:Sir, the statement which I shall have to make in proposing this Vote of Credit, which you, Sir, have already read from the Chair, will be, I hope, not a very lengthened one, will be simple in its character, and, I trust, not involving any highly contentious matter. The purpose of the Vote of Credit is described in general terms upon the face of the Paper which has been placed in the hands of Members, and I will refer a little more particularly to the basis upon which our proposition rests. Sir, the Committee is well aware that we are under pledges as regards General Gordon to aid him by military means in a certain contingency. Perhaps it may be desirable that I should refer particularly to the nature of those pledges, though I believe they are gene- rally in the recollection of the Committee. They are to be found in telegrams that are in the possession of the House, dated April 23 and May 17, and they are to be found in various declarations made by myself in this House, and by Earl Granville in the other House of Parliament. But, Sir, they are to be found especially—as I am now addressing the House of Commons, and the House of Commons, perhaps, pays the greatest attention to what is addressed by responsible Ministers of the Crown to itself—they are to be found especially in a speech delivered by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) on the 13th of May, when he dealt more fully with this portion of the subject than any of his Colleagues had done on any previous occasion. I am quoting from Hansard, May 13, page 233; and I will, first of all, refer to certain sentences. My noble Friend then stated that, before an expedition for the relief of General Gordon could be ordered or announced, it was necessary to have the clearest proof of its necessity. He stated that such an expedition would not be justified for the purpose of enabling General Gordon to smash or overpower the Mahdi; nor for the purpose of giving a satisfactory Government to the inhabitants of the Soudan; nor for the purpose of enabling the garrisons of the Soudan to march out with the honours of war; and my noble Friend went on to say, in a passage which I will now quote—

"We must be satisfied, as far as it is possible for us to satisfy ourselves, that such an expedition is necessary to secure the safety of General Gordon, and of those for whose safety he has made himself responsible. It is necessary that we should be satisfied that the original view as to the possibility of evacuation is now impossible of execution. General Gordon will not be called upon by the Government to do anything which will be derogatory to his honour or to his character. Those who have trusted themselves in his service, those who have fought for him, who have increased the perils in which they stood before by entering his service, no doubt, General Gordon is responsible for, and cannot desert; but there is no reason to believe that, if escape is possible for him, it is not also possible for those who stand towards him in the relation which I have described."—(3 Hansard, [288] 233–4.)

The telegram, which is before the Committee, and which is dated May 17, was conceived in the spirit of those ex- pressions. And now I think I need not enter into any minute description; but I will rather remind the Committee of what has taken place; and, not seeking in any degree either to extend or contract those pledges, I think I may assume that the Committee is fully aware that we have given pledges to aid General Gordon in a certain contingency. Next, I am bound to say that we consider that these pledges, in a general sense, were approved by Parliament. Some may, perhaps, have thought they went too far, and some may have thought they did not go far enough; but, speaking of the general body of the Committee, we are under the belief that these pledges were approved, and that I need not now argue in support of the principle on which they rest, or go back upon a field which we have traversed to a sufficient extent on former occasions. Well, now, Sir, we and the country have been under very considerable embarrassment from the want of direct official communication with General Gordon. That difficulty has beset us, and to no inconsiderable extent perplexed us for a time which is now approaching no less than four months. But, although there has been this want of official communication with General Gordon, yet, in the absence of such communication, there has been a series of reports which has reached us, and which, although they cannot be placed upon a footing with direct and responsible accounts, yet, when taken together, may be held to have considerable importance, and undoubtedly, I think, have acted a good deal more upon the mind of the public, who are so deeply interested in the safety of General Gordon. These reports have not been altogether uniform in their character. For instance, upon a particular occasion—namely, the 4th of July—one of the London journals—and in referring to the London journals I may say that, as far as I am able to judge, all those varied reports have been perfectly impartial, and have not been altered or modified for the purpose of supporting any particular view—at one time the reports in one journal had been more favourable or more unfavourable and at other times the reverse; but in quoting from them generally I quote without the slightest reference to anything, except to the fact that such a telegram has reached this country— well, I think it was on the 4th and 5th of July that reports in The Daily Telegraph, which had previously had some reports of a very favourable character, came to convey the darkest view of the case that was brought before us with respect to Khartoum and General Gordon. On the 4th of July we were told that the town had been captured without difficulty by the Mahdi; that no massacre had taken place, however; and that General Gordon was safe, but that he entirely declined to quit the place. On the 5th of July there was also a statement to the effect that Khartoum was in possession of the Mahdi; but when we came to look at the sources we found that the report of the 4th came from the insurgent Army itself, which represented that Khartoum had been captured; and the reports of the 5th of July from what are described as Native sources. But, Sir, speaking generally, such has not been the tenour of the reports that have been received. On the whole, they have—some may think to a very high degree, some may think in a lower degree, and upon that I do not enter at all; but in some degree or other they have converged towards certain points. The points to which they have converged have been what may be termed the safety of General Gordon, in the sense in which that term is applicable to a man who is in a country where fighting is going on, and in a town foreign to him, and likewise to his power to remove from Khartoum, if considerations of honour or prudence, or whatever motives may govern the mind of that heroic man, should dictate such a course. I may just quote in support of what I say two reports, which came from The Daily News' Correspondent on the 30th of June. On the 30th of June that journal—and perhaps other journals; but I do not know—that journal gave a report which was brought by certain pilgrims to Suakin, and their report was to the effect that the town of Khartoum was all right on the 23rd of May, and that food was plentiful there. They had also a report of pilgrims who had arrived at Tahkrova, and who gave the very same account which came from another place, that all was well at Khartoum on the 23rd of May, and that food and water were sufficient for its supply. I quote this as an illustration of the way in which reports that are not official or responsible, yet concurring with each other when arriving from different places, support one another to a certain extent. On another day, the 29th of July, The Daily News and Reuter's Agency gave a report from a Greek merchant who had come from Kassala. He reported that he had seen a letter from General Gordon, dated the 11th of June, and reporting the presence of rebels, but saying that he was confident of being able to destroy them on the rising of the Nile. By "destroying" them, I suppose him to mean overcoming them. I do not suppose we are to interpret the word as meaning the annihilation of all these people. The letter further reported that General Gordon was quite safe, that the soldiers were in good spirits, and that provisions were plentiful. That was the report of the Greek merchant with respect to the letter which he said he had seen, and which was dated the 11th of June. Then, Sir—this is rather curious as regards those unofficial reports—on the 18th of July, The Standard and The Daily News gave a report, brought also by pilgrims to Suakin. The effect of this report was that General Gordon was well about the 21st of June, and keeping the enemy in perpetual fear by successful land and water sorties, and it mentioned likewise that his messengers had been killed. That, the Committee will observe, was an unofficial report on the 21st of June. Well, but then that unofficial report of the 21st of June is now in a certain degree confirmed by what may be called in a certain sense an official report, for we heard some time ago that a letter had been received by the Mudir of Dongola from General Gordon himself. That letter is in the hands of the Committee, and in it General Gordon states that Khartoum and Sennaar were in a good state of defence. He inquired of the Mudir of Dongola what reinforcements of troops were forthcoming, and he mentioned certain other particulars. When that letter arrived there were certain circumstances connected with it which might have led to a momentary doubt of its authenticity; but since the arrival of Major Kitchener at Dongola, we have received communications from him from which we have no longer any doubt of his having seen that letter, and that it is a genuine document. I do not say that it is a document with regard to which we can be altogether free from mystery, because it is not easy to understand, taking the document alone and at first sight, although it may be explained by testimony which may hereafter reach us, why General Gordon should put to the Mudir of Dongola questions about any anticipated reinforcements or military succour, and why, at the same time, that letter to the Mudir of Dongola, which he had an opportunity of sending, should not have been accompanied by any letter to the British Government. But all that is a matter which may be fully explained by subsequent intelligence. These particulars, Sir, I have laid before the Committee, they being selected from what is really a very large and promiscuous body of evidence, some of it of a slight character, and other parts of it of greater effect and substance, and which has reached us since the middle of the month of May. But the general conclusion to which they bring us is this—that, undoubtedly, we are not in a condition to say that the contingency anticipated by my noble Friend in his speech of a clear necessity for sending military aid, and for undertaking military operations with the view of sending aid to General Gordon—we are not in a position to say that that contingency has arrived. But, although it has not arrived, it was all very well for us to wait for fuller intelligence while Parliament was sitting, because at any moment we could come down to Parliament and obtain the judgment of Parliament, and ask for the decision of Parliament, as to any duty which might seem to be incumbent upon us. We are now, however, reaching the time when Parliament is about to be prorogued. Under these circumstances, it has appeared to us to be clearly our duty to place ourselves in such a position that if, during the Recess of Parliament, that contingency should arrive, we might be enabled to meet it in the way in which we think Parliament would wish. That is the main and proper object of the Vote of Censure— [ Laughter ] —I mean the Vote of Credit. My mouth is not accustomed to enunciate the latter phrase, but the phrase "Vote of Censure" is extremely familiar to me. The main object of the Vote, as a Vote required beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, is to enable Her Majesty to undertake operations for the relief of General Gordon should they become necessary. Besides that, we hope we shall thus obtain the direct authority of Parliament to certain preparations connected therewith. Well, Sir, these preparations are preparations which are to be explained by the condition and circumstances of Egypt, and the condition of season and climate under which communications may be carried on in that country. They are preparations as distinguished from operations. [ Laughter by Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) may have a better mode of description; but I think I convey a tolerably clear idea to the minds of the Committee when I speak of preparations as distinguished from operations. The Vote in itself is rather, perhaps, a Vote of principle than anything else—I mean to say, rather a Vote of principle than the representation of an exact figure. A figure we must present, and we must regulate it by what appear to us to be the dictates of good sense; but it is impossible for us, until this contingency arises—and God forbid it should arise!—a sentiment in which, I hope, we all join—but until this contingency should arise, it would be impossible for us to form an accurate estimate of the demands that may be made upon us. What I look at is the assent of Parliament, such as we conceive it to be, to the pledges—I might even say as regards a great portion of the Committee—but, at least, to those pledges into which we have entered as respects General Gordon, and the authority which we feel was placed in our hands to act according to the dictates of prudence and justice upon those pledges under cover of the Vote which we ask Parliament to give us. With respect to the particular preparations, I think the Committee will feel with me that it would not be for the public interest that I should enter into any explanations whatever. In our opinion, it would be of no advantage even to the object of those who sought information, inasmuch as the information must at present necessarily be partial, and, to a certain extent, therefore, misleading. What we feel is this—it is impossible for us to judge, unless and until the contingency arrives, in what way, by what specific means and form of action, that contin- gency ought to be met. It is plainly, therefore, our duty to reserve to ourselves, subject to our responsibility to Parliament, a full discretion in the choice of the best, the most prudent, and the most effective methods of proceeding. Any explanations that might now be entered into with respect to preparations would tend to limit that field of action, and, I may also say, it might have other inconvenience in Egypt itself of a character more direct and more immediately bearing on the purpose which, if the occasion arises, we should have in view. I believe I have now stated to the Committee all that it appears necessary to state in order to convey the double purpose of this Vote—the major purpose, to obtain the authority of Parliament, for acting, as circumstances may require, upon our responsibility; and the secondary and subsidiary purpose of taking such steps as may appear to my noble Friend and his advisers, with the sanction of the Cabinet, in the way of military preparation, as prudence may appear to require, when the matter is considered in connection with the peculiarities of Egypt, and what may be required by the seasons of the year, or in order that we may not be taken unawares, should the time come. On these grounds, I hope it will be found by the Committee that there is no novelty of principle in the proposal we now make; that it is simply an attempt on our part to place ourselves in a condition to redeem the honourable engagements under which we have come to Parliament and to the country, in view of circumstances when Parliament itself would have been prorogued, and, therefore, when we should not have had a direct and immediate means of obtaining its authority by the summary method of an immediate application. Under these circumstances, I beg to present the Vote of Credit which has been placed in your hands.

said, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to have asserted that universal assent was given to the pledges he had mentioned when they were made in the House. He did not think anyone would contest that when those pledges were given, it was upon the full and distinct understanding that General Gordon was acting in accordance with his instructions, and the orders given to him. But he apprehended, on reading the Papers which everyone had had an opportunity of reading, that General Gordon had not only not fulfilled his instructions, but had acted in complete disaccord with them. What were those instructions? They were contained in the letter of Earl Granville to Sir Evelyn Baring, and pointed out the best way of effecting the evacuation of the Soudan, and of securing the safety of the garrisons. That was why General Gordon was sent out; but when he arrived in Egypt, without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, he accepted the position of Governor General of the Soudan, and started for Khartoum. This fact would be found recorded in the Blue Books a few days later than Earl Granville's letter in a telegram from that noble Earl to Sir Evelyn Baring to ask if General Gordon had accepted any position under the Egyptian Government. General Gordon had then started for Khartoum, and hon. Members knew what then occurred. He wrote home despatches, to the effect that the people were all entirely in favour of his Mission, and that it would be exceedingly easy for the garrisons to retire. Then he demanded that Zebehr Pasha should be sent to the Soudan, and he also made the Mahdi the Sultan of Kordofan. But as soon as he found that the Mahdi refused to accept the position of Sultan of Kordofan, General Gordon immediately changed his tone, and said he would smash the Mahdi. Ever since, so far as he could understand from the obscure reports received from the Soudan, and from the Blue Books, General Gordon had been determined to revenge himself upon these unfortunate Soudanese because they did not accept him as an inspired prophet. That was what General Gordon had done. The Prime Minister said that when General Gordon stated he was in hopes of destroying the rebels, he did not really mean to annihilate them. But his (Mr. Labouchere's) impression was that he did mean to annihilate them. It seemed to him that that was nothing more than General Gordon had done in the last few months. He had remained at Khartoum, and had sallied forth whenever an opportunity came, and had attacked these Soudanese, whom he was pleased to call "rebels," although Her Majesty's Government, who had sent him out, had absolutely recognized the independence of the Soudan. More than that, he told all his followers, who wished to leave Khartoum, that they could retire, and, according to the Blue Books, everyone who was able to leave, did leave at the commencement of General Gordon's Mission, the rest remaining to fight with him. But he believed, at the present moment, that General Gordon was determined not to give way, but had got some vague plan in his head—like a sort of Egyptian Jingo—of inducing the Egyptians to retake the Soudan, and of forcing our hands to send reinforcements to support him in establishing some sort of rule which was not the rule of the Soudanese. Under these circumstances, accepting the pledges in their fullest sense, he hardly thought they were bound to send an English Army to bring back General Gordon from Khartoum. They had heard from Mr. Stanley, and he was an authority in the matter, that there was nothing easier at present than for Gordon to get away from Khartoum, and to bring away all those who were acting with him. But no; he remained there, issuing a species of paper money to be paid for by us or by the Egyptian Government, and sallying forth day after day to destroy what he called "the rebels." General Gordon could fulfil his instructions and get away. That, however, was not his policy, and he stopped there because he chose to stop there. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not see why money should be spent and lives lost merely to please General Gordon. He was, at that moment, Governor General of the Soudan; and why was this country to pay for him? It was the Egyptian Government that ought to pay. Egypt had plenty of money; and the only reason why there was some difficulty in getting money was that an exceptional and unfair amount was taken away from Egypt for the bondholders. The only persons in favour of England paying for it were the bondholders, who objected to have their interest reduced. If the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the money should be advanced as a matter of kindness to Egypt, the matter would be very different; but he gathered that the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland were to pay for this expedition as they had to pay for this expedition to Suakin. What did they gain from the Suakin Expedition? It cost a number of valuable lives and a large amount of money. The present Vote was only £300,000; but if an expedition for the relief of General Gordon, was undertaken it would cost very much more than £300,000—£300,000 was a mere sop. Parliament would next Session be asked to agree to a Vote of £3,000,000, and would be told that they had already assented to such expenditure by agreeing to the present Vote. The Prime Minister himself stated that it was a Vote of principle; and it was precisely because it was a Vote of principle that he objected to it. The principle was whether they ought, or ought not, to do their best to get General Gordon back? The principle was that they, and not the bondholders, ought to pay for the expedition which had been made necessary owing to the misdeeds of the Egyptians themselves in the Soudan. General Gordon was sent out to bring away the garrisons by peaceful means if he possibly could, and he had had ample opportunities of doing so. He would not detain the Committee further; but he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon the Vote.

said, he felt himself to be in a very great dilemma as to the vote which he ought to give. He had no objection to a definite sum of £300,000, or two or three times £300,000, in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to get General Gordon out of Africa, and put him in some safe place from which he would not be likely to break out again; but, as the Prime Minister had just said, this was not a Vote of £300,000, but a Vote of principle, which might involve the necessity of their entering into a campaign in Central Africa, and it was perfectly evident that if they were to enter into a campaign in Central Africa, £300,000 would be a mere drop in the ocean. The Committee might find, when they came back in October, that they had committed themselves to an expedition which might cost £10,000,000 and many thousands of lives. That was the question upon which he wished to have a clear answer, and he was afraid, if he were to be guided by the words of the Prime Minister, the answer would be that they would be committed. At all events, he wanted to know whether, if the Committee voted this sum of £300,000, Her Majesty's Government would agree not to incur any more expenditure than this £300,000 would cover, before Parliament re-assembled in October? If he were to understand that they were only voting to Her Majesty's Government a definite sum, and that no increased expense would be incurred until Parliament was called together again, he would be prepared to assent to the Vote; but he was not prepared to agree to a Vote which would be practically in the nature of a blank cheque, placed in the hands of the Government to be used without restraint. He trusted to the good sense of Her Majesty's Government to prevent a great campaign; but he was unwilling to subject them to the pressure, which he knew they would be subjected to, in regard to undertaking a campaign. Although he believed that General Gordon was very much in fault himself in regard to the position in which he was now placed, still he admitted that they were bound to relieve him if it could be done on reasonable terms. With him (Sir George Campbell) it was very much a matter of amount. Looking at all the circumstances, it seemed to him that there was a danger of entering into an enormous campaign in the deserts of Africa which must necessarily cost them thousands of lives, and in regard to which Mr. Stanley told them that their soldiers would die like flies, while the cost would amount to many millions of money. He could not conscientiously vote for a war of that kind, and certainly not at the present moment, until it was known that General Gordon had exhausted every other means of escaping by way of the Nile, or by the means which Mr. Stanley pointed out. The great difficulty was for General Gordon to take away with him the Egyptians who had trusted him. As to the number of Egyptians who were likely to follow him, there might be many who would prefer to make their own terms with the rebels, instead of going with General Gordon. The experience had hitherto been that whenever an attempt was made by a garrison to come to terms with the enemy, no massacre had followed. But he agreed with some of his hon. Friends below him, that General Gordon had entered upon a line of action in which he could not reckon on the military support of the country; and, therefore, he (Sir George Campbell) would end as he had begun, by saying that, in any case, he was ready to vote £300,000 as a definite sum, but he would not vote for it if it were to commit the country to immeasurable liabilities before Parliament reassembled in the month of October.

:I need not say that it is not my intention to oppose this Vote. On the contrary, I believe that it will receive general support on this side of the Committee. But it does appear somewhat hard upon me and my Friends, and especially upon me, to have to support a proposition of this kind. It is five months ago since I ventured to say, in this House, that I thought the sending out of General Gordon would probably result in the Government being compelled to send a Force to relieve him. We are now within a measurable distance of that step. But, notwithstanding the folly of the Government in sending him upon that Mission, it is our duty, I think, to do our best to relieve General Gordon and those who have stuck to him. The strictures of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on General Gordon are most undeserved. Notwithstanding the folly of the Government in sending out General Gordon, when they were certainly not in a position to know exactly what he would do, no Englishman can refuse to General Gordon a tribute of admiration for the manner in which he undertook this Mission and carried it out. I believe now, as I did at first, that the task before him was an impossible one, and one which no man could reasonably be supposed to succeed in accomplishing; but General Gordon has certainly not only performed the duty he undertook to perform with great gallantry and great devotion, but at the same time he has, I think, done many things which may be of use to this country hereafter with respect to the Soudan. He has, I am quite sure, impressed upon the natives of the Soudan the power of England and the devotion of an Englishman to the British cause. I am certain, no matter what the direct result may be of General Gordon's Mission, the good name of England will have been exalted by the manner in which he has performed the work he undertook. At the same time, I cannot help remembering that General Gordon's own opinion is that Her Majesty's Government have inflicted indelible disgrace on England by the way they have treated him. But that, as I said before, is no reason why we should not assist the Government in relieving General Gordon. Those measures which it is now proposed to take ought to have been taken many months ago for his relief; but although they are taken at the last moment, I hope they may not prove to be too late. On the 13th of May, the Secretary of State for War mentioned the contingencies that must arise before the Government could take steps for his relief. The Prime Minister does not now say that any of those contingencies have arisen. On the contrary, he seems to indicate that they have not arrived. I should like to know what contingency Her Majesty's Government expected to arrive? What contingency, save the death of General Gordon, could the Government be waiting for? Every other contingency arose long ago. But it is clear that General Gordon is in the utmost peril. I do not believe that there is any Government in Europe which would have treated its Ambassador or Commissioner in the way that Her Majesty's Government have treated General Gordon. Nothing can be more disgraceful than the conduct of the Government in this respect. General Gordon wrote to the Mudir of Dongola, because he felt himself deserted by the Government. But, although the present Vote is brought forward very tardily and at the last moment, I can assure the Government that I am most happy to give them my most earnest support; and, further than that, I may say that throughout all the evils which were predicted from this Bench, and which are now likely to happen in respect of General Gordon, I am quite sure that any measures which Her Majesty's Government may propose for the safety of General Gordon and the devoted persons with him, will be cheerfully supported by hon. Gentleman on this side of the Committee.

:I am not at all in the dilemma of my hon. Friend on my right (Sir George Campbell), as to how I shall vote in this matter. I am very clear in my opposition to this Vote. First, of all, I feel bound to consider what was the object with which General Gordon was sent out. There is no doubt about that, because we were told in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne that General Gordon had been sent out—

"To report on the best means of giving effect to the resolution of the Khedive to withdraw from the interior of the Soudan."

