asked the honourable Member for East Cumberland, as one of the Trustees of the National Gallery, Whether he can state what were the conditions on which Messrs. Braun and Co. of Germany, and Messrs. Goupil and Co. of Paris, were respectively allowed to photograph the pictures in the National Gallery; whether any facilities were accorded to them, or either of them, which have been or would be refused to other photographers; whether amongst such facilities were comprised those of being allowed to remove the glass from some of the pictures, or to have them taken from the wall; whether the permission to erect a temporary structure outside the National Gallery was accorded exclusively to Messrs. Braun and Co. or whether a similar privilege would be given to any English photographers; whether any stipulations were made with the favoured photographers as to the price at which copies of the photographs were to be allowed to be sold, or as to providing copies gratis or at a reduced price to any public institution; whether any consideration was given by the favoured firms, or either of them, for the privileges accorded to them; whether any English photographers would be allowed any similar privileges to those given to the Foreign firms; and, if so, under what conditions; whether any special arrangements will be made for photographing the Ansidei Raphael; and, whether any Papers relating to the subject will be laid upon the Table?

, in reply, said that Messrs. Braun had made photographic reproductions from most of the picture galleries of Europe, and in the case of the National Gallery no special conditions were laid down. They had made reproductions of 320 pictures, and they were not allowed to remove all the pictures during the progress of the work.

Were there any written conditions?

No, Sir.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If he will be good enough to inform the House whether the allowance to any person in the employ of another of the necessary time to enable him to record his vote at an election, in his proper district, without deduction from his salary or wages in respect of the time so occupied, is a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, unless the same be done with a corrupt motive, and with a view to influencing the vote of such person?

, in reply, said, that it seemed to him it would be dangerous to attempt to give a definition of what would or would not be a corrupt practice in such a case. Each case would have, as it arose, to be determined on its merits.

asked, whether, considering the risk which every Liberal or Conservative employer would incur in this matter, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be prepare to introduce an Amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act?

said, the Act made no change in this matter; but he was willing to consider the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of affairs in Bechuanaland, and the relations between the High Commissioner and Sir Charles Warren; and, whether the proposals of Sir Charles Warren for the settlement of the Country are receiving the sanction and support of Her Majesty's Government?

I am not yet able to add anything of importance to the information given in previous answers in this House and in "another place." Indeed, we have had no telegraphic communication since the 9th of this month. The long interval which has passed without any reference to the relations which exist between the High Commissioner and Sir Charles Warren makes me hope and believe that they have continued cordial and satisfactory. We have not yet received from Sir Charles Warren any Report detailing what he has done up to the present time. Up to the end of March he seems to have been busily engaged in defining the frontier. We are also awaiting his proposals for the settlement of Bechuanaland; and I need hardly assure the right hon. Gentleman that when they do arrive they will receive that consideration which Sir Charles Warren's position and services entitle them to.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sergeant Eakins brought be- fore the magistrates privately, at last Petty Sessions held on the 30th March last at Markethill, a placard, posted some time since in that town, reflecting on the conduct of a local publican; whether he proposed to swear it was the handwriting of a respectable young man; whether the magistrates told him that it was not this party's writing, and refused to take his oath; whether he had the authority of his superior officer for doing so; whether this is the same officer who arrested a Catholic priest and a magistrate at Mohill some years ago; and, whether, after him swearing both were drunk, the magistrates there dismissed both cases; and what action he proposes now to take?

Sergeant Eakins brought before the magistrates a placard reflecting on the conduct of a local policeman—not a publican. He did not propose to swear it was in the handwriting of a respectable young man. The magistrates gave no opinion or directions in the case. The sergeant bad the authority of his superior officer for the course he pursued. He was never stationed in Mohill, and never arrested either a Catholic priest or a magistrate.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government have now come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when, in the interests of Ireland and Great Britain, a Royal residence in Ireland for frequent occupation ought to be provided; and, whether the Government would consider the expediency of abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland and of establishing a government for Ireland in the person of a member of the Royal Family?

The only reply which I can make to the hon. Member is that I am not prepared to make any announcement on either of the subjects mentioned.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to an inquest held last Saturday at the Britannia Tavern, Lati- mer Road, Notting Hill, by Dr. Dip-lock, at which a gentleman who had been summoned as a juror, and who was stated by the coroner to be disqualified from serving, because he did not believe in the binding power of an oath, was not allowed to leave the court, until the conclusion of the inquest; and, whether his retention was in accordance with the Law; and, if so, with what Law?

, in reply, said, that the power of the Coroner in such a case would be similar to that of a Judge, and therefore he would be in his right in retaining the juryman. He had communicated with Dr. Diplock, and he found that on a recent occasion, when the question was mooted as to the obligation of jurymen when summoned, there was an objection raised by a juryman to serve on account of his want of religious belief. The Coroner yielded to the objection on this occasion; but shortly afterwards, when holding an inquest in the same neighbourhood, he found that out of the jurymen summoned there was scarcely anyone who had not doubts as to his religious belief. In these circumstances, and in order to prevent such an objection being raised, the jurymen had been retained, so that they should bear the same burden of attendance as those who had no difficulties in regard to religious belief.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, having regard to the fact that all the money expended up to 1880 upon the construction of the Quetta Railway has been charged to the account of the War in Afghanistan, he can now state under what head of account the expenditure now being incurred for the completion of the Railway will be charged?

asked whether the hon. Gentleman could state the present contract per mile of this railway, and the price per mile before the railway was broken up in 1880?

There was no contract previously for the railway, and there is none now; in fact, there is no estimate formed at all. The hon. Gentleman speaks of "all the money expended up to 1880 on the construction of the Quetta Railway "as having been "charged to the account of the War in Afghanistan." I may point out that this may lead to some misapprehension. The total amount spent to the end of 1880–1 on proposed lines from the Indus to Candahar was £1,713,946, of which £595,987 was transferred in 1881–2 to the account of war in Afghanistan. It is intended to place the present expenditure to the frontier railways account. But a considerable portion of the cost of the system of frontier railways now proposed—which system is described in Papers, No. 113, lately presented to Parliament—will necessarily be defrayed from borrowed money. The heading under which this portion of the expenditure will appear in the accounts has not been finally decided.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether he is aware that, last week, two tenders for delivery of hay during the ensuing six months at Woolwich and Aldershot were accepted at the respective prices of 94s. and 93s. per ton, and that, at the same time, a tender for hay at Woolwich for the troops in Egypt was accepted at the price of 120s. per ton; and, if he can state why hay supplied for horses and camels in Egypt should cost more than that supplied for horses in England?

The prices stated in the Question are practically accurate. Hay for use at home is bought for early consumption at the places where it is delivered. For abroad it has to be compressed, and may be required to keep for some time. For such a purpose extreme care is required in accepting any hay but the very first quality. Hence the difference in price.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been directed to a statement in The Aberdeen Free Press of April 15th, to the effect that two cases of small-pox have recently occurred among workers in the Woodside rag works; whether he is aware that previous epidemics of small-pox have been traced to the same source; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will direct that these depots of foreign rags, which have been proved to disseminate disease, shall be subjected to very strict disinfection?

