggested, after a great deal of evidence had been given on the subject, by the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). They were put in shape, in the first place, by his hon. Friend; but they had been a good deal amended, in accordance with suggestions made by Lord Salisbury. The agents for Private Bills had been seen by Lord Salisbury on the subject, and these proposals had already been assented to by the House of Lords without a Division.

said, he wished to say one word by way of explanation. The Standing Orders the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had spoken of—those relating to workmen's dwellings—were very good Standing Orders, and he was quite prepared to support them. But that was not the point. The point was whether it was really business to lay upon the Table of the House, at half-past 3 in the afternoon, something which had not been seen by any one of the various interests affected, and to force it to a decision? These Standing Orders affected many hundreds of millions of money vested in tramways and railways, and all he asked for was delay, so that the public might have an opportunity of knowing what the nature of the proposals was.

said, he trusted the House would not listen to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). These Standing Orders had now been before the public for a considerable time, and an ample opportunity had been afforded to the railway interest, which the hon. Member represented, to the prejudice of the public, for considering what effect they would be likely to have. They had already been before the House of Lords, and might have been opposed there, if necessary. It was perfectly clear that if the railway interest was likely to be affected in any way by these Standing Orders, they would have had a lively opposition from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe; but the House had never shown any disposition, in matters of this kind, to be in the smallest degree affected by the opinions which might be entertained by the hon. Baronet. He (Lord Randolph Churchill), therefore, hoped the House would not listen to the insidious proposal of the hon. Baronet to obstruct and delay the formal carrying of these proposals, which would have a most beneficial effect upon the interests of the working classes.

said, he wished to explain that he had not opposed the proposals of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Helms) in any way.

said, he did not know that the hon. Baronet was entitled to address the House twice.

The hon. Baronet, having already spoken, has forfeited his right to speak again.

said, the matter had been very fully considered by the House of Lords. During the present Session certain Bills had been passed, which permitted subways to be used as railways; and the only object of these Standing Orders was to explain clearly to the public that that was intended. He did not think there was much necessity for any protracted deliberation.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Standing Order No. 6 read.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end thereof, the words—

"The Notices shall also state what power it is intended to employ for moving carriages or trucks upon the Tramway."— (Mr. Holms.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, that as there was now another question before the House, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not be entitled to object to him, on the ground that he was speaking twice on the same question. He had no personal interest in the matter. His only interest was in seeing the Business of the House duly conducted; and he thought that fair time should be afforded for the consideration of any proposal, so that the House might really know what they were about. Hon. Members who had not got the Standing Orders before them would not have the slightest idea what the effect of these alterations might be. He did not say a word against the proposals; they might all of them be very excellent; they might do things that were probably for the good of the general public; but he did not think that was enough to justify the House in passing these wholesale Amendments without having first been afforded adequate time for considering their effect.

said, he wished to say a word, as there was now another Motion before the House. It was altogether inaccurate to say that every hon. Member must know the nature and effect of the alteration now proposed. The Amendment now under consideration was one which had as yet been before nobody, and hitherto there had been no discussion upon it. Of course, the Standing Orders in relation to artizans and labourers' dwellings had been before the public, and its effect was obvious and well known to everybody. This Standing Order was not in the same position, and it was only a reasonable request that its consideration should be postponed. In making that request, he was certainly not disposed to he intimidated by the would-be Leader and enfant terrible of the Conservative Party.

said, he would only say in support of the Motion that its only object was to make the Standing Order perfectly clear.

said, he thought it would have been better to postpone the consideration of these proposals until Monday.

Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.

Remaining Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, That the said Orders be Standing Orders of this House.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he will use his influence to provide, on the ground lately occupied by the Law Courts, to the West of Westminster Hall, accommodation for the Grand Committees?

, in reply, said, that he must first have an opportunity of consulting the First Commissioner of Works before he expressed any opinion on the subject.

, in rising to move—

"That, for the remainder of the Session, the Standing Order of the 27th of November, 1882, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to Saturday,"

said, it would be evident to the House that if he were to move the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper yesterday, to include Friday as well as Saturday, that a great deal of time would be lost, as such a Motion would lead to the expression of great difference of opinion. It might be, perhaps, of interest to the House, and they would see that the Government had some justification for the proposal, when he told them that for the whole of Supply last year there were 26 Sittings, and that they had already spent 30 Sittings in Supply this Session, and had some more in prospect. Therefore, he hoped the House would be generally favourable to the Motion, and support it. With regard to the Sitting to-morrow, it would be for Supply, and Supply alone. The Government should not think it right, as far as they were concerned, of promoting any other Business, either of their own or of private Members. He moved the Resolution of which Notice had been given.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, for the remainder of the Session, the Standing Order of the 27th of November, 1882, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to Saturday."— (Mr. Gladstone.)

said, it could not be a matter for surprise that the Prime Minister was adopting the best means he could to bring the Session to an end. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not help asking with Martial—

"When men begin with so much pomp and show,

Why is the end so little and so low?"

The product of all this labour was small. Now, independent Members were asked to give up the remainder of their opportunities. He was no advocate of Obstruction—he had made proposals to prevent it on November 21st, .1882, which the Prime Minister had described as too severe; and he had not, until the last opportunity, called attention to one of the gravest subjects, the defensive power of the Royal Navy. ["Oh, oh!"]

said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, whom he would remind of the Question before the House.

said, if he had trespassed, he apologized; but when hon. Members were asked to resign privileges, it was only natural they should discuss opportunities of usefulness resigned in contrast to the object to be gained. He was not aware until he saw the letter from the Admiral of the Fleet——

The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order in pursuing this subject; his remarks have no reference whatever to the Motion before the House.

said, he respectfully asked whether, on the Appropriation Bill, or on what other occasion during the remainder of the Session, it would be competent to bring this grave subject before the House, if the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister were adopted? His apology for not having intervened sooner was because it was not until the 21st of last month that the letter of the Admiral of the Fleet was written. [ Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

I have already ruled this subject to be irrelevant to the Motion before the House; therefore, I must again ask the hon. Gentleman to abstain from that line of observation, and apply himself to the Motion before the House.

said, he begged again to apologize. He would sit down again, putting to Mr. Speaker this question—If the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman passed, when would there be an opportunity of bringing the subject to which he referred before the House?

said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, which, at that time of the Session, he thought a very reasonable one, provided the Saturday's Sitting was restricted to the Business of Supply. But he hoped, first, that the House would not be asked to sit to an unreasonable hour on Saturday; and, next, that when they had got the Supply they wanted, the Government would themselves move the Adjournment of the House, and do all in their power to carry the Motion. [Mr. GLADSTONE nodded assent.]

said, that on a former occasion, not long ago, when the Government gave an assurance that nothing but Supply would be taken, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) combined his forces with those of hon. Members below the Gangway, defeated the Government, and brought forward and passed through Committee a measure which was not expected, and in which they were interested. Bearing that in mind, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance to the House that if they agreed to the Motion they would not find themselves in the same position as that to which he had referred.

said, he gathered from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had a good deal to say on the Irish Votes. Besides those Votes, there was the Diplomatic Vote, and there were Supplementary Estimates. The House ought to have an understanding that, if the Irish Votes took a considerable time, neither the Supplementary Estimates nor the Diplomatic Vote should be brought on.

said, that the Government would do all in their power to confine the Business to Supply. They had no intention of taking either the Diplomatic or the Supplementary Votes to-morrow. If the House adopted his Motion, then he thought he should have sufficient confidence about Supply to be able to engage to take the Diplomatic Vote as the first Vote on Monday. With respect to the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), the incident he referred to was the misfortune and not the fault of the Government. They were bound by every means in their power to secure the adjournment of the House when they moved it at a reasonable hour.

said, with reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) said about him, he wished to point out that nothing irregular whatever was done on the occasion referred referred to. It had always been the practice of the House to allow whatever Members of the House were present at the time the Order of the Day was called to decide when that Order was to be taken; and if there was a Saturday Sitting, and the Member in charge of the Bill wished to put it down for Saturday, it rested with the Members of the House present at the time to say whether it should be put down for that day or not. Further, when the Order was reached on the Saturday, it rested with the House to say whether it should then be proceeded with or not. He merely rose, however, to vindicate the right of pri- vate Members to deal with their Bills in that way in the future as they had done in the past. It was in no way tyrannizing over the House, or taking an undue latitude, because it rested with the House to say what should be done.

said, that he had for some time on the Paper a Motion in which several hon. Members, irrespective of politics, took an interest. It was a Motion with respect to the policy of the Post Office in regard to the telephones. He was anxious to test the opinion of the House by a formal vote on the question. He did not expect to have that opportunity now. In view of these facts, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) ought to see that the Postal Vote should be taken at such an hour as would give facilities for discussing the question.

said, he hoped the Government would resist the putting down by private Members of Orders for to-morrow.

said, he supposed the House might conclude, not with standing anything that had just passed, that the Prime Minister would be able to carry out to-morrow the conditional promise he made yesterday—that he would make a statement in reference to the Conference.

On Monday.

said, he would ask that a time should be fixed at which Progress should be reported to-morrow, so that they should not be kept until an unreasonable hour. To try to get all the Irish Votes passed on Saturday would only lead to wrangling. There was a strong desire on the part of Irish Members to get the Irish Votes passed and go away home; and, therefore, there was not any likelihood of their unduly prolonging the debates. He would wish that they should have an understanding with the Government that the adjournment should take place at 6 or 7 o'clock. On such Sittings the Government counted on their fingers how many Irish Members were present, and they brought down a number of hard-headed men, who would not be influenced by argument, to outvote them, and put them down. When the Constabulary Vote was taken to-morrow, he hoped the Government would not press on the Vote for the Queen's Colleges. He would like to have a specific statement of the Votes to be taken on Saturday; and, also, whether the proceedings at that Sitting would exclude the Report of Supply.

said, that both the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) knew that it was not in the power of the Government to entirely arrange how the Votes should be taken. He thought he could suggest a plan by which matters could be arranged, so as to appropriate the time remaining at the disposal of the House in a fair and equal way. It would, however, be impossible to carry it out unless there was some concurrence on the part of the hon. Member and his Friends, and unless there was some economy of time and economy of speech. He trusted it was not too much to expect that the Motion with regard to the National School Teachers in Ireland might be disposed of upon the Irish Education Vote, and then they might be able to get through the remaining Votes in Class III. that evening.