He went out on this Mission entirely at his own risk, knowing the danger and prepared to take the consequences. There is no doubt about that, because the Secretary of State for War distinctly stated that in this House, on the 3rd of April, and explained that—

"General Gordon left this country with a most distinct and clear understanding, repeated over and over again by himself, that the Mission which he was going to undertake was one which he was prepared to undertake with such resources as he might find on the spot; and he distinctly understood that it was not a part of the policy of the Government, in despatching that expedition, to risk having to send a fresh expedition for the relief of Khartoum or any similar garrisons."—(3 Hansard, [286] 1115.)

It is quite clear, therefore, that General Gordon went out knowing that he was not to have an Army sent to his rescue under any circumstances. That being the case, and that being the clear intimation given by the Government to the House, I want to know what has happened to induce the Government to change their course of action? What has caused them to come down to the Committee now for an expedition, when they distinctly told the House that no expedition would be sent out for his relief? An expedition must necessarily involve a fearful slaughter of brave men; and what, therefore, has happened to put Her Majesty's Government in a different frame of mind from that in which they were when General Gordon was sent out? Of course, many things have happened. We have been told that General Gordon was obliged to ask for the Suakin Expedition; and although the Government did not give a warm approval to it, they did nothing to express their disapproval of the proposal, and sent out an expedition which committed a fearful amount of slaughter. Another change of policy was that Gordon had sent word home in one of his despatches that he considered it to be his mission to smash the Mahdi. Nothing more unjust than this desire on the part of General Gordon to smash the Mahdi has ever been heard of in modern times. What did General Gordon himself and Baker Pasha say about the Soudan? Both of these eminent authorities have admitted that it was the horrible state of things in the Soudan which made the people rebel. And both have contended that the Soudanese were perfectly justified in doing what they were doing. For that I have even a higher authority than Gordon or Baker—namely, the Prime Minister himself, who described these people, in this House, as "rightly struggling to be free." I, for one, if nobody else does, will certainly vote against this money being spent to carry out this enterprize, if it is only to prevent, at any rate, an attempt on the part of Gordon to smash the Mahdi. Why should Gordon smash the Mahdi? Why should we go about the world smashing people? I thing we have had enough of this smashing business. We smashed Cetewayo; what good came out of it? We smashed Shere Ali and Arabi; and what good came of it all? The country surely must have found by this time that it does not pay, for we suffer most by it ourselves. We are now called upon to vote £300,000 for an enterprize which was commenced and will be continued to smash the Mandi. Smash him if you like, but that will not get rid of the difficulty. Other Mahdis will spring up like mushrooms. Mushrooms and reformers and rebels spring up because of the sufferings they have to undergo from bad government. Smash the Mahdi, and smash as many of them as you like, and they will spring up again if the bad government be not improved; and all your expenditure will have been in vain. Now, what has happened in this country? Some people say that we ought to rescue Gordon because he is a Christian hero. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor): Hear, hear!] The Lord Mayor cheers that. I do not dispute that Gordon is a Christian hero. I dare say Gordon is doing his best, according to his lights, but he has a curious way of showing Christian heroism. The Lord Mayor admired General Gordon's previous career. For myself, I do not see very much to admire in it. First of all, he spent a long time in putting down the Taepings. What right had he to put them down? They were just as good as the Chinese Government, as far as I know. He killed hundreds and thousands of these people. Then he went to the Soudan, and his expedition there was all a sham, for Gordon himself has told us that slavery is just as bad now as ever it has been. I do not believe in Christian heroes going about the world cutting people's heads off, and quoting Scripture as they do it. As for the Vote of £300,000 for putting down the Mahdi, I would rather vote £300,000 to enable the Mahdi to put down General Gordon. ["Oh!"] Yes; and I have the Prime Minister to support me there. The Mahdi and his followers have been described by the right hon. Gentleman as "people rightly struggling to be free." The Mahdi is the leader of these people; and instead of voting £300,000 to put him down, I say that it is a shame that the Committee should be called upon to vote this money. If Gordon is the Christian hero you talk about, the Government insult him by sending out peeple to be slaughtered for his sake. A Christian hero would rather suffer himself than let others suffer. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members laugh; but what do you do when you send out an Army for his relief? Talk about massacres!—why, the only massacre, which was that which occurred at Tokar, took place entirely in consequence of our own proceedings. I shall, therefore, vote against the Motion. I support the policy of the Secretary of State for War—the policy of not sending any expedition—a policy to which Gordon himself agreed, which the country understood at the time, and from which a new and mischievous departure is now proposed by the Government.

said, he thought that if the observations of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee were to be taken seriously, it might be worth while to reply to them. But he must protest against a misrepresentation of Gordon's words, which the hon. Baronet had made. Gordon did not say that "his mission was to smash up the Mahdi." The phrase "smashing up the Mahdi" had been very unfairly used against him, and in no instance more unfairly than by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, who added the words which implied that Gordon had said that it was his "mission" to destroy the False Prophet. General Gordon, after taking a full survey of the position of affairs at Khartoum, and seeing the danger that surrounded him and those he was sent out to save, put in plain and unmistakable language the position of things. He said that there would be no peace in the Soudan and no peace for Egypt till the Mandi was smashed up. That was a statement in which every soldier and statesman in Europe would agree—a statement which Her Majesty's Government, in sending out an expedition to Suakin, had confirmed, and a statement which the Vote proposed that night completely indorsed. What satisfaction he had derived from the speech of the Prime Minister consisted very much in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had abstained from repeating that most unfair and unjust charge which, without the slightest evidence, had come from the Benches opposite, that General Gordon had changed his policy, and had evinced a desire and an intention of smashing up the Mahdi. General Gordon went out to endeavour to carry out a pacific mission. As the Government knew perfectly well, he had exhausted all the pacific means in his power. He had even gone so far as to endorse the existence of slavery, and had endeavoured to negotiate with the Mahdi. Indeed, it was not until he found that all his overtures had been rejected, and rejected with scorn—until he received an insulting message from the Mahdi, and found himself attacked, beleaguered, and in great peril at Khartoum, that he said it was a necessity to resort to military operations. What would the hon. Baronet and other Members who had used the expression about smashing the Mahdi, and turned it so unfairly against General Gordon, have had General Gordon do in the position in which he was placed? Would they have had him lie down in the face of the Mahdi's fanatics, and be speared? It might, under some conditions, be chivalrous to submit to certain death, and General Gordon would probably have been prepared to do so, if his own fate only was concerned. But Gordon went out to save 20,000 soldiers and civilians, and he felt bound to leave no stone unturned in order to accomplish his mission. General Gordon had, no doubt, stated that in order to secure peace in Egypt it might be necessary to smash up the power of the Mahdi. Was there any honest man in the Committee who would get up and say that General Gordon had changed his policy, or was not justified in everything he had done? In the mouth of the Government there might be a great inconsistency in these expressions; but the hon. Baronet, however extraordinary, inconceivable, and almost unimaginable his views on these subjects were, at the same time was, to some extent, consistent in the matter. But for Ministers to cavil at smashing up the Mahdi, and to use it as a charge against General Gordon after they had sent out the fruitless expedition of General Graham to Suakin, which smashed up 6,000 Arabs without any result whatever—for them to reproach General Gordon with this phrase of "smashing up the Mahdi," was not only unjust, but in the last degree inconsistent. He would take up the words of the hon. Baronet, and ask why the Arabs at Dongola and Assouan had not just as much right to struggle for freedom as the Arabs about Khartoum? It was ridiculous to describe these savage fanatics as martyrs—" peoples rightly struggling to be free." These wild Arabs had no appreciation whatever of liberty; their sole idea of freedom was massacre, outrage, and rapine, and they destroyed everything they came across. Hitherto, that had been the inevitable result of their struggle to be free. The Committee had had that night two most extraordinary attempts to hold back information—two most extraordinary attempts at delay. They had been told, on the one hand, that a Cabinet Minister was going out as High Commissioner to deal with the difficulties in regard to Egypt. But Her Majesty's Government had known the difficulties in regard to Egypt for months and years; but they had actually been proposing to Europe a plan to deal with some of these difficulties, without having any alternative policy whatever, Now, face to face with the failure of all their projects, they found themselves obliged to send out a Cabinet Minister to Egypt, in order to get a little more time. The same course was now being pursued in regard to this Gordon Expedition. The Prime Minister, it was true, had asked for a certain Vote of money; but he had taken away much of the effect and all the benefit of that request and of that Vote, by making it seem to the Committee and the country that the old vice of indecision and vacillation still prevailed in the Councils of the Government. The Premier said— "If the necessity arises." When, in the name of Heaven, would the necessity arise if it had not arisen now? What further danger or peril could General Gordon be in, except that which had led to the destruction of the other garrisons of Sinkat and Berber, and the destruction of General Hicks's army? Of course, General Gordon could be in no peril beyond the same kind of peril that had led to the destruction of the other garrisons. If they were to wait until he was in extremis, of what advantage would this Vote of Credit be? They were too late to relieve Sinkat, Tokar, or Berber; they brought back General Graham's Force when it might have saved Berber; and now, as far as he understood the statement of the Prime Minister, it was announced that, as far as they could achieve it, the Ministry were going to be too late in trying to relieve Khartoum. How long were British troops to be kept dangling about the Nile, in unhealthy positions in the neighbourhood of Assouan and Dongola? It was known that the Nile would soon begin to fall; that the climate would then become unhealthy, and that British troops, if retained there, would suffer considerable loss. Under such circumstances, would it not be wiser to undertake adequate and sufficient operations at once for the relief of General Gordon, who was undoubtedly expecting assistance from them? The Prime Minister had expressed surprise that General Gordon had addressed himself to the Mudir of Dongola, and not. to Her Majesty's Government; but he forgot that General Gordon had told the Government that, as they had abandoned him, he would have nothing more to do with them, but that he would go to work on his own plan, and act upon his own judgment, For that reason, Gordon had sent the message to the Mudir of Dongola, the only person in the neighbourhood who had proved himself to be a man with resolution and courage. General Gordon had declined to have further intercourse with Her Majesty's Government, and nobody could blame him for it. Before he sat down, he wished to say a few words with regard to the fall of Berber and the massacre of its garrison. It was a matter which had several times been brought before the House. The Government were altogether responsible for the massacre, according to the best information in the possession of the House. It was a massacre of 3,500 human beings, and their responsibility was so direct that it could not be evaded. The Committee would remember that early in April, and throughout the month of April, very serious and reliable information reached this country from the Governor of Berber, who sent telegram after telegram pressing for aid, begging for reinforcements, and stating that his position was one of the direst peril. Those telegrams were made known to the country through the public Press, and they were also made the subject of Questions in that House. On the 24th of April, the Prime Minister made a deliberate statement to the House. He thought it was worth the while of the Prime Minister for a moment to notice what he was saying on this subject, because it very closely concerned the reputation and honour of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister was asked in that House whether there was any danger of Berber sharing the fate of Sinkat, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that as far as the Government knew there was no such risk. That was on the 24th of April, and yet on that day, and for a fortnight previously, the Prime Minister and the Government had been in possession of these telegrams from the Governor of Berber, stating that he was in the most dire and imminent peril. The Committee was now in possession of those telegrams, which came from the highest authority—from an official on the spot—on the 7th, 16th, 20th, 21st, and 23rd of April, gradually increasing in urgency, and every one pointing out that the danger of destruction and massacre was as imminent as it possibly could be. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in saying that the Government had ample warning of what was coming both from the Egyptian Government, Nubar Pasha, and Sir Evelyn Baring. Nubar Pasha absolutely advised that reinforcements should be sent, and yet the Prime Minister kept that information from the House, and took on himself the responsibility of stating that there was no risk of Berber sharing the fate of Sinkat. That was a very great responsibility indeed; and when the Prime Minister was asked if it was the fact that orders had been given by the Bri- tish Government to prevent the Egyptian Government from sending the reinforcements they wished to send, the right hon. Gentleman said—"No, Sir; I have no information to that effect." Nevertheless, from the British Foreign Office the day before had gone out distinct instructions that no reinforcements or help should be sent to the Governor of Berber. He did not believe the Prime Minister could have made that statement if he could have had it in his own memory at the time that such a despatch had been sent out. But the right hon. Gentleman had seated by him at the time the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the rest of his Colleagues, and it was impossible that some of them should not have known that the statement of the Prime Minister was as inaccurate as any statement could posssibly be, and it was their duty to have corrected him. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head. Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly state which of his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) statements he disputed, and give him chapter and verse for it? [ Cries of "Oh"] He had no wish to weary the Committee; but the sentence to which he had referred was an extremely short one, and he did not think his reading it would be seriously objected to. On the 25th of April, the day after the Prime Minister had stated that he had no reason to believe there was any risk of the garrison of Berber sharing the fate of that of Sinkat, the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether it was the fact that the Egyptian Government had abandoned the expedition on which they had decided for the relief of Berber, and that they had abandoned it by the direction of the British Cabinet? In reply to that Question, the right hon. Gentleman stated—"No, Sir; I have no information to that effect." Yet, on the 23rd, this despatch went out from the Foreign Office to Mr. Egerton—

"We cannot sanction an attempt to send troops to Hassan Pasha; no immediate assistance can be given."

Under those circumstances, he maintained that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the massacre of the garrison of Berber. Two Egyptain battalions might have been sent to save the garrisons and the brave Egyptian Governor, who had so nobly done his duty. He had read a report from two British officers, who had received accounts from reliable merchants that entered Berber shortly after the capture, and saw the streets piled up with dead bodies. Major Kitchener had stated that he had not the slightest doubt that Berber was taken by a coup de main early in June, and that all the male inhabitants were slaughtered. What steps had Her Majesty's Government taken in regard to the women and children? None whatever. No efforts had been made to rescue them from slavery and a life of misery and degradation. It was well known that the British Ministry did nothing to rescue or ransom the women taken at Sinkat, and subjected to outrage and slavery by Osman Digna's fanatic soldiers. He had not the least doubt that the same fate would befal those who had been captured at Berber, although there were among them the wives and families of Egyptian and even of Europeans merchants. All of them would be subjected to horrible treatment, and, as far as he knew, Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt whatever to rescue them, or purchase their safety. Yet, while this was going on, and while thousands of unoffending people were being massacred in the Soudan owing to the shirking of responsibility by the British Government, they had two Cabinet Ministers going down to the Guildhall, and using very grandiose language about anti-slavery, and professing great abhorrence of the Slave Trade. He would not repeat what was said last night—the word of opprobrium which could alone describe such conduct; but he would leave hon. Members to imagine it. He did not intend to oppose the Vote; but he thought the Government were pursuing a course which was most unsatisfactory with regard to Egypt. The Prime Minister had made use of uncertain and ambiguous phrases—extraordinary phrases about Votes of principle. He should like to know why the Vote of £300,000 was described as "a Vote of principle?" And he should further like to know what was the difference meant by the right hon. Gentlemen between "preparations" and "operations?" [ Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] He did not intend to be intimidated by hon. Members opposite. He admitted that their interruptions were disagreeable; but he was very far from being intimidated by them. If hon. Members wished him to finish quickly, they had better hear him. He supposed that the difference between the "preparations" and "operations" of the Prime Minister was very much like that between "war" and "military operations." He thought they had a right to ask from the Government that they should admit the necessity had arisen not only for preparations, but for efficient operations to be undertaken at once for the relief of General Gordon. Her Majesty's Government were undertaking the work in the slowest and most costly way possible. They were sending out small detachments of troops, and making little snatches at preparation, and were yet doing nothing that would bear actual fruit. The cost, in the long run, would be three-fold to the country if they continued to pursue this kind of half operation, and there would either be no result, or, at any rate, a less satisfactory result than there would be if the Government would undertake at once an adequate expedition. He urged on the Government, before the debate closed, to make some more reassuring statement than that of the Prime Minister's, and to admit that a necessity for immediate action undoubtedly existed.

:The proposed Vote will not require much discussion on the part of the supporters of the Government, or the majority of the Members of the House; but one or two remarks have been made by my hon. Friend on my right (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to which I desire to make some allusion. As regards those that are to the disparagement of the character of General Gordon, I think General Gordon's character will take care of itself. I have very little doubt as to what will be the opinion of my fellow - countrymen in general, and probably of even the hon. Baronet, when the veil is raised, and the action of General Gordon during the last few months turns out to have been a series of acts of heroism. Let me turn now to one or two facts. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) seems to think that General Gordon was not appointed Governor General of the Soudan with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] Nothing can be further from the truth. General Gordon was requested to accept from the Khedive the position which was offered to him—the position of Governor General—and to obey any Firman of the Khedive, and he was as much appointed by her Majesty's Government Governor General of the Soudan as it was possible to be. He was not merely an Envoy; he was sent with responsible duties to perform, and the Government have never, in the slightest degree, disowned him. It was as the servant of the Government that he undertook these responsibilities. I am very glad indeed that this Vote is proposed. I do not think it was possible for the House to separate without it; and I was exceedingly glad to hear the strongest parts of the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on Thursday last repeated by the Prime Minister. If, however, the Vote had been proposed some weeks or months ago, I think it probable that the very fact of its proposal might have obviated the necessity of the proceedings which are now to be taken. The only further remark I will make is that it is satisfactory to know that the Government are now sensible of their responsibilities, and of the fact that, without relief, the position of General Gordon might become a great calamity and a great disgrace to this country. Let us consider the position General Gordon is in. We have no positive knowledge as to what despatches have been received by General Gordon from Her Majesty's Government. The last information which has been given is the telegram of the 10th of April, in which he states that he had not received an important telegram of the 17th of March. From the latest intelligence received by General Gordon, we do not know that he has received the telegram containing Earl Granville's instructions of the 11th of March, or the telegrams, showing a change of policy, of the 13th and the 17th. The telegram of the 11th of March told him to hold on to Khartoum, and not to go in the direction of the Equator, and that telegram he may have received. In that case, his last instructions were that he was to hold on to Khartoum, and not to think of going to the South. There was another telegram, sent a day or two afterwards, telling General Gordon that he was at liberty to remain at Khartoum, if he saw any prospect of establishing a settled Government there. We have, therefore, reason to believe that if General Gordon has received any communications from the Government, those communications are telegrams telling him to remain at Khartoum, and, if possible, to establish a settled Government in that place.

:By peaceable means.

:Surely, every Member of the Committee must have read the Blue Books sufficiently to know that, having made the greatest efforts to bring about a settled state of things by peaceable means, he could not do it. When he telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring that, having found peaceable means unavailing, he must now show that he was going to use force, he was not discouraged by the Government. The Government must, therefore, be held to support the line of action adopted by General Gordon. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) imagine that a man sent out as General Gordon was could do absolutely nothing—that being instructed to secure the free departure of the garrisons and surrounded by enemies who would use every effort to destroy him, he, under the circumstances, could do nothing, and would feel himself justified in abandoning them? That is the simple position. General Gordon is at Khartoum, as far as we know, ordered to hold on to that place. At any rate, he was not informed that his Mission is at an end. He was then attacked by the Mahdi and by the forces of the Mahdi, and he has, I imagine, been holding his own with very great courage and vigour. One difficulty which appears to attach to General Gordon's position is this—there is nothing more likely than that we shall find out that, though feeling himself—I do not want to make a complaint against the Government by using the word "neglected"—but almost unaided, having only two English officers with him, he has been rallying the people around him, getting them to fight with him, and thereby incurring obligations, which the Prime Minister has acknowledged, to those who have fought for him. General Gordon, no doubt, may hold his own for some time yet; but the time will come when the river will fall, when he will be unable to make use of his steamers, when his ammunition will be altogether inadequate; and unless he has relief, and is able to get the better of his enemies during the summer, there is almost a certainty that he will be in a position of the greatest possible danger, and a fearful calamity might happen if the Government did not send relief.

remarked, that a rumour had gone abroad that a considerable portion of the Vote was to be spent in subsidizing Abyssinian forces. He sincerely hoped that the Abyssinians were not going to be engaged in any expedition at the cost of Her Majesty's Government; and he therefore trusted that there was no truth in the rumour. He would be glad, however, to hear from the Government what the facts of the matter were. He quite admitted that the Government were entitled to be reticent as to the forces they were about to employ, and the nature of the operations they proposed to undertake—whether by river, by way of Suakin, or by a Southern approach to Khartoum. He fully recognized all that, and he did not ask for any information upon any such point. He thought the Government were right, in a matter concerning warlike operations, to be reticent, and not to afford to other persons the information which would be supplied if they were to answer such questions. But he hoped the Government did not intend to give money to the Abyssinians, for the purpose of getting that savage race to perform duties which they ought to perform themselves. He did not propose to go over the ground which had been so well occupied by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in respect to the conduct and character of General Gordon; but there was one point on which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would, probably, give him some information. It had reference to the services of General Gordon against the Taepings in China. Either the noble Marquess or Sir George Lewis was Secretary of State for War at the time, and Colonel Gordon was at Shoeburyness at the time he received his appointment. He had always understood that it was by the wish of the Government, at the distinct desire of Viscount Palmerston, who communicated direct with Colonel Gordon, that he consented to proceed to China in order to put down the Taeping Rebellion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid. Lawson) was alto- gether mistaken in suggesting that General Gordon went out on his own accord. He went out in obedience to the wishes and commands of Her Majesty's Government. He had considered it necessary to say this, because the hon. Baronet seemed to imply that General Gordon had been seeking for distinction in foreign employment, and was not acting by the command of his own Sovereign. That was an entire mistake, and he (Sir John Hay) was able to correct it, because he had full cognizance of the real facts of the case. He hoped to receive an answer from Her Majesty's Government as to the employment of Abyssinian troops.

said, he hardly thought his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was serious when he asserted that the Vote was asked for in order to smash the Mahdi. Anyone who had followed the career of General Gordon must admit that there was no officer in the service and pay of the Crown who more fully and completely acknowledged his responsibilities; and he thought the hon. Baronet could have been hardly serious in suggesting that General Gordon went out of his own will to China. Nor could he (Mr. Arnold) agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in desiring to make the Vote a definite one. It was, as it had been described by the Prime Minister, a Vote of principle; and the Committee would establish a very bad precedent if they were to consent to tie up the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and allow them to expend the exact amount of this Vote, but nothing more. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that, as this was to be a Vote of principle, Her Majesty's Government no longer asserted that General Gordon had departed from the objects of his Mission. No expression of that sort had fallen from the Prime Minister, nor could there have been, because the facts were plain and palpable to all the world. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not seem to be aware of the fact that the last telegram sent to General Gordon by the Government enjoined him to consider measures for his own removal, and the removal of others who had suffered with him, by whatever route he might think best.

said, there was no evidence that General Gordon had ever received that telegram.

said, he thought there was good reason to believe that the telegram had reached General Gordon. It was dated March 17, and it stated that as the original plan for the evacuation of Khartoum had been dropped, and as aggressive operations could not be undertaken with the countenance of Her Majesty's Government, General Gordon was to consider, and either to report upon, or, if feasible, to adopt, at the first proper moment, measures for his own removal, and for the removal of those Egyptians who had been suffering with him in Khartoum. That showed that General Gordon had received distinct orders from Her Majesty's Government to leave Khartoum as soon as he could. ["No, no!"] There was nothing to show that any distinct route had been given to him; but the despatch showed that the instructions given to General Gordon were to leave Khartoum as soon as he could. He wished to congratulate the Government on the tone of the only speech which, as yet, had fallen from the Front Opposition Bench—the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke). When he remembered what the right hon. Gentleman had said on the subject a few months ago, and compared it with the speech which had just fallen from him, he thought Her Majesty's Government could desire no stronger testimony as to the judicious policy they had adopted. ["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman had certainly uttered no word of complaint, either as to the amount of the Vote or to the steps the Government proposed to take in the matter. Believing that Her Majesty's Government had acted with wise and prudent foresight in the matter, he should certainly support the Vote.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that this expedition was necessary in consequence of the original policy of sending General Gordon out to Khartoum. There was, however, another part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which he wished to call attention—namely that the Vote was necessary for "preparations." But the right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that it was impossible to determine, at present, what the nature of the preparations would be. He wanted to know how could the right hon. Gentleman say that he was going to make preparations if he did not know what preparations, were to be made? What had the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues been thinking of for the last six months? It was evident that this proposition was not meant to be seriously acted upon, but was to be used as an electioneering cry during the Recess. It was simply intended that the Government and their supporters should be able to go to the country at the end of the Session and be able to say, in the event of any disaster, after putting the question off so long, that they had asked Parliament to grant then further powers. At the same time, he did not believe they intended to use them if they could help themselves, especially after the apathetic policy they had employed so long. They had sent out General Gordon alone; they had neglected him ever since; they had allowed garrison after garrison to be massacred; and now, for electioneering purposes, they proposed to render aid to him. In his humble opinion, it would be proved in October, when the House reassembled, either that General Gordon had been massacred, or, if he had succeeded in leaving Khartoum, that he had done so unaided.