I have communicated with the Board of Supervision in regard to this matter, and I am informed that the attention of the Board has been directed to the fact that small-pox has on more than one occasion occurred among the workers in the works referred to, and others. There can be no doubt that in some of these cases the infection has been traced to rags imported from abroad, as well as to the rags collected in this country. The Board's Medical Officer has made inquiries at the instance of the Board; but as it appeared very doubtful whether, under the Public Health Act, the Board could compel the paper makers to disinfect the bundles of rags before being used, the Board have mainly directed the attention of the Local Authority to the importance of making provision for the isolation and treatment of the infected persons, so as to prevent the spread of the disease. The action of the Local Authority of Woodside, where the works are situated, has been, on the whole, very successful in preventing the disease at any time from assuming an epidemic form.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will direct a Return to be made giving the number, denomination, and locality of the chapels, meeting houses, and premises (other than those of the Church of England) in England and Wales, which are exempted by the 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 30, from assessment to poor rates, on the ground that they—

"Are exclusively appropriated to public religious worship, and are duly certified for the performance of such religious worship according to the provision of any Act or Acts now in force?"

The particulars required for a Return, such as that proposed, could only be furnished by the overseers of the poor of the several parishes in England and Wales. This would involve the obtaining of about 15,000 Returns. The difficulty, trouble, and expense attending the obtaining and compilation of the Returns, irrespective of the cost of printing, would be so considerable that we are not prepared to direct that a Return shall be made as suggested.

asked the junior Member for Leeds, Whether he can inform the House when it is probable that the windows in the House and the Lobbies, which formerly could be opened, but, having been broken by the explosion, have since been temporarily closed, will be in a condition to be again opened, and allow fresh air to enter the House?

The metal work of the casements has been repaired, and the stained glass, which is in progress, will be finished by Whitsuntide. If the outside temperature renders it necessary, the temporary windows can, at a small cost, be made to open. But I must point out to the hon. Member that fresh air is continually being introduced through the floor of the House, and that the officers in charge have a great objection to the opening of the windows, particularly at this early season of the year, as tending to interfere seriously with the general system of ventilation, which, on the whole, thanks to their unceasing care, answers extremely well.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the clerk of Petty Sessions at Mullaghroe (county Sligo), lives in the town of Boyle, in another Petty Sessions district, and in another county; whether many residents in the Mullaghroe district, having business with the clerk, have to make a journey of over twenty miles in order to transact their business; whether the clerk of Mullaghroe is also clerk of three other Petty Sessions districts; whether the Government regard this arrangement as one that can pro- perly be continued; and, whether they will take steps to cause the appointment as clerk for Mullaghroe of a person resident in the district, and having time to devote to the due performance of the duties of the office?

The Clerk of Mullaghroe Petty Sessions resides at Boyle, which is C¾ miles from Mullaghroe. He was elected by the magistrates in 1879, when the question of his being also clerk of other districts was raised; but the Lord Lieutenant decided not to interfere with the choice of the magistrates. No complaint has since been made of inconvenience to the public; but if such inconvenience can be shown to have arisen, the expediency of continuing the arrangement can be inquired into.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the Petty Sessions Clerk is required to visit his office at certain hours every day; and if it is possible for it to be done in this case?

If any inconvenience can be shown, the matter will be inquired into.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Averell Lloyd, a magistrate residing at Tamnamore, county Tyrone, was fined, at the Armagh Quarter Sessions, on an appeal from the magistrates, for assaulting Thomas Harbison; and, what course the Government intend to take in the matter?

I find this matter was under the consideration of the late Lord Chancellor, who came to the conclusion that, although an assault of a trivial character had undoubtedly taken place, yet, as it was committed in the supposed exercise of a legal right, it did not appear to be a case for further notice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the recent election of a Poor Law guardian for the Drumfin Divi- sion (Sligo), Whether, after the returning officer had returned Mr. Thomas Patterson as elected by a majority of one, the Board, on investigation, found that six votes had been recorded for Mr. Patterson which should not have been allowed, and that the said votes were lost, because the paper on which they were entered had not been returned to the police and taken up by them in the manner prescribed by Law; whether this decision of the Board left the other candidate, Mr. Martin Judge, in a majority of five upon the poll; whether, nevertheless, the Board have declined to declare Mr. Judge elected, and have declined upon the ground that the provisions of the Poor Law Acts do not allow them to declare a candidate elected unless he has been so returned by the returning officer; what provisions in the Acts in question are relied on to support this view; and, whether, the Board having already informed the returning officer that the candidate declared by him to have been returned had been so returned because the returning officer had unduly allowed "lost votes," the Board will now be instructed that it is their duty to declare the candidate returned who obtained the majority of valid votes in the election?

The Question correctly represents the facts of the case. The Local Government Board can only decide whether the person returned has a right to act or not. They have no power to declare another person elected, or to return or appoint another Guardian themselves.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph but one of the Question. If he cannot answer that, I would ask whether it is a fact that the Local Government Board, although they have admitted that the election was illegal, are debarred by this improper action on the part of this officer from declaring the candidate returned who has obtained the majority of votes?

I have no knowledge of any particular provisions provided which could be relied upon; but I believe that this has been the practice for the past 20 or 30 years.

I beg to give Notice that upon the Estimates for the Local Government Board I shall call attention to the necessity for an amendment in the law in this respect.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Donegal Board of Guardians in refusing, by a resolution passed at their meeting on the 18th instant, to direct the clerk of the Union to serve the notices required by the ninth section of the Representation of the People Act, pending the receipt of instructions referred to in his letter of the 7th instant to the Board; whether these instructions have any connection with the service of the notices; whether the action of the Board, by postponing to serve the notices referred to, is calculated to disfranchise a large section of the householders of the Union; and, whether the Local Government Board will take immediate action to prevent further delay by the Donegal Guardians in having the notices duly served?

The facts are as stated, and the Local Government Board have told the Clerk that the Guardians had no power to make such an order, and that he is bound to proceed with his duty of serving these notices without unnecessary delay.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will direct the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector in order to see that this shall be done immediately?

Will he telegraph to the Local Government Board to ask whether the voters should be disfranchised or not?

asked the Secretary of State for War, How many recruits are now at the depot of the Rifle Brigade, and what number is the 2nd battalion which is at home in excess of its establishment; and, how it is proposed to feed the three battalions abroad from one battalion at home, and a depot under its establishment, according to the last monthly Return?

On Saturday last there were 15 recruits at drill at the depôt of the Rifle Brigade, and the 2nd Battalion had on the same day 62 rank and file in excess of its establishment. The three battalions abroad are at present above their establishment; and should more men be required to feed them than may be available with the battalion at home at the depot, there are a large number of men belonging to this regiment in the Army Reserve.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to page 25 of the Finance Accounts, What are the fees formerly payable to the Attorney General for Ireland, and amounting to £109 11s. 8d. which are credited to the Chief Secretary's Office; what they are for, and by whom they are paid?