Including the Constabulary Vote?

said, that Vote was in Class III., and he hoped it might be disposed of that night, though they might have to sit to a late hour. Saturday might then be confined exclusively to Class IV, which might be got through by a reasonable hour in the evening. Then on Monday Class V. might be taken, beginning with the Diplomatic Vote; and they might hope, at an early hour on Tuesday, to take the Revenue Votes, when the question could be raised in which the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and others were interested. In that way, Supply might be got through in four Sittings.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had distinctly overstepped the limits of his functions. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had never understood it to be a part of the hon. Gentleman's duty to dictate to the House the manner in which it should proceed with its Business, or the order in which the Votes should be taken. ["Oh, oh!"] He was perfectly certain that if such a statement had come from the Prime Minister, it would have been listened to with attention, and, perhaps, followed up. He had risen, however, for the purpose of communicating to the House and the Prime Minister an idea which had come across him. The Secretary to the Treasury had not noticed the only remark of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) which he might have answered with advantage, and that was whether Report of Supply could be taken on Saturday. But matters turned upon that, for if the Prime Minister could take the Report on Saturday, and on the Report would communicate to the House the result of the sittings of the Conference, he thought some advantage would be gained. They were very much pressed for time, and great inconvenience arose from the uncertainty of the time that might be set apart for a discussion on Egypt, and it might be necessary for hon. Members to consider what line of action they would take on the question. It would be very inconvenient to postpone the statement until Monday at 4 o'clock.

said, it was almost useless to hope to get through the Constabulary Vote that night, and he would therefore propose that it should be postponed until Saturday. It was desired by hon. Members who sat near him to discuss the Vote fully and fairly, but without undue expenditure of time.

said, he would ask whether the Government could not make a definite statement as to what Votes would be taken on Monday? If the discussion on the Irish Votes were prolonged beyond the period the Government anticipated, the Diplomatic Vote might be postponed to Tuesday. He thought that if the Diplomatic Vote could not be taken for certain on Monday, it would be better to fix it for certain on Tuesday.

said, he thought the programme of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) somewhat over-sanguine. He (Mr. Gregory) wished to express a hope that Bills would not be proceeded with, as they had been lately, at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning after Progress had been reported on Supply.

said, it was practically impossible, as suggested by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), to take the Constabulary Vote as well as Class IV. on Saturday. They must, therefore, finish the Constabulary Vote that night, if Class IV. was to be taken on Saturday. As to the question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett), the Diplomatic Vote would, under any circumstances, be the first Order on Monday. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had attacked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) in a very unfair way, for having done his best to explain the probable course of Supply. The noble Lord forgot that the Prime Minister had already spoken, and could not speak again. Besides, his hon. Friend was more conversant with this subject than any other Member of the Government, and it was only natural that he should point out what he considered to be the best course to adopt. As to the suggestion of the noble Lord, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it was evident that it would be extremely hard on the Government to undertake to make a communication on the Conference to-morrow, assuming that the Conference arrived at a decision the same day. He was not aware of any Vote upon the Report of Supply upon which any reference to the question of the Conference could be made; and it would be irregular to make an important statement about foreign affairs upon a Vote which had nothing to do with them.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the case that the Prime Minister may, with the leave of the House, make a statement at any time?

Yes; that would be so.

said, he thought it was unfair on the part of the Government to try and force all the remaining Irish Votes through on Saturday. He protested against that manner of burking Irish questions.

asked whether the Speaker had ruled that it would be in Order, at 6 o'clock to-morrow, by leave of the House, for the Prime Minister to make a statement as to what had passed in the Conference?

It will be clearly competent.

said, that he would then make an appeal to the Prime Minister to make some statement on the Egyptian Question to-morrow, more particularly when they remembered what had been the course pursued by the Government in connection with the Conference. It had been such as to give rise to grave suspicion, in some quarters, that the Government desired to burke discussion. ["Oh, oh!" and "Shame!"] He made no accusation of that kind himself; nevertheless, the accusation had been made, and had been believed in; and he would, therefore, in their own interests, recommend the Government to take every opportunity of allowing the House to discuss the question. He could not but think that it would be for their own interests that they should tell the House to-morrow, if it was in their power, what had happened in the Conference, so that hon. Members might have Sunday and Monday to consider the position, and determine what was to be done. He ventured to make an earnest appeal to the Government on the subject.

said, he concurred in the appeal made by his hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to the Government to make such a statement to the House as they might be in a position to make. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that such a proceeding would be out of Order; but they had now the authority of the Speaker for saying that it would not be. The Prime Minister, moreover, had given a pledge that the House should be made acquainted with the result of the Conference; and it was only reasonable, in view of the great interests concerned, that the Government should make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

said, that the fact was that the time of hon. Members was valuable. On the other hand—he had to take this view—that there was some inconvenience in a conditional pledge; and a conditional pledge was the only pledge that the Government could give. It would be impossible to say to-day how long the Conference would sit to-morrow, or what deliberation on the part of the Cabinet as to the conclusions arrived at by the Conference might be required. But, subject to that uncertainty, they should desire to accommodate hon. Gentlemen in any request if it was reasonable. Consequently, if they were so happy as to have it in their power to do so, they would make that statement to-morrow.

said, he was anxious that some definite understanding should be come to between the Irish Members and the Government. It was utterly impossible to cram into to-night and to-morrow a full discussion of the remaining Irish Votes; and he told the Government plainly that, if they forced the Irish Members, by a policy of fatigue, to pass these Votes before they were amply discussed, it would be the duty of himself and his Irish Colleagues to discuss them again on the Appropriation Bill. He asked the Government not to take the Constabulary Vote that night.

said, that, seeing the House would be infallibly occupied with other Irish questions, he would also urge the Government to postpone the consideration of the Constabulary Vote until to-morrow.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 123; Noes 23: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 201.)

said, he hoped the House would allow him to express great regret at his having appeared to differ from the Speaker's ruling. He wished to give Notice that he would, to-morrow, ask the Speaker this Question—What opportunity, after the adoption of the Resolution now passed, would be available to hon. Members who might desire to bring forward the question of the sufficiency of our Naval preparations to meet any combination that might be brought against us?

It would not be in Order for the hon. Gentleman to give such a Notice to the Chair. It is not for me to state what opportunities may be open to the hon. Gentleman; but, if he asks me, I may point out that the various stages of the Appropriation Bill afford a wide scope, and perhaps he may find an opportunity on one of those occasions.

, in rising to call attention to the grievances of National School teachers in Ireland; and to move—

"That this House views with deep regret the impossibility of at present introducing the Education Bill for Ireland promised last year by the Chief Secretary, and that, seeing the hardships which the Irish National Teachers are undoubtedly subjected to, and the necessity which exists of rendering so important a body of public servants contented with their work, this House is of opinion that provision should be made forth with to improve their incomes temporarily, and that a Bill removing their several grievances should be introduced early in the next Session,"

said: Sir, the grievances of the Irish National School teachers, of which I have the honour to be the mouthpiece to-day, are three-fold. In the first place, the teachers complain of insufficient salaries; in the second place, they complain of the want of fit and proper dwelling-places; in the third place, they complain of the want of proper provisions for retiring pensions, when they have worn out their lives and their usefulness in the Public Service. Now, all these grievances are very great grievances, and no apology whatever is needed, on the part of the teachers who make them, or of any hon. Members of this House who support them, in pressing them upon the attention of the Government. There is no duty more incumbent upon a State than the proper education of its citizens, and that duty presses with especial gravity upon a State in its dealings with citizens who bear their citizenship not by choice, but by compulsion. The English Government have insisted upon taking into their own hands the care of Ireland and of the Irish people; they have adopted Ireland, according to that Oriental principle which gives to adoption all the rights and privileges of veritable parentage. Yet, in the Eastern method of adoption, there are generally two parties to the transaction. But though we are by no means a willing party to this process of adoption, though we absolutely refuse to regard England as our mother among the nations, we have the right to insist, and we do insist, that, so long as this principle of adoption holds good, England shall properly fulfil all the duties she has thereby in- curred, and of all those duties the duty of properly educating the Irish people takes a foremost place. In no part of this Empire is education more important than in Ireland. Thanks to the fostering care which this country has exercised for so long over our destinies, we have not those large manufactures which, in the happier condition of England and Scotland, afford employment to their peoples. By education, and by education alone, can the vast bulk of the Irish people hope to rise to influence, to affluence, or to ease. Now, you cannot have fitting education without fitting teachers, and you cannot have fitting teachers, except under certain conditions. One of the greatest authorities on education, the great German author Jean Paul Richter, in the exquisite treatise on education which is called Levana, likens teachers and taught to the Gods and the first men. Teachers, he says, physical and spiritual giants to children, descend to these little ones, and form them to be great or small, and he declares that it is a touching and a mighty thought that the teacher has the great spirits and teachers of our immediate posterity under his influence, and that he leads future suns like little wandering stars in his leading strings. The mission of the educator of youth is, indeed, one of the most important that a man can be intrusted with; but it is impossible for any man to attend to that important mission with the necessary wholeheartedness, if his mind is incessantly harassed by cares both now and in the future, and his mind must always be thus harassed so long as the wage he receives is so cruelly insufficient for his daily wants as it is at present. Now, what is the wage which is deemed sufficient for Irish National School teachers, every one of whom, be it remembered, has in his hands the education and, in consequence, the future destiny of a large number of Irish citizens? The average income of an Irish National School teacher, by the Parliamentary Return of June, 1881, is under £60. This sum, most unfairly insufficient in itself, appears yet more insufficient and unfair when we remember that it is rather less than one-half of the average income of teachers in England and in Scotland. The highest salary an Irish National School teacher ever gets is poor enough; the lowest is miserable in the extreme. Attempts have been made from time to time to better this condition of things by systems of results fees; but the attempts have so far wholly failed to materially improve the position of the Irish National School teacher. It is only one other example of the unconquerable patience of the Irish race, that, in defiance of the privations that so unjust a scale of wage brings with it, the Irish National School teachers have so far been able to hold their own well, as far as results go, with their better-paid brethren of England and Scotland. But, when we take into consideration the terribly unequal conditions of the competition, this successful rivalry of results cannot be expected to continue. There is—it is really not surprising—there is a dearth of candidates for the posts of National School teachers in Ireland. You cannot lure men into the acceptance of posts of grave responsibility and arduous labour by the temptations of starvation wages, miserable habitations, and no prospect of a provision for their helpless old age. Does the House think that Irish teachers can live on the air, promise-crammed? Does it consider less than £60 a-year a tempting salary for human beings in the responsible position of teachers of the rising generation? At least, the Irish people do not think so. From all parts of Ireland come official Reports, recording the difficulty of finding teachers. District after district announces—

"A great dearth of candidates. We are told by competent authorities that the Service is only the last resort of those despairing of more coveted posts."

Melancholy stories are told of teachers who—

"Would be sore pinched if their incomes were not augmented by the profits of their little shops."