:It would hardly have been necessary for me to trouble the Committee at all with any observations but for the question put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), who said he entirely approves of the Vote, which he expects to be expended in warlike operations, but, at the same time, he has heard a rumour that a portion of this money is to be sent to the Abyssinians for the purpose of subsidizing them in relieving General Gordon. I may say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that this is the first time they have heard that rumour. Although it would not be possible for us to enter into details as to the mode in which we propose to spend the money, I have no difficulty in saying that such an employment of the money would not be within the purpose of the Vote. The noble Viscount who has just sat down, has mistaken what was said by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend did not say that we should not make such preparations as might be necessary, though he intimated that it would be impossible to say what form our preparations might assume, until we knew whether there would be a necessity for active operations. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that General Gordon was disobeying the instructions given him. There is no proof whatever of that, though some rumours which reached us from time to time about General Gordon seemed inconsistent with his instructions, and were difficult to understand, and we asked for explanations. But there was certainly nothing whatever to prove that General Gordon has in any way departed from the original object of his Mission, which was to withdraw by peaceable means, and if not, if he found it necessary, to employ armed force. It is true that we heard lately that General Gordon was engaged in active operations. How much of that is true or not, it is impossible to say. But it is quite reasonable, and very probable, that the only means that General Gordon mightfindfor maintaining his own position at Khartoum, and withdrawing the garrison, was to assume offensive operations. My hon. Friend also said that General Gordon was endeavouring to induce Egypt to reconquer the Soudan. Whatever may be the minor inconsistencies of General Gordon, that is a most improbable conclusion. We know that if General Gordon had one conviction stronger than another, it was that the whole Soudan had been brought into its present position by the domination of Egypt. It is probable that General Gordon, before retiring from Khartoum, might desire to establish some settled form of Government. That, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, would be exceeding his instructions. ["Oh!"] His Mission, and his primary object, were to evacuate the Soudan. Certainly no instructions were ever given to General Gordon to establish a settled form of Government. At the same time, there is not the slightest doubt that he has undertaken a most beneficial and salutary work. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) thinks it hard to be called upon to support this Vote, because he opposed the Mission of General Gordon originally, and pro- phesied that it would involve us in an expedition for relief. I cannot recollect that the right hon. Gentleman indulged in that prediction; but I can well believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman is not inclined to take a favourable view of anything done by Her Majesty's Government, he spoke disapprovingly of the Mission of General Gordon. But, nevertheless, a strong opinion was very generally entertained that it was extremely probable, such was the influence he had shown himself to exercise over the Native races, that he would be better able, than any other man, to secure by his personal influence, unaided by any material force, the withdrawal of the garrisons from the Soudan without bloodshed, and without further loss of life. The right hon. Gentleman also says that General Gordon long ago reproached us with having cast indelible disgrace upon the British name. We discussed those telegrams two months ago, and I have no wish to reopen the question; but what I want to point out is, that General Gordon, as far as the Government know, never addressed any request to them for the assistance of a British Force to rescue him and those with him. He did suggest that if Zebehr was appointed Governor of Khartoum, a small force in connection with that appointment should be despatched to Berber; but he never, to the knowledge of the Government, recommended, or suggested, as part of the requirements for rescuing him, that the despatch of an Army was necessary. Whatever the obligations of the Government to General Gordon, and they are very great and onerous, General Gordon is the last man in the world to suggest the employment of a British Force to insure his own personal safety. The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the probable position of General Gordon. It is very difficult to know what messages General Gordon may have received, and what he has not received. There is every prospect, however, that in a very short time more authentic information will be received about General Gordon, the policy which he is pursuing, and his ability to hold out at Khartoum, or the probability of his withdrawing with that portion of the garrison which is desirous of withdrawing with him. Major Kitchener is, it appears, in communication with tribes apparently not under the influence of the Mahdi; and it is possible that he may, by means of negotiations which are going on with powerful tribes, he able to establish communications with General Gordon. When such communications shall have been established, the Government and the country will be in a better position than they can be now to judge what measures are necessary for the fulfilment of the obligations which they have undertaken.

:I must say a very few words in consequence, principally, of what has fallen from the noble Marquess, and partly in consequence of a remark made just now by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), who is unfortunately not in the House at this moment, but who has told me the substance of what he said, and I am so well aware of his views that I feel perfectly certain the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing the speech of my right hon. Friend was an acknowledgment of the propriety of the conduct of the Government with regard to General Gordon. My right hon. Friend had no intention of entering into a general discussion of the policy of the Government in regard to General Gordon, nor did he think that this was an occasion on which it was desirable to enter into such a discussion. What the Opposition desire to do by supporting the Vote of Credit is to express their sympathy with General Gordon, and their desire to rescue him from the position in which he is placed, partly by the conduct of the Government, and partly by his own gallant spirit and his own gallant conduct. The noble Marquess said that he considered the policy of the Government in sending out General Gordon had received the approbation of Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House. That is not a correct statement. We sympathized with and wished well to General Gordon, and believed that if any man was to do that which was suggested, he was the best man for the purpose. But I am bound to add that we believed that the Government, after sending him to perform so very difficult and almost hopeless a task, would support him in a manner that would enable him to get through his Mission. If we were called upon now, which I hope we are not, to review the whole conduct of the Government in relation to General Gordon, I am afraid that we could not agree that it has been of a satisfactory character. On the contrary, the Opposition hold that the conduct of the Government has been excessively blameworthy, and that the Government are largely responsible for the difficulties in which General Gordon was placed, and for not having, as the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has pointed out, taken at an earlier stage the step which they are now taking, and which, if taken sooner, might have prevented the mischief which has happened. But we cordially agree with the indications they are now giving that they do think the time may be at hand—at all events, that the time may come—in which they will arouse themselves, and do something to rescue General Gordon. We are anxious to give them the means of doing something for General Gordon. If I may make a complaint of anything, it would be that we were not told with sufficient distinctness what the Government meant by "the contingency that might arise." The noble Marquess spoke of communications being made through Dongola; but there exists no certain reason for thinking that that would be the case. A great deal of time has already been spent, and we have no information to encourage us to think that communications of that kind may be restored. I trust that the Government have formed some plan in their own mind, by which they will be able clearly to ascertain what is the exact position of General Gordon, and to afford him support and bring him away. The country ought to be pacified and left in a satisfactory state, the pacification of the country being one of Gordon's main objects. It was not General Gordon's only object to bring away a certain number of troops from the Soudan. What was thought was, that by the influence of his character he would be able to bring the garrisons away with safety to himself, and without leaving a condition of anarchy behind. Everybody believed that if the garrisons were hastily withdrawn, they would leave behind them a terrible state of confusion and anarchy. I cannot refer to the Papers now, and I am speaking from memory; but I say that I see in the earliest communications of General Gordon that he was endeavouring to restore or provide for a system of peaceful government in the country which must now be abandoned. It was, however, one of the main objects set before him in his instructions, and his communications with the Government show that he believed it to be his task. The question before the Committee, however, is not the discussion of the general principle of the Government in regard to the Mission of General Gordon. I have no intention of entering into such a discussion. What we have now before us is a proposal that some provision should be made for the rescue of General Gordon, whenever that can be effected. I do not at all complain of the Government for being reticent as to the particular mode they propose to adopt. I think I understood what the Prime Minister meant when he said that this is a Vote of principle. It permits the Government to see that the work is properly carried through, if it can be carried through, for the sum mentioned; but should more extensive operations be necessary for the rescue of General Gordon, Parliament would, of course, feel it necessary to support the Government in the matter. If the work can be carried through for the sum mentioned, of course, it would be highly satisfactory.

said, that looking at this matter, and exercising his own judgment, he thought that General Gordon had failed in the Mission he had undertaken. He had not procured the return of the garrisons, nor had he given up to the Chiefs of the tribes the government of the country as was proposed. General Gordon went out to effect the abandonment of the Soudan which had been governed by intrigue and cruelty; but it appeared by the telegram on page 115 of the Blue Book, that he had changed the whole course of his policy and decided to postpone the evacuation of the district. He desired to have Egyptian and British troops sent to him for the purpose of maintaining himself in the position of Governor General, when, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) must know, he had gone out as Governor General of the Soudan, without the expectation of receiving any assistance in men or money. Even when General Gordon drew up a plan for a successor whom he named, that successor was not to receive either men or money for the purpose of maintaining his position. He contended, therefore, that the Mission of General Gordon had failed; and that it was the duty of the Government to determine that Mission, and to see that no part of the money now asked for should be used for the purpose of maintaining General Gordon in the Soudan. He maintained that General Gordon had by no means proved himself to be a great hero. On the 27th of February, in his Proclamation of that date, he declared to the people that British troops were coming to Khartoum, and he (Mr. Willis) said that General Gordon had no ground whatever for making that statement. Again, he had endeavoured and actually proposed to destroy the troops of the Mahdi, who was endeavouring to relieve the country from the cruelty and oppression under which it had so long suffered. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would give the assurance he asked for, that none of the money should be applied to maintain Egyptian, or other rule, in the Soudan, he should offer him the assistance of his vote; but, if not, he should feel it his duty to vote against the Motion before the Committee.

said, he wished to draw attention to a statement made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. A few minutes ago, the noble Marquess, whose words he had taken down, said that General Gordon would have been exceeding his instructions in endeavouring to establish an organized Government in Khartoum. Now, he (Baron Henry De Worms) distinctly stated, on the authority of the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to General Gordon, that those instructions were entirely at variance with the noble Marquess's statement. The instructions to General Gordon contained this passage—

"We trust Your Excellency will take most effective measures to establish an organized Government in the different Provinces of the Soudan, for the maintenance of order and the suppression of the incitement to revolt."

He would ask how those instructions, given to General Gordon when he was sent on his absurd Mission, could be reconciled with the statement just made by the noble Marquess, when he said that General Gordon would be exceeding his instructions in endeavouring to establish an organized form of Government in Khartoum?

said, it was now four years since the bombardment of Alexandria took place; but the history of events during that period could not have been very gratifying or encouraging to Members in any part of the House, for it had been, on the whole, a history of misfortune and vicissitude. He was one of those who, at the outset, deprecated interference in Egypt by means of that bombardment, and he had also voted against the rewards and pensions given to two officers in respect of the naval and military proceedings which took place. It was said that the Committee were not called upon on that occasion to enter into the question of the general management of the Government in that part of the world, but that they were asked to support a Vote of £300,000 for the relief of General Gordon. They had some satisfaction from the utterances of the Prime Minister that the money would not be wanted except in case of certain contingencies arising; and he (Mr. Illingworth) had only risen to say that, having himself taken no part in the matter, he intended to remain neutral. He admitted that no responsibility rested on the Government in their relationship with General Gordon; but he quite understood that the object of the money asked for was to secure the retirement and withdrawal from the obligations which he had taken upon himself. It was too early to enter upon the point as to the way in which General Gordon had carried out his Mission. In his opinion, he had from the first entered upon an almost impossible task; and it would not be surprising to him if he should signally fail in doing that which he led many to believe he would be able to do if the Government sanctioned his Mission. As to the money he asked for, he sincerely hoped that any enterprize undertaken would be a very narrow one, and that it would not be made a precedent for further operations. There was a point to which he would like to call the attention of the Committee. Doubt had been expressed as to whether General Gordon had received a telegraphic answer sent to him by Earl Granville; but he ventured to think that there was no ground for believing that the despatch had not reached him. It laid down the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and called upon him to retire from the Soudan as soon as possible, and to bring away those persons who were able to leave Khartoum with him. He trusted that that was still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that they intended to carry it out. He would only add that he did not regard General Gordon as anything like a safe instrument to be relied on by the Government in carrying out their work in Egypt. He believed that hereafter it would be found that their interference in that country was altogether unnecessary, and that they might have safeguarded their interests without making themselves responsible for the government of Egypt and getting themselves entangled in its ruins.

said, it seemed to be the general wish of hon. Members that the promises made to General Gordon should be fulfilled. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) found himself in a great dilemma with regard to this question. He implied that he should not mind the promises being fulfilled, provided it could be done cheaply; but that he should object to their fulfilment if the cost exceeded by l d. the amount which he considered proper. For his own part, he (Colonel Makins) wished the Vote were for a much larger sum, for the reason that, as a Vote of Credit, it would not have been necessary to use the whole amount, while it would have had a very much larger effect. It would have shown the Mahdi and those who advised him that the Government and people of England were really in earnest, whereas he would now be very likely to think that the proposal of the Government was only a small Party move, and that the paltry sum asked for could not be really intended for the purpose of putting him down; and probably he would be encouraged in his opposition rather than the reverse. But, small as the Vote was, he was glad to see it asked for, because it showed that the Government had some regard for their Representative in the Soudan; and upon that ground he should feel it his duty to support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

reminded the Committee that the reason why the military expedition to Suakin had no result was because it was not followed up, as it should have been, by the construction of a railway from Suakin to Berber. The line could have been constructed with comparative ease, and the brave Arabs who had been so fruitlessly slaughtered would have been better employed in making the railways than in fighting, and when taken into British pay they would have been its best protection. Had that railway been constructed to Berber, the difficulties of the present position would have been very much lessened; and Her Majesty's Government would, at the same time, have done a good work by opening up the commerce of Central Africa, and conferring a permanent benefit on the world.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 174; Noes 14: Majority 160.—(Div. List, No. 210.)

asked the Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to state the order in which the Irish Votes would be taken.

said, the understanding was that if they got through the Vote of Credit at a reasonable time they should go on with Classes VI. and VII.; if they were disposed of by half-past 11 it was intended to take the Constabulary Vote.

said, that the statement of the Prime Minister was that the Constabulary Vote would not be taken without due Notice.

said, he was desirous of ascertaining what was to be done with regard to the claims of the teachers in Convent Schools in Ireland. As neither the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary nor the Solicitor General for Ireland, who could speak on behalf of the Irish Government, were present, he should be glad if some Representative of Her Majesty's Government would state whether or not they had, up to the present time, come to any conclusion with regard to the proposal to increase the emoluments of nuns in view of the good work they were doing and had done in times past. Some time ago the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been drawn to this question, when he said that he was formulating a plan by which he proposed to increase those emoluments. It would seem that the right hon. Gentleman had put the matter off; and he (Mr. Biggar) had supposed that when the Vote for Education in Ireland came forward the right hon. Gentleman would have been in a position to state his views on the subject. He hoped that someone on behalf of the Government would state what it was really intended to do. He did not propose to go into all the grievances of which the nuns complained; but it could not be denied that, while they had produced a tangible result by the example which they set to the people, they were under great disadvantages in respect of emoluments inasmuch as they received no pensions and no salaries.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland was not present—a fact which he regretted, because probably he would be able to give some information to the Committee in relation to the views of the Government in this matter. He might say that, in his opinion, no conclusion had been arrived at, because he apprehended that, had the Irish Government decided upon the course they intended to pursue, they would have applied to the Treasury to sanction an order for payment. No application had been made or sanctioned, and, therefore, he concluded that the proposed arrangements of the Irish Government had not reached their final stage; but how far they had gone he was not in a position to state.

asked what the Government proposed to do with regard to the question of National School teachers, in view of the Division of Friday night? He need not repeat to the Committee the arguments he had made use of on that occasion, but would simply ask if the Government could see their way to introduce a Supplementary Estimate.

said, that would be rather too rapid a procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had stated fully the other night what were the intentions of the Government in this matter, and had said that legislation would be introduced to deal with it next year.

said, he did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman had said with regard to next year; but he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say that he would bring in a Bill. He asked whether that was the sum and substance of the intentions of the Government in this matter, because, if so, it must really give rise to a long discussion. He had watched closely to see whether, after the vote of Friday last, the Government would come forward and make a more substantial statement on the subject. The Treasury had pocketed no less a sum than £200,000, by reason of the Unions not having contributed the moiety, which, when the Act was passed, it was contemplated they would pay; but the Unions had not become contributories, because they declined to pay money towards a system over which they had no control. There was no fault to be found with that; but he complained that the Government knew that the money would not be paid. That was a very important element in the case, and one to which he thought the Government ought to address themselves at once. At all events, the Government must admit that the expectations which the National School teachers had been allowed to cherish had been frustrated. The teachers were led to expect that they would receive a certain annual sum from the State and another annual sum from the Unions. That was clearly an admission that the teachers were to receive the money; but, owing to the clumsy plan proposed by the Conservative Government, it had happened that the teachers had practically got nothing at all from the Unions. It was admitted that a plan had been proposed by the Government to remedy this; but that plan had not come into operation, and he desired to know whether the Government were going to throw overboard the intentions of the Conservative Government in 1875. The position of the teachers was this. The National School teachers of Ireland only received £58 a-year on the average, as compared with double that sum which was received by the teachers in England and Scotland; the teachers were entitled to a sum in addition to that which was now received. A plan had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but that plan had failed, and, owing to its failure, the sum of £250,000 had not been disbursed, as it was expected it would have been, amongst the teachers. That being the state of the case, the question was, what were the teachers to receive in consequence? It was no answer to the unfortunate teacher who received only £70 a-year to throw the blame on the Unions. The teacher said the State had allowed him to form certain expectations, that he had indulged in those expectations, and that he had been disappointed, because the machinery brought into operation by the State had not proved satisfactory. And while it was no answer to the teacher to refer him to the Unions, he (Mr. Healy) said that the simple proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to bring in a Bill for compulsory education was something entirely beyond the question. Pledges had been given to Irish Members last year which had not been fulfilled, and the pledges with regard to next year would doubtless meet the same fate, because it was not at all likely that next Session the House would be in any frame of mind to go into the question of compulsory education in Ireland. He hoped they should hear from the Government a much more satisfactory statement than they had had that evening. The House had very nearly adopted the Resolution moved on Friday last by his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), on which occasion the Government escaped by the merest majority a vote ordering them to do what was wanted. Surely the representations of Irish Members on this question were deserving of some consideration. He believed that it was only a question whether the Government could get a single Irishman to follow them into the Lobby, and he believed they had not one single Irish supporter except the Solicitor General for Ireland. The opinions of hon. Members who voted in the minority on that occasion were entitled to respect. Were they to be informed, when they brought forward their grievances for redress, that those grievances were to be redressed by the kindly wand of British legislation, and were they afterwards to find themselves left in the lurch? They had that evening already voted £300,000 for the relief of General Gordon; but this was a question of far more importance than the government of the Soudan, which country the Government were going to abandon. When they voted with a light heart sums of money like this, and for such a purpose, were they to be told that it was too late in the Session to do anything tending to improve the state of education in Ireland? He thought that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the manner in which the Government had met this complaint, after having in view the much larger sum they had obtained from the Committee for a less important purpose.

said, on Friday last he had unfortunately missed the Division, or he should certainly have voted with the minority. He believed that the National School teachers in Ireland were justly dissatisfied with the position in which they found themselves, which had been shown to be unremunerative as compared with the position of teachers in this country. He had been recently speaking with some National School teachers in the North of Ireland, and he could assure the Committee that they were a most deserving class of men, and that the work they had to do they performed in a most efficient manner. He trusted the Government would take their position into consideration, and do something in their behalf.

said, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had raised a very ingenious argument to show that the Treasury ought to increase the salaries of National School teachers. The hon. Member had said that the right hon. Gentleman to whom this work was entrusted contemplated, when it was originally introduced, that the Unions should contribute one moiety of the expense; and he contended that, the Unions not having done so, the Treasury should make good the amount to the teachers. It was quite true the Treasury had not disbursed the money; but he was afraid that all he could say in this matter was that, although the local taxation had not been levied, he could not admit that any claim arose upon the Treasury. Then the hon. Gentleman advanced an argument which, in a Parliamentary sense, was even more defective than the ingenious arguments which preceded it. He pointed to the fact that there had been a very narrow Division on Friday night, in which the Government barely escaped defeat. No doubt that was a very important fact; but, at the same time, those Members who resisted that Motion, and those Members who were not present to resist that Motion, must pay some attention to the character of the demand. What was the demand? It was submitted, in the first place, that the salaries of the school teachers were inadequate. Assuming that to be so—admitting, for the moment, that the salaries were inadequate and insufficient—then the question arose, by whom should the deficiency be made up? Who should be called upon to supply an adequate amount? In comparison with the salaries obtained by school teachers in England and Scotland, no doubt those in Ireland were small. Whether they were relatively less was still a matter open to considerable debate. Undoubtedly they were less in amount; but the proportion of money drawn from the Imperial Exchequer for Ireland was infinitely greater than that drawn for England or Scotland. That being so, the deficiency, it seemed to him, must be made up from local sources, and not at the cost of the Exchequer. Of course, Irish Members would urge that the deficiency should be made up by the Exchequer; and he knew of no part of the country which, in such a case, would not prefer that the Exchequer should make up what was required. He found it so in Wales, and elsewhere. Everyone wanted their deficiencies to be met by the Imperial Exchequer; and it was, therefore, not surprising that the plea for making up the deficiency in this case from the Imperial Exchequer should be supported by all the Irish Members, including the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford). Even the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was willing to join in "looting" the Treasury. He could not admit that the combination of Irish Members in support of a demand on behalf of the Irish teachers at the expense of the Exchequer was an overwhelming condemnation of the existing state of things; and when this matter was being considered, regard must be had to the fact that an immensely greater amount of money was granted for Ireland than for England or Scotland. However, next year, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) intended to bring in a Bill which would deal with the whole question of public education in Ireland, and not the least of the effects of that Bill would probably be the improvement of the salaries of school teachers.