These fees are payable upon the grant of Letters Patent, Charters, &c. They were formerly retained by the Attorney General, but had since 1878 been paid into the Exchequer, as the holders of them have received a commuted allowance in lieu. These payments are extra receipts on the Vote for Law Charges (Ireland), which are accounted for by the Chief Secretary's Office.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, since 1882, by the re-arrangement of the Inland Revenue business throughout the United Kingdom, a large saving has been effected in the annual expenditure in that Department; and, whether some of the money so saved will be devoted to increasing the salaries of the supervisors and officers of the Excise branch, who for years are complaining of inadequate salaries?

The Board of Inland Revenue have in the last few years succeeded in reducing by about 130 the number of the staff employed in the collection of the Excise revenue; but the saving which would have resulted from this reform has been neutralized by improvements which have been and are being made in the pay, emoluments, and holidays of the staff. These changes are set forth in Papers before the House, or which will be so in a few days.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether complaints have been received at any time respecting the high standard of examination adopted by Her Majesty's Inspector in the Portsmouth district; and what steps have been taken by the Education Department in reference thereto; and, whether information can be given as to the percentage of schools in the above district assessed as "Fair," "Good," "Excellent," as compared with the adjoining districts inspected by Messrs. Koe and Virtue respectively?

I am not aware that any complaints have reached the Education Department as to the standard of examination in the Portsmouth district.

asked for an answer as to the second paragraph of the Question.

I regret that the hon. Member should put this Question. This kind of comparison of Inspectors acts as a discouragement to them to do their duty.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether any, and what, penalty attaches to breach of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Members of this House; whether his attention has been called to The United Ireland and to The Freeman's Journal, both of the 18th inst., containing reports of speeches delivered on the occasion of the Prince of Wales's visit to Ireland by, amongst others, Mr. W. O' Brien, M.P., at Kanturck, on the 12th inst., when he is reported to have said—

"England is entering upon a gigantic struggle with Russia (enthusiastic cheering). It seems to me to be just the moment for the Irish people to proclaim to the world, and to warn England, that in the hour of her peril she will have to deal with an Irish nation, which she has op- pressed, impoverished, ruined, and plundered (prolonged cheering), a nation which burns and longs for the opportunity of putting an end for ever to English misgovernment in Ireland by peaceable means and by friendly alliance, if that be possible, but if not by any means that God's providence may send to close our long struggle for national independence (prolonged cheering);"

"He rejoiced that in their resolutions they first declared their unalterable determination to be satisfied with nothing that England could give so long as Englishmen ruled them (cheers), and so long as the English flag took the place where the green only ought to float (cheers). There could be no time when it would be more appropriate or effective for them to pronounce in favour of Home Rule, because the old saying was as true now as in the days when Wolfe Tone died, that 'England's difficulty, under the providence of God, was Ireland's opportunity.' In the Soudan the English had got 20,000 of their picked troops trying to 'smash the Mahdi' (cheers and laughter). In the Soudan the English had already got from the brave Arabs a touch of what his fellow-countrymen gave them in the blessed days of '98 (prolonged cheering). He thought the day was coming when the Irish people will place the immortal green for ever over and above the red (cheers); "

"He (the Prince of Wales) had prayed that God might protect and bless Ireland (renewed groaning). Such a thing from a man whose Country had trampled upon them, disgraced them, and ruined them, was insulting to the Irish race (applause). The Irish people wanted no praise from an English Prince for their salvation. If the great majority of the Irish people believed that they could not get salvation except through the mediation of the English Prince, they would rather go down willingly to perdition (applause). … If they were persecuted too much by Orangemen and Freemasons, if they had too much princely visit slung in their teeth by the English Times, they would be compelled to fall in shoulder to shoulder, and to march along, if not to liberty in this Country, at least to die with their face to their foe, with the green standard of their fathers flying above them (loud cheers);"

"There was no loyalty in Ireland to England or an English Prince, and wherever the Prince would go throughout the country there would not be wanting evidence to remind him that the sincere and earnest prayer of the Irish people was that the British Empire would be sunk for twenty-four hours under the sea (lond cheers);"

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman answers that Question, may I be permitted to ash him whether there is any fee allowed to a common informer in such cases as this?

Order!

I do not know that any offence can be charged against anyone, or that any penalty can be inflicted upon anyone, for breaking the Oath of Allegiance. Of course, if any persons commit any acts either of high treason or of sedition which show him to be wanting in the fulfilment of that Oath, he will be guilty, by law, for having committed those acts; but no charge can be preferred in that name for not having fulfilled the Oath and promise of allegiance. Then the hon. Member asks me whether such speeches as are quoted in the Question constitute a legal offence? If I were to answer that Question, I should be taking upon myself the fulfilment of the duties both of Judge and jury. I, therefore, respectfully ask the House to permit me not to be the judge of any man, be he a Member of this House or not, or to say whether he has or has not been guilty of an offence. As to the third Question, whatever course it is thought right to take, either in the affirmative or in the negative, the matter rests entirely with the Irish Executive.

Then, as regards the Oath of Allegiance taken in this House, are we to understand that it is, as the junior Member for Northampton describes it to be for himself, an idle form, or a legal reality imposing an obligation?

said: As the Attorney General has stated, in answer to the final portion of my Question, that it would be more properly addressed to the Irish Executive, I beg to give Notice that, on a future day, I shall ask that part of the Question of the Solicitor General or Chief Secretary for Ireland, whichever is the more competent to answer it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state the present intentions of the Government as to the Bann Navigation question, and is he aware that while the works are most injurious to drainage and ruinous to riverside farmers, the navigation which they were constructed to facilitate is practically non-existent, and that an existing railway amply provides for freight and carriage in the district?

The Government has given a great deal of attention to this question, and are fully alive to the grievances of the riparian occupiers. I recently stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the senior Member for the county of Derry (Sir Thomas M'Clure), that we are considering what can be done to meet the case, and I hope we shall shortly be able to arrive at a conclusion. But it is right to say that the Government have no power to remove the navigation works, however useless they may think them, without legislation.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the Solicitor General for Ireland represents the county in question, steps will be taken to improve the drainage of these districts before the next General Election?

I should like to put the same Question with respect to the Shannon and Barrow.

The matter is being inquired into.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, having regard to the fact that the number of students at the University College of Wales at Aberystwith has largely increased since the establishment of the Colleges at Cardiff and Bangor, he will consider the advisability of increasing the Grant to the College at Aberystwith, so as to place it in the same position as the other Colleges?

The recent success of the Aberystwith College, and, indeed, of all three of the Welsh Colleges, is highly gratifying, and justifies the encouragement which the Government has extended to higher education in Wales. Having regard, however, to the fact that the grant to Aberystwith was settled only about nine months ago, in strict conformity with the wants and wishes of the Governing Body of that College, it is premature to re-open the question until we have had some further experience of its progress and success. We shall not lose sight of the matter to which the hon. Member has called attention.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, On what grounds the term of Mr. Willis's appointment as Accountant General of the Navy was limited to three years; whether he would place upon the Table a Return of the several officers who have held the position of Accountant General of the Navy, showing their previous service, the length of time they held the office, their age on retirement, and the cause of their retirement, i.e., whether the same was voluntary or not; and, whether he would grant a Return of the Members constituting the Board of Admiralty since 1st January 1865, showing their tenure of office and cause of leaving?