And so the dismal record runs on, instance after instance, for page after page. Some of the Irish National School teachers, sorely pressed by need, have endeavoured to combine their duties as the instructors of youth with the pursuit of farming on their own account. This is greatly to be deplored, if it is not greatly to be wondered at. We learn that these half-teachers, half-farmers—

"Never apply themselves to their studies with a view to improving their classification, but spend the greater part of their time, outside school hours, in working upon their farms;"

that they make neither good teachers nor good farmers; we learn that, in their manner, dress, and conversation, they have a greater resemblance to agricultural labourers than to school teachers. Such a combination of rural pursuits with the duties of the education of others might have been possible in a simpler age than ours, when the shepherds of Theocritus tended their flocks upon the Sicilian slopes and Virgilian shepherds hived their bees on the Roman Campagna. There was no reason why Comatas should not teach Lacon how to pipe and sing in the intervals between pressing his wine and shearing his sheep. Melibœus might easily snatch leisure from his thatching or digging to instruct Tityrus in the movements of the stars and the change of the seasons, or the fortunes of the Trojan War. But we have passed away from those pastoral days. Modern education requires something more from its professors than Comatas and Melibœus could offer to their pupils, and modern education does not look with a very favourable eye upon the attempt to combine the quiet pleasures and cares of a farmer's life with the task of giving instruction to the young. At the same time, the teachers who thus become farmers are not to be too severely blamed. What reward have they? What hope have they? It is scarcely strange that they endeavour to glean from the cultivation of the fruitful earth some better means of keeping body and soul together than is afforded to them by the cultivation of the human mind. Nor is it strange that these teachers turned farmers should, in the end, become more of the farmer than of the teacher. The farmer's is the more profitable occupation of the two. It is the State that is to blame for the niggard spirit which tries to cheat the human understanding by underpaying its teachers. It is the State that is to blame for doling out, with parsimonious fingers, the pitiful sums that it now offers to the ministrants of education in Ireland, sums so pitiful that, if they are persevered in, the State will soon have no teachers at all, or only teachers that are worth no more than the beggarly denier they are bought for. But the lack of salary is not the Irish teachers' only want. The want of a proper dwelling too often presses just as heavily upon him as the scarcity of salary. The cases in which provision is directly made for the teacher's abode are few. Even by the most recent figures, some 80 per cent of the teachers were unprovided with residences connected with their schools. It is not very long since London was stimulated to unexpected pity by ghastly, yet, I have no doubt, perfectly accurate pictures of the miserable way in which the London poor were housed. It became quite fashionable to go "slumming." I wish it could become, for a few weeks, the fashion for some of the sympathetic spirits in London to cross the Irish Sea, and learn how, not the poor alone, but the teachers of the poor—those whose task it is to make men forget or conquer their poverty—are housed. The dwellings in which many of the teachers have to live would not be chosen by a charitably-minded manager of a menagerie as hutches for hyenas. The teachers are often pent up in narrow limits, badly lighted, badly drained, badly ventilated, except indeed when, as frequently happens, the roof blows off or falls in, and allows of too much ventilation. Even these wretched dwellings, which defy alike the laws of health and the custom of decency, are miles and miles away from the schools in which the teachers have to teach. Now, Sir, I come to my third point—pensions. In all vocations of life, men look forward to a time when they may rest from their labours and wait with folded hands for the hour of their death; in many vocations men hoard for themselves the small sum which will allow them to end their days of' toil in an evening of peace. But the vast majority of the Irish National School teachers cannot possibly do this. Their mead is barely sufficient to keep them alive; it allows them no margin for laying anything by. They are amongst the most valuable servants of the State and they deserve a pension. Well, the Government has made some provision at last for this, but what provision? The Government seems to have acted on the principle of the survival of the fittest, and to have retarded its pensions as long as possible, in the hope, apparently, that very few Irish teachers may live long enough to profit by its delusive munificence. For example, a first class teacher, on entering the Profession at 18, would receive at 65, after 47 years' service, a pension of £88, The third class teachers, who are, of course, the most numerous, would only receive £35 for the same life's labour. Yet, if the same teacher retired at the age of 58, after 40 years' toil, he would only receive a pension of half the amount he would receive if he held on for seven years longer. Thus, the Government apparently regards the last seven years of a man's work as of exactly the same value as the whole 40 years preceding. In fact, the Government pension is really a reward for physical endurance—the survival of the fittest. The education of the Irish people has always been accomplished in the face of difficulties that would have driven a less-determined people to despair. Through darkened generations, the Irish people strove with all their strength to be educated, and the English people strove with all their strength to prevent them from being educated, The Irish priests, as heroic as the disciples of Patrick who carried Christianity to the Highlands of Scotland, the pine forests of Germany and the Islands of the Northern Seas, fought once again a fight with barbarism, and once again prevailed against it. When no Catholic might open a school, the priests established what were known as "hedge schools." The new defenders of the Faith gave to a hungry people that intellectual food which the harsh law denied them. In the end, the hedge school and the hedge scholars triumphed, and England had to learn that she could not withhold education from the subject people. But she has not learnt the lesson thoroughly yet. The State provides the means of education, but the means are not sufficient. The Government has accepted the responsibility, and it must face that responsibility in a proper spirit. I trust the Government will see their way to do something at once, and to promise more for the future, for the Irish National School teachers. I beg, Sir, to move the Resolution that stands in my name.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that it was hard that the National School teachers in Ireland were not remunerated on the same scale as their brethen in England and Scotland. While the salaries of these teachers were £127 in England, and £138 in Scotland, in Ireland they averaged only a little over £60, or less than one-half. At the same time, the cost of living was in no instance less, and in some greater, in Ireland than in those countries. The consequence was that the Irish teacher, who could not be expected to dress like a labouring man, was, in reality, worse off than the peasant; and he could inform the House that many of the Irish School teachers were obliged to walk about in peasant dress on account of their poverty. The Government were always going to do something "next Session," but the Irish Members never got such a promise as would bind gentlemen of honour to bring in a Bill. It was said that on account of the amount of money received from England and Scotland by taxation, that all the more should be expended in these countries. What he (Colonel Nolan) contended was that the Education Estimates for England and Scotland had advanced by leaps and bounds, while those for Ireland had remained stationary. The statistics on the question went to show that the cost of the Government per head for education in Ireland was practically the same as the cost per head in Great Britain, as during the last 12 years the grant to Ireland had been becoming proportionately less. The difficulties of educating people who were spread over a wide area, as they were in the case of Ireland, were greater than those involved in educating the people of towns, and even the population of Scotland was, on the whole, more concentrated than that of Ireland. Yet the Government did not give Ireland a little more on this account, and it left the teachers in a wretched condition. It had been said that they ought to look to the localities for some help; but the fact was, that whereas in England the cost of education was largely contributed to by various wealthy classes, and by the application of endowments, of which both that country and Scotland had a great many, in Ireland there were very few endowments remaining, what there originally were having been confiscated, and the only rich class in the latter country who, in the event of their decease, were likely to bequeath money for the purpose of endowments for educational purposes, were out of sympathy with the people as regarded religion, and were to a large extent absentees. Neither was it of any use to expect assistance from the Poor Law Guardians, who, though not indifferent to education, thought it ought not to be maintained out of the poor rates, and therefore some other resource must be looked to. A very heavy responsibility rested upon the Government in regard to the subject, and he thought the Government ought to provide about £100,000, which would suffice to meet the case for some time to come.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House views with deep regret the impossibility of at present introducing the Education Bill for Ireland promised last year by the Chief Secretary, and that, seeing the hardships which the Irish National Teachers are undoubtedly subjected to, and the necessity which exists of rendering so important a body of public servants contented with their work, this House is of opinion that provision should be made forthwith to improve their incomes temporarily, and that a Bill removing their several grievances should be introduced early in the next Session,"— (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

, in supporting the Motion, said, he should be sorry to think that the success or partial success of the teachers' claim should depend upon whether the Government were appreciably to increase the grant for education. Even if it were not increased a great deal might be done to remedy the great grievances of the Irish teachers. When the Unions were made contributory, a large number at first availed themselves of the power of contributing, and they did not find their contributions burdensome to the rates. The Cork Union contributed up to the present time, and did not find it burdensome to do so. But one Union after another dropped off; the example became contagious, and now the number contributing was reduced to four. Whether or not a National rate for Poor Law purposes would be justifiable he did not say; but there could be no question it would be justified in the case of education; and he believed still if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in a Bill next year, authorizing a National rate of 1 d. in the pound, it would amply provide the Irish National School teachers with an adequate addition to their salaries. There should be a minimum below which the salaries of no well-classed teacher should fall, and if such a rate as he had suggested were adopted, the minimum salary would be provided. With regard to pensions, he was of opinion that the demands of the teachers were fair. He thought 35 years' service should entitle a teacher to a pension, irrespective of age. The Teachers' Residences Act was no doubt a very liberal and praise-worthy measure, as it offered to any locality in which it was desired to build a teacher's house, a sum of £200. It was possible for a teacher in a good district to take advantage of that Act; but a teacher with a poor salary, and with managers who would not assist him, could not. It was also nearly impossible to obtain suitable sites for teachers' dwellings, owing to the want of sympathy that existed between the rich and poor classes in Ireland; and since the passing of the Land Act, there was the greatest disinclination on the part of occupiers of land to part with a bit of land upon any terms whatever, and if teachers were to be properly housed, compulsory power should be given to acquire sites on which to build residences. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) had done good service in bringing this matter before the House, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give precedence next Session over all other measures, including the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, to a well-considered Parliamentary scheme for redressing the many grievances which harassed and embarrassed the action of the National School teachers of Ireland.

said, he had great pleasure in congratulating his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) on his admirable speech in introducing the subject; but he could not congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down (Colonel Colthurst) on the remedy of hope deferred, which he had proposed as a solution of the Irish National School teachers' grievance. Educators of the people in Ireland were shamefully neglected. The teachers in England and in foreign countries were treated with the deepest respect; but in Ireland the reverse of that was the case. This was, he contended, due to the fact that, in the latter, the teachers were pro- tected by the Govenment; while, in Ireland, they were scarcely officially recognized. The minimum salaries formerly offered to National schoolmasters—namely, £15, were such as a cook would not accept; and the maximum salaries, £45, they would not offer to their valet. No doubt, that state of things had been improved through the exertions of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon); but still their remuneration was entirely incommensurate with their abilities and devotion to work. The disproportion which existed between their salaries and those of English and Scotch teachers were almost inexplicable, and he failed to see any reason why the social position of an English teacher should be better than that of an Irish teacher, or why, in this country, teachers' salaries should be 100 per cent more than they were in Ireland. He hoped the Government in the future would give the same protection to Irish teachers as they had afforded in the past to teachers in England. The teachers in Ireland were paid by results; but there was no compulsory education in the country as in England, so that the teachers were not given the materials for producing results. With regard to pensions, teachers usually entered the Profession at 17 or 18. If they retired at 38, after 20 years' service, they got £6 a-year pension; if they retired at 48, after 30 years' service, they got £18; if at 53, after 35 years' service, they got £25; and if at 65, after 47 years' service, they got half their salary. An Inspector of Police who, on the other hand, retired at 49, after 27 years' service, got a pension equal to his full pay of £200 a-year. Again, the teacher was obliged to pay something in order to add to his pension. If he lived he got it back; but if, after years of labour, he died before getting it back, the money was confiscated, instead of coming to his family in the hour of its greatest need. He did not deny that they had obtained some advantages, the Government having, at one time, given them a small taste of their bounty; but since then they had withdrawn it, and, in the main, all the promises which had been made to them had proved illusory. They got the promise of residences; but as their erection was made perfectly optional with the managers, the teachers were still without residences. [Colonel NOLAN: The managers could not get sites.] Then, they were to get grants from the Unions; but that promise had also proved illusory. The contributions from the Poor Law Unions were practically nothing; and, looking at the unpopular and unpatriotic character of the administration of the Commissioners of National Education, he must confess he did not blame the Guardians for not contributing to a system with which they had no sympathy. Soon after the passing of the Act, the teachers got £27,000 from 65 Unions, but, in 1882, they only got £9,000. These things might be amended by a Bill which he was told the right hon. Gentleman had in his pigeon-holes. But the question was, what would the Government do to relieve the teachers to-day? He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the aid of the Prime Minister, should introduce a Supplementary (ad interim) Vote to help those unfortunate people.