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had not fairly met the question at issue; and he maintained that if the Government undertook this work of education they must do it well and thoroughly. If they insisted upon governing Ireland, it was only fair that they should carry out the work of education in that country properly and cheaply. Irish Members, of course, protested against the whole system upon which the English Government administered the affairs of Ireland; but as long as they insisted on carrying on that administration it was the duty of himself and his hon. Friends to put forward and press these claims. It in no way touched the question to say that more was given to Ireland from the Imperial Exchequer than to England or Scotland, because their contention was that the amount was not sufficient. If English and Scotch teachers were content, that was their own affair; but Irish teachers were not at all content with the miserable pittance doled out to them, and their Representatives felt bound to protest against the insufficiency. That should be considered an overwhelming argument. With regard to the Division on Friday night, most of those who took part in it were not Irish Members, but English Members of various shades of politics; and he fancied that if there had been that fuller House to which the Secretary to the Treasury had confidently referred, it would have been found that a large number of those who were absent would have gone with the minority against the Government. If a proposal to adopt a Supplementary Vote was so easily accepted by the Government when it concerned the relief of General Gordon, he thought it might as readily be accepted when it concerned the much more serious case of the Irish National teachers, who had suffered a long time, and whose interests were quite as important as those of General Gordon.

said, he was not in the habit of taking part in Irish debates; but in this case he must say that had he been present on Friday night he should have voted with his hon. Friends below the Gangway, in the same way as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford) would have voted with them had he been present. Then, he would like to know, where would the majority of the Government have been? The question, as he gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), was that the Irish teachers were paid in a most insufficient manner, receiving only an average of £57 a-year. It was not a question of where the money came from. If these teachers were employed and entrusted with the important function of educating the population, they must be paid properly, and not such starvation salaries as they now received. If the Irish Members now went to a Division he should support them.

observed, that the Secretary to the Treasury admitted their grievance, but did not agree in their remedy. He said the liability for making good the deficiency must rest with the localities, and not with the Treasury. The Government had put forward a scheme by which the teachers were to receive larger remuneration; but that scheme broke down, and the question now was, what should be done? The hon. Gentleman said there must be a re-adjustment of the whole matter, and another scheme at some other time; but, in the meantime, what was to become of these starving people? The Government had not shaped their scheme; it could not come on that Session or during the Autumn Session, and probably it would not have the slightest chance of coming on in the Session of next year. Then there might come a General Election; and while all these things were taking place year after year, what was to become of these teachers with their £57 a-year? While the Government were preparing their scheme and arranging what they were going to do, he thought they should take from the Treasury enough money to keep these people from starving; and having done that they would be able, with an easier conscience, to enter upon their larger scheme for paying the teachers without taxing the localities too heavily, and without taking too much from the Treasury.

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had advanced arguments which had nothing to do with the question, his argument being that the sum allowed for Ireland was larger than the amount granted for either England or Scotland. They all knew that; but the state of things in Ireland was absolutely different from that in the other parts of the Kingdom. In England the Local Authorities had control over these matters; they had compulsory rates, and they had School Boards; but in Ireland that was not so. The Secretary to the Treasury had, in fact, made no defence of this treatment of the Irish teachers. The hon. Gentleman could not deny that the teachers had this grievance; and if the matter was pressed upon him he would have to admit it for the sake of truth as well as for the sake of argument. The amount of money contributed in Ireland locally was very small; but the people in Ireland were not compelled to pay for education, and what was levied was a sort of voluntary rate. In some instances, the Boards of Guardians did not levy a rate; they had no control over the money, and the result was that they took up the Act of 1875 at one time with greater readiness than they did now; and the Act had now practically fallen into disuse. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to be in great glee over the idea of another Division on this question, evidently believing himself to be safe with the myrmidons whom he had brought down by a four-line Whip to defeat the Irish Members. He remembered that not long ago, when the hon. Member for Waterford asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for an interview respecting the granting of some money for certain purposes in Ireland, the hon. Gentleman said he did not want an interview, and the hon. Member could put down what he wanted to say in writing. The Secretary to the Treasury endeavoured to prevent a purely Irish fund being applied to Irish purposes; but in the end he was forced to give way, and now, in regard to this case of the Irish teachers, the best he could say in a speech specially prepared to minimize the claims of the teachers, was that the English teachers only received half as much again as the Irish teachers. Then he endeavoured to make a distinction, and to show that, after all, the Irish teachers were in almost as good a position as the English teachers. When this question was brought forward, the hon. Gentleman calmly said the Irish teachers were as well paid as the English teachers, having regard, to the demand for labour, and the current rate of wages in England and in Ireland. But the class from whom these teachers were drawn had now open to it a variety of occupations. Since the Civil Service had been thrown open a large number of Irishmen had gone into the Service, and the result of so many of this class being drawn away was that the teachers, and especially the younger teachers, had to be recruited from a class very inferior to that from which they were drawn 10 or 15 years ago. That was due to the fact that the salaries given to teachers were not equal to the salaries given in the Civil Service, and if this state of things continued the class of Irish teachers was bound to still further depreciate; and whatever the Secretary to the Treasury might say against further grants from the Consolidated Fund, it was certain that unless something was done to improve the class of Irish teachers and the future education in Ireland there would be an end to efficient instruction.

said, he thought that all who knew anything about Irish education would agree that the emoluments given to Irish teachers were not such as they would desire to see given to men of efficient training. There were some points, at all events, of common agreement on which Irish Members on the opposite side, and many educationalists on this side would be in common accord. In the first place, the Irish teachers had been and were very efficiently trained. Religious difficulties in Ireland had prevented their getting their training in neutral and common training schools, and the Government—too late, he thought—had perceived that difficulty, and had recently voted a certain amount of money in order that teachers might receive training according to their religious professions and in denominational training schools—as, indeed, they were trained in Scotland. This Vote all educationalists would like to see augmented; and if that were done, as the teachers got better training their classification would improve. As their pay depended on their classification, more efficient training would produce a larger grant, and any such larger grant he, at least, should gladly welcome. There was another reason why they thought the Education Vote should be increased in Ireland, and partly from the Exchequer, and that was that there might be better results from training and a better set of teachers. When payment was according to results there must be effective teachers to obtain those results. The payment for results would become augmented, and that would be a legitimate source from which the Imperial Exchequer might augment the grant. A third point was that payment should be made for increased attendances. The average attendance in Irish schools was lamentably low; but if there was a system of compulsory attendance, there would be a larger number of scholars in the schools, and that was a result greatly to be desired. At present, in Ireland, there was the extraordinary result that there were still 41 per cent of the population who could neither read or write. If the Government only accepted the principle of compulsory education, and largely increased the attendances, that would be a legitimate method by which they could increase the grant for education in Ireland. Upon these three points they were agreed. Where did they differ? They differed in this. In England and Scotland they said—and they ought to say in Ireland also—that National education was not the duty of the State alone. It was the duty of the State and of the nation. They ought not to produce teachers by wholly Government expenditure. National education meant aid from the State supported by the nation to whom that aid was given, and here it was that they found such a lamentable difference between the position in Ireland and the position in Great Britain. Just let them see what the difference was. If they compared the Voluntary Schools in England with the Denominational Schools in Ireland— for, talk of the system of education as they liked, the schools in Ireland were notoriously denominational—they were to a large extent managed by the priests, and the masters were appointed by the clerical managers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, and were dismissable by them, and the subjects of study were controlled by these masters, so that there could be no doubt of the denominational character of the schools. Well, if they compared this system in Ireland with the rate-supported system in England they would find that the cost of a pupil in a Voluntary School in England was£1 14 s. 0 d., while in Ireland it was£1 13 s. 0 d., or very nearly the same. But how was this met in the two countries? Why, in England, it was met by 19 s. of local aid—that was to say, by fees and subscriptions—and by 5 s. 11¾ d. of local aid in Ireland, or nearly 6 s.; so that, as hon. Members would see, the difference was very great. In Ireland the State had to pay 81 per cent of the cost of education. The pence of the children paid 18 per cent, and local subscriptions paid only 1 per cent. Now, what was 1 per cent for a nation to pay in aid of the State trying to advance the welfare of the people? It was nothing at all. In 1875 the Irish people came forward—he recollected speaking on the subject in that year—and put, not a compulsory system of rating on their Boards of Guardians, but a voluntary system, and in the second year they found £6,000 come in in that way. Last year, he was glad to say, the amount received in this way was larger than two years ago; but now it was only £14,000. Well, what was £14,000 given by the local rates of Ireland to meet the £720,000 given by the State? It was nothing at all. Ireland could not be absolved from its duty as a nation to come forward and co-operate with the State in the education of the people. The Irish had no right to say—"Give us everything from the Exchequer," and English and Scotch Members said to them—"Do your duty as a nation, and aid the State when it comes largely forward with money, giving £720,000 for the advancement and enlightenment of your country." Let them give, not 1 per cent, but largely. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said the other day—"Do you wish us to have a compulsory rate in Ireland? If you do I tell you that this compulsory rating must be applied wholly to Roman Catholic education, because 75 per cent of the population of Ireland are Roman Catholics. If you rate the people compulsorily the rates must be applied to Roman Catholic schools." Now, except in incidence, what was the difference between a local tax and an Imperial tax? The difference was only a matter of area and locality. Suppose they applied this principle of the hon. Member for Monaghan to the £720,000 which the State granted for education in Ireland. They would have to remember that out of that £720,000, £620,000 came from Protestant England and Scotland, and would be obliged to apply it to Protestant education. Whether they were taxing for Imperial or for local purposes, the money must be applied for the benefit of the people taxed. The Imperial taxes applied to the whole of the people whatever their religious belief, and local taxes were for the benefit of the whole of the locality on the same principle. In this matter what was he endeavouring to bring about? Hon. Members knew that he had always been and was extremely anxious for advanced education in Ireland. He was dissatisfied with the results obtained. They wanted a development of their National Board, for it had not achieved good results. It had been in existence 50 years, and certainly had not produced the results which were to have been expected. They must, before they could get complete command over their schools, have local rating and Local Boards. He knew the difficulties in the way of bringing about this local rating and establishing these Local Boards. Many would like to establish them; but would the priests like them? No; and if it was attempted to establish them great difficulties would be encountered. But if they could be appointed he did not doubt that they would be productive of great good in enlisting local co-operation. What they wanted in Ireland was Local Boards, and local co-operation in school matters. They should not always look to the Government for increasing aid. Let them get the localities interested in the advance of education, and having secured Local Boards and local management, let them come to the State for increased aid. Let the Government, which tried to advance education, find that ardent local co-operation which it wished to find, and let it discover those local desires for the purposes of education which were so essential, and without which the education and enlightenment of the people could not be satisfactorily advanced. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Montagu Scott) said that on the Vote the other day they might have defeated the Government. He was sorry if that were so. If he had been present he should have voted with the Government, not because he had the least jealousy of the purposes of education in Ireland. He did not care whether education there was denominational, or mixed; but what he did care for was that the State should only do its part, and that the nation should do its part in order to meet the State. Without that they could not expect to diffuse education over Ireland, which was so essential in order to produce an industrious and useful people.

said, that as the line of argument taken by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be a comparison between the local aid given in England and Scotland and that given in Ireland, he, for his part, should like to draw some comparison between the resources from which the local aid was derived in the two parts of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had also used as an argument a comparison between the local aid given in England and that given in Ireland. When a complaint was made of the large increase in the cost of the Constabulary in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman had immediately drawn a comparison between the amount spent on police in the counties of England and the amount spent in the counties of Ireland. He (Mr. Marum) declined to accept that comparison. Let them compare the prosperity of the county of Kilkenny—the population since 1841 had decreased From 202,000 to 99,000, or more than 50 per cent—with the prosperity of any English county. The county contained 508,000 acres, of an annual value of £343,000. Let them compare that with any county n England of the same area. Let them compare the taxation, and then suppose that the two counties were brought into the market, would there be any comparison between either of their relative values capitalized? He might be told that this would give only the fee simple, and that that was unsaleable at that moment in Ireland. He would take the tenancy interest as a test of value, then. What comparison could they draw between the English county and the Irish from a farming point of view? In Ireland they would have to look at the soil, at the state of the labour market, the adaptability of the country to agricultural machinery, and the large and important question of markets. On the latter point alone, it would have to be borne in mind that they could get a beast from Canada to Manchester cheaper than they could get one from a Midland county in Ireland to Manchester. He put these matters simply to illustrate his argument. When comparisons were drawn between the local aid given in England and Scotland and that given in Ireland, they must make comparisons between the resources of the several countries. He would defy any practical agriculturist to stand up in that House and say that any comparison could possibly be made between the value of the tenancy interest in a county in Ireland and the value of the same interest in an English county or a Scotch county. If he found the fee simple and the tenancy interest in such disproportion to the valuation, how, he asked, if these were the sources from which taxation was to be derivable, could they come forward and complain that they did not give as much in aid as was given in England and Scotland? The agricultural value in Ireland was somewhere about £10,500,000—if they excluded the towns. Well, what was the local taxation in reference to that value? It was £3,500,000—that was to say, it was about 35 per cent of the actual gross value, agriculturally speaking. If they capitalized the interest on that £10,500,000, and put it against the capitalized interest on £10,500,000 of property in England, the result would astonish the Committee. It would show that the local taxation of Ireland was greater than that of England. If he looked at the incidence of the local taxation—in dealing with the question referred to by the Secretary to the Treasury—as compared with that of their Imperial taxation, he should have to detain the Committee by going into a matter that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had twice brought before Parliament—namely, the agricultural interest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had twice brought forward, and twice obtained a favourable reception for, a Resolution to the effect that the incidence of local taxation should be regarded with reference to local interest; but although that Resolution had been twice carried, Ministers had not taken the least notice of it. There was a Notice calling attention to the subject on the Paper at that moment, he believed. He (Mr. Marum) wished to say this with regard to the incidence of local taxation—that when the occasion arose, and when a similar Motion was brought forward, the Irish Members on their side would be perfectly well satisfied, and perfectly well able to show that the incidence of local taxation in Ireland, compared with the Imperial taxation, called much more urgently for the consideration of that House than did that of Great Britain. He denied strenuously, taking the matter de novo, the force of the arguments of the Chief Secretary, the Secretary to the Treasury, or the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him (Sir Lyon Playfair). He maintained that they were in a position here to say that if the entire circumstances were taken into account, it could be clearly proved that in Ireland their local circumstances were in such a condition that the Government could not demand from them the same local aid as they could demand from more favoured localities in other parts of the Empire. He denied the arguments of those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in toto.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who spoke a few minutes ago, put a somewhat familiar view of this matter before them; and though it was very acceptable to the minds of the English and Scotch Members, it was an entire fallacy—the whole of his argument. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was a comparison between the amount of money contributed locally for education in Ireland and the amount contributed in England and Scotland. There was a fallacy underlying the argument. The argument went upon the assumption that Ireland was able and ought to contribute to education in like proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom. He (Mr. Sullivan) denied that altogether. He maintained that, in proportion to her wealth, Ireland contributed more than England to the cost of National education. He asserted that, even if it were not so, it was England's bounden duty to take the whole burden of National education in Ireland on her own shoulders. The wealth of England had been estimated to be, as compared with that of Ireland, as 13 to 1. They paid much more in Ireland for National education in proportion—as compared with England—than 1 to 13. He had heard the Chief Secretary say that the pence contribution of the Irish children was, on an average, 4 s., and that of the English children 6s. Surely 4 s. was a very large proportion indeed for Irish children to pay, considering the relative wealth of the two countries. Why did England expect that Ireland should pay even a larger proportion, and stand on a level with her in this particular matter? England robbed Ireland of education when she was educating herself—she made education in Ireland penal for several centuries. How much, then, did she owe on that score to the Irish people? She owed a debt she would never be able to repay. England had blinded the eyes of the minds of the Irish people, and now, a few generations later, the people were to be equal in the race of education in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Some time after robbing Ireland of education England was eager to give it to her again—Protestant education. She desired to force that on the Irish people; but they would not have it, and the result was that they were left, in a measure, to pay for education themselves out of their own pockets. Did that not keep up still more the charge, the claim, they had against England on this question of education? Moreover, there remained this fact—that, at the present day—as could be proved by Parliamentary Returns—Ireland was over-taxed, and paid a larger proportion to the Imperial Exchequer than was paid by England. Ireland, not only in the matter of education, but in many other respects, was over-taxed, over-burdened, and oppressed; and yet it was expected that in this matter of education they would be able to put down pound for pound, and penny for penny, in proportion with wealthy and opulent England. Moreover, the population of Ireland was divided. There was a large section of the people hostile to Irish interests and hostile to public education, in so far as it was a really National and Catholic education, and from this section they got no help. This section gave nothing towards the general purposes of education in Ireland; any money they had to spend in that way they preferred to spend on proselytizing insititutions. So that Ireland was placed at a serious disadvantage all along the line in this matter. These circumstances deserved more consideration than they got from the Secretary to the Treasury or from the English Government, Whig or Tory as the case might be. Then he maintained that there was not in the whole world a people who had to so large an extent voluntarily taxed themselves for purposes of education and religion as the Irish people. They had in Ireland to support the whole of their clergy. They had to build their churches, their convents, their monasteries, and to do it all without any charge upon the British Exchequer. The English clergy were paid out of the money of the State; whereas in Ireland there was no claim in that matter against the State. Voluntarily, and of the free hearts of the people, hundreds and thousands of pounds were paid for education, convents, monasteries, churches, and yet no credit was given to Ireland for that by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). Those facts should not be overlooked in this matter. Moreover, the Irish National Board had never been popular. Some surprise had been expressed that in 50 years a better result had not been produced. Why, it was only quite lately that they had been forcing them to travel in anything like a national groove. For some time this Board was denounced by the guardians of the morals and the faith of the Irish people; and when the Government chose to force on a system of education against the wishes of the people, was it to be wondered at that the operation of that system did not produce such good results as would have been the case under more prosperous circumstances? All those things went to show that on the side of the Irish people there was no fault; but that there was great fault on the side of the Government of England for endeavouring to force an unpopular system of education on a country, and, when their hands were somewhat relaxed in that respect, for starving the system, and not paying and maintaining it as they ought to pay and maintain it. They had a discussion there some nights ago as to the way in which the National School teachers were supported. The Irish Members had proved that no fair chance was given to them; and he maintained that it was only natural to think that, under better circumstances, these men would do better than they did now under the severe and unjust treatment they had experienced at the hands of the British Government. In every respect, in every detail, he believed this Board of Commissioners had not acted up to the requirements of their position. Indeed, they were not permitted or enabled to so act by the Government which paid and maintained them. To come to one small particular, a Question was asked in that House a few days ago about a school which had been built in a place in Westmeath. The parish priest had built a Convent School at the cost of the parishioners. When it was opened this reverend gentleman notified to the National Board that the female National School of the place would cease to exist, as all the children would naturally go to the new Convent School, where they would be better treated, and be in every respect better cared for than in the National School. The parish priest very naturally asked that the grant given in aid of the old National School would go, with the scholars, to the new school. The Board of Commissioners, when that request was made to them, said they could not comply with it. They said—"You must first pay to us the sum of £246, which was the amount expended on the old National School." The old National School was for boys and girls, and the new school was for girls only; and if the children chose to go from the old to the new school it was surely a most unfair thing to say to the parishioners and the parish priest that the new school should not be organized, and should not get a penny until the Commissioners had been refunded the large sum of £246, which was expended on the National Schools 40 years ago. The fact was that, until that amount had been got up, not one penny would they allow for the education of the children in the Convent School. Such was the liberality and sense of fair play and justice which actuated the Board of Commissioners in Ireland, and those who supported them in this Parliament. He (Mr. Sullivan) had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) say that the payments in Ireland ought to be by results. Well, the nuns would be perfectly satisfied to get payment by results, if it could be done by examining the children only; but it could not; the nuns would have to subject themselves to examination by School Inspectors before they could obtain these payments, and that they objected to. The nuns did not get the results which were fairly earned by them. The whole system practised in Ireland was unfair and unjust, and certainly the contention that they were not doing their duty in that country, because, in proportion to their numbers, they did not lay down pound for pound and shilling for shilling with England and Scotland, was unfair and unjust. That contention was unjust, because of the greater poverty of Ireland than England and Scotland, because of the manner in which England had put a stop to all educational progress in Ireland in years gone by, and because of the large amount of voluntary contribution paid by the people of Ireland for purposes intimately connected with morality, enlightenment, and education. All these things went for nothing. They had a Rule of Three sum proposed to them by the Government, a sum in which these things should not be proposed. A very strong case for consideration had been put forward by the Irish Members—for consideration which they did not get. He was sorry to see the way in which the Government met their statements.