The Office of Accountant General of the Navy became vacant in 1882 by the promotion of Mr. (now Sir) Robert Hamilton. Mr. Willis was at that time the Deputy Accountant General, and was approaching his 60th year, when, underordinary circumstances, he would have been retired. But the re-organization of the Department had only recently been completed, and it was deemed advisable to retain Mr. Willis's services for a limited period in the position vacated by Mr. Hamilton. The period was fixed at three years, because that period was necessary to enable Mr. Willis, on retirement, to receive his full pension. No object would be gained by presenting the Return asked for relating to the tenure of office by previous officers holding the position of Account- ant General; but, if desired, the information could be given. With regard to the last sentence of the Question, I do not see why the officials of the Admiralty should be taken away from more important work to make a Return which the hon. Member can make for himself in half-an-hour from The Navy Lists in the Library. The chief causes why Members of the Board have left their respective offices have been promotions and changes of Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Chief Inspector of Revenue in Cyprus has resigned his office; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will withhold their acceptance of his resignation until further inquiry into the recent revenue frauds has taken place?

, in reply, said, the Government had telegraphed to Cyprus regarding this Question; but a reply had not yet been received.

said, he would call attention to the subject in Supply, and move a reduction of the Vote.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether offers have been invited for the supply of tinned meat for British troops in the field from such firms in the Australasian and other British Colonies as are prepared to tender; and, if so, what was the relative price, as compared with the prices charged American firms, who hold the contrcts at present?

The bulk of the Australian tinned meat comes to this country in tins of a shape not suited for field service. When the meat is in suitable tins, and of approved brands, it is always taken if the conditions are equal, and the price not higher than that of American meat.

asked whether any preference was shown for Colonial beef?

said, that if the price was equal the Australian meat was taken in preference.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If police notices issued by the Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been posted within the last few days on the pedestal of the Grattan statue in College Green, Dublin; and, if the Commissioner has any legal right to cause the public monuments of the city to be so defaced?

A police notice for the regulation of traffic was posted on the pedestal of the Grattan Statue, but not by the police or any of their agents. When the police saw it, they had it removed.

Who posted the notices?

That I do not know.

Is it a fact that public attention had been called in this House previously to the defacement of public monuments in Ireland by the police?

What I understand happened in this case was that a number of these notices were issued to persons supposed to have been affected by them, and they may have posted them on the statue.

The police would not have posted them on King William's Statue?

Is it usual for the Police Commissioner, having to issue notices to people, to get them posted for him?

No, Sir.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can inform the House of the precise amount of the £4,000,000 which the House is asked to vote for the charges in the Soudan and Upper Egypt under the head of "Army," that has already been expended, and the amount that is to be expended on the completion of the Wady Halfa Railroad; and, whether this Railroad when completed will be the property of Her Majesty's Government? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I will answer the hon. Member for my right hon. Friend. I am unable to state the amount expended to the present time; but I presume that the hon. Member means the amount of liability which has been incurred. It is not possible to state this with accuracy. Expenditure is being incurred in India and in Egypt, for which the accounts have not been received, and cannot be received for some time. The actual liabilities may be estimated to amount to £2,500,000. It must not be supposed, however, that, under any circumstances, the Soudan expenditure could be reduced to this amount. Provision has to be made for maintenance of adequate garrisons in Suakin and in Upper Egypt; and the expenditure in excess of what is required for these services will depend on the rate at which it may be found possible to effect the intended concentration of the troops. The estimated cost of the Nile Railway is £400,000; but communications are now being made with Sir Evelyn Baring and Lord Wolseley as to the extent to which it should be completed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the statement in The Weekly Dispatch that the following quantity of spirituous liquors accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission:—300 dozen of champagne, 150 dozen of claret, 100 dozen of other wines, 100 dozen of brandy, 150 dozen of whiskey, and 400 dozen of beer; and, if so, whether these spirituous liquors were intended for the consumption of Sir Peter Lumsden and his Staff, or to be consumed by Afghans and Turcomans; and, whether Sir Peter Lumsden is receiving, in addition to his pay and allowances as a General, a salary at the rate of £50,000 per annum, as stated in The Weekly Dispatch?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table a statement with reference to Sir Peter Lumsden's mission, showing—(1.) The amount of estimated expenditure for the pay and allowances of (a) Sir Peter Lumsden himself; (b) for the rest of the mission; (2.) The amount of the estimated incidental expenditure?

The pay and allowances of Sir Peter Lumsden during his Mission, including his pay and allowances as Major General in the Army, are £3,112 10s. a-year, besides which he continues to draw £1,200 a-year as Member of the Indian Council. The other officers of the Mission received an addition of one-fifth to their Indian pay and allowances. The total cost of the Mission entered in the revised Estimates for 1884–5 is £120,000. In the Budget for 1885–6 further provision is made for £60,000. With regard to the extracts from The Weekly Dispatch, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, the only information on the subject that we have is that there was to be sent from India for the use of the Mission 15 dozen of champagne and six dozen of brandy.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the Chief Commissioner of Police in Dublin issued a notice on Monday last to the effect that any of the citizens' bands playing in the streets of that city on the nights of Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday would be dispersed by force; whether he caused copies of that notice to be served by the police on the masters of several of those bands; and, whether the Chief Commissioner of Police has power to fix the occasions on which popular bands will be allowed to perform in Dublin, or to prescribe the tunes which they are to play?

It having been publicly stated that the amateur bands of the city had been invited to parade the streets on the evenings referred to, and that the object of the parade was to express dissent from those who had decorated their houses or otherwise manifested their loyalty towards His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the police, knowing that such a procession of bands in such circumstances was likely to result in outrages on property and disturbance of the public peace, communicated verbally with the leaders of the bands, and warned them that the parade would not be allowed. In taking this course the police not only acted within their powers, but they would have failed in their duty if they had not done so.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If it is a fact that the rank of Major is granted to Officers of the Militia and Volunteer Battalions of a Territorial Regiment after 20 years' service, and the rank of Lieut.-Colonel after 25 years' service; and, if he will consider the advisability, now that the Militia and Volunteer Officers are doing duty with the regular battalions, of granting similar rank to the officers of those battalions with the same length of service?

The rank referred to as granted in the Auxiliary Forces is entirely honorary, and affords the holder neither precedence nor military command over officers of the Army. There is no necessity for extending the system to Army officers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, How long it takes now to send messages by telegraph to and receive messages from Sir P. Lumsden?

The House is already in possession of this information. The last telegram received from Sir Peter Lumsden (see Central Asia, No. 1, 1885) is dated Tirpul, April 17, and was received in London at 8.30 a.m. on the 21st. It may be assumed that telegrams from the Foreign Office will take about an equal amount of time to reach Sir Peter Lumsden.

Does the noble Lord not know that telegrams have been received from Tirpul in much less time than four days?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can communicate any further intelligence regarding the arrest of Ayoob Khan?

No further intelligence regarding Ayoob Khan has been received at the Foreign Office since my last reply in the House.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office Committee on Stamps have yet returned from visiting the various Government Stamp Factories on the Continent; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any Report they may have made in connection with that visit, as well as upon any departmental and other evidence they may have taken?