said, that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) had introduced the subject in a speech which showed, at any rate, that he sympathized with everything which concerned education. It was an extremely cultivated speech, and one which, as a veteran of the House, he might be allowed to say gave very good hope as to the contributions which, in after years, the hon. Member might make to the debates of that House. The hon. Member had stated the case of the Irish teachers with a view to an immediate solution, which was put in a more definite and pointed form in the peroration of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dawson). The proposal of the hon. Members was that a Supplementary Grant should be made out of the general Exchequer; but before the Government acceded to such a proposal, they would have to examine the premisses upon which it was asked; and, in examining those premisses, he had come to a conclusion very different from those of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Carlow. It had been said by the hon. Member for Athlone that unsuccessful attempts had been made to better the position of the teachers, and that their position was now as bad as for many years back. Upon that point, he at once joined issue with the hon. Member. The position of Irish teachers had improved to a wonderful degree of late years. Since 1871 their position had been improved in one way and another, the most definite and remarkable of which was the introduction of the system of result fees. In the year 1872 the salaries of masters in the way of class ranged from £52 to £24, whereas they now ranged from £70 to £35; while the class salaries of mistresses, which, in 1872, ranged from £20 to £42, now ranged from £27 to £58. The payment per pupil had risen from 13 s. 11 d. in 1871, to £1 3 s. 8 d. in 1882, and the collective figures proved still more that an immense improvement had been made in the course of the last 10 years. Again, in the year 1871 the grant to Ireland from the Exchequer was £381,000, and in 1883–4 it was £726,000. Of those amounts, £262,000 was paid to the teachers in 1870–1; and in 1883–4 the amount was £580,000. That was an immense rise, and absolved the Government, as he thought, from the charge that they had done little or nothing in the matter for many years past. Comparisons which, though sufficiently striking, were, he thought, considerably exaggerated, had been made between the position of the teachers in Ireland and those in England and Scotland. It had been asserted that teachers in England and Scotland were paid twice as much as those in Ireland. The fact was that the average teacher in Ireland got as much as £80 a-year; while the average certificated master in England received £120. That was, no doubt, a very considerable difference; but it was not twice as much. [Mr. DAWSON: What about the female teachers?] The average annual salary of the female teachers in Ireland would certainly amount to £60 from all sources; while in England it would amount to £72. He had not taken the general average. The difference would be represented very much more accurately by half as much again than by twice as much. When a demand was made for money from the Exchequer—that was, for money paid by the taxpayers of the whole Kingdom—it was necessary to look not only at the actual position of the people it was to benefit, but also at what the taxpayer had done for them already. Respecting it, he had to take a great deal of exception to what had been said by hon. Members. He would not enter into the general causes which had been referred to to explain the very different average which local aid occupied in Ireland and in England; but there could be no doubt it was very great indeed. In England, the population at the last Census was 26,000,000, and the Parliamentary Grant was £2,400,000. The number of pupils was 3,000,000, and the payment for each pupil from the Exchequer was 15 s. 10½ d. The payment for each pupil in Scotland was 17 s. 8½ d., and in Ireland £1 11 s. 1½ d. Now, he was sure no Englishman or Scotchman, neither would he himself, grudge that favourable proportion to Ireland; but it was a serious matter to ask the taxpayers of the Kingdom to increase that amount. If £100,000 were granted to these teachers, it must be recollected that of that amount Ireland would only pay £10,000, Scotland £11,000, and England about £79,000. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who was a clever statistician, had somehow made out that Scotland received more than Ireland in the matter of education; but the calculation he (Mr. Trevelyan) had made was that it did not receive as much as Ireland, though the proportion of population was as 4 to 5. In Scotland at the last Census there were 3,735,000 people, and 421,000 pupils on the rolls. As he had said, in England there were 26,000,000 of people, and £2,400,000 was paid by the Exchequer. That was something less than 2 s. a-head for the population. In Ireland there were 5,160,000 people, and £730,000 paid by the Exchequer, or nearly 3 s. a-head for the population. In Scotland there were 3,700,000 people, and only £372,000 paid for popular education, or about 2 s. a-head for the population; so that, instead of Scotland having more or as much paid to her for education as Ireland, she had only a little more than half as much. That being so, he thought the House should be very slow indeed to improve the condition of Irish teachers any further by direct money payments out of the Exchequer. He was sure, however, that there was no Englishman or Scotchman who would not improve the position of the Irish teachers, if it was done by the same process as in England and Scotland, and that was by securing a better attendance of the pupils, and, consequently, better results. One great cause of the poorness of the condition of the Irish teacher as compared to those of England and Scotland, was the deficiency in the result fees, owing to the number of children who went to school being so very much less for each teacher; and, therefore, the one method of improving the position of the Irish teachers, which, more than anything else, would, he thought, be approved of by hon. Members in every part of the House, was the introduction into Ireland of a system of compulsory education. He did not wish to press too far the argument which had been alluded to by anticipation by almost every speaker on this subject that night; but the real cause why Irish teachers were so badly paid was the absence of local aid. What the cause of that absence of local aid might be, he would not discuss at the present moment. The absence of that aid, however, was more striking than hon. Members opposite were aware. The hon. Members opposite had referred to the want of endowments in Ireland, and to the absence of the rich class; but there was one source of local aid which did not depend upon the presence of the rich, except indirectly, and that was the school pence. In England, with 3,000,000 of children, the school pence amounted to £1,500,000—that was to say, each child contributed 10 s. a-year. In Ireland, with 469,000 children, the school pence amounted to £93,000, or about 4 s. a-head. Then he came to the voluntary subscriptions; and here he must express his entire sympathy with those hon. Members who lamented the very small sum which was contributed voluntarily towards the support of the Irish schools. There was not in Ireland the same class as in England, who were inclined to subscribe voluntarily towards the support of the schools, or, at all events, its benevolence and public spirit did not run in that direction; and by far the most striking grievance of Ireland was the existence of Irish landlords in the South who did not do their duty, nor a tithe of their duty, towards the education of the people. [Mr. KENNY: Or anything else.] He would confine himself to the matter of education at present. In England the sum raised by voluntary contributions for educational purposes was £724,000, in Scotland it was £30,000, and in Ireland it was £40,000. The deficiency this caused, which he thought was a serious evil, had to be met, and he thought it was made up by very much larger contributions from the Exchequer to Ireland in proportion than to England. Then he came to the income derived from rates, and this was a most significant fact, because the rates were, after all, the contributions not only of the few rich men, but they were exactly in proportion to the wealth and poverty of the members of the entire community. In England the sum derived from the rates was £808,000; in Scotland, £191,000; and in Ireland, £11,904. The main reason for this difference in figures was that in Scotland, the rates were entirely compulsory; in England, they were to a large extent compulsory; while in Ireland, they were voluntary. Ho could not concur on this point in the observation of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), who said that the English Government had just let the teachers taste of their bounty, and had then withdrawn it. That observation should have referred not to the English Government, but to the Boards of Guardians. The latter had the power of contributing in exactly the same way as all the Boards of Guardians in Scotland did, and as a considerable number in England did. Under the circumstances, however, it was not his business to blame the Irish Boards of Guardians for their action in this matter—in fact, he did not think that they were to blame in reference to it, because people would not, in the long run, bear their share of a voluntary rate, for the purpose of giving a man a larger salary than he was willing to work for. By subscribing this money they would not get more children educated; they only gave the teachers a better salary, and considering how formidable the increase of rates was, he did not wonder that so few Boards subscribed, or that the people declined to take fresh dues voluntarily upon themselves. But if the ratepayers of Ireland would not do in this matter as the ratepayers of England and Scotland did, the responsibility no longer rested upon the English Government, but upon the people of Ireland, speaking through their Representatives, who objected to the rates in aid being made compulsorily. In the very poorest parishes in Scotland, the school rate was paid cheerfully, and sometimes eagerly. With regard to the residences of the school teachers, he entirely sympathized with the Bill dealing with the subject, which had been introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst). There, however, again, Parliament was not to blame. Money might be borrowed for their construction, maintenance, and improvement, repayable in 35 years, at 3½ per cent interest, which were far more reasonable terms than England could obtain, and it was hardly fair to reproach the Government, when those facilities were not taken advantage of. With reference to sites for these residences, however, there was a difficulty, and no Bill would be introduced by the Government which did not remove that grievance thoroughly and completely. The hon. Member for Athlone had referred to the question of pensions, and had remarked that the reason why there was better provision for teachers' salaries in England and Scotland than in Ireland was the superior educational endowments in those countries. In England and in Scotland the teacher had not got a pension. In Ireland, although the conditions were not so favourable as could be wished, the teacher had a pension, and the fact was that there was greater provision in Ireland for paying teachers' pensions out of endowments than in England. A sum of £1,300,000 out of the Irish Church Funds was set aside for teachers' pensions, which was as much an endowment fund as anything could be; and, further, owing to the ancient endowments which had now been diverted to another purpose, the Irish teachers had an advantage which they appreciated, and which was not possessed by England and Scotland. As to the methods by which these pensions were distributed, the fair comparison was not with the Irish Police, but with the teachers of England and Scotland, and the fair question to ask was—whether the £1,300,000 allotted for pensions was distributed so as to be of the greatest advantage to Ireland. The allowances for long and meritorious services were calculated by actuaries on the quinquennial scale, the mean period being 35 years. Five years was the very least period at which a system of pensions ought to be revised, and as to the system it was necessary to adopt age in preference to time of service, so as not to exclude the great number of Irish teachers who had not originally been Government teachers; and until, at any rate, these men and women had passed off the scene, the Government could not alter this arrangement. The quinquennial distribution would come next year. He had reason to believe that there was a surplus, and it would be disbursed so as to be of the greatest advantage to the main body of the teachers. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How is the scheme received by the teachers?] Hon. Members seemed to doubt whether the teachers valued the system. The best evidence of that was that out of 10,621 teachers in the Service, 9,343, or 88 per cent, had joined in it, though it involved a payment from their own resources. Beyond that, he thought the vast majority of them would be found supporting it when it became known that the membership was voluntary, not compulsory. There was no way of improving the teachers' incomes except they obtained a higher classification, and one reason they were unable to obtain a high classification was the deficient and anomalous system of training in Ireland. Still, he thought when hon. Members made speeches condemning the shortcomings of the Government, they ought to say something about what the Government had done. They ought to remember that for a Minister who had left a former Government on the question of undenominational education, it was not an easy matter for him to go back on his antecedents and persuade successfully a House, which was largely leavened with strong undenominational sentiments, to do in Ireland that which alone could enable the Irish teachers to take advantage of the system of training. They must not expect too much in the first year of a new system; but this year they proposed to divide a sum of £10,000 between three Training Colleges of the sort to which Irish teachers were willing to resort, and to which Irishmen in general were glad to contribute. But that was not all; for the Government had viewed with favour, and very practical favour, the proposal that public money should be lent for the building of Training Colleges. His general reply, he was afraid, would disappoint many hon. Members. The Government would not bring in an Education Bill for Ireland which did not deal drastically with the question of sites, and that did not establish a system of compulsory education of a nature which the Leaders of the Irish people would generally accept; the Government would not bring in a Bill which would give the Irish Members an opportunity of saying that they would call upon the ratepayers of Ireland to do what the ratepayers of Scotland had done, though he could well understand that the Government would not make that a point on which the other provisions of the Bill must stand or fall. But when it came to a question of paying more money out of the Exchequer, except in the shape of improved result fees and kindred matters, there he must stop and say that he could not advise the Treasury to assent. He could not accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Athlone, except on a condition which the hon. Member would hardly accept—namely, to leave out all the words from "opinion" down to "that Bill." Unless he accepted that offer, he was afraid he could not do anything in the matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the present position of the Training Colleges?

said, the system of grants to these Colleges was exactly the same as in England and Scotland; £10,000 had been taken this year, of which £3,319 was to go to the College in Bagot Street; £5,273 to St. Patrick's Training College, in Drumcondra; and £1,440 was to be expended on the new College of the Church of Ireland, to be opened in Kildare Street in September.