said, that the only address which had been delivered to the Committee from the neighbourhood of the Government Benches was that they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair); but to all who listened to him he must have seemed more like delivering an inaugural address as a newly-elected Rector of a University, than making a speech in Committee of Supply in the House of Commons, so professional in tone was he, and so exhortative of good behaviour on the part of the Irish people. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely evaded the question which the Irish Members wished to press on the attention of Parliament. The question was not one of the incidence of local taxation, or local effort in aid of education; but it was the present insufficiency of the payments made to the National School teachers in Ireland. How did the right hon. Gentleman attempt to meet that point? He said the Government had agreed to establish Denominational Training Colleges in Ireland, such as were established in England and Scotland; and he had said that when these Colleges had been at work for some years then they would have a staff of teachers in Ireland who would be able to have a better classification and to earn higher rates of salary, and who, being better qualified, would also earn increased results and enable the children to secure increased attainments. That might be all very true; but it had nothing to do with the salaries of the present teachers. The Training Colleges might hereafter turn out a very efficient staff for teaching purposes; but the existing teachers would not benefit one iota by the higher standard which was to be attained hereafter by their successors. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman entirely evaded the point at issue. No answer had been attempted by the Government—the Government did not make an appearance of concerning itself to understand the Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury sat there, as he was bound by his Office to do, with a volume of the Estimates before him; but he knew nothing about the administration of the Irish Education Department. The hon. Member knew himself that he did not possess the information necessary to enable him to deal properly with this subject. Sitting next the Secretary to the Treasury was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) wondered what English Members would think if, in place of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), they were to see in charge of the English Education Votes, and directed to expound or defend them, the English Attorney General or the English Solicitor General? Why, English Members would simply refuse to accept the Government Estimate. They would refuse to pass it without a much better explanation and defence than either of those officials would be likely to give. The Solicitor General for Ireland sat on the Front Bench loyally enough to do what service he could in the matter; but it was entirely beyond his province even to explain this Vote and what took place in connection with it from one year's end to another. The hon. and learned Gentleman sat there merely, perhaps, because he thought there should be at least one Representative of some portion of the Irish Executive present. Well, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) was bound to say that, under these circumstances, the position of an Irish Member discussing these Irish Votes was not only painful, but cynically painful. It made a man feel that he came to the House simply because it was his duty to do so, and not because it was of any use—that he came simply because Ireland called him, just as he would shoulder a musket if she called upon him to do it. He was unable to do effective work. He met, as representing the Government, a Gentleman who could not be a master of the Estimate he had to propose to the Committee. It seemed to him that this was not treating the Irish Members—it was not treating the people of Ireland—it was not treating the interests of Ireland with that respect which the Government ought to show, bringing on Estimates of such immense consequence to the welfare of the Irish people, without even the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant being in his place. Well, that being the case, the temptation was strong on one not to say a word on the Vote at all; but simply to refuse assent to it—to divide against it as a whole. Yet one hardly liked to do that, because it would seem that they were not even giving expression to the feelings of dissatisfaction and grievance which they knew to be very strong in the country. He would not weary the Committee by adding to what had been said on the question of the pension and pay of the teachers; but he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland if he could say what the Irish Government proposed to do, or proposed to submit, with regard to the position of the assistant teachers? They were classed by examination; but whe- ther they came out in the third class, or the second class, or the first class, they could receive pay only as third class teachers. That was a grievance which had been repeatedly urged on the attention of the Government, and he had never yet heard that the Government had arrived at any decision with regard to it. Then there was another question about books and school apparatus. The Department required schoolmasters throughout the country to furnish themselves, out of the present payments, with books and school apparatus, and the articles which they got for cash payments they had to retail, generally at considerable loss to themselves, to the children in the schools which they had under their charge. The teachers had repeatedly asked to be allowed the ordinary trade discount—some 10 per cent—in order that they might be protected from loss. It had never been allowed. And so throughout the whole of the headings in the Estimate substantial ground was found for questioning the general policy of the Government, and the treatment which they thought fit to mete out to the unfortunate starvelings who were in the position of teachers in Ireland. But he would not go through the melancholy catalogue. He proposed to move a reduction in the first division of the Vote under the head of "Administration." The first head "A" amounted to £26,262, and he proposed to reduce that by £10,000, on a ground different to any he had hitherto mentioned. The administration of this Vote was in the hands of men who had drawn up certain rules and regulations for the conduct of work of the Department and the regulation of the teachers, and it was the policy of these Rules that he was prepared to challenge. And first, in regard to the grants which, under these Rules, were given for building schools. He was perfectly well aware that there was no grant in this Vote for building, and that, therefore, he could not object to any money which was allowed for building, neither did he propose to do so; but he objected to the Commissioners—the Resident Commissioner and the Secretary—who had the policy of this Department in their hands, and the reason, or one of the reasons, why he proposed the reduction, was that they did not treat with even the semblance of fairness a very large proportion of the schools throughout the country. Now, these schools were of two descriptions. Some were called "vested" and some "non-vested." Of the Vested Schools, some were vested in the Commissioners of National Education, and others were vested in local Trustees for the purpose of being maintained as National Schools. Now, the Commissioners gave grants to Vested Schools. They paid, for instance, the whole of the expense of building schools which were vested in themselves; and with regard to schools which were vested in local Trustees, under Rule 17 of the Rules of this year, the grant amounted to two-thirds for any total estimate between £300 or £400 and £1,200. In his county there was a school vested in local Trustees—a school of which the parish priest was the manager. The parish priest, by dint of very great exertion, much self-sacrifice, and the co-operation of the poor people of the district, had kept his schools going, and had paid each of his staff. The staff was classified under the regulation of the National Commission; but the place being poor the priest was not able to secure a secular staff sufficiently large for the needs of the school, and, looking about him, he decided to solicit the assistance of some brothers living in a monastery in the immediate neighbourhood. These brothers, not priests, but men who had devoted their lives to works of charity, seeing the difficulty in which the priest was placed, accepted his invitation, and assisted by supplementing the secular staff of the school. Well, when an application was made by the manager to the Commissioners of National Education for the grant of two-thirds which, according to the Rules, was claimable for schools vested in local Trustees, he was met by a refusal. The reason of the refusal was that in his school he had a religious man or religious men teaching. It was of no consequence that all the Rules were complied with; that the school was efficient; that the teachers were classified, and had obtained certificates from the Commissioners, and that they were duly qualified for the work of teaching; the very fact that there were in that school teachers who were monks precluded it from obtaining a grant. He maintained that this was an instance of bigotry against a Catholic institution which would be disgraceful in any country, but which in a country which was itself Catholic was almost incredible. The Resident Commissioner, he was bound to say, had expressed his regret at the state of things; but stated that while the present Rules existed he was unable to give any assistance, and the only way in which assistance could be obtained was by dismissing the monks. The parish priest who gave this information said—

"This, of course, I declined to do, for the monks in question were men who had actually received certificates from the Commissioners themselves as qualified teachers."

He added—

"As a matter of fact, the school, for want of Government assistance, is hardly in a state to justify it in being used as a school."

It was tumbling all to pieces; the priest had no means of building another, and the Commissioners refused to give him aid. This priest went on to say—

"These Rules were made at a time when the Commissioners were hostile to Catholic education, and when it was declared by Archbishop Whateley that Catholic education would be one of the most effectual means of undermining the religious instincts of the people. They wanted to throw an obstacle in the way of the children getting into the hands of religious communities. They are not now so bigoted."

He (Mr. A. O'Connor) hoped that they were not. Up to the year 1855 monks were allowed to teach in the schools and to be classified; but after the year 1855 until very recently they were not allowed to become classified at all. In the days of the late Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), on representations which were made to him, the Rules were changed, so that the members of religious communities were admitted to classification as teachers; but although the grievance was in that way partly removed, and the teachers were allowed to remain, the injustice in reference to grants for buildings was not removed, but it had remained to the present day. The Commissioners themselves were fully aware of the injustice. The Resident Commissioner had written to suggest a mode of evading the Rules; but nothing had been done to alter them. He thought if the Chief Secretary could have been present the Committee might probably have heard something from the right hon. Gentleman about the intention of the Government to alter the Rules, because he had promised to look into the matter when it was brought before him some time ago; but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman how were they to know what the intentions of the Commissioners were? Then there was another matter upon which, as well, the Chief Secretary might have been of use if he had been present—namely, in regard to the payment made to the nuns as teachers. The nuns in Ireland were unquestionably the best teachers the people had, and that was a fact which had long been recognized by almost every Inspector in every part of the country. The Appendix to the last Report which he had opened casually contained a paragraph stating that in eight Convent Schools the average attendance was 1,347; the teaching staff consisted of 40 nuns and 36 paid masters; the scholars were of a higher class than those in the ordinary schools; and the Inspectors reported that they had no doubt the Convent Schools were the best in the district, far surpassing the ordinary schools in the supply of books, while the class rooms were of a superior class, better kept and regulated; and, considering the higher education of the nuns, there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic children made more rapid progress than those of any other school. A wholesome tone of discipline pervaded all of them, and in many of them the children were learning extra subjects. The same kind of testimony was given by every one of the Inspectors throughout the country. He held in his hand a copy of the Inspector's Report in regard to Kinsale, and it was of such a favourable character that anyone interested in school management would take an interest in reading it. The total number of pupils in the school, according to Mr. Sheehy's Report, was 756; the teaching power was ample. The average attendance was large, and there were 20 teachers giving instruction in literary subjects, and one in industrial pursuits. There were also seven monitresses belonging to the school. He believed that all the ladies who taught in this school were highly qualified as regarded their acquirements, method of teaching, and skill in organization. The Report of the Inspector stated that the lady who had the chief charge of the school and directed the entire education of the children and the training of young nuns was superior to anyone connected with the Middle Schools in educational attainments. So far as the results were concerned, the first class were taught to read and spell, to explain words, and they answered questions in geography very well; the second class answered every question put to them extremely well, while the higher classes were very smart in composition, history, elementary astronomy, physiology, and electricity. It must be borne in mind that this was an elementary school. The fifth class, which consisted of the monitresses and other advanced pupils, were thoroughly well-organized, and attended public lectures on educational subjects in Dublin and elsewhere. The Inspector reported—

"Their answers in questions relating to electricity simply astonished me. They appeared to be quite familiar with the apparatus, and I have no doubt, if time had permitted, would have been able to make simple experiments with it."

The Report went on to show the treatment of the children in this Convent School, and the amount of attention the nuns paid to the development of the industry of the district. Work executed under their superintendence had been sent for exhibition both to London, Dublin, and New York. The Report in reference to this school was very long; but it was extremely interesting and valuable, and well worthy of perusal. He was sorry that he was unable to take out all the salient points it contained; but it would take up too much of the time of the Committee, and he was reluctantly compelled to pass many things by which he would have liked to bring before the Committee. It must, however, be borne in mind that the Report from which he had been quoting was simply that of one of the Irish Convent Schools. Something of the same kind was reported from almost every part of Ireland. Nevertheless, what was the actual fact? Why, that the nuns in Ireland were not allowed payment such as was given to the teachers in all the other schools. The very fact that they were nuns precluded them from obtaining that amount of payment which they would have received if they had not been nuns. He could not at that moment put his hands upon the passage; but there was one striking instance given to show the difference which was made between the nuns and other teachers. Taking schools with an average attendance of 100, the lay teachers would have £58; the assistant and third class teachers £27 10 s., and two monitresses £9 each, making £103 10 s. in all. But in the case of the Convent Schools no salaries were paid either to the nuns or to their asisstants, and the only allowance was to the monitresses—namely, three at £9 each, making £27 altogether, and a capitation grant of £20 for every 100 scholars—or at the rate of 4 s. a-head, with the remuneration to the monitress, making £47. Thus, while the lay teachers in an ordinary school received £103 10 s. a year, in the Convent Schools the allowance was only £47, or less than one-half. When the Committee took into consideration the very low rate of pay which even lay teachers in Ireland got as compared with the teachers in England and Scotland, the absolutely ridiculous remuneration given to the nuns in Convent Schools demanded at once serious attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. When, some time ago, he had brought the matter under the notice of the Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would inquire into it, and had led him (Mr. A. O'Connor) to suppose that when the present Vote came on for discussion he would hear something of what the intentions of the Commissioners were upon the subject. He was afraid that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman he would appeal in vain to the Secretary to the Treasury as to the way in which the matter now stood; and he very much doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would have any more information to give. But, assuming that no alteration had been made in the Rules or in the administration of this Vote in this very important particular, he would beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000 in reference to the charge for administration.

:Does the hon. Member object to the whole Vote? He does not specify to what particular item in the Vote his Motion would apply.

:In order that I may not preclude any further reduction being moved on any subsequent item, I will move the reduction of the Vote by £25,568, being the amount of the salaries and wages for the Office in Dublin, which forms the first item of the Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £26,668, for Salaries and Wages, be omitted from the proposed Vote."— ( Mr Arthur O'Connor. )

said, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), during the course of his speech, appealed to him, and suggested that it was somewhat strange that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) should be absent upon this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman was not absent through any fault of his own; he was anxious and desirous to take part in the discussion of every important Irish question, and to listen to the views of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. Unfortunately, the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's absence was beyond his control. The right hon. Gentleman had been most unremitting in his attention to the Business of his Office, and for a long time he had been suffering from indisposition. He (Mr. Walker) was quite sure that if the hon. Member for Queen's County had known all these circumstances, he would scarcely have attributed to the right hon. Gentleman a desire to purposely absent himself from this discussion. They must remember that the right hon. Gentleman was present the other evening when this subject was before the House, and that he made a very useful contribution to the debate which then took place, embracing in his speech most of the points which had been advanced to-night. He (Mr. Walker) could not allow the observations of the hon. Member to pass by without acquainting the Committee with the real reasons of the absence of his right hon. Friend. Now, everybody admitted that the subject which was now under the consideration of the Committee was a most important one, inasmuch as the cause of education concerned not only the Irish people, but every people. The payment of teachers was a serious branch of the subject, because if teachers were not paid enough it was not alone the teachers themselves, but the cause of education, which suffered. It was admitted that the present system of education in Ireland had failed to produce the results which were, at all events, looked for. Both the late Government and the present Govern- ment had agreed that in the improvement of Irish education money was not everything. It had been felt that the cause of education would be promoted all the more by importing amongst the great body of teachers zeal and stimulus, than that education should be supported entirely by the State. It had been felt that every stimulus should be offered to Local Bodies to promote education. The Bill that was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) failed, it was said, because the voluntary test was offered, and that test had already broken down. The result of the voluntary test was summed up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) when he said that £14,726 was the total of the voluntary contributions. The compulsory scheme had been suggested, and it was shadowed forth by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) that, as the compulsory system had been successful both in England and Scotland, it might with advantage be applied to Ireland. It had been argued that if local contributions could be given to the great cause of Irish education, they would supply the zeal and stimulus which certainly were wanting, and that they would also supply one of the demands in the present system which hon. Members had alluded to—namely, that they had not that complete control over education that they desired to have. The greater the local contributions were, the more reason there would be to extend control to the people. For these reasons, it had been thought it would not be at all undesirable to give the system a trial. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) called attention to the alteration of the Rules, and had referred to what the Chief Secretary had, on a previous occasion, said upon the subject. He (Mr. Walker) would undertake to communicate with his right hon. Friend on the matter; and he was persuaded that if the right hon. Gentleman had made any promise upon the subject he would fulfil it. There was another matter to which the hon. Member for Queen's County referred, and that was the support which was given to schools conducted under the National system by nuns. He (Mr. Walker) knew something of Ireland, and he entirely agreed. with everything that had been said by hon. Members in regard to the schools in charge of nuns. Those ladies had naturally no other object than the proper training of the children confided to their care; and he had seen schools managed by them in a way which would do credit to any managers. No doubt the present educational system was such that the nuns had not derived all the advantage others had. Being religious, they could not conform to the Rules other persons could. No doubt, when the system shadowed forth by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) came in force, the position of the nuns of Ireland in charge of National Schools would be greatly improved. He (Mr. Walker) did not expect his contribution to this debate would be of any great advantage; and, therefore, he regretted very much the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman knew the subject perfectly; he devoted much of his attention to it before he went to Ireland, and he had made himself master of it during the years he had been at the Irish Office. The right hon. Gentleman deeply regretted his absence; and, from personal communication he (Mr. Walker) had had with the right hon. Gentleman that day, he could say that nothing gave the Chief Secretary more personal annoyance than that circumstances over which he had no control should have prevented him being present in the House that night.

said, they all shared the regret expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) at the absence of the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) from that debate that night. The word "national" was simply out of place when used in respect to the educational system of Ireland. The people of Ireland were very much attached to denominational education, and he always preferred to use the word "freedom" of education instead of denominational. Education was not free if there was compulsorily withheld anything which the people wished to learn. He was not educated as he desired, and his children were not educated as he desired, if, against his will, subjects which he held sacred were withhold from him and his children. It was well that they should compare the law which regulated edu- cation in Scotland and that which regulated education in Ireland. Scotland was truly religious, but it was not Catholic; and yet in Scotland the Catholic people, who were but the few amongst the many, could have denominational schools perfectly free to practise all those things, and to observe all those things they held dear, providing they satisfied the State as to the secular instruction given. He held in his hand the Scotch Education Act, and he found that in that Act Parliamentary grant might be made to the managers of any school which, in the opinion of the Scotch Education Department, efficiently contributed to the secular education of the parish or burgh in which the school was situated. He could not for the life of him see what justice or fair dealing should enable this country to pass a law so consonant with the religious feeling of the vast majority of the people of Scotland and with the small minority of Catholic feeling in Scotland, and, at the same time, refuse to pass a law in sympathy with the feelings of the multitudes of Catholics in Ireland. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) on every possible occasion read the Irish people very emphatic, very severe, and, as he (Mr. Dawson) maintained, very unjust lectures. That was the right hon. Gentleman's peculiar forte. If his strictures were just, he (Mr. Dawson) should certainly not wince under them; but they were not just. The right hon. Gentleman was fond of comparing the amount of aid contributed to education in Ireland with that contributed towards the same object in England. Now, in financial arrangements it had been set down that Ireland should only pay in the proportion of 2 in 17. Ireland had not got richer since that arrangement was made; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to shut his eyes to that extraordinary and important fact. The system of education in Ireland was called national; but it was not national. On the contrary, it was entirely at variance with the opinions of the vast majority of the people of Ireland, who refused to join the system because it outraged their feelings. Who provided the thousands and thousands of pounds in Ireland for the Denominational Schools? Why, the poor people of Ireland out of their poverty. The nuns took a portion of the Government grant; though they had proved by their results that they had achieved the great object of teaching, they were only allowed a small grant because they could not comply with the regulation, which they did not think convenient to their close order and retirement, which, however, in no way detracted from the character of their instruction. Who supplied their schools, their magnificent convents, and residential places? The Catholic people of Ireland; and yet the right hon. Gentleman forgot all that, and shut out from his vision figures showing these facts. It was a computation which did not exceed the bounds of possibility that within the last 20 years, two decades of the utmost adversity, two decades which would not occur again owing to the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish people had, for the purposes of religious instruction, expended out of their poverty £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) had said that the religious element was one of great difficulty. It was aroused, certainly, when it was insulted and outraged. The other day he visited a little Catholic school in Carlow. There was not a non-Catholic within 20 miles; but he found that all the religious emblems had been locked up for fear the Inspector, looking in suddenly, should see them. There was a mural slab in the school recounting the worth of a former parish priest, the inscription concluding with the words—"God rest his soul." That slab had to be covered up, because it was against the Rules that such an inscription should be displayed. Those were trifles; but they went to make life miserable, and to make the educational system exceedingly unpalatable to the people. Now, it had been said that the teachers in Ireland were inferior to those in England and Scotland. To say that was very like adding insult to injury. The Irish Members spent hours the other night showing how poorly the Irish teachers were paid, and yet how proficient in their art they were expected to be. They were paid £57 a-year, or only half what the English teacher got; and they were given none of the social position a teacher should be surrounded with. It was to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) that he had commenced to stem the torrent of injustice by providing Training Colleges. It was only the other day that there were no Training Colleges in Ireland. There were, however, now; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) would acknowledge, when he came to consult the statistics, how badly the teachers were paid. If the teachers had worked under the same conditions as the English teachers, and had then failed to achieve proper results, the right hon. Gentleman might have come forward, and with some ground passed censure upon the condition of Irish education. Now, he (Mr. Dawson) entirely approved of compulsory attendance; but he was of opinion that they would never be able to secure a proper attendance if the religious sentiments of the people were trampled under foot. If Denominational Schools were organized in Ireland a great source of irritation would be removed. As he had said, in Scotland a school was allowed to receive a grant if it contributed its fair share towards the secular education of the parish in which it was situated. That was what he desired to see in Ireland. If there was such a condition of things objections would be removed, and compulsory attendance might be enforced. He had had an opportunity of conversing with many of the Catholic Prelates on the subject, and he was in a position to say that those prelates were not opposed to the compulsory system if it was properly safeguarded, or if they were satisfied as to what they had a right to look after, and what it was their great and holy business to look after—namely, the faith of their flocks. There were in Scotland, and in many places in England, School Attendance Committees, which did not work such great revolutions as School Boards. Attendance Committees were, as a rule, composed of members of the Corporation, clergymen, and others, and he thought that such Committees might with advantage be formed in Ireland; each creed would be represented on the Committee, and, as a consequence, there would be no hardship. It was estimated that there were only 25 per cent of illiterate persons in Ireland. He wished that those persons could read and write; but considering all the impediments in the way of education in Ireland, and all the grievances which were heaped one upon another in the country, the percentage was not very discreditable. He was sorry to have troubled the Committee so long upon this matter; but it was one on which he felt a deep interest, and it was one in which the first step was to be taken to regenerate Ireland. There was a word or two he ought to say upon the unpractical character of the curriculum of the Irish schools. The total pursuit of mental and literary culture, to the prejudice of industrial education, which would enable the people to be breadwinners, was, in his opinion, a great blot on the Irish educational system. Industrial education was required in England; but it was wanted a thousand times more in Ireland. It was a reproach to many Irish people that they were not skilled in any trade. If, however, there was industrial training in the elementary schools of Ireland, the Irish people sent over to this great country would be able to take their proper part in the industrial machinery instead of being simply hewers of wood and drawers of water. Continual mental culture and continual literary pressure was prejudicial to young and immature minds; and nothing could possibly afford greater relief to the minds of their children than the introduction into the curriculum of their schools of industrial teaching suitable to the age. He had no doubt whatever that the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), whom he hoped would very soon be able to resume his duties, and to pursue legislation in respect of education, would take cognizance of the important matters to which reference had been made during the debate, and that they would have, at no distant date, a system of education in Ireland which, first of all, would be in harmony with the feelings of the people, and which, secondly, would embrace the teaching of those industrial pursuits which would be of practical use to the populace; that they would have a system of education which would enable the Irish people at home and abroad to take that part in the communities in which they found themselves which their natural abilities entitled them to.