, in reply, said, the inquiries of the Committee had been completed, but he had not yet received their Report.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table any more Papers connected with the proceedings on the Afghan frontier, before he asks for the Vote of Credit; and, whether he can state what is the exact point at issue between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia?

I have given the consideration which I promised to give to the subject of the telegrams preceding that important telegram—the detailed telegram—of Sir Peter Lumsden, which has been laid upon the Table, and the result is this, that we have not found that we could convey valuable information by the dispersed statements, contained in former telegrams, and which are mixed with a good deal of extraneous matter. It is not, therefore, our intention to lay further Papers on the Table connected with the proceedings on the Afghan Frontier before we ask for the Vote of Credit. I have given careful consideration to the second part of this Question, and have consulted Lord Granville and others of my Colleagues, and although we should gladly, if we could, lay open precisely what is going forward, the fact is that we are engaged in a Correspondence of extreme gravity, and to make a complete statement of its nature and particulars would be impossible, while no partial statement could be given without great risk of creating misapprehension. Consequently, though with some reluctance, we have arrived at the conclusion that we cannot undertake to give any further statement to the House as to the nature and particulars of the Correspondence with the Russian Government at the present time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make any statement on Monday?

Well, I could not undertake to do so. It may be that between this time and Monday information may reach us of a character which may be communicated to the House; but I cannot enter into any covenants on the subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the House will, immediately after the first statement, proceed to pass the Vote? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1878, when we proposed a Vote of Credit, the stages were that the amount was mentioned on Friday, and on Monday a statement was made by the Government of the circumstances which led to the Vote. The Opposition of the day thought it unreasonable at once to proceed to the discussion, and the matter was put off till the following Thursday.

It will be in the power of the House, if they think fit, to contend that more time is required. I have very grave doubts as to whether that contention will be made on the facts before us. We have been careful to make statements to the House of the precise character of the Vote and all that is connected with the Vote itself. With respect to the justification for proposing the Vote, that we shall state on Monday; but I am not aware that it is my duty to state to the House anything that, so far as I know, will require prolonged consideration. Should the House see cause to demand further time for consideration, it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or of any other Member of the House, to urge their views to that effect. But certainly in a case of this kind—Votes of Credit differ from one another in character—where the general grounds of the Vote are patent to the world, and where their extreme importance and the manner in which they are associated with the national interests and dignity are universally recognized, our impression is that it will be the disposition of the House to proceed at once with the Vote.

asked whether the despatch of M. de Giers, published in the newspapers that morning, had been received by Her Majesty's Government?

I have not seen the despatch in the papers this morning.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Papers relating to Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission and the Afghan Frontier have been given to Parliament for a long time—none at all, I am informed, except the one despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden?

I believe that is so.

And yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes the House to understand that no information with regard to this question will be laid before the House before Monday, when the Vote is to be discussed?

The Vote of Credit has no reference to Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission.

The Afghan Frontier?

Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission does not require a Vote of Credit. It is the unfortunate and deplorable incidents that have arisen in the course of it, but which are quite distinguishable and separate in themselves.

Is it not the case that the attack on the Afghan position at Penjdeh is closely connected with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission and the correspondence which took place with regard to the escort which accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden? We wish to know whether the House can come to any definite conclusion respecting the negotiations with regard to the Afghan Frontier without more information than it at present possesses?

We do not ask the House to come to any definite conclusion on the negotiations generally. The necessity for the Vote of Credit does not arise out of the course of these negotiations, but it has been precipitated by special circumstances quite separate from the negotiations. We conceive that the telegrams laid before the House from Sir Peter Lumsden will enable the House to fully understand the nature of the requisitions made upon them.

After the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I should wish to ask are any of the facts connected with the departure of Sir Peter Lumsden from Gulran and the circumstances by which that departure was accompanied stated in any of the telegrams from Sir Peter Lumsden which had not been communicated to the House; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to be in possession of those telegrams referring to the reason why Sir Peter Lumsden quitted Gulran and the circumstances attending that departure?

I must ask the noble Lord to put a Question of this kind on the Paper, as it taxes my memory with regard to particulars.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of postponing the Vote of Credit until the Government are in a position to lay before the House full information with reference to the transaction at Penjdeh?

My opinion is that such a course would be extremely prejudicial to the public interest and very adverse to the general feeling of the House.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is within his recollection that one of the most formidable articles in his indictment against Lord Beaconsfield's Government was that it withheld information from Parliament while expecting a debate to be carried on? I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to follow that bad example?

I should like to know whether the Vote of Credit can be put in two distinct sums, one of £6,500,000 for special preparations, and the other of £4,500,000 for the Soudan Expedition?

My impression is that it will be open to anyone as a matter of form to move to reduce the Vote of Credit; but, undoubtedly, as the matter stands, it will be put in one sum.

In reference to the answer which was given to the noble Lord by the Prime Minister, I would ask whether it is the fact that the Russian Government, in their reply to Her Majesty's Government, have asserted that the deplorable incident at Penjdeh, or whatever it may be called, was due to the presence of Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission on the Afghan Frontier with a large escort? [Cries of"Oh, oh!"]

That Question does not at all fairly grow out of the answer to the noble Lord.

I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" "Name!"and "Order!] I have not quite finished the Question. I ask you, Sir, to recall the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked whether Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission had any connection with the unfortunate affair at Ponjdeh? The Prime Minister said "None; "and he therefore declined to produce Sir Peter Lumsden's despatches. I wish to ask upon this question what is the exact point of issue between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government? Is it not a fact that the Government of Russia have ventured to assert that the cause of the deplorable incident at penjdeh was the presence of Sir Peter Lumsden on the frontier with an armed escort? Ought we not, therefore, to have Sir Peter Lumsden's despatches, in order to be able to estimate the truth of this Russian allegation? Does that not arise out of the Question put by the noble Lord?

I do not see that it at all arises out of that Question.

I also wish to ask a Question on a point of Order. The Prime Minister has stated that the Vote of Credit would be put in one sum. I have given Notice of Motion for Monday next to the effect that the question of expenditure in the Soudan ought to be considered by the Committee separately from that of expenditure elsewhere. I wish to ask whether it will be competent for any hon. Member to move an Amendment on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair" for the Vote of Credit to be brought forward? Can I on that occasion make the Motion of which I have given Notice?

I should first require to see the Motion which the hon. Member wishes to move.

said, that his Motion was to the effect that it was expedient that the Vote of Credit in connection with the Soudan Expedition should be considered separately from the Vote of Credit for military expenditure elsewhere.

I shall be prepared to answer that Question when I am acquainted with the full circumstances of the case.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether that part of the Vote of Credit in respect of the Soudan will be voted on Monday under the same conditions of reticence as the part relating to the special preparations in regard to the Afghan Frontier?