Are there only three denominational Training Colleges in Ireland?

Yes.

said, he was sorry to say he was sure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would be received with intense disappointment, not only by teachers in Ireland, but by the entire country. The right hon. Gentleman had told the teachers they had nothing to expect from the Government. There was no hope whatever of the Bill suggested being accepted in Ireland, and he was amazed, and thought it extraordinary, that when a Gentleman distinguished for candour, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was, was making his stinging contrast between the contribution from the local rates in England and Scotland and those made in Ireland, that he overlooked the important point that the Irish people, unlike the English and Scotch, had no more to say to the class of education they received than the people of Lapland. Compulsorily educational contributions from local rates would be fought tooth and nail by the Irish Members, unless the Boards of Guardians were previously altered upon the lines of the Poor Law Guardians Bill, and unless there was a complete reform of the so-called Board of National Education, whose leading characteristics he (Mr. Healy) declared were anti-national. That Board included the Judges, Mr. Chief Justice Morris, Mr. Justice Lawson, together with other successful patriots, and likewise four Protestant clergymen and one Protestant Archbishop; but it had not upon it any Catholic Bishop or priest. They must have that Board made representative and thoroughly national. In fact, there was no hope of their ever obtaining a thoroughly efficient system, until they swept away, root and branch, the whole of what was called the National Board, or, at any rate, they must swamp them, before they would have the confidence of the Irish people. With respect to the new denominational Training Schools, he was anxious to know how they were to be maintained? Were Roman Catholics to support their Training College, the Presbyterians theirs, and the Protestant Episcopalians theirs, or were they to be supported out of a common fund? If that were so, he would ask the House to look at the injustice of the proposal. The majority of the ratepayers in Ireland were Catholics, they constituted four-fifths of the population, and were they to be made to find the largest share of the money, and pay rates for the benefit of other denominations, with whose schools and teachings they had no sympathy? They must have a stringent guarantee, before they would consent to compulsory rating, that they should have proper representation, and that the money of the Catholic and Protestant and Presbyterian people would go to Catholics and Protestants and Presbyterians respectively. He would now ask the House to consider the position and prospects of the Irish teachers as compared with those of the Irish Constabulary. Why, there were more policemen than there were teachers in Ireland, showing that it was the policy of the Government to coerce the people, and at the same time keep them plunged in ignorance. So, too, the Vote for Education was £732,627, while that for the Police was £1,440,095, or nearly double. The constables were far better paid and received far better pensions than the Irish National School teachers. It took a teacher 47 years to gain a pension of £35 a-year; while a constable, after 20 years' service, received £30 a-year, a teacher receiving the magnificent sum of £6 a-year for the same period. If the Constabulary did not get the pay they wanted, as had lately been seen in Dublin and in Limerick, they instantly struck, and they received what they wanted. In fact, the Government had not so much power over them as, in ancient times, the Romans had over the Prætorian Guards. The reason of that was that the British Government knew that, without the aid of their bayonets, they could never keep up English rule in the country. But if the teachers were to try to follow their example, the Secretary to the Treasury would be quite tranquil, for the Government would be only too pleased to save the cost of the education of the children, whom they would prefer to see grow up in ignorance. Then the right hon. Gentleman had told them that he would bring in a Bill for compulsory education in Ireland. So far as he (Mr. Healy) was aware, there was no feeling in the country adverse to compulsory education, and he thought that, with proper safeguards, the system would be received with satisfaction by the country at large. The real cause of the non-attendance of children was, in his opinion, due to the extreme poverty of the people, whose children had such wretched clothing that they were not able to go to school and associate with children who were better dressed. On the other hand, if those who did not attend for that reason did attend, children of a better class would not care to mix with them, and would probably be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, come down again to the House prepared to rebut the case he (Mr. Healy) was endeavouring to present to the House on behalf of these poor people; but the statements on which he was going to rebut them had been prepared by officials in Dublin, with salaries of £1,000, or £1,500 a-year, who were clad in broadcloth, whose stomachs were not empty, and who lived in grand houses. Those were the people who were trying to prevent any improvement being effected in the condition of a wretched class of persons with an income of £55. The expenses of the Office which supplied the right hon. Gentleman with his facts amounted to £732,000. Then, £26,000 was paid for agents, £40,000 for Inspectors, £33,000 for model schools, which were not wanted, and £10,000 for normal establishments. Those services, paid for on that scale, left only a total of £570,000 for Irish National School teachers. They were told that the teachers' positions must be improved out of the rates; but they would not find the Irish people disposed to vote a penny out of the rates in addition so long as the working of the system was controlled by a Board full of Protestants and Presbyterians. As to the teachers themselves, taking into consideration the amount received by those in England and Scotland, it could hardly be expected that they could get the best class of men for the post for £57 a-year. The comparative treatment of the Constabulary and the teachers was a disgrace. There was far more inducement to become a policeman in Ireland than a teacher; not only were the former better paid, for a sub-constable on joining the Force got, on an average, £4 a-year more than a well-paid National School teacher, but, in addition, they also got both clothing and lodging free, besides magnificent pensions. There was no question about sites for police barracks; but there was for schoolhouses. Indeed, police barracks and workhouses were the most ornamental objects in Irish landscapes. He ventured to think there was not so disgraceful a story to tell of Russian government in Poland, as the one he had read with shame and humiliation—namely, the treatment of the teachers in connection with their annual dinner which had taken place in Dublin. Because, after drinking the health of the Queen, they had not drunk that of Earl Spencer, who was simply a Member of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, an explanation was demanded, and every teacher would have been dismissed had they not made an abject apology. The circulars had been signed by a Mr. Sheridan; and he (Mr. Healy) should be happy, at the proper time, to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of his salary. Where was this absurdity to end? The meanness and the odious and contemptible character of such tyranny were atrocious, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland winked at it. He (Mr. Healy) never heard him utter a word in extenuation of a system which in Ireland excited only indignation and disgust. He supposed that, after drinking the health of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Lady Lieutenant, it would henceforth be necessary to drink that of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and that of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and then that of the little Princes of Wales, and the little Princesses of Wales, and so on, until they came down to policemen. That was the absurdity to which they had come. He hoped that, on the Estimates, they would have some explanation of that state of things, failing which, it would afford him great satisfaction to move a few Resolutions. He had to say, finally, that the few miserable grants that were made were doled out in the most wretched way imaginable to the teachers and their relatives. He charged the Government with, in some instances, keeping the money from the sick and dying men. To a man who was sick a grant of £30 or £40 was of great consequence. It could, at all events, procure him a great many necessaries which were essential to the alleviation of his suffering, and it might, at least, be sufficient to cover the expenses of burial when the man was dead. But the Government, or those well-paid persons in Dublin who were charged with its administration, carped at these trifles in the spirit of Shylock, and denied the amounts to the persons who were entitled to them or to their relatives. That state of things, he thought, could not be defended by the Government. He regretted the action which had been taken by the Government with respect to the Motion, and in declining to yield to the demands of the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown the least sympathy, or the least intention of yielding anything for the poor people for whom he was pleading; but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that those 11,000 or 12,000 persons would remember how they had been treated.

said, he wished to explain, with reference to the averages given by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), that the comparison which he made was between the certificated masters in London and the principal masters and mistresses in England, and the principal masters and mistresses in Ireland. Although the comparison of the hon. and gallant Member was not an unfair one, yet, on reflection, he saw that the hon. and gallant Member included the assistant teachers in his comparison. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had not made out the comparison between the principal and assistant teachers combined with the certificated and uncertificated masters.

said, it appeared to him that the present was not a fitting or opportune occasion to enter on the discussion of, or to express his individual opinion on, questions of such importance as the establishment of a system of compulsory education in Ireland or the constitution of the Board of Commissioners for National Education. What, then, the friends of the National School teachers desired was to hoar a statement made, showing that the Government had given some real consideration to the demands made, and were prepared to apply a speedy and efficacious remedy for the principal grievances which had been admitted to affect this important and deserving body of public servants. He had been much disappointed at the tone of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He proposed no feasible solution for the difficulties incident to the failure of the Act of 1875. Vague statements were made that at some distant date, and contingent on a general change in the system of education, the funds required were to be provided from local sources. The late Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated that the teachers were to participate in the full benefits contemplated by the Act.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

, continuing, said, he recollected that the late Chief Secretary, when the Act of 1875 was under discussion, and he had been warned in the House that the Act was destined to be a total failure, stated that it would be tried only as an experiment, and if it failed, means should be devised by the Government to obtain funds to pay result fees in full to the teachers. Subsequently, in 1876, when it became clear the Act would not work, he proposed to make the provisions in the Act compulsory; but, on inquiry, he found that to pass an Act by which the Boards of Guardians should be compelled to contribute to the result foe was impossible, and that such a measure would receive the opposition of the great bulk of the Irish Members. The very figures of the Permissive Act showed, in the clearest manner, that the ratepayers in Ireland would never consent to the passing of a Compulsory Act. For what did they find? That the number of contributory Unions, which began under the Act at 70, had, since it had been made manifest that the Government did not intend to bring in a Bill by which the grievances of the teachers could be remedied, successively decreased, until it had reached the present number of four. Under these circumstances, he thought the House had a right to feel disappointed with the reply of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was but a repetition, in its main statements, of the promises made and expectations held forth in 1876. It was high time the Government should make up their mind on this question. If, as was plain, the Government were determined, in the present state of things in Ireland, to retain the entire control of education in the hands of Commissioners appointed by, and responsible alone, to the Government, it was just they should provide the funds required. It was absurd to expect the Guardians to contribute, unless they had also a voice in the management, and there was a popular element in the management and control of the educational system. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that national education should be controlled by the popular vote? If not, then it would have been better to have said that the Government had no intention of doing anything, than to have made the speech he did. It would have been better not to have raised expectations that would only lead to disappointment. The right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, backed by a strong Government, could not bring in a Bill to make the contributions of Boards of Guardians compulsory. Was it not, then, most unreasonable that the Chief Secretary, after the promises he had made and the answers he had given to the teachers' deputations, should now suggest that after he had consulted with and ascertained the views of the Irish Members he would consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill of this character? The majority of Irish Members had more than once stated that any measure framed on those lines would have their opposition to encounter. As to the privations suffered by the teachers from want of suitable residences, he thought the House had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government. The Government had opposed the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) to make provisions for teachers' residences. Nothing was done. Not the slightest effort was made by legislation to provide a remedy for the difficulties incident to the procuring of sites from landlords either legally unable or unwilling to give them. The Treasury, too, had as was pointed out by their Minutes, in fact, frustrated the intentions of Parliament. Yet even in this respect, as well as in respect to the pensions question, where remedies might be at once provided by an alteration in the Treasury Minutes and Regulations, no satisfactory assurance had been given. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would now at last rise and promise that his Department would recede from the position they had taken up in these matters. It was conceded by the Chief Secretary that many of the complaints of the teachers were well-founded, and that their conduct as a body entitled them to favourable consideration. The fact that they were not as highly trained as the English and Scotch teachers was the fault of the Government; and if their English and Scotch brethren were better educated, they were in receipt of double their salary. Nothing was more calculated to create discontent than the admission that grievances existed without any earnest attempt to remedy them. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would reconsider the position they had taken up, and that, instead of opposing, they would accept the terms of the Resolution, which were only fair and reasonable.