said, he was very much disappointed by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), because he thought it was possible that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had had an interview with the Chief Secretary that day, he would be prepared to make some satisfactory statement on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman. But it seemed they were doomed to wait for another term before they got the opinion of the Chief Secretary upon the question of the salaries of the nuns in Ireland. They were also to wait for some time yet until they knew whether any of the other grievances respecting the educational system in Ireland were to be remedied or not. They were accustomed to hear that Ireland did not contribute as much to the support of education as England did, and it was often assumed that the Board School system in England and Scotland was a very great success. He thought it would be conceded that there was very great difference of opinion as to the result of the Board School system. A good many Members of the House of Commons thought that the Board School system in England and Scotland had not been by any means a great success; in fact, many considered that the tax was unreasonably high—indeed, so high that some children were sent to Board Schools whose parents could very well afford to send them to Voluntary Schools. In his opinion, it was the duty of fairly well-off parents to educate their children at their own expense; certainly, the children of such parents ought not to be educated at the expense of the public. Public schools were intended for the education of children whose parents could not meet the expense of their education. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom; and as it unfortunately happened that Ireland was the poorest part of the United Kingdom, it was only fair that the United Kingdom should contribute something to the education of the children of the poor people who lived in Ireland, and who were not able to afford to educate their children properly. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) very properly told them that the education in Convent Schools was of a very satisfactory nature; but he did not say he had any authority for stating that the nuns would be better paid. The hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that these ladies were entitled to a much larger amount of remuneration for their services. It was a scandal that the very beet female schools in Ireland should be the worst-paid schools, that they should get a small sum of money from the State, and that, at the same time, in very many cases they should get no fees whatever from the pupils. Many of the Convent Schools were nothing more nor less than Charity Schools, the children of which paid no fees, but were given a lunch to encourage them to attend. In the case of such schools it was clearly the duty of the State to give reasonable and fair compensation to the teachers. Another of the charges which had been brought against the Irish people was that they did not contribute to educational purposes as the English and Scotch people did; but he believed that was an entire fallacy. In every diocese in Ireland a very large boarding and day school existed for the children of the well-to-do parents, and these schools received no support from the State. The priest who undertook to superintend the erection of the schools built the schools entirely at the expense of the Catholic people, supplied Professors, and did everything that was required, without making any application whatever to the State. The same applied in a very marked degree to the provision made for the daughters of well-to-do people in Ireland, because a large number of the better class girls were sent as boarders to the different Convent Schools, which schools received no grant from the State. So, in point of fact, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) was entirely unworthy of consideration. He believed that the Irish people, in proportion to their means, were very much more liberal in regard to education than the people of England and Scotland. There were no wealthy people in Ireland to pay the expenses of the education of children; but a large number of people were on the verge of pauperism, and therefore it was too bad to complain that the Irish people did not provide sufficient funds for educational purposes. Complaint was made that the Irish teachers were less able to get result fees than the teachers here. It was not, however, so much the result of lack of ability on the part of the teacher that the fees were so small; but it was owing to the fact that the children were not kept at school a sufficient length of time to enable good results to be attained. Taking it all in all, the Government had given the Irish people great cause to complain of the way in which they had dealt with educational matters in Ireland. Complaint was very justly made on the score of the salaries paid to teachers in the position of nuns who taught in Convent Schools for years. The result of the examination of pupils in Convent Schools had been in advance of the National Schools generally; in some years it had been decidedly above the result in the Model Schools of Ireland, upon which a large amount of public money had been spent—spent both on the building of schools and on the payment of teachers. He thought the Government ought to give hon. Members an undertaking that the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) would give them a reply with regard to Convent Schools on Report. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government did not propose to move a Supplementary Estimate that year for the assistance of Convent Schools; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought that if the Government were not prepared to do that this year, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) might very fairly give them his views with regard to what the increase ought to be in future years. The right hon. Gentleman might give them his opinion with regard to the amount of increased salary which ought to be paid to the nuns, and, also, as to the assistance afterwards of building of the schools in which nuns received their pupils.

said, he was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who was so thoroughly well acquainted with the subject, had referred to the question of the payment of nuns. He hoped that the Government would seriously take the question into consideration next Session, when they would, he trusted, be forced to take in hand the general question of National education in Ireland. There could not be any doubt that the nuns laboured under very severe disadvantages from the present system, which debarred them from receiving any remuneration as result fees. He could not conceive why nuns should not be paid by results just as other teachers were. If the pupils of nuns compared favourably with the pupils of other teachers, he could see no valid reason for refusing to them similar remunera- tion to that which was granted to other teachers. He could not understand why it was that the Government refused on this occasion to propose a Supplementary Estimate for the payment of National teachers, as he recollected that it was not many nights ago that they had a very long debate upon a Supplementary Estimate for the payment of Divisional Magistrates in Ireland. Why should not the same rule be applied to National teachers, unless it was that the Government were unwilling to give a penny for the purposes of education, or for anything that would be of the slightest advantage to the people of Ireland? One matter which he wished to mention in connection with this Vote was the training of teachers. He felt that he ought to complain of the fact that the Government did not compel teachers in Ireland to acquire a knowledge of practical agriculture, so that they could educate the children who attended National Schools in agricultural matters. This to a purely agricultural country like Ireland was a question of great importance. It was one with which the Government could easily grapple, and one which concerned the people of Ireland more than the people of any other country. He trusted that next Session this subject also would receive the serious attention of the Government. He was persuaded that the Government would not be allowed to pass any Bill dealing with the educational system of Ireland, unless it contained a provision for the training of the rural population in practical agriculture. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that if the Division which took place a few nights ago on the Motion in favour of National School teachers, made by the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), had been taken at another time, the Government would have had a large majority. Well, that might have been the case, because hon. Members knew that when the Division Bell rang, Gentlemen rushed in from all quarters, and, without knowing what was going on, were prepared to vote with the Government on any question, no matter whether they were on the right side or not. Therefore, he could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the argument he had used. It was one of the injustices which Irish Members had to submit to in that House, that a large majority always voted against them on Irish matters, utterly regardless of right or wrong; but he was of opinion that, if the Division in question had been deferred for an hour, the Government would have been in a minority. If Divisions represented the actual opinions of hon. Members, he believed that in the case in question there would have been a very large majority in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), and that the Government victory would have been turned into a defeat. Personally, he was glad that the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland had refused to become contributory under the Act of 1875, because, in the first place, he did not believe that the rates in Ireland should be made responsible for the salaries of Irish school teachers; and if there was no power to control the appointment of teachers and the remuneration they received, it was unjust to compel the ratepayers to contribute to their salaries. He believed it was then too late to introduce another system of taxation without representation, in addition to the Grand Jury system, which was one the people of Ireland would not allow to continue very long. He believed, if the majority of the Unions in Ireland had become contributory under the Act of 1875, Irish Members would have had no chance of improving the position of the teachers when the question would present itself next Session. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) that the Irish people had not done their duty in providing good schools; but the Irish people would do their duty in that respect when they succeeded in having their own Parliament, and the management of their own affairs. He did not see how they could do everything through the English Parliament; and even the small concessions that were passed through the House of Commons did not always escape destruction in the Upper Chamber. It was, therefore, not the fault of the Irish people that they could not always do what they wanted for themselves; they could not make any successful effort in the House of Commons to better the condition of the people of Ireland unless they had on their side the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, simply because there was a great majority at his back and that of the Prime Minister, or anyone who I happened to be on the Treasury Bench, who could vote down any proposition they might make. He should be willing, and he was sure that everyone on those Benches would be also willing, to undertake that they would never come into that House with an education question relating to Ireland if they were permitted to live at home, and settle these matters in their own country. These were the reasons why the Irish people did not come up to the standard laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh. It was all very well for Scotchmen to raise this question. Irish Members knew perfectly well that if a majority of Scotch Members decided on doing anything, they had only to represent the matter to the Government, and the Government was quite willing to accede to any demand they might make. But it was altogether a different matter with Irish Members. The opinions of all Irish Representatives had more than once concurred with regard to certain measures being necessary for the country; but when they approached the Government, they found it did not suit them to consider the question, and they were simply told that their views could not be entertained. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had argued at great length on a large number of statistics, to show that the Irish people ought to contribute as much in Ireland towards National Education as the people contributed in England; and he said that even in the case of Irish Harbours——

:I beg the hon. Member's pardon—I did not mention Ireland. I referred to the Harbours of Scotland.

said, he accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He thought he had referred to Ireland, because he knew that he never made any but uncomplimentary remarks with regard to Ireland; accordingly, he had taken for granted that nothing uncomplimentary to any country but Ireland could have fallen from the hon. Gentleman. But as he had disclaimed the observation, he should pursue the matter no farther. He would conclude by again pressing on the Government, when they took up this question, as undoubtedly before long they would be compelled to take it up, to seriously consider the question of improving the agricultural training of teachers in Ireland.

said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had left the Committee under the impression that the people of Ireland only contributed locally something like 1 per cent of the amount necessary for the purposes of National Education.

:I said 18 per cent in school fees, and 1 per cent in local rates.

said, he wanted the Committee to understand that 19.6 of the amount necessary to develop National Education in Ireland was subscribed by the Irish people, either by local rates levied by Boards of Guardians, or in fees paid by the school children. That was the actual state of the case; but it seemed to be the impression with many Members of the Committee that the people of Ireland only contributed 1 per cent. It was well to know that there were two good reasons why the people of Ireland could not be expected to pay local rates for National Education. In the first place, there was no law making it compulsory upon anyone in Ireland to levy taxation in support of National Education; and, in the second place, there was no local representative Body which was empowered to deal with and disburse the funds which might be collected. It was purely optional with the Boards of Guardians in Ireland whether they took advantage of the Act of 1875, which was passed by the late Government; and when ratepayers and Boards of Guardians saw that there was no power whatever to control the distribution of the money, it was only natural that the Act should not be taken advantage of, and it was only the fair inference that the amount, which was at first estimated at £30,000 a-year, should have fallen in successive years below the miserable sum of £11,000. He would now refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh. There was no person who had a greater admiration for the manner in which the Scotch people managed their educational affairs than he had; and there was no one more conscious of their shortcomings in other matters. It must be admitted that since the present educational system came into operation certain marked changes for the better had taken place. He found that in 1830, when the Irish educational system was introduced, that at that time in Scotland 77 per cent of the people were capable of reading and writing; whereas in Ireland, at the same time, the percentage capable of reading and writing was not more than half of what it was in Scotland. Since that time, however, the number of people who could read and write had increased to 67 out of every 100. He thought that that improvement in the condition of Ireland was one which gave fair promise that when a more popular and a more representative system was introduced, there would be an improvement corresponding to that which had taken place in England and Scotland. In addition to that, notwithstanding that the population of Ireland had fallen from something like 8,000,000 to 5,000,000, the average school attendances had enormously increased. He found that in 1845, when the population of Ireland had reached its highest point—namely, 8,000,000—the total number of pupils attending school was only 432,000; whereas, now that the population of Ireland was 5,000,000 or less, the total number of pupils attending National Schools was 1,083,000. He thought that showed a very great improvement. He was not, at the same time, prepared to express any opinion with regard to the constitution of Board Schools in Ireland. He was aware that that was a proposition which would lead to serious differences of opinion in that country. The condition of affairs in England was very much more suitable to a system of popular education than was the condition of affairs in Ireland; but, for his own part, he was inclined to the opinion that some system might be adopted under which popular education—National Education—might be entrusted to local popular control. He thought that such a system might be devised, and that taxation might be so adjusted to it that it would not press with undue severity upon any religious denomination—in fact, that the denominational system of education, which at the present time existed in Ireland, might be changed. He was aware that many would object to such a change, and it was only natural that the persons who objected should be those in whose hands the present school system had been left. But he was confident that the growth of intelligence in Ireland and the improvement which was being constantly manifested would in time improve the capacity of the people for local selfgovernment; and he looked forward with hope, and with somewhat of a sanguine feeling, to the time when a readjustment of the system of National education would take place, which would be more in accordance with present opinions, and with the progress of Liberalism.

said, he wished to touch upon a point which had not been dwelt upon—namely, the position which the Gaelic language ought to hold in any scheme of Irish education. He supposed that hon. Members had received two interesting documents containing correspondence which had taken place between the National Education Society and the Gaelic Union. The latter body had done a great deal to promote the spread of the National language in Ireland. There were two points from which this question of the Gaelic language might be regarded. One was from the point of view of the preservation of a valuable language, rich in epigrammatic expression, which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would at once appreciate, if he had as much time to devote to its study as he had to the Homeric poems. But from a National point of view the Gaelic language was the language of the Irish people, whereas the language which they now spoke was more or less a foreign or alien tongue. During the last few years there had been a remarkable increase in the study of the Gaelic language; it had taken new root and spread in all directions, and people were beginning to take in it a sneaking interest which they would have been ashamed, a few years ago, to show or acknowledge. Irish Members were anxious that in certain parts of Ireland education should be imparted first of all through the medium of the Irish tongue. It had been urged against that system that the Irish population were scattered about Ireland, and that it would be impossible to apply the system with success; but that surely was an inaccurate view of the case. It would be quite possible to apply the principle to the people in 14 baronies in Ireland, where the Gaelic language was spoken. There was, of course, a proportion of bilinguists, in some parts, where, although Irish was the familiar language spoken, it was immaterial which language should be taught them—although, for his own part, he preferred the Gaelic. But where the Gaelic language was alone spoken he contended that instruction should be imparted in the schools in that language.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the neglect with which the Government had treated a question of vital importance to the Catholic population in Ireland—that was to say, the mode in which, at the present moment, educational endowments were devoted solely and exclusively to Protestant purposes which ought to be used for the general benefit of the population. Although, perchance, the discussion might have have been more fully raised on the Votes for Endowed Schools which had been passed, yet as he had, from the changes made in the order of the Votes, not been enabled to then raise the discussion, he desired to now make a few observations in respect to the conduct of the Board of Education in taking one of these Endowed Schools under their control. He referred to the Swords Borough School. That school, though the funds by which it was supported were directed to be applied for the educational necessities of the inhabitants without distinction of religion, was, at the present moment, used entirely by Protestants. He had called attention more than once to the gross misapplication of the public funds, which, as shown in the Reports of the Royal Commissioners, had taken place in the management of that school. The Chief Secretary had not attempted to deny the existence of the abuse, or the injustice of the mode in which the revenues of the school were administered. Yet very recently the Board of Education, though there was a National School founded and supported by the Catholics of Swords out of their own resources, had granted to this Endowed School the privileges and rights of a National School, and they were entitled to a supply of school books at a cheap rate. Let him briefly mention that this Swords School, thus entirely devoted to Protestant scholars, was originally founded under a Charter, and supported out of lands granted by Parliament; these were now represented by a capital of £24,000, from which a revenue of about £700 was received. Now, the conditions of the Charter were that the funds of the Trust should be applied generally to the inhabitants of the borough, without distinction, for the purpose of education.

:May I ask the hon. and learned Member what connection there is between this case and the Vote before the Committee?

said, the question came within this Vote because the money intended by Parliament to be devoted exclusively for the benefit of the poor who required State aid for National Education was, by the Commissioners, applied for the benefit of the Swords School. At least, that was his opinion, subject to the ruling of the Chairman.

said, the Committee were engaged in discussing the item of Salaries and Wages; and he did not, therefore, think the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in discussing the supply of school books, by the National Education Commission, to the Swords Borough School.

asked whether it was not competent to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to discuss the question of the Swords Borough School, seeing that it had been taken under the control of the National Education Board, whose salaries were included in this Vote?

said, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the relevancy of the question to the Vote under discussion lay in the fact that the books supplied to the school were paid for out of the money voted by Parliament.

said, he need not state that he should most readily submit to the judgment of the Chairman. The hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Gray) had pointed out that the salaries of the Commissioners came under this Vote; and he (Mr. Martin) ventured to think he was right in continuing his account of their action with regard to the Swords Borough School. He might remind the Chairman of the wide line of discussion, and the grave and serious questions that had been more than once raised in the House upon the Votes for Diplomatic Salaries. His complaint was that the school was now exclusively a Protestant foundation; that the revenues were now being used for Protestant purposes, in gross violation of the Charter and Trusts; and that the Education Commission had no right to have the school under their control. He put forward the case as one of the aptest illustrations of the misapplication of public funds which was taking place in Ireland.

:I rise to Order. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the only connection between this question and the Vote before the Committee is the fact that certain books were supplied by the Commissioners. Am I correct in so understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman?

:No, Sir. What he arraigned was the conduct of the Commissioners in having this school under their control. [Mr. COURTNEY: How is it under their control?] Because it was under the Regulations; and if the hon. Gentleman would look into the subject he would find that the Swords Borough School was one of the schools which appeared on the roll. This school was a striking instance of gross misapplication of public funds. It was maintained by funds which Parliament voted for the general benefit of the inhabitants of that borough; and it was distinctly directed that those funds should be devoted to the general benefit of the inhabitants, and also that the children should be trained in industrial pursuits. In 1854 and in 1855 attention was called to the gross and fraudulent misapplication of these funds, and again when the Endowed Schools Commission was appointed in 1871. Not the slightest attention was paid by the Government to those Reports. He had himself, as he stated, called attention to this flagrant injustice, which, though admitted, was allowed to continue under the sanction of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. And it was a matter of grave complaint to find that the Education Board apparently sought to cloak and perpetuate the abuse by placing this Swords School on the rolls. As a mark of his sense of the conduct of the Government in the matter, he should, if a Division took place, vote for the reduction.

Question put.

The Committee divided :—Ayes 36; Noes 71: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 211.)