No, Sir. What I have stated in answer to the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly had reference to the Vote for special preparations, and not to the Vote for the Soudan, which in many respects comes under very different conditions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the statements in The Daily News of the 22nd, made by one of General Gordon's Egyptian soldiers, and especially to the following passages:—

"There were several white women when I left, daughters of Europeans by Abyssinian wives. There were two or three ladies at the Austrian Consul's. Gordon always said, 'The English are coming;'

"All the white and all the black women are now made slaves. My poor wife, I shall never see her again. When I say white I mean also those whose mothers were Abyssinian and fathers European, and there were some Turkish ladies who were the achmet, wives of officers; all will now be slaves; "

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman. My attention has been called to the statement, and I have telegraphed to Lord Wolseley inquiring whether by reference to the soldier referred to or by any other means he can obtain any fur- ther information as to the statements quoted, and whether if there appears to be any foundation for them it would be in his opinion possible immediately to effect the release of these women either by ranson or otherwise.

I wish to ask the Secretary for the Home Department a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether he can give the House any particulars as to the explosion which took place at the Admiralty this forenoon; and, also, whether he can state if there is any truth in the rumour that another explosion had taken place at a later period of the day?

An explosion took place in one of the lower official rooms at the Admiralty at 11 o'clock this morning. It is too early yet to form a definite opinion on the subject; but it seems to be quite clear that the explosive, whatever it was, was placed inside the room. The quantity must have been small, as the structural damage to the room was very slight. It also appears that the explosive must have been placed on the top of some piece of furniture in the room against the wall. I regret to state that the Assistant Under Secretary of the Admiralty, Mr. Swainson, who was at work at a desk close to where the explosion took place, was serious injured; but the most recent accounts—within the last half-hour—from the hospital give a favourable account of his progress. He has recovered consciousness, and I am informed has taken some natural sleep. I have heard nothing of any other explosion, and I believe it is not the fact.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having reference to his recent statement, that the subject of preferential Railway rates on Foreign goods was "ripe for legislation," he will be good enough to inform the House if he is prepared to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject; and, whether, in view of the ur- gency of the question, he will make an early statement on the matter, and place the House in possession of the principles of his proposed measure?

I will endeavour to give the hon. Member the explanation and further information as to the intentions of the Government for which he asks. In the first place, I have to say that we consider that the evidence taken by the Committee on Railway Rates and Pares in 1883 furnishes sufficient information as to the nature of the complaints which have been made of preferential rates both on foreign good and also on home products. We are further of opinion that the Report of this Committee, and the Reports of previous Committees and Commissions on the subject, show conclusively that no general law of universal application can be laid down. The establishment, for instance, of equal mileage rates which has sometimes been proposed would be most injurious to trade since it would deprive freighters of any advantage from competition; it would also cause a revolution in the movement of traffic, and would involve the ruin of very large interests which have been created on the faith of existing arrangements. On the other hand, there is good reason to believe that under the present system preferences have been created which cannot be justified in law or equity. In the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, there is a clause dealing with undue preference, which appears to be sufficient for the purpose, and all that is necessary is that all cases of complaint should be dealt with as they arise by a competent tribunal. Such a tribunal the Government believe already exists in the Railway Commissioners; but further legislation is required in order to put this tribunal on a permanent basis, with somewhat extended powers, and at the same time to facilitate the resort to it by giving a locus standi to public bodies and associations which may be expected to seek a decision in all disputed cases of any importance, where, however, the interests of private traders and individuals may not be sufficient to induce them to undertake the burden of litigation. These views found expression in the Railway Regulation Acts Amendment Bill introduced by me last Session, but withdrawn owing to the pressure of Business. I am afraid that the present state of Public Business does not leave room for hope that the Bill could be re-introduced with any advantage in the present Session.

asked whether he was right in understanding that the only legislation which the right hon. Gentleman proposed was the permanency of the Railway Commissioners, and to give a locus standi to certain bodies before it?

said, he thought his previous reply was very full. It was proposed to put the Railway Commission on a permanent basis, somewhat to extend its functions, and to give a locus standi to other bodies, so as to facilitate their access to its decisions?

asked whether, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, the Railway Commissioners had jurisdiction now to entertain questions of undue preference as between foreign goods and English goods?

Yes, Sir; that is my opinion.

asked the President of the Local Government Board when he expected the Amendments of the Government to the Redistribution Bill to be distributed?

said, that some were ready and some were not, and as it was desirable to put them down together he proposed to put them all on the Paper to-morrow.

inquired when the Government proposed to take the Irish Registration Bill?

To-morrow, Sir.

asked the President of the Local Government Board who was responsible for placing the Scotch Registration Bill second in that night's Paper, and the Irish Registration Bill 17th?

said, that the Irish Registration Bill would be the first Order to-morrow. There was no intention to take it that night.

asked whether this Bill would be proceeded with throughout the Sitting to-morrow?

Yes, Sir.

suggested that one stage should be taken to-night, as the Bill was not blocked. They might get the Speaker out of the Chair, and then tomorrow proceed with the Amendments.

said, he had no objection.

said, he would like to know whether there was to be any definiteness in the proposals of the Government? They were just told that the Irish Bill would be taken to-morrow, and now they were told that it would be taken to-night. Was anything to be done to-night, or was there to be merely a pretence of doing something?

said, the original intention was to do nothing until to-morrow; but then came the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that they should get the Speaker out of the Chair tonight after the Scotch Bill, and proceed with the clauses to-morrow. The Government had no objection to that; but they were, of course, entirely in the hands of the House.

If getting the Speaker out of the Chair is a mere benevolent sham to amuse people, and if it remains that the clauses of the Bill will be taken to-morrow, I do not care in the least what amusement goes on to-night.

asked what was the reason that Vote 4 of the Civil Service Estimates had been passed over?

said, that Vote 4 had been postponed on account of the proceedings of the Committee, who were now sitting upon the restoration of Westminster Hall. That Committee had not yet reported.