said, he thought that the treatment of the question under discussion during the evening had been characteristic of the manner in which Irish questions were generally treated by the House of Commons. Nearly all the 500 and odd English and Scotch Gentleman who undertook to govern Ireland had been mainly conspicuous by their absence during the discussion of this important subject. At all events, those Gentlemen who were absent had been spared the mortification of hearing the set of utterly callous platitudes with which the Scotch Secretary for Ireland replied to the complaints of the Irish Party. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was mainly composed of direct or indirect compliments to the independence of the Scotch people; but he seemed to have no sympathy whatever with the people whose affairs he was sent to administer. There was no indication in it of a promise to do anything for the Irish teachers. He (Mr. O'Donnell) came down to give his warmest support to the Resolution; but it was no disappointment to him to hear the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he full well knew that there would be no substantial reform hinted at by the Government. They were told that the Government were not unwilling to bring in a Bill for compulsory education. With proper guarantees, such a Bill would be welcomed by all who were interested in the education of the Irish people; but, apart from that, some prompt and efficient measure for remedying the grievances of the teachers ought to be introduced. The Irish National School teachers were obliged to eke out their miserable pittance by burdening themselves with the obligation of cultivating plots of land. They laboured under this disability—that they were a peaceful and a law-abiding body of men, who brought up their pupils on peaceful and law-abiding principles, and, consequently, Her Majesty's Government felt they could despise their complaints and disregard their feelings. If there were any danger whatever that a refusal to redress their grievances would be followed by a healthy development of what would be called in this country "Constitutional sedition" among this large body of public servants, a great deal more attention would be paid by the Government to their complaints than was now given to the utterances of their Parliamentary Representatives. The course now taken by Her Majesty's Government was a distinct violation of the pledge made by their Predecessors in 1875, when the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in proposing a measure for the relief of the teachers, said—

"If it succeeds, well and good; the teachers will be reasonably remunerated. If not, the Government will take such steps that the remuneration now intended shall be paid to them."

That intended remuneration had not been paid to them, and the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the present Government had no intention of fulfilling the pledge so clearly and emphatically given by their Predecessors in Office.

said, that he deprecated the language that had been applied to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Notwithstanding his "platitudes," as the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had termed them, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was of opinion that, so far as policy was concerned, a more honest Chief Secretary than the present holder of the Office had never sat upon the Treasury Bench. But if the Poor Law Guardians did not do their duty in the matter of education, it was for the Government to compel them to do it; and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman showed that no other course was open. What did the hon. Member for Monaghan mean when he said that the Poor Law Guardians could not be expected to assist the teachers when they had not the control of education? Did he mean that they should be a distinguished Philosophical Society to draw up the curriculum? [Mr. HEALY: No.] Was it that they had not the arrangement of the money matters? He was in a difficulty with the hon. Gentleman; but, with all his astuteness, if he accepted either alternative, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) would impale him on the horns of a dilemma. He agreed with the hon. Member who said that the case was harassing and painful, and required immediate attention; and as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not seen fit, or rather had not been empowered, to put down on the Estimates a sum to meet the present difficulty, he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), if he went to a Division. He should do so, however, without using the grievances of the teachers as a political stalking horse, by claiming local control of finances, or curriculum. The remedy was to be found in compelling the Guardians to pay their contributious, instead of leaving it optional with them; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the Bill he proposed to bring in, would tax the nation in the interests of the nation—namely the education of the people.

said, that the people of Ireland were greatly alarmed at the growth of local taxation, and, while there was every disposition on the part of Boards of Guardians to act fairly by the National School teachers, they would object to an increase of the burden of local taxation, which had increased since 1866 by £1,000,000 sterling. It already amounted to 35 per cent of the rental of Ireland, and if this taxation went on increasing, the ratepayers would soon be swamped by it. Apart from that pressure, there was no indisposition on the part of the Guardians to spend rates for educational purposes; but they felt that to put the entire burden upon the land was unfair, owing to the relations which existed between Ireland and England. He thought the parallel drawn by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, between Ireland and England in this regard, was altogether unfair, seeing that, in Ireland, they had practically no manufactures or commerce as they had in England, and that the entire population was thrown upon the land. The incidence of local taxation and the Imperial burdens placed upon it required as much consideration in Ireland as in England, and the hardship was greater in Ireland, because of the absence of commercial wealth, which was kept out by continued misgovernment.

said, he decidedly deprecated the introduction into the debate on that question of any violent Party politics. He did not think any such controversy was in the interest of the Irish teachers. He should say he did not think that the teachers were treated fairly by the Government, and he would cordially support the vote for the Resolution.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Findlater) as to the undesirability of mixing up Party politics with a question of this kind. All classes in Ireland were actuated with the one desire to see the admitted grievances of the Irish teachers remedied. They were told that it would be necessary to make the rate in aid compulsory. That might or might not be necessary. At the first blush, he was not disposed in its favour; but until that was done—if it were to be done—were the grievances of the teachers to remain unredressed? What they claimed that night was that the Government should endeavour at once to remove the injustice under which the National School teachers of Ireland now suffered. There was no Party in Ireland—National, Liberal, or Tory—which did not admit the grievances of the Irish teachers, and yet these most deserving men were left without the means of a decent livelihood. He believed the people of Ireland would be quite ready to contribute freely to the expenses of education, if they had the control of it in their own hands. That night the teachers' case entered on a new phase. He heartily congratulated them on the fact that their case was no longer in the hands of a Gentleman representing an Irish constituency, who, at the same time, no doubt, showed some zeal in the interests of his clients, but who appeared now to consider much more keenly the interests and the convenience of the Government than the interests of the teachers. It was now in the hands of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and on behalf of himself and his Colleagues he would say night or day henceforward they would not cease their active exertions until the justice so long delayed was done to this deserving body of men.

, in supporting the Resolution, said, that Irish National School teachers had been compelled to live in houses which were entirely unsuited to persons in their station in life. Therefore, the time, he thought, had come when proper dwellings should be provided for them. At the close of the year 1880 there were 7,429 teachers in charge of the Irish National Schools, and the number of residences supplied rent free was 1,515. Out of that number, 235 had been built under the provisions of the Residences Act since 1875, and the remaining 1,280 had been provided without aid from the State. In England 47 per cent of the teachers, and in Scotland 57 per cent, were provided with residences; but in Ireland only abont 15 per cent were so provided, and in many cases their residences were very miserable. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that, with regard to pensions, the Irish teachers were better off than their brethren in England and Scotland, who had no such provision made for them. That difference, however, arose from the merest fortunate accident. When the Church in Ireland had been disestablished and disendowed, a sum of £1,300,000 was set apart, the interest of which was to furnish three-fourths of the pensions, while the teachers themselves contributed one-fourth, which was with held from their salaries. But as no male teacher was entitled to a pension until he was 65, and no female teacher until she was 60, it might be concluded that there were very few National teachers in Ireland who were pensioners. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had also stated that, while in England the children contributed 10 s. per head of the school foes, in Ireland they contributed only 4 s. per head. That was a very creditable contribution from the Irish children, considering that the comparative wealth of the two countries was as 13 or 14 to 1. The hon. Gentleman the present economical Financial Secretary to the Treasury was, he was sorry to say, one whose policy was not such as would lead them to believe that there was much likelihood that the demands of the teachers would be granted. He quite agreed in the observations of the preceding speakers as to the inadequate salaries which the teachers were paid for the services which they rendered the country.

said, he considered the case of the National School teachers embodied a distinct breach of faith against Her Majesty's Government. The Bill they had introduced completely broke down, the ratepayers having declined to support the experiment which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) promised would adequately deal with the grievances, under which it was admitted a most deserving body of men suffered. They had been told that, within some definite number of years, the position of these men had been very considerably improved. To a certain degree, no doubt, it had; but only from the point of starvation and disgrace. It had been improved, but had not as yet reached the level of justice. It was the old story, for, like all English legislation, the grievances were not redressed, but were dealt with in the usual peddling, piecemeal fashion, which satisfied nobody. The system which had been adopted by the Government of that country, in dealing with Irish affairs, had been always of that piecemeal character, which satisfied nobody. It was a little patch here and a little patch there, wasting the time of Parliament and breaking the hearts of the unfortunate people who had been kept all this time waiting for justice. He had heard their condition contrasted with that of the Police, both with regard to salaries and pensions, and he felt compelled to say that the case afforded a true indication of the whole system of British rule in Ireland. The position might be summed up with these words—they petted the policemen and they starved the teachers. The Government had had their reward for all this. The men whom they had trained to bludgeon their fellow-countrymen had been rewarded; whilst those who were intrusted with the enlightening, educating, and moral training of the children, had been despised and neglected. One of the chief features of the case was that these teachers were not paid on a similar scale to the teachers in England and Scotland. Liberals thought nothing of giving £30,000 to an Admiral who had performed the noble feat of bombarding an almost defenceless town; but they begrudged the Irish teachers the moderate grants they justly claimed. If they had Home Rule in Ireland, this meritorious class of men would be treated in a very different manner. Why should the Irish teachers, who produced good results, be underpaid at least 50 per cent to the amount given to English and Scotch teachers? It was of no use to say that some of the emolument of the teachers in England and Scotland was derived from sources other than the Exchequer; they were wealthy countries. It was a matter of proof that the Irish teachers did their business as well as the Englishmen and the Scotchmen, and it was also a fact that the cost of living in Ireland was quite as high as in England and Scotland. What encouragement was it to education in Ireland to use the teachers in such a way? He protested against the system of delay, deceit, and disappointment that had been practised, by those who sat on the Treasury Bench and received large salaries, towards this poor and deserving class who had worthily performed their duties. Many of these unhappy men and women had to walk miles through the wet and the snow to reach their schoolhouses. The whole subject was a disgrace to the Government, who were bound in honour to do something at once to alleviate the condition of these deserving people.