Original Question again proposed.

said, he wished again to call attention to the action of Mr. Sheridan, to which he had referred on Friday last. It was well known that Mr. Sheridan had thought fit to issue a Circular asking certain National School teachers, who had ventured to have a dinner in Dublin at which they drank the health of Her Majesty, why they had not also drunk the health of the Lord Lieutenant. The teachers had been obliged to cry "peccavi," and send apologies to Mr. Sheridan, simply because they had not drunk the health of a Member of the present Ministry. That was carrying things with a very high hand; and he could not see upon what ground the Government should object to these teachers holding this dinner—at which he was present, and which was a very humble affair—without drinking the health of the Lord Lieutenant. They might be satisfied with having the health of the Queen drunk, without insisting on the health being drunk of a Member of the Cabinet. For Mr. Sheridan to call upon these teachers to pour out the wine cup to the health of Earl Spencer was certainly a most extraordinary thing; anything more absurd than that the Government should take up this incident he had never heard of. How had they been benefited by that? Had Earl Spencer's health been improved by this proceeding? If he thought it would have done the smallest possible good to Earl Spencer he should not object to his health being drunk any number of times; but it was bringing the Government down to a very low point indeed when a few hundred teachers were called upon, at their annual dinner, to drink the health of Earl Spencer as well as of the Queen. Anything more insulting than Mr. Sheridan's letter it had never been his lot to read; but still more humiliating were the replies of the teachers, whom the Government had at their mercy. What was the consequence of Mr. Sheridan's Circular? The teachers, who did not care a straw about the abstract principle of a Lord Lieutenant, had to write humiliating letters in order to maintain their position. They were obliged to do that, not because they admired Earl Spencer at all, but because they knew they would lose their situations if they did not apologize. Now, he wanted to know whether the Government approved of this system of Circularizing teachers. Was it a practice in this country? Would the Government in this country insist on the health of all the Princes and Princesses, and all the little Princes and Princesses of Wales being drunk at such a dinner? The National School teachers received £57 a-year, and very much loyalty could not be expected for that. If they were to be required to drink the Lord Lieutenant's health at their dinners they ought to receive £10 extra for that purpose.

said, he was not aware of all the circumstances of this case, except from the hon. Member's speech; but it was obvious that the matter did not turn upon the consideration of any particular Government, or on the individuality of Earl Spencer. Drinking his health was part of the custom, he being the Representative of Her Majesty. He could not conceive that the matter had anything to do with Earl Spencer personally. There seemed to have been some over-susceptibility on the part of Mr. Sheridan, who, he thought, had rather overstrained the matter; but it did not seem to him worth while to pursue the incident any further.

said, he thought it important that the Committee should know whether the hon. Gentleman did or did not mean that Mr. Sheridan's Circular was to be acted upon. It was important to have some guide for the future, and it was from that point of view they desired to discuss the matter. It was quite impossible in Ireland to regard any distinguished person occupying the position of Lord Lieutenant simply as the Representative of the Queen. That never had been and never could be. He would remind the Prime Minister that when Earl Spencer was Viceroy in Ireland in 1870, as the Representative of the Queen and of the Government which had just disestablished the Irish Church, he was "Boycotted" by the noblemen and aristocracy of Ireland, who declined to attend his levées, or Lady Spencer's drawing rooms—not because they wished to show any disrespect to the Queen, but because they diapproved of the policy he represented. They disapproved of Earl Spencer the politician, and not of Earl Spencer the Viceroy; and they took every opportunity of slighting him. If those noblemen and gentlemen had a perfect right to show their disapproval of the policy which Earl Spencer then represented, surely the same right extended to men occupying a humbler position if they thought proper for any reason to disapprove of the policy of Earl Spencer the statesman and politician in 1884. The action of these teachers was dictated by no feeling of disloyalty, for they drank with all proper marks of respect the health of the Queen; but was it to be made a matter of censure in Ireland that persons thought fit at a banquet not to express approval of the policy of the Viceroy, who, at the same time, was the Representative of the policy of the Government? Were they to be visited with censure for that? This Circular of Mr. Sheridan threatened them with dismissal from their employment; with losing their situations and being reduced to beggary. If it was an offence in Ireland not to drink the Lord Lieutenant's health, why should it not also be an offence not to drink the Chief Secretary's health? The Chief Secretary was supposed to be, and Constitutionally he ought to be, a better Representative of the Constitution than the Viceroy. He held that the Viceroy ought to be the Representative of both Parties, while the Chief Secretary ought to be the Representative of the policy of the Government. Why, then, should people not be threatened with dismissal if they did not drink the health of the Chief Secretary? They might think Earl Spencer's policy had been a curse to the country; and for that reason, and not because of any hostility to him as an individual, they might refuse to drink his health. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to have held out an indication that some quasi -intimation should be given to Mr. Sheridan that he should exhibit no such extreme sensitiveness in the future; and if that was to be taken as an assurance they might let the matter end. This Circular had created the greatest feeling of indignation among the teachers; but so much did they feel themselves under the power of the Board, and so much did they dread the exercise of that power, that they wrote replies which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had not charac- terized too strongly. When the personnel of that Board was examined, there was no wonder that the teachers were afraid of Mr. Sheridan's threat. Judge Lawson was a member of the Board, and he was known in Ireland to be not very tolerant to those who differed from him, and to be ready to make use of such powers as he possessed. Judge O'Hagan was another member of the Board; but he enjoyed a different character. Lord Fitzgerald was another; and there were also Mr. Murray, a very decided politician, Judge Morris, the Rev. John Daly, the right hon. and most reverend Marcus Gervais Beresford, whose position in Ireland was not calculated to reassure those who gave him any displeasure. Those unfortunate teachers wrote letters which must have caused them a feeling of extreme humiliation and irritation. He could not conceive why the Irish Government should go out of their way to exasperate and irritate these National School teachers. Instead of trying to conciliate the Irish people, the Government galled them with a sense of injustice, held out to them hopes which were never realized, gave them promises which were never fulfilled, and insulted and trampled on them in a way that the teachers in England, he ventured to say, would not tolerate for a moment. The teachers in England could come together and hold meetings, and say that they would not tolerate these things. Suppose the Vice President of the Council were to tell the English teachers to drink the health of the Prime Minister—who was, perhaps, more worthy of such an honour than the Lord Lieutenant—if they did not comply, did anyone believe that they would be dismissed or censured; and, if they were, did anyone believe that it would be tolerated for one moment? Would the teachers themselves tolerate it, however Radical they might be? He should think not. This was one of those insults which were calculated to sting and gall the Irish people, which they ought not to submit to in silence, and to which he hoped they would never submit.

:Sir, it is not possible that the discussion can be satisfactory under the peculiar circumstances of the case—seeing that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is unhappily prevented from attending the House. I have no doubt that he would have been fully acquainted with the circumstances, and would have been prepared to do what I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have a right to expect—that is to say, would have been prepared to express an explicit opinion on this subject, and to say whether the Government do or do not approve of this arrangement. We on this Bench are dependent entirely on the charity of hon. Gentlemen opposite for our knowledge of the facts of the case.

:A Return has been presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary containing the documents bearing on this question. Unfortunately, at the present moment, on inquiring in the Lobby for it, I find that it has not yet been received from the printers.

:Exactly, and that accounts for our having been unable to ascertain the exact facts of the case. This document, it is said, contained, first of all, a censure, and, secondly, a threat of dismissal. Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the document went the length of a threat of dismissal? If he is not quite sure, I should hope he made a mistake.

:So far as my memory serves me, it was a general threat of dismissal, if certain conduct complained of in the letter was persevered in or carried on in future.

:I can only express my hope that the hon. Member's memory may be in error. I have no right to say it is so, because I have no knowledge of the facts. I am loth to believe that a threat of dismissal should be contained in a letter of that kind. If I had the paper before me, and the view of the matter taken by the Irish Commissioners of Education—whom I must look upon as responsible—I might be prepared to give an unconditional opinion. The hon. Gentleman supposes what he assumes to be a parallel case, and asks whether the English teachers would tolerate it, if they were told to drink my health? There are many meetings, at which I am not surprised to hear that my health is not drunk, and as to which I am very well pleased if a very decided opinion concerning me is not expressed. The case of Earl Spencer is a very different one; but, so far as I can give an opinion, it is of very doubtful wisdom to interfere with a body of gentlemen, even though they might be school teachers, in such a matter. If I may venture to give an opinion, and always reserving the right to change that opinion on circumstances not now known to me coming to light, I should say that Earl Spencer's wish would be that his health should be drunk freely, or that it should not be drunk at all. At any rate, I should think he would deprecate any interference with individual liberty for the purpose of procuring a compliment which, under such circumstances, and when so procured, would be of little value. That is the impression with which I should be disposed to look upon the matter. I hope that the day may be coming near when the Crown and everything relating to it may be welcomed in Ireland with the heartiest loyalty. I cannot deny there is something in the distinction drawn in the double character of the Lord Lieutenant, who is certainly, on the one hand, the Representative of the Crown—and, in my opinion, the Crown has never been more worthily represented—and, on the other hand, a partizan statesman who identifies himself with those measures of which we may take different views according to the political opinions we may entertain. It will be felt we cannot go further into the matter, not knowing more about the state of the case; and I would, therefore, express a hope that the discussion may not be continued.

said, he would not, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, further pursue the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's statement formed a very satisfactory conclusion to the debate. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished again to call attention to a subject which he was sorry to say he had had to note every year without, apparently, any amendment on the part of the Department. He found that this year, for books and apparatus, a sum of no less than £35,000 was set down, which was an increase of £1,000 on the Estimate of last year. Now, he had called attention over and over again to the character of these books. He did not suppose that any Education Department in the world purchased books, from the standpoint of common sense so imbecile, from the standpoint of literature so worthless, and from the point of view of nationality so insulting, as the Irish Board of Education. Owing to the system adopted in Ireland, the use of these books was practically compulsory, and there was nothing like free trade in the choice of books as there was in England. He knew the Secretary to the Treasury would not be able to give him any assistance in this matter, as he was as innocent of information upon them as he was of the ancient literature of Ireland. No; it was perhaps possible that the hon. Gentleman did know something about the ancient literature of Ireland; but he certainly did not know anything about the National School books of that country. The Irish Members had reason to complain of the manner in which these Irish questions were treated. For the first time for a considerable period they had had an utterance from the Prime Minister on an Irish question, and that utterance had been of a very satisfactory character. He thought if the Prime Minister were to intervene more frequently in Irish matters, they would have more reason to be satisfied with what went on in that country. They brought on Irish subjects, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—owing to an illness which they all regretted and hoped would be soon terminated—was absent from his place. The Solicitor General for Ireland, with a prudent reserve not always practised by Law Officers, confined himself to giving opinions as sparse as lawyers usually gave when they were asked to give them for nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman chained his tongue, and declined to say anything as to the educational administration of Ireland. The Secretary to the Treasury, being an old journalist, was, of course, able to pick up information with great facility, and was able to give it with that air of omniscience which every leader writer was able to display who was worth anything to a newspaper proprietor. If he (Mr. O'Connor) had been foolish enough to give forth a small share of the large store of knowledge he might have on a particular subject, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would get up and convince English Members of the Committee, and endeavour to teach him, that his (the Financial Secretary's) knowledge, as compared with his (Mr. O'Connor's), was as an Encyclopx00E6;dia compared to an A B C or early primer. However, he would not now go fully into the arguments, but would defer his statement to the Report, if he thought it desirable to go into the subject. All the official information as to Ireland was confined to a single Member of the Government, and that was what he (Mr. O'Connor) had to complain of—that the other Members of the Government not only did not share the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but took care to maintain their minds in a state of saturated ignorance on these subjects. What was the result? Why, that the Prime Minister, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Solicitor General for Ireland were able always to take up an attitude—which he should have thought such good Protestants as they would be ashamed to observe—namely, an attitude of invincible ignorance on Irish affairs. As a rule, when the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had made his speech on an Irish subject all the debating power of the Treasury Bench was exhausted, and, accordingly, the rest of the debate was left to the reiterated arguments of the Irish Members addressing such of the English Members as came to listen to them. That was not Constitutional Government. The speech they had just heard from the Prime Minister had been satisfactory; but whenever the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister happened to be in their places together, and the latter seemed to be paying the smallest degree of attention to what fell from the Irish Members, he (Mr. O'Connor) observed, with almost a feeling of pity, the appealing attitude of the Chief Secretary. Whenever this occurred, however, the inevitable result occurred sooner or later—the Chief Secretary was thrown over, and the Prime Minister adopted the Irish view of the case. That had occurred several times. If the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary were there together, and he (Mr. O'Connor) were to re-quote the passages he had often brought before the House from these books, they would have the Chief Secretary getting up at, perhaps, 20 minutes past 11, and saying that the books were everything which his own brilliant pen could accomplish; and about 20 minutes after 12 they would have the Prime Minister getting up and declaring that the school books were a disgrace to any educational establishment in the country. The result was, that when the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister were sitting on the Front Bench, the Prime Minister appeared to have his ears open to what was said, while the Chief Secretary all the time appeared to be like a hen on a hot griddle. He (Mr. O'Connor) would recommend the Secretary to the Treasury not to make any answer on this subject.

said, he was aware that the hon. Member had called attention to this subject before, and that he had quoted extracts from the school books, and had amused the House very much. He had an impression, however, that he had seen a statement—he could not say whether he had dreamt this, or whether he had really seen it—in which it was stated that the book to which the hon. Member took exception had been superseded. He could not say whether that was the fact or not.

said, the hon. Member must, as a public man, know as well as he (Mr. O'Connor) did, the inutility of placing any reliance upon any statement affecting Ireland which appeared in The Times newspaper. If he were to occupy himself with correcting the misstatements with regard to Ireland which appeared in that paper, he would have nothing else in the world to do. He knew to what the hon. Member referred—to a letter which appeared in The Times, and was to be found in it nearly every day—a letter which was about as extraordinary a sample of impending and inflexible mendacity as had ever characterized any article in any journal in the world. The operations of nature, the pressure of the seasons, the daily rising and setting of the sun, were but mere awkward attempts at uniformity in comparison with the extraordinary regularity of the mendacity of this statement of Irish affairs in The Times newspaper.

said, that if no hon. Member wished to discuss any other matter under Sub-heads A. B. and C. in this Vote, he wished to move to reduce it by £33,543, the amount proposed to be voted for the maintenance of Model Schools in Ireland. These Model Schools had been condemned by the Royal Commission which investigated the whole question of Primary Education in Ireland as long ago as the year 1869. That Royal Commission recommended on good grounds the complete abolition of these Model Schools, and the utilization of the funds for many other purposes. Like many of the recommendations of other Commissions, however, this recommendation had remained such, and nothing more, up to the present day. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had obtained a Return dated 12th of August, 1880, which showed the work of these schools. At that time they were in receipt of £36,086 a-year. The sum seemed now to be somewhat reduced; at any rate, the amount asked for in the Estimate was only £33,543. Probably, if the matter were properly explained, it would be shown that the schools had some other source of income which was not mentioned in the Return, but which would bring the amount up to £36,086. But, whether the exact sum was £33,000 or £36,000, the Committee would agree with him that the sum was a substantial one. It was only right, when the Royal Commission had stated that this sum should not be expended any longer on this particular purpose, that the Secretary to the Treasury—a Gentleman so jealous of the public purse—should give some intimation why, for the past 15 years, he and his Predecessors had asked the House to sanction this expenditure. Now, the Return to which he referred was a Return first giving the cost of the construction of the Model Schools, and this he found to be £160,304. The cost of the staff and maintenance was, as he had stated, given at £36,086; and, besides these figures, the Return gave the number of pupils on the books, and an analysis of them both as to their religion and the occupation of their parents. In 1880 there were only 11,873 pupils on all the books of the Model Schools of Ireland. For these 11,800 pupils, this £160,000 had been spent on buildings—and very splendid buildings they were—and Parliament was called on to vote £36,000 a-year. When they compared the miserable salaries paid for the ordinary National Schools of the country with the enormous Vote—proportionately to the number of scholars educated in the schools—for these Model Schools, it would be seen that there were occasions when the Treasury could not only be liberal out of Imperial funds, but even extravagant, in some Departments in Ireland. They found an explanation when they came to make an analysis of the scholars in the schools, and the occupations of the parents. For reasons into which he need not now enter, the Heads of the Catholic Church in Ireland had long ago declared their complete disapproval of the Model School system, and had warned their clergy and their flocks not to permit Catholic children to attend these schools. He would not go into the reason why the Catholic Church in Ireland adopted that view. Suffice it to say that it had adopted it. The proportion of Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was as 5 to 1; yet out of the total number of 11,873 scholars in the Model Schools—and this was sufficient in itself to condemn them—only 3,198 were Catholics, the rest being Protestants. There were 4,100 belonging to the late Established Church, and 3,641 Presbyterians, the remainder belonging to other Protestant denominations. Thus, while Catholics were an enormous majority of the entire population, they were only a small minority of the scholars educated in these Model Schools. The schools were kept up for the advantage and convenience of a small minority of the population, composed of wealthy persons who had no claim whatever to education at the public expense. When they came to analyze the parentage of the children they were educating gratuitously they found that his statement with regard to their social condition was absolutely verified. Of the 11,873, 344 were agents or managers; and surely an agent or manager, whatever agency or managership he might have, had no claim to have his child educated gratuitously. He was not sure that some of these parents did not pay the nominal sum of 5 s. a-quarter. Some of the children were educated gratuitously; but in some cases a nominal payment was made. Six were apothecaries, 29 were architects—who were, undoubtedly, professional men—30 were artists, 19 were attorneys, 33 auctioneers, 10 bailiffs, 2 barristers, 86 clergymen—endowed already by the State, and now getting their children educated for nothing—842 were clerks, 72 engineers, 2 fishery proprietors—he should like to know what claim fishery proprietors had to have their children educated for nothing—210 were Government employés other than clerks, 258 were grocers, 36 were medical doctors, 284 merchants and tailors, 7 newspaper editors—and as both a newspaper editor and, to a considerable extent, proprietor he felt ashamed to see this, and was at a loss to know what claim this class had to the gratuitous education of their children—164 had no profession—he did not suppose that meant that they were casuals, but only that they were persons who did not require to labour for their bread—256 were policemen, 932 were shopkeepers—he was skipping some—1 was a surgeon, 3 were surveyors, 756 widows—and they were a class who, doubtless, had something to say for themselves—46 were workhouse officials, 1,287 farmers—some of whom, probably, deserved to have a provision of this kind made for them—1,324 were labourers—who, of course, had a claim to the gratuitous education of their children—572 were soldiers, and 2,400 tradesmen. Those who, under the several heads he had mentioned, might have a claim, might, he imagined, well be provided for in the Primary Schools, and did not require a reckless system of intermediate education provided for them out of the public funds. The figures he had read showed, in the first place, he thought, the complete failure of the schools in regard to the number of scholars; secondly, that they did not serve the vast majority of the population; and, thirdly, that the schools were not used by the classes who had a need for gratuitous education; but by a class which was opulent, and had no right to come and ask, year after year, for free education for their children—no more right than they had to ask for Votes for clothing or food. These arguments, without his pressing them to a greater depth, showed great foundation for the Report of the Commission of 1869, and he must say that the funds should be devoted to other purposes. He listened with curiosity to hear what the Secretary to the Treasury would say in defence of the maintenance of this Vote in the Estimates. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £33,543—the amount appearing under Sub-head D.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

said, he had only come in at the end of the hon. Gentleman's figures, but had heard one or two things which were very curious, and which persuaded him that, if what he had not heard was of the same nature as what he had heard, the hon. Member's argument did not go very far. The hon. Member took, amongst others, the sons of clergymen, and added the extraordinary remark that these clergymen were already endowed by the State. His (Colonel King-Harman's) recollection was that the endowments of Protestant clergymen in Ireland had been taken away by the State, and that the clergy were no longer endowed by the State. They who had to pay for the support of the clergy had a good right to speak of the disendowment of the Church. The hon. Member objected to 256 policemen having their children educated in these Model Schools. Well, he (Colonel King-Harman) could not conceive a more meritorious body of men, and a body more entitled to have their children educated free. But he would go down a good deal further. The hon. Member objected to workhouse officials, widows, and over 2,000 tradesmen having these privileges for their children. Perhaps the Committee was aware that "tradesmen" in Ireland did not mean wealthy shopkeepers, who stood behind their counters and served out their wares—

wished to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had not denied the claim of some of the classes he had referred to to this education. In quoting the figures he had admitted that some of the classes were entitled to send their children to these schools.

said, he had understood the hon. Member to say that he skipped certain classes who might have a claim, and only quoted those to whose children he objected to see this gratuitous education given.

said, he had mentioned labourers.

said, the hon. Member had mentioned, amongst others, "tradesmen;" and his (Colonel King-Harman's) contention was that the hon. Member's statement was misleading to the Committee, for the reason that "tradesmen" in Ireland—as all those who were thoroughly acquainted with Ireland were aware—did not mean grocers, butchers, linendrapers, and so on, as it did in England; but such men as blacksmiths, carpenters, stonemasons, and people other than agricultural labourers, journeyman shoemakers, tailors, bricklayers, masons, and so forth, were, perhaps, amongst the most needy men in Ireland, and amongst those who most required State aid in the education of their children. These classes were generally most industrious, and, in intelligence, were far above the agricultural labourer. They were certainly not amongst those who did not require this kind of education. He only mentioned those items he had heard the hon. Member refer to, and which, he maintained, were misleading.

said, that at that time of night, when it was the desire of the Irish Members to enter upon the consideration of other subjects, he did not feel justified in occupying much time in replying to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). This question was one which had been often discussed. The Model Schools, everyone must admit, were institutions which few regarded with satisfaction. Some of them might be fairly described as a success; but there were others which certainly had not been successful; but, as the hon. Member for Carlow must know very well, it was one thing to set up a school and another thing to abolish it. So long as these schools were in existence and maintained a fair average of attendance of scholars, it would be difficult to put an end to them.

:What is the intention of the Government with regard to them?

said, he was unable to answer that question at that moment. The attendance at present was at least a fair average, sufficient to justify the maintenance of the schools. There was an average attendance of 90 at the smallest Provincial Model School. That was sufficient to justify the maintenance of the school. The larger Model Schools had a very respectable attendance. The schools were there if scholars chose to make use of them; but, as the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, they had come under the ban of the Catholic hierarchy, and for that reason were not attended by as many Catholic pupils as might be expected in proportion to the population. The hon. Member had hinted that many persons availed themselves of this Model School education for their children who were perfectly well able to pay school fees. A great many of the parents did pay school fees according to their means. Three thousand paid 1 s. 1 d. per quarter, 4,000 paid 2 s. 6 d., 2,700 paid 5 s., and 595 paid 10 s. That 595, he should think, would cover a good many of those the hon. Member had referred to as hardly eligible for gratuitous education. He should hope, at least, that it would include the newspaper editors and proprietors. Then there were 35 who paid £1 a-quarter. Many of the parents, therefore, the hon. Member had referred to should be exempt from his censure.

:Does the hon. Member mean that those who pay the highest fees compensate the State for the amount expended on them, or that the average payments compensate the State?

:Of course, not the average.