said, he had on two previous occasions opposed this Vote. Upon both occasions he had opposed it on principle, and he regretted to find that he should be compelled to vote against it now. It was a Vote in aid of local taxation in England, and the next Vote was a Vote of a similar nature to relieve the burden of local taxation in Scotland. As had been urged over and over again, if there was one portion of the United Kingdom which required that the burdens of local taxation should be lightened, it was not England, but Ireland. The people of this country could bear with comparative ease the pressure of local taxation; and even the debt of something like £159,000,000 incurred by the Local Authorities in this country, was of slight pressure upon the enormous valuation of the country, no practical inconvenience being occasioned by it. But in Ireland, with a valuation of only some £13,000,000, the existence of local taxation was very grievous indeed. The unfortunate people of Ireland, in addition to paying a cess which pressed most heavily upon them, were called upon to contribute towards the payment of local taxes both in England and Scotland; and notwithstanding that the general taxation of the country pressed so heavily upon them they got no relief of this description provided for them. But, even as it was, the Vote was not applied in the way which Parliament intended to appropriate it. It was intended to relieve those districts where certain turnpike roads had been disturnpiked, and where, in consequence, the pressure of local taxation at one time existed. But, as a matter of fact, it would be found that even in districts where no such taxation had been imposed locally, and where no rates had been issued from time out of mind, for turnpike purposes, the local rates had been supplemented by a portion of this Vote. In the year ending 31st March, 1884, an extraordinary Circular signed by the Home Secretary was issued with regard to the grant in aid of those turnpike roads, and it was to this effect—that certain counties, districts, and boroughs having last year been precluded from participating in the grant in consequence of their never having had turnpike roads, a Minute regulating the matter had been adopted, which brought such counties, districts, and boroughs under a new provision made by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, and presented to Parliament. That Minute provided that, subject to any modification to meet exceptional cases, the Government were to grant to counties, districts, and boroughs containing roads which had been disturnpiked since 1859, an allowance to the extent of one-fourth of the cost of materials and labour employed in the repair of such roads. The second paragraph in that Minute was the one to which he wished to draw more particular attention. It set forth that in such counties, districts, and boroughs in which there had never been turnpike roads—and in which, therefore, there could not be a disturnpiked road—a sum bearing the same proportion to the total cost of the maintenance of such roads should be granted as under head No. 1. The charge upon the Public Exchequer for the purpose of relieving the local taxation in this respect amounted to nearly £250,000 in England and Scotland, and a portion of that grant went to very extensive districts which never had turnpike roads, which, therefore, never had a road disturnpiked, and had consequently never experienced inconvenience in regard to local taxation in connection with the roads at all. An Estimate was made of the amount of extra taxation which had been thrown upon the local taxpayers in consequence of disturnpiking the roads, and upon that Estimate the original Vote was passed; but that Estimate did not take into consideration any county districts or boroughs in which there were no disturnpiked roads. Under this Minute of the Home Secretary, issued with the assent of the Treasury, a sum of money was voted in aid of local rates both in England and Scotland which, he maintained, was never intended by Parliament. He objected to the whole system under which the Treasury had been disbursing the money voted by Parliament, and he took the objection as a matter of principle. He said nothing of Scotland as distinguished from Ireland; but he found that the original Vote had been gradually extended by grants which had never been explained to Parliament, and which Parliament could never have expected. At the time it was asked upon to vote this money in the year 1884, the amount granted for England for disturnpiked roads was £100,000, and the expenditure was only £95,000—which was to say, that the money voted in Committee of (Supply and passed by the House was more than sufficient to meet the service. In spite of that fact, there was an increase in the Vote up to £215,000 last year—that was to say, that whereas the Treasury had been called upon to repay to the Exchequer a sum of £5,000 which was not wanted for the service, they came before the House in the following year, and asked not only for the same sum, but for £115,000 more than was deemed necessary in 1884. They were also asking this year for £215,000, which it was proved could not really be required. He should object to this Vote as at present framed on that ground, if not on any other—namely, that it was perfectly clear that the whole of this money was not required. The ground of objection, however, which he preferred to take was a larger one—namely, that this was a Vote of a very considerable and substantial sum in relief of local taxation in England and Scotland, which relief was entirely withheld from Ireland, where the people were much more seriously pressed by local taxation than in this country. The question whether the grant should be continued in places where there were no turnpike roads of any kind, as was the case in Scotland, would perhaps be dealt with more properly when the Committee came to the next Vote. He did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote, because he objected to it altogether, and he would content himself with expressing his determination to divide against it.

said, he did not think the Vote should be allowed to pass without a protest from the Irish Members. They were constantly told that they were treated on equal terms and that they had equal laws with the United Kingdom; but when it came to a question of whether Parliament should vote money for repairing and keeping up the roads in the three countries, it was most unfair that the people of Ireland should be obliged to contribute heavily to the maintenance of their own roads, and then, in addition, have to contribute something like £30,000 towards main- taining the roads in England and Scotland. The case of Scotland did not come under this Vote; but that the Irish people should be required to contribute to the maintenance of the English roads at all really appeared to be very hard upon so poor a country. England was a much richer country, and yet she received a grant in aid. They were frequently told that Ireland received benefit from her connection with England; but at present she contributed £8,000,000 in the shape of taxation to the Imperial Exchequer, and only got back about £3,000,000 in return. The present case formed a good illustration of the totally different system which was adopted in granting money to the English and Irish countries. If the Government would come forward they might be able to confer substantial benefit upon the country if, instead of keeping up the roads, they would construct railways in such districts as Connemara and the county of Kerry. Railways would be of advantage in opening up markets for the produce of the country; but hitherto it had been found that the existing roads afforded no substantial benefit, and the Irish people were not likely to expend large sums of money upon them. Certainly they got no benefit at all equivalent to the largo sum of £250,000 voted for England and Scotland; and he did not see why the Irish Members should go on, year after year, voting that money, without making a very strong protest against it unless they were placed on a footing of equality. He might also point out how much worse off they were in Ireland in regard to the manner in which the roads were kept up. The sums necessary for maintaining them were voted by the Grand Juries, and paid by the cesspayers; but the Government took upon themselves the duty of appointing the County Surveyor. In this country that course was not followed; but in Ireland the Government took the patronage upon themselves. In England the patronage was enjoyed by the Local Authorities and by those who paid the rates. Therefore it would appear that in every way Ireland was placed in a most inferior position. Next week they would be asked to vote £1,000,000 for the construction of a railroad in the Soudan, as well as other railroads in Egypt; and they were asked, further, to keep up the roads of England and Scotland, while they had to pay for their own roads out of their own pockets, and yet the Government insisted on having the distribution of the money which was levied for that purpose. It was not merely in the case of the County Surveyor, but in that of other appointments in Ireland, that the distribution of local taxation paid for out of the county rates was also made by the Government. Then, again, money which was supposed to be primarily contributed for the maintenance of roads was collected by the Government and used by them for other works. Upon all of those grounds it seemed to him that a case was established to show that very unequal justice was meted out as between Ireland and the United Kingdom, and he thought the Government might hold out some promise that in the future a grant in aid similar to that which was allowed to England and Scotland should be given to Ireland.

said, he did not rise to complain of the way in which either of the hon. Members who had brought forward this question had discussed it. At first sight it would seem that there was some justification for the complaint they had made; but he did not desire to go closely into the question whether Ireland had an advantage over England, or whether England had an advantage over Ireland, in the matter of taxation, and expenditure out of money raised by taxation, although he believed that if the question were inquired into it would be found that Ireland really had the best of it. [Colonel NOLAN: No.] This appeared, as regarded expenditure, from a Return moved for by the hon. and gallant Member himself He could also refer to several taxes which were imposed in this country and not in Ireland—such as the House Tax, for instance, and various others. But, as he had stated, he did not wish to discuss the question upon that ground. He would prefer to see questions of this kind treated in a liberal and generous spirit. That had been the case in the past, and he hoped it would continue to be so in the future. This question of turnpike roads was not the only one in regard to the Vote, which was not to be considered of a permanent character. It was merely proposed as a temporary measure until the whole question of Local Government and Local Taxation could be dealt with. It was hoped that those questions would be dealt with early in the next Parliament, and then, he trusted, the question would be settled, and would be heard of no more either as it affected Ireland or England and Scotland. He thought Ireland had been very happy in not having possessed a similar system of turnpike roads to that which existed in this country.

remarked, that there were turnpike roads in Ireland.

said, he had always understood that there were not.

said, the hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken.