said, the lower employés of the Post Office and these National School teachers were the worst treated officials in Ireland, and their condition contrasted very unfavourably with the emoluments received by other officers. The Government ought to introduce a measure upon a liberal basis which should put an end once for all to that discussion.

said, be cordially joined with his hon. Colleagues in the advocacy of the claims of a class of men whose claims had been recognized by successive Governments, and whose grievances had not been remedied by any. He must say he had been very much disappointed with the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Irish teachers, who had been very moderate in their demands, would also be disappointed with the tone the right hon. Gentleman had adopted. He thought the anomalous position of the assistant teachers was well worthy the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He also thought the right hon. Gentleman's figures were entirely wrong, as he had included in them the normal establishments, the Metropolitan model schools, and the training establishments. As it was, the pay of the Irish teacher was only half of that of the English teacher. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of denominational Training Colleges, which had done much to meet the wishes of the vast mass of the Catholic people of Ireland, and he believed valuable results would follow the taking that step. He complained of the niggardly system under which the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund was administered, under which the fund had been increased some £59,000, by unexpended interest, while the teachers themselves were obliged to contribute largely to the fund out of their scanty incomes. Another point was, that was a great grievance on the school teachers that they had to provide the school materials for their pupils out of their own funds, and wait to be recouped for their outlay by the desultory payment for them by the parents. They applied to have the usual trade allowance of 10 per cent made to them, to cover any loss they might sustain; but their application was passed by with contempt. There were several other matters which rankled in the minds of the teachers, showing them they had nothing to expect from this Administration, and it was impossible that their feelings towards the Government which treated them in such an illiberal manner should not be reflected in the teaching of their pupils. That was perhaps the best feature in the whole matter, as it was an earnest of the next generation being imbued with a strong national feeling.

said, he thought that it had been admitted on all sides that the condition of the National School teachers in Ireland was an unsatisfactory one as regarded their remuneration, their residences, and their pensions, and that they should not be allowed to remain so any longer than was possible. He dissented, however, from the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought forward his own views before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had argued the subject ably and moderately, but from a point of view that did not apply to the condition of Ireland. In his (Mr. Collins's) view, there should be such a reform of the Educational Department in that country instituted as would make it a representative Body, and bring it into unison with the views of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted statistics showing how much pupils paid in this country as compared with Ireland, while the real business before them was to see how far it was possible to improve the condition of the teachers. In his opinion, a compulsory rate for the payment of the teachers was a necessity. On the valua- tion of Ireland a rate of 1 d. in the pound would produce £70,000, which would increase the salaries of the teachers by about £7 per head. But a compulsory rate could not be levied in Ireland so as to give satisfaction, unless a board were constituted that would represent the views of the people. If, in addition, the Government could be induced to supplement that £70,000 by an equivalent sum, the pay of each teacher would be increased by £14. Whether the rate he proposed should be a national, a county, or a Union rate, was a matter which could be discussed afterwards. He would advise the Government to agree to the general proposition of the Motion, but without committing themselves to immediate action.

said, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he came to consider this question after he came into Office, adopted an attitude which he must now see upon reflection would result in leaving the question unsettled, and the admittedly just claims of the poor people unadjusted for a number of years to come. It must be very evident to the right hon. Gentleman, upon the whole course and tone of this debate, that it was hopeless to expect that the suggestion which he had made for the settlement of this question—namely, that the Irish Members should agree to a compulsory rate in aid of the salaries of the National School teachers being levied upon the Irish Unions—that it was quite hopeless to expect that such a proposition as that would ever be acceded to. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was likely to find himself in a position to force a Bill, providing this settlement of the question, through the House in the teeth of the opposition he would meet from the Irish Benches, there were only two other courses open to him—either the just and universally admitted claims of the National School teachers with regard to increased salaries, improved residences, and a better system of pensions would have to remain unsettled, or else some rate in aid would have to be provided out of the Imperial Treasury. So long as they allowed them no local representative institutions in Ireland it was perfectly impossible for the Irish Members to agree that compulsory rates should be levied upon the Irish ratepayers to supply the admitted deficiencies in the salaries of these teachers. On the other hand, he could very well imagine that if a system of local government were adopted in the Irish counties, some plan or arrangement might be devised by which this difficulty with regard to local contributions might be got over; but in the present aspect of affairs, with the Board of Guardians as the only Body in the slightest degree approaching a representative capacity in the Irish counties and cities, it was impossible for them to consent to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. What he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this—whether, in the meanwhile, until these local representative institutions were introduced in Ireland, which they were so long expecting, and which they might hope to obtain in the ordinary course of things after a few years—what he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether they were really to take it as finally and definitely stated that nothing was to be done for these unfortunate men in Ireland? Meanwhile, a large body of teachers whose claims were admittedly just were neglected, and their salaries were, upon an average, much lower than either the English or Scotch teachers. They were now living on an average salary of only £57 a-year; and he would further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that it was right that a large proportion of the National School teachers in Ireland should continue to exist on a salary of less than 30 s. a-week? The increasing paucity of candidates for teacherships showed how serious the matter was becoming. Had this been a question of increasing the pay of the Constabulary, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have found no difficulty in applying for an extra grant from the Imperial Exchequer; but he refused to do so in this case, although there could be no question that a greater back debt existed in respect of education than with regard to any other matter. There was nothing in the past dealings of the English Government with Ireland which did them more discredit. They had deliberately in past times, by penal laws and coercive legislation, prevented the Irish youth from obtaining the advantages of legislation, and that should be taken into account by the right hon. Gentleman, who had inherited, to some extent, the odium which attached in this matter to the English Government and the people of England. He believed it was quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to maintain the position which he had taken up that evening, and that before many months, in consequence of that debate and others that would follow, the right hon. Gentleman would be obliged to make some other proposition than that made that evening.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 63; Noes 61: Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 202.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

, on rising to call attention to the possibility of Bills being read a second time in this House before they were printed, said, that he was precluded, by the Rules of the House, from moving the Resolution which he had placed upon the Paper, and which was to the effect—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no Bill should be read a second time unless it has been printed, excepting a Bill brought in by a Minister of the Crown, and then only if and after such Minister shall have stated in this House that such Bill relates to a matter of urgent public importance."

In justification of the action he had taken he would refer to the case of a Bill which was introduced this Session by an hon. Member below the Gangway, and which was actually read a second time before it was drafted, and he observed that other instances of a similar kind had fallen under his notice. The present Speaker, and also his Predecessor in the Chair, had ruled that there was nothing to prevent such a proceeding. He would not occupy the time of the House any longer, as he hoped the Government would do what they could to prevent the repetition of what he considered a scandal by giving effect to the terms of his Resolution.

said, he must commence by thanking the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) for the courteous manner in which he had brought this matter forward. He had brought forward a case of more force than anticipated, for he (Mr. Dodson) had only been aware of one Bill having been read a second time without being printed. The hon. and learned Member had, however, drawn attention to other cases; and, of course, they were all violations of the unwritten, and of what was generally supposed to be the invariable practice of the House. A proceeding of that kind amounted, in fact, to a breach of the received custom of the House, although there was no express Rule prohibiting it. All Bills were printed; but there were some—Ways and Means Bills, for instance—which were not circulated for obvious reasons. It was quite possible, under circumstances of pressure—although he did not know of a case—that a Ways and Means Bill might have been read a second time before it was printed. A case of that kind, however, would come under the exception for which the hon. and learned Member had provided in his Resolution, for the reason that such a measure must necessarily be in the charge of a Minister of the Crown. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member would require careful consideration before it could be adopted, because it would really tend to relax the practice of the House rather than to maintain it. If the hon. and learned Member made out any objection to the existing practice in the case of the Ways and Means Bills, no doubt his hon. Friends at the Treasury would be glad to consider the matter. With this assurance he trusted the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied.

said, that, in his short experience of the House, he had known three cases in which Bills had been read a second time without having been printed. He could give the names of these Bills, but he preferred not to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

said, that on this Vote the Prime Minister would be able to answer a question which he (Mr. Healy) had put concerning the possible future employment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd.

said, he had written to Lord Spencer on the subject, but had not yet received a reply; and, consequently, was not yet able to deal with the matter. It was understood, he thought, that the Question was to be answered on Monday.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £99,980, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.

said, that on this Vote a pledge had been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland last year which did not appear to have been carried out. The Government, during the Phœnix Park trials, made some rules as to prison discipline which were much more strict than those obtaining in England; and the right hon. Gentleman had promised that the rules, particularly those regulating visits to prisoners, should be considered with a view to their revision. The matter seemed to be left entirely in the hands of the Governors of the gaols.

said, he regretted he could not say whether the Report of the Prisons Commission, which had just been unanimously agreed to, referred to this subject or not.

said, that what had occurred was this. In the month of May, in the period to which he had referred, the Government made Rules, and laid them on the Table of the House, 30 days being required to elapse after that before they came into force. Previously, every prisoner had been entitled to receive certain periodical visits; but under these Rules such visits were only to take place at the discretion of the Governor of the gaol.

said, that unless something had been done by the Prison Commissioners during the present Session, he could not say that any step had been taken in the matter. It certainly appeared to him unsatisfactory that the question should be left to the Governors of gaols. It ought to be in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.

said, he regarded the right hon. Gentleman's statement as very satisfactory. When he was in prison, he had found the Governor of the gaol a very excellent and obliging person; but he did not think that, gene- rally speaking, it was safe to entrust these powers to such officials, and some alteration ought to be made in the Rules.

said, he wished to know whether it was intended to accede to the request of the Corporation of the City of Cork to permit them to appoint one or two justices to visit the male prison of that city, in order to hear any complaints the prisoners might have to make as to their treatment? The request was a very reasonable one, and should be granted, in view of the fact that serious complaints had been made regarding the prison, and unpleasant facts had been revealed in connection with it.

said, he was sensible of the evil the hon. Gentleman referred to, and it had occupied, and was still occupying, the attention of Her Majesty's Government. At present the law did not permit the visitation the hon. Member desired to see instituted—it could not be done under the 24th section of the Prisons Act—but, in a Bill recently brought in, power was given to the Lord Lieutenant to alter the rule regarding the visiting justices of prisons.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £51,944, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."

said, he was sorry to be obliged to stand for a few moments between the Committee and this Vote; but he felt bound to call attention to the fact that there had been of late a good deal of unpleasant feeling existing in regard to the action of the Government in connection with industrial schools in Ireland. There could be no doubt that within the past 12 months, at least, the Government had obstructed the development of Irish industrial schools in every way in their power. A comparison between the English and Irish industrial schools would show that the latter were not at all liberally treated. Ever since the beginning of this year—indeed, even further back than that—every attempt to extend the industrial school system in Ireland had been met by a determined and resolute resistance on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Almost every application made to the Government by those interested in the matter, however reasonable, was met in a most arbitrary spirit, and one of the most arbitrary refusals had been that in the Ballinasloe case. The managers of the school there had been most anxious to have it turned into an Industrial Institution, and had made application to the Government with that object; but—certainly up to three or four weeks ago—no answer had been received. No more proper application could be made than was made in this Ballinasloe case, and that the matter was deserving of attention was evident from the fact that there was not a single industrial school in the Province of Connaught. At Letterfrack, a large sum of money had been subscribed for the purpose of forming an industrial school, and yet nothing had been done, although he could not say that the Government had absolutely refused the application in this case. The case of Tipperary, also, had been neglected. In that case, a large sum of money had been subscribed for the extension of the existing building, so as to provide for the accommodation of a larger number of children, and the Government had only sanctioned the maintenance of 64 children, whereas the building was capable of maintaining double that number. In such cases as these, he thought the Government should only be too ready to recognize and encourage local effort. A great and important work, substantial in its effects, was being carried on by these schools, and he hoped the Government would do all they possibly could to support them.