:We all regret sincerely the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and particularly the cause of that absence. It is a perfect farce discussing Irish Educational Estimates with no one to take part in the discussion from the Government Bench but the Secretary to the Treasury, for it is plain from his defence that he is hopelessly ignorant of the whole subject of Irish affairs from beginning to end. If he had not been so hopelessly ignorant of these affairs, he could not have concealed from the Committee that these Model Schools are about the greatest imposture which could be kept up in Ireland. The House of Commons—particularly the English portion of it—have always been under the impression that there is a system of mixed education in Ireland, and these Model Schools are very often triumphantly pointed to as a part of the great success of mixed education in Ireland. But the fact is that mixed education does not exist in that country. The education there is thoroughly denominational, and the House of Commons has usually preferred to recognize the fact that it is maintaining in Ireland by grants from the State a system of education as denominational as it can be. Yet these Model Schools are every year trotted out to persuade the House of Commons that there is a system of mixed education existing in Ireland—a system in which Catholics, Presbyterians, and members of the Church of England join together in equal numbers to receive the benefits of education. It happened to me to be concerned in an inquiry into the subject of Irish Education, and I then found that there is no such thing as mixed education in the country. What you find, generally, in the model schools is this, that there are a great proportion of Protestants attending them—these schools, with the Universities and the elementary schools, are attended by a great proportion of Protestants, and by two or three model Catholics, who are trotted out whenever an inspection takes place to prove that a system of mixed education obtains in Ireland. But, as a matter of fact, you are keeping up these model schools in Ireland solely for the benefit of the Protestant body, and it is, undoubtedly, a source of great grievance and annoyance to the great body of the Catholic population, and particularly to the great body of the Catholic clergy. The Committee will observe that there are in Ireland 7,849 elementary schools, of which there is scarcely one which is not thoroughly denominational. But, in order to keep up the farce of mixed education, you sustain, at a cost of £35,000 a-year, these 30 model schools. Imagine what these are, scattered all over Ireland for the benefit, principally, of the Protestant population. You spend an original sum of £160,000, and £35,000 a-year, to maintain these schools merely for the farce of persuading English public opinion, which has always had a leaning towards mixed education, that you are maintaining a system of mixed education in Ireland. Is it worth the while of the House of Commons to spend that large sum every year for the sake of maintaining what is really nothing more nor less than an imposture? Is it fair to the great mass of the population that you should spend this large sum of money principally for the benefit of a particular sect and of a particular class? It was very right that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) should ask for the intentions of the Government on this subject. The subject has been brought before the House of Commons many times, and year after year it has been put off—year after year the Government have refused to meet it. If the Committee can be induced to take an interest in it, and say they will pass the Vote for this year, but that next year they will insist upon having a positive statement from the Government as to what they will do, it will be an excellent thing. This is a very sore subject in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin said it was not at all an improper thing that the members of the Irish Church should have their children educated in these model schools.

:I said that a certain number of Irish clergymen were referred to as being endowed by the State, and that that was not the fact. I denied the statement.

:I must take issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I cannot see how he makes out that the Irish Church is not endowed by the State. I have an idea that when the Irish Church was disestablished, excellent terms were made by the clergy with the State. Nothing will induce me to believe that the terms they made with the State at that time do not form an endowment. It may not be as much as the hon. and gallant Gentleman could wish; but it is an endowment, and it is worth considering. I say that to keep up these model schools solely because they are agreeable to the caprices and remains of that ancient religious ascendency, which I do not think contributed at all to the prosperity or welfare of Ireland, is a course which I do not think the House of Commons should go on consenting to. Here we have not only an imposture, but a State Establishment maintained principally for the benefit of a small section of the population who can perfectly well afford to pay for their own schooling. I hope, under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) will not be inclined to injure his subject by taking a Division to-night, but that he will receive support from a large portion of the House, and will receive from the Government an assurance that the system of model schools in Ireland will be seriously considered by them with a view to their abolition.

said, that, of course, he quite appreciated the difficulty of discussing this matter in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He could very well understand that the Secretary to the Treasury had some difficulty in announcing the intention of the Government on the subject; but, bearing in mind that this was a matter which had been frequently discussed since the Royal Commission condemned these schools in 1869, he must say it was time, having now arrived at the year 1884, for the Government to at least contemplate the possibility of, at some period or other, making up its mind with regard to the schools, and announcing its decision to the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, when a school was established it was difficult to abolish it; but how many generations were to elapse before the Government would put a stop to this system of education? He should be content if the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would state that this time next year the Government would say what decision they had come to with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1869. He should be delighted to withdraw his Motion, and to give the Government another 12 months to consider the subject. It was easy to vote them down, no doubt; but he did think the Irish Members had a moral right, in the face of the Report of the Royal Commission and of the Return which had been quoted to the Committee, to insist on the Government telling them that they would give the matter their serious attention. He did not think it was necessary for him to reply to the strictures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman). He had been abundantly dealt with by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). He (Mr. Gray) considered that when the Irish Church and the incumbents of benefices in that Church got large sums which, by a special Act of Parliament, they were able to convert into a special fund for that Church, it did constitute an endowment. The clergy of the Disestablished Church in Ireland, whether they were at that time incumbents or not, who now derived benefit from the fund, were now entitled to be considered as endowed by that fund, and were not fit persons for public charity. He was quite aware that the Church had been disestablished in 1869; but he knew, also, that it had not been disendowed. He should be content with the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if they could have an assurance that between this and next year the Government would take this matter into consideration. On that understanding—if anyone would tell them that the Report of the Commission would be acted on—he should be willing to withdraw his Motion; but if he did not receive such an assurance, and if he was informed that all these wealthy persons, or persons presumed to be wealthy, were to continue to have their children educated by the State, although he should be beaten, he should consider it his duty to go to a Division.

said, he was not disposed to argue this question, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had argued it in a better way than he could. He should like, however, to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury. He (Mr. Biggar) very often blamed the Government for giving large sums of money where it was not required; and, on the other hand, for being exceedingly stingy where they ought to be liberal. This was a case in point. What they did in the matter of Irish education was this. They gave over £3 a-head for all the pupils in these schools, they being the children of a particularly well-off class, and acted in a most stingy manner towards the National School teachers, who had to teach the children of the very poor, and they treated the nuns in a worse way than they did the National School teachers. That was a matter which he thought the Secretary to the Treasury, from a purely English point of view, would do well to take into consideration. This system obtained in almost every Public Office. They saw a great many people who had to do very little work receiving large salaries, whilst those who did nearly all the work received small salaries. As the Secretary to the Treasury represented the Money Department of the State, it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that he would be doing a judicious thing by cutting off this £35,000 a-year of National Expenditure.

said, he had a word or two to say in reply to the appeals which had been made to him. With respect to the general question raised, it had been asked more than once that evening whether the Government would, next Session, take this matter into consideration. Well, it had been already stated that it was the intention of the Government, next Session, to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of edu- cation in Ireland, and he had no doubt the model schools would form a part of the subject of legislation. He (Mr. Courtney) would take care that the effect of the discussion that evening was represented to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, so that the subject could be considered by the Irish Government in connection with the Bill which was to be brought in.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

said, there would be very little chance of reform in the prescribed system of education in Ireland in the course of next year, and he thought that everyone who had listened to the discussion of this Vote must feel that though there might be a hundred and one points in relation to it to which the attention of the Government might reasonably be directed by the Irish Members, it would be very difficult to find more than one which the English mind could readily or easily grasp. He would not say that the English or the Scotch Members, or even the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, were to blame for their ignorance of this subject; but although they might not be able to appreciate most of the points arising upon it, there was one question, at least, which the English and Scotch Members would be able to understand as well as those who represented the Irish constituencies, and that was the question of inspection. He would remind the Committee that a Commission was appointed some years ago to inquire into the Civil Services of Ireland generally, and they had presented a Report recommending that the remuneration of the Civil servants in Ireland should be the same as that which was given in England in the case of those persons whose positions corresponded in point of difficulty and responsibility. On the 4th of July, 1873, the House of Commons passed a Resolution to the effect that the general inadequacy of the scale of salaries of the Civil servants serving in Ireland should as soon as possible be redressed. Now, of all the different classes of Civil servants in Ireland, he supposed there was no class which was so hard worked and highly qualified, and, at the same time, so much underpaid, as the Inspectors of National Schools; and he would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, while he referred to the comparative positions of the National Schools in England and those employed in Ireland. In Page 331 of the Estimates they would find the details of one Vote, and at Page 397 the details of the other. In England, the two senior Inspectors started at £900 a-year, and there were three on the old scale at £700. There were 73 Inspectors at a minimum of £400, which rose by an annual increment of £50—a very substantial advance—every third year until it reached a maximum of £800. There were, also, 38 Inspectors on the old scale whose salaries rose from a minimum of £200 to a maximum of £600. Then, there were 25 Inspectors whose minimum salary of £300 a-year, rose to a maximum of £800. The Sub-Inspectors had been Inspectors' Assistants, after having been schoolmasters, and they had been appointed without any examination. The Sub-Inspectors had a minimum salary of £300, rising to a maximum of £500. Turning to Page 397, the Committee would be enabled to contrast the pay of the Irish Inspectors with that of the English Inspectors. There were in Ireland 66 District Inspectors who began with a salary of £250 a-year, which rose by an annual increment of £10, and in some cases of £15, to a maximum of £500. When it was considered that these Inspectors were appointed after a competitive examination, the programme of which was almost unequalled for severity in the Civil Service, it became obvious that the qualifications required from the English and Irish Inspectors respectively were by no means in proportion to their several salaries. It was not merely that some scholarship was required from the Irish Inspectors; but they had to discharge duties of so onerous and varied a character that none but the best men£men of first class acquirements, possessing great bodily strength as well as great tact and patience£could get through their labours. Their duties were a great deal more varied than those of the Inspectors in this country. They had themselves to examine the vouchers for promotion and classification; they had to look at the accounts of the schools; they were called on to advise the schoolmasters on a hundred different matters, which were dealt with by correspondence with the Education Department of this country, and, upon the whole, it would be very difficult to find a class of public servants on whom so many and such various responsibilities devolved as on this particular class of men employed to inspect the National Schools of Ireland. They began at a minimum salary, which was actually less than that of the English Sub-Inspectors who never passed an examination at all.

said, surely the hon. Member was misinformed. No Inspector was admitted without a severe examination.

:But it is only a pass-examination.

:It is an examination for the Civil Service.

said, he found he was mistaken, as there was an examination. He should have said they had a pass-examination; but the fact remained that the competition for the post of Inspector in Ireland was very much more stringent than they had to undergo in England, while the English Sub-Inspectors underwent merely a pass-examination. After having acted as schoolmasters they became Assistant Inspectors, and from that position they passed up to Inspectorships. They began at a scale of salary which was £50 higher than that which was given to the District Inspectors in Ireland, where some of the most qualified men who held these appointments went in at a minimum of £250, which was only what was given to a clerk in the upper division of the Civil Service, with an annual increment of £10 a-year up to a maximum salary of £500; whereas, in England, the Sub-Inspectors had a minimum of 300, while in the lowest scale of Inspectors the salary went up to £600 on the old scale and on the new scale to £800 a-year. Considering the qualifications required of these men, the nature of the competition they had to undergo, the duties they were called upon to discharge, and the responsibilities resting upon them, he thought it very unjust towards them that, contrary not only to the Report of the Commission to which he had referred, but contrary also to the Resolution come to by that House on the 4th of July, 1873, the existing scale of remuneration should not have been amended, but should still be maintained. He thought that if ever there was a claim for an increased allowance of pay which was a reasonable one, it was the claim now made on behalf of these Irish Inspectors. They had made application—he did not remember when it was sent in—but it was within his knowledge that they had applied to the Department for an improvement in the terms under which their services were remunerated. He was not aware whether the Government had given any final or favourable reply to that application, neither had he heard any argument which could for a single moment justify the refusal of the claim. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to make any statement in regard to this matter; but it was essentially a Treasury question, and if anything had been done or directed, it must necessarily have been reported to him. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee, not the determination of the Chief Secretary or of the National Education Department, but that which he had come to himself, and he also trusted that the communication he might have to make would be of a satisfactory character.

said, the subject was one he had had under his observation, because it was one of the matters that were referred to the Treasury. He must point out that the comparison the hon. Member had made as between the Inspectors of Schools in England and Ireland, was not quite exact. It was, in fact, inexact in this material circumstance, that more than half, or about half, of the Inspectors of England were in the lowest grade of Inspectors' Assistants. There were 291 Inspectors in England altogether, and of those no fewer than 142 were Inspectors' Assistants, who received salaries of from £150 to £300 per annum.

said, he had confined his remarks to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors.

said, he was aware the hon. Member had confined his remarks to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, and that fact constituted the point of his (Mr. Courtney's) observation. The hon. Member had not considered and compared that part of the organiza- tion which related to the large class of Assistants. In England, as he had stated, there were 142 of these Inspectors' Assistants, who were doing a lower class of work than the Inspectors and receiving lower salaries, which varied from £150 to £300 a-year. Then there were about 140 Inspectors and senior Inspectors running up to the highest grades, the Sub-Inspectors receiving salaries of from £300 to £500 a-year. Under the scheme of inspection in England, there was only a limited number of superior officers and a large number of officers occupying inferior positions; while, under the system which prevailed in Ireland, there was a large number of superior officers and a comparatively limited number of inferior officers; so that what had been done in Ireland had in reality been to change the distribution of inspection adopted in this country, by increasing the number of Inspectors to a number corresponding to the number of Inspectors' Assistants in England, who had inferior duties and smaller pay, and at the same time to diminish the number of Assistant Inspectors who, in Ireland, were out of all proportion to the number in this country. If they took the number of Inspectors of the higher grade in England—namely, 140, and compared them with those of Ireland, they would find that there were in the latter country no fewer than 66 persons in a position corresponding with that of the English Inspectors. If 140 Inspectors of this grade were sufficient for England, it could hardly be said that 66 were required in Ireland. The Irish ought, in fact, as a matter of proportion, to have a smaller number of this grade of Inspectors and a larger number of the inferior grade. From the point of view from which this question was regarded by the Treasury, it had been considered that the true redress of the existing inequality would consist in reducing the number of the Inspectors and increasing the number of the Assistant Inspectors. The Inspectors' Assistants in Ireland ought to be increased in the same proportion as in England.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had failed to deal with the very forcible arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor). All the speech of the Secretary to the Trea- sury had amounted to was that, some day or other, the Government might propose to diminish the number of Inspectors in Ireland and to increase the number of Sub-Inspectors; but, in the meantime, the Inspectors employed in that country were to be compelled to live on a salary which was so much less than that paid to officers of the same grade in England.

said, the pay of an Assistant Inspector in Ireland was not much less than that of a Sub-Inspector in England.

said, he was speaking of the Assistant Inspectors in England as compared with the Assistant Inspectors in Ireland.

:They are about the same.

said, he did not find that it was so. This was one of those points on which he was able to agree with hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House. They ought not, in his opinion, to look at these questions from a Treasury point of view; they ought rather to regard them from an educational point of view. If the Government required a highly qualified class of men to supervise the education of Ireland, they ought to pay proportionately; and, for his own part, he was not able to see anything in the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that because they had not in Ireland a large number of low class men, they were, therefore, right in giving insufficient remuneration to the high class men. Let the Government diminish the number of high class men, if they liked; but, at any rate, let them increase the pay of those they retained in the same proportion as appertained in England. He was certainly in favour of the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor).

said, he had been for some moments puzzled by the reply he had received from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He had been at a loss to make out whether the nature of that reply was to be attributed to ignorance on the part of the hon. Gentleman, or to the ingenuity and dexterity with which he was able to evade an awkward subject. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he was mistaken in the view he had advanced, probably because of his want of acquaintance with the details of Irish education. It was not fair, in making a comparison between the systems adopted in England and Ireland, to compare the Sub - Inspectors of England with the District Inspectors in Ireland. However much the hon. Gentleman might attempt, by the repetition of certain figures, to obfuscate the minds of hon. Members, the fact remained that the Inspectors of the highest class went up to £900 in England, while the District Inspectors in Ireland did not go up to two-thirds of that sum. In Ireland the highest salary paid to the District Inspectors was £500, while the Inspectors' Assistants in that country received £125 as compared with £150, which was the salary of the Assistant Inspectors in England; while in England they went up to £300, and in Ireland to £200. It was true that the proportion of Assistants was much smaller in Ireland than in England; and what was the consequence? Why, that whereas in England every Inspector received substantial assistance from an Assistant Inspector, in Ireland the Inspectors had only a few days in each year in which they obtained any assistance. Again, in the matter of leave, in England the Inspectors had 42 days' holiday, while the Irish Inspectors had only 29, so that the English officers had 13 days more leave than was accorded to the Irish Inspectors. As a rule, also, he found that the Irish Inspector was a better qualified man than the English Inspector. In Ireland the Inspector had more duties to perform, duties of a more varied character and of greater responsibility than those discharged by the English Inspector. Under these circumstances, it was monstrous that the pay of the Irish Inspector should be only a little more than half the salary given to the English Inspector. The large number of Sub-Inspectors in England increased the advantages of the English Inspectors, while the small number in Ireland operated to the disadvantage of the Irish Inspectors. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would look more closely at the figures given in the two sets of Estimates, in which case he might be induced to admit, as the House of Commons had admitted 11 years ago, that, considering the competition which was required in the case of the Irish Inspectorships, the officials in that country were greatly underpaid as compared with the Staff in England.

said, there could be no doubt as to the superior organization of the Inspection Staff in England and Scotland to that in Ireland. Yet, on examining the Estimates, the Committee would find that the Inspection Department cost more in Ireland in proportion to population than it did in England or Scotland. In England the amount expended was £115,000; in Scotland it was £21,400; in Ireland it was £29,000. If there were a number of underpaid officials in Ireland, it was because there were too many persons employed in the work of inspection. The proper remedy for the present state of things was to make the organization of the Staff in Ireland similar to what it was in England and Scotland. The question, as it appeared to him, was one of readjustment, and not of amount of salaries.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had instituted a comparison that was very unfair. He had said that if England had 140 Inspectors and Ireland 66, Ireland had too many. He (Mr. Kenny) was of opinion that the fair course would be to point out that England had 280 Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors, and Ireland only 73 Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors, which gave something like a fair relative proportion. It was perfectly clear, however, that the Inspectors in Ireland were paid a sum considerably less than was paid in England. They knew that the maximum salary to which an Irish Inspector could attain was £600 a-year, while in England an Inspector could rise to a position in which his salary was £900 a-year. No wholesale comparison between England and Ireland would get over this fact, or make it appear that the Irish Inspectors were as well paid as those of England. There was one point on which he should like to hear an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury, and if it should not come within the province of the hon. Gentleman, he hoped it would be answered by some other Member of the Government whose Department it did refer to. He wished to ask whether the Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors in England were compelled to devote their whole time from year's end to year's end to the duties of their office or were they allowed to do anything else?

said, they were compelled to devote the whole of their time to their duties.

:To devote the whole of their time?

:Yes.

Vote agreed to.

(3.)£1,195, to complete the sum for the Teachers' Pension Office, Ireland.

said, this was a purely Irish Vote, and dealt with the pensions of Irish schoolmasters; but the Superintendent of the Office was an Englishman. He should be sorry to move a reduction of the Vote, because that gentleman happened to be a personal friend of his own; but he thought it was a very bad system that a purely Irish Vote should be given in charge to a subordinate official in one of the English Public Departments, which had nothing whatever to do with education, except that there was a certain amount, £200 a-year, to Mr. Denham Robinson, the Controller of the War Office, who went over for one or two days to see how things were going on in the Superannuation Office.

said, it was true that Mr. Denham Robinson was the Superintendent referred to; but he had nothing to do with the working of the Office. He was the Actuary of the War Office, and had to revise the Tables under which the scheme was arranged, and from time to time to supervise its working, and see whether the scheme was carrying out financially that for which it was designed.

:But why should an Englishman stationed in England have to do that?

said, it was an economical arrangement by which the Government employed for the duty required to be done—which did not demand an Actuary's whole time—an official who was devoted to similar work under Government employ.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was aware that Mr. Denham Robinson's work was more than enough to take up the whole of his time, and that he was allowed extra pay and allowances?

said, it would be obvious to the Committee that this appointment had the appearance of making a snug berth for Mr. Denham Robinson, who was a War Office official. It was only part of an entire system.

said, this was not an Irish Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(4.)£1,250, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.

asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if this was the Vote which included the allowance for the superannuation of a person of the name of Connellan?

:Yes, Sir.

asked the amount that was given to Connellan under the Vote?

:£450.

asked if the hon. Gentleman was aware of the nature of the charges which had been made against this recipient of a Government pension, and whether, in the face of those charges, he still held that this Vote should be passed by the Committee in its integrity without any discussion? Was the hon. Gentleman aware that Connellan had escaped prosecution by removing himself into a foreign country? And, further, he would ask whether the Government had ever had under its consideration the position of this man, and his claim to a pension?

said, it was perfectly true that the pension in question was included in this Vote. That pension had been awarded in 1868. Of course, the hon. Member was aware that, under the Superannuation Act, Civil servants in a certain position were entitled to pensions after attaining a certain age. In the year 1868 this person was retired at a certain age—that was to say, at the age at which a person had a right to retire. Papers were sent in to the Treasury, which papers being in the required order, a pension was awarded. The circumstances dated so far back that he had no personal cognizance of the steps that were taken at the time; but he believed it was quite true that when Connellan retired, there were accusations of infamous conduct against him. He believed, also, that the matter had been so far inquired into as to ascertain that no warrant was issued against Connellan in England. He was. therefore, a person who, having served his time in the Civil Service, was entitled on that ground to a pension; and however grave might have been his conduct, whatever foundation there might have been for the charges against him, it must be remembered that there had been no warrant against him or conviction for felony, and, therefore, he (Mr. Courtney) apprehended that he had at the time an indefeasible right to a pension, and that it remained indefeasible to that day.

asked on what Statutes or otherwise the claim was founded?

said, he had already referred to the Superannuation Act, and he believed the right and just view of the law to be, that conviction for felony would have forfeited the pension, and that there having been no conviction for felony the pension could not be taken away. The conclusion he had arrived at was that the Treasury would be liable to an action at law if payment were refused. Of course, if the House of Commons refused to vote the pension, it might be pleaded in defence of such action that Parliament had not placed any money at their disposal for the payment of the amount claimed; but he was not prepared to say whether a Court of Law would hold the plea to be valid. On these simple grounds the Government thought it right to submit a Vote to the House of Commons to meet this expense. They did not see their way to withdraw the pension which was awarded in 1868, which had been regularly paid from that time to the present, and which, there being no conviction for felony against this person, they believed was due as a right now. That was the view he ventured to lay before the Committee. The Com- mittee would exercise their discretion in judging the matter; but in point of law he believed there was no answer to the claim. Whatever course might commend itself to him were he a private Member of that House, he found it impossible, as a Member of the Government, to withdraw the Vote from the Estimate.