said, he wished to be quite fair on the subject, and to admit that the limitation was not imposed without some reason, because there could be no doubt that there was a much larger percentage of children in proportion to the industrial school accommodation in Ireland than there was in England. That fact was to be accounted for in this way. In Ireland they were not, as in England, any Poor Law schools where children were brought up and educated. In Scotland, where the people had always made good use of their opportunities, they did not want Poor Law schools—they had all their poorer children in industrial schools. But this limitation was especially hard in the case of Ireland, because it was not placed upon the schools according to their merits; it was, he believed, fixed on a certain day, in 1879, when the number of children in every school was taken without any reference whatever to the size of the school, the amount of school accommodation, or the place where the school was situate. The consequence was that this anomaly was created—that in some places they were over-supplied with schools for girls; which in other places were absolutely deficient, just as his hon. Friend had pointed out with regard to board schools. That matter had been brought very forcibly before the Commission on which he sat as a Member. That Commission, of which he was a Member, made recommendations which they believed would meet the case, at the same time insuring due caution in the administration in order to prevent the admission of children to the schools who ought not to be admitted. They also recommended that there should be no limitation beyond the size and accommodation of the school subject to the control of a Secretary of State. His hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) would, however, find that question treated in detail in the Report of the Commission. There was another hindrance to the working of the system in Ireland—namely the uncertainty of contributions. In England, contributions were voluntary as in Ireland. In England, he did not suppose there was a Town Council which did not contribute a fair sum towards industrial schools; but in Ireland it was entirely different. As the Committee would be aware, it was the Grand Juries and Corporations which contributed in Ireland, and these only to the extent of a 1 s. or 1 s. 6 d. a-week, per head, of the children; while the Grand Juries of the South Riding of Tipperary and of Queen's County refused to give a single 6 d. towards the expense of industrial schools. The managers, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, had not, in consequence, sufficient income to carry on the work. Thus the only school in his county was that in the City of Cork, in which he was personally interested, which the Committee would perceive was a totally inadequate provision for a population of 500,000 Catholics. He believed that all Catholic opposition would disappear, if only the limitation complained of were taken away, and the other recommendations of the Commission were carried out. Further, he thought, although some persons had a great objection to compulsory contribution, that the contributions should be made constant, without which he believed that the requirements of the industrial system could not be carried out in Ireland. Finally, he hoped his right bon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take the recommendations of the Commission into his careful consideration, and, if legislation was to follow, as he understood it would in the case of England, that it would follow speedily.

said he should like to supplement the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Colonel Colthurst), whose statement with regard to the Grand Juries was perfectly true. He himself had committed two children to an industrial school, objecting to sending them to a reformatory, where they would be treated as prisoners and convicts. The managers declined to receive the children. He employed counsel, and the matter was contested; but such was the law that the Grand Jury of the Queen's County refused to give any capitation grant for the juveniles committed to an industrial school. The Grand Jury of that county consisted of 22 Protestant and one Catholic gentlemen. Now the result of this was that when the children were released they were unable to get any employment, and were consequently thrown upon society; those who were interested in them could not get them admission into any situation. The mere statement of this case ought to be sufficient to teach the Government that a reform of the existing system was urgently required. The natural solution of the question was, in his opinion, that power should be given to magistrates to compel the managers to admit juveniles committed to industrial schools, and that the Grand Juries should be compelled to pay for them.

said that any change that the administration might require—that would restore the industrial schools in Ireland to their proper use of receiving children committed by the magistrates—must meet with the hearty concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. He did not think the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) had brought forward any argument to show that there was any great laxity of administration; but, at all events, there was a very different idea in the minds of those connected with industrial schools in Ireland from that with regard to the schools in England. In Ireland, every child sent to an industrial school was paid for by the Government at the rate of 5 s. a-week; whereas in England a majority of children were paid for at rates varying between 2 s. 6 d. and 3 s. 6 d. a-week, 6 s. a-week being paid for boys sent to training ships. The fact of the matter was that the ideas which prevailed in Ireland with regard to industrial schools were so very different from those in England that it was necessary to have some limit, and the question was as to what that limit should be. Ought it to be an arbitrary limit of number, such as had been laid down; or a limit on the freedom of committal by the magistrates? He very much preferred the latter, if it could be carried out; and if there was legislation on this subject next year, as he hoped there would be, he would certainly help his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst) in trying to get Ireland included, and in trying also to get the recommendation in Section 24 of the Report of the Commission, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, applied to that country. He thought the schools in question should be, as far as possible, kept to their proper and legitimate object—namely, that of providing the children for whom they were intended with some place in which they could be properly brought up. He spoke of orphans, destitute children, and beggars, wandering about without a home, and likely to follow the footsteps of the habitual criminal. If it were possible to confine the committals of children to these schools to that class, he should certainly be glad to make the limit one of limitation of committals and not of number. If children committed could be confined to the classes specified in the Acts, there would be less reason for restriction; but other classes were sent into the schools, and, without giving the name either of the school or the manager, he might mention to the Committee that a ease had been brought before his notice in which a manager wanted to change a school which pro- vided for children of one sex into a school for the other sex. He wrote to the manager, and he replied that he found the children were improper objects, and he had sent them all home to their parents. Hon. Members would, he thought, allow that the case had given him a considerable amount of work. He should be glad if this vexed question could be settled by legislation in the course of next year.

asked for an explanation of the decrease with regard to the estimated extra receipts from parents of children sent to reformatory and industrial schools; the amount received last year being £1,350, and this year only £1,150. He thought the comparatively speaking large difference of £200 ought to be explained.

said, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should like to urge on the attention of the Government a point which had been impressed upon it by the Inspector of Reformatory Schools for some years past in his annual Report. It was a matter of the greatest consequence to the unfortunate children that they should receive some protection when they left the schools. The period of their discharge was, of course, most important in view of their future welfare. When they were discharged from the reformatory, they were particularly liable to all sorts of temptations and dangers, and to fall into the hands of the criminal class. He complained that the money which was given in England towards meeting the cost incurred in connection with children after their liberation was not also given in the case of Ireland. It was not necessary to emphasize the importance of this point, because it was perfectly clear that an allowance of this kind would enable boys to escape from those dangers at the outset of their industrial career which certainly brought down a great number of them to the ranks of crime. There was no reason why Irish reformatories and industrial schools should be treated differently from similar institutions in England. Now, that the question had been raised in the House, perhaps the right hen: Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) would give it the attention it deserved.

said, the point raised was one of great importance; but it was one which must be considered with the whole question of reformatory and industrial schools by the Royal Commission. As to extra receipts, he had only to say that, unfortunately, experience had shown them that the estimate of extra receipts made last year was too liberal. The present estimate corresponded more exactly with what might be expected to be realized now. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) was under a misapprehension with regard to the scale of payment of Inspectors in England and Ireland. Sir John Lentaigne received a salary of £400.

said, that, as a Member of the Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, he should be sorry to let it be supposed that the feeling with regard to the want of subsidization for Irish industrial schools was confined to Irish Members. English Members felt the want quite as strongly as Irish Members; and he hoped that, at no distant time, the Irish Government would find it in their power to make some greater provision for the Irish schools. The Commission were very much struck with what many of the schools were doing, and they would be very glad if the schools were extended. While he thought there was room for improvement in English industrial schools, much more was needed to be done in the industrial schools of Ireland.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would allow him to correct him. Sir John Lentaigne's salary as Inspector of Schools was only £300 a-year; the additional £100 a-year was granted him by the Duke of Marlborough on his retirement from the Prison Board, and was strictly personal to himself. He (Mr. Moore) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) alluded again to the comparison between England and Ireland. It was very easy to go into comparisons. Perhaps Ireland had been generously treated in respect to her industrial schools, and it was perhaps true that the Irish industrial schools were much ahead of similar institutions in England. But if the right hon. Gentleman had made a little comparison of the expenditure in other Departments he would not have found the advantage on the side of Ireland. In the matter of the training of teachers, for instance, Ireland did not receive her fair proportion of grant from the State. He did not under stand the policy of the Irish Government in respect of industrial schools, which had been a source of great benefit to the poorer classes. He moved to reduce the vote by £1.

Is the hon. Member serious?

If it would be more convenient, I will move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That a sum, not exceeding £51,844, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in Ireland."— (Mr. Moore.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 66: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 203.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

said, the hour (12.45) was still early; and, therefore, he proposed to take a few of the non-contentious Votes. They had to meet again at 12 o'clock, and, in consequence, he would not take anything that would occupy much time. He proposed, in the first place, to take the Votes for the National Gallery, and a few other Votes in Class IV.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) if he could give the Committee any explanation with regard to an erection that had been put up outside the National Gallery? To what purpose was the building to be devoted; if the cost of the building was intended to be defrayed by Parliament; and for what length of time that most unsightly erection was to remain to disfigure what was very properly considered the finest site in Europe?

, in reply, said, the building had been placed there by the desire of the Trustees of the National Gallery, in order that photographs might be taken of certain pictures in the Gallery. It had been found that the light in the Gallery itself was not sufficiently good to admit of proper photographs being taken. The building would be removed at the end of two months. He did not think the public would raise any serious objection to the building under the circumstances.

What will be the expense?

I believe the whole thing is a private enterprize.

said, he protested against the manner in which the Estimates were now being taken. He was sure that the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope), who entertained a strong feeling with regard to the opening of the National Gallery in the evening, would have been present had he had the slightest idea that the Vote would be taken that night. He (Mr. Warton) was of opinion that there should always be a clear understanding what Votes would be taken at a particular Sitting, in which case time would not be wasted in considering which Votes should be taken, and which should not. Upon this particular Vote he had to complain; and he was sorry he had to do so in the absence of the only person who could give him an answer on the subject—namely, the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. J. Howard), that there was no accommodation of a certain kind in the National Gallery. In the Louvre in Paris, and in other great picture galleries, proper accommodation was provided. He had himself been inconvenienced by the absence of accommodation of the nature he referred to in the National Gallery. It was perfectly disgraceful that in this country there should be a Puritanical objection to recognizing the necessity of what vitally affected life.

said, he knew the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope) took a great interest in lengthening the time during which the National Gallery was open to the public. The question was not an unimportant one; but it belonged strictly to Class I., where the buildings for the National Gallery were provided for, and not to this class, which dealt solely with pictures.

said, there was another matter which ought not to be passed over in silence, and that was the small amount of room there was to see the pictures.