said, that as to the question of the money to be given to Ireland for that purpose, he could only say that it was one which must await the consideration of the whole question of local taxation. In the first place, assuming that it was agreed to give money in aid of an Irish Vote, in the same way as it was now given to England and Scotland, who were the authorities they would have to pay? There were certainly no authorities in Ireland like those which existed in England and Scotland; and as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had pointed out, even the County Surveyor was appointed by the State. He should be very sorry if the matter stood in the same position in this country, and he hoped it would not long be left to the Local Authorities to maintain the turnpike roads in Ireland. As to the question whether money was to be given to Ireland, he could only repeat that that was a question which must be dealt with when the whole subject of Local Taxation and Local Government came to be considered in the next Parliament.

said, the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was fair as far as it went; but he thought it ought to be observed, in reply to the complaint of Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, that this Vote did not arise out of feelings of benevolence towards the payers of local rates, but was rather a recognition, on the part of the State, of an injustice inflicted upon the ratepayers through the lapse of Parliamentary authority to charge tolls in respect of roads which had been disturnpiked. That was a subject which could hardly be said to arise out of any benevolent in- tention on the part of the State to contribute towards the local rates. But the injury had arisen by the action of Parliament itself, and this was a Vote in aid to enable the Local Authorities to provide that which had been previously paid over by those who used the roads. That was a state of things which did not exist in Ireland, and the grievance, if there were one, in Ireland was not at all of a similar character. Consequently, Parliament would not be justified in making the same arrangement for Ireland as that which was made for the United Kingdom.

said, it was not necessary that he should enter into any question of disagreement or difference in regard to the local taxation of England and Ireland. Hitherto the English Members had constantly discussed the necessity of introducing large reforms in the system of levying local taxation. But the question of local taxation had been allowed to remain almost entirely in the hands of the English Members, and had not been taken up by Members either from Scotland or Ireland. There was nothing that would more rejoice the heart of a local taxation reformer than to find that he was obtaining new allies in his endeavour to remove the injustice of this taxation. If this question were to arise in the shape of a proposal to give a grant towards the maintenance of the Irish roads, he would be perfectly ready to consider that question on its merits. But in this particular case he was now asked to record his vote, "aye "or "no," in favour of the grant which was given towards the English roads. Although he had not the slightest objection to consider the question whether a similar Vote should be given to Ireland, he had a very strong objection to take away the grant now proposed for England. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that in abolishing turnpike roads additional burdens had been thrown upon the ratepayers. Those burdens had been distinctly pointed out by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel Harcourt), who they all regretted not to have been able to see in his place for some time; but it was on the distinct recognition of the additional burden thrown on the ratepayers by the withdrawal of the sub- vention hitherto made upon the travelling public to keep up these roads, that the State had consented to make this grant in aid. Therefore, the money the Committee were now asked to vote was not given entirely in that free and liberal spirit which hon. Gentlemen from Ireland seemed desirous of claiming; but, at any rate, it was given, according to a decision and a deliberate vote of the House, upon a principle which he and others had constantly advocated.

said, he failed to see any force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) as far as it was directed against the representation of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor). The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that because tolls were formerly paid on the English roads by the travelling public, that there should be a subvention now by the House of Commons. The Irish Members were not contending now that the tolls ought to be paid by the travelling public on the high roads, or that the discontinuance of a tax of that kind afforded any claim for a subvention. He presumed that those who used the roads were those who lived in the locality, and it could not be said that it was on account of an incursion of foreigners from other localities that the tolls which had been paid hitherto out of local resources should not be still supplied from local resources. What his hon. Friend said was that there were formerly turnpike roads in Ireland, that those turnpike roads had been abolished, and no one had ever got up in that House to say that the Local Authorities, on whom the support of the roads was in consequence thrown, ought to be compensated. The main argument upon which he and his hon. Friends relied in opposing this taxation was that, no matter how the money had been formerly obtained, it was not fair that they should ask the people of Ireland, who paid for their own roads, to contribute £40,000 out of £215,000 to pay for the roads in England. That was what it came to. The Irish people contributed to the Imperial funds, and the House of Commons proposed to dip their hands into the Imperial purse and take out £215,000, towards which the Irish people, who paid every penny of the cost of supporting their own roads, contributed largely. That was a gross injustice, and no ingenuity could give it any other complexion. He had no objection to the tone of the speech of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. As a matter of fact, there was never anything to be said in condemnation of the tone of the hon. Gentleman; but the substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech was decidedly unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman bade them look forward with hope to the next Parliament. Well, he believed the next Parliament would do a great many things which this Parliament, notwithstanding its pretensions, had been unable to accomplish. But he objected always to be fed upon hope. It was not a substantial fare. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was coupled with another—that they must wait until a general measure of Local Taxation and Local Government could be passed. That was precisely the excuse Earl Spencer had been putting forward in Ireland for the last five years for neglecting to proceed with important measures. Earl Spencer told them that the Government were meditating some general scheme; but what it was had never yet left the mind of that noble Earl. The Irish Members had waited with hope—it had now diminished to a vanishing point—for the appearance of this great scheme, which they had so long been told was to bring them financial relief in Ireland. They were now told that they were to live in the hope of finding a higher moral capacity or better intentions in a new Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury took credit for his forbearance in not looking too closely into the question of taxation in the Three Kingdoms. He told the hon. Gentleman to enter into that question as closely as he liked, and the Irish Members were quite ready to follow him. If he wished it to be understood that Ireland was in any way receiving advantage, or even fair play, from the Imperial purse, in the shape of grants in aid of local burdens, he would tell the hon. Gentleman that that was not the case. It was altogether remote from the fact, and quite contrary to it. Let him compare the grants in aid of local taxation in England, Ireland, and Scotland; and what was the result? First of all, if any relief were made in any country, it should be the poor country, whose capacity was the least, that should receive it, and not the rich country. If the Imperial purse, which was contributed to by the Three Kingdoms, was to be dipped into for the benefit of either of the three, the recipient of the relief ought to be Ireland, and not England, which was the wealthiest country in the world. In the last decade the valuation of England for purposes of this kind had increased by 30 per cent—an increase unparalleled in the civilized world. In the same period, that for Ireland had increased by 4 per cent. Thus, in the same period, while the Return of incomes in Ireland remained almost stationary, the capacity to pay taxation in England had increased by leaps and bounds; and in the same decade in Ireland the number of persons in the receipt of relief had doubled. Large numbers had been compelled to give up the means of earning a living, and the population itself had very largely diminished. Therefore, it was plain that it would not only be unjust, but cruel, to add anything to the local burdens of Ireland. Grants in aid of local taxation from the Imperial purse in England amounted to £3,500,000; in Scotland to over £500,000; and in Ireland, although the sum was nominally much greater, if they took out the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Police, which were just as much military forces as the Army and Navy, officered under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, and maintained altogether independent of the will of the people, and, in fact, contrary to it—taking out those sums, it would be found that Ireland received very little in aid of grants for local purposes; while Scotland, with a population only three-fourths of that of Ireland, received £500,000, and England £3,500,000. That proved that no fair play was given to Ireland, but that very great hardship was inflicted upon her in this matter. Who were the people who had paid for the maintenance of roads in Ireland? He did not blame the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for being unacquainted with the details, because he had only lately come into his present Office; but he appeared to have founded something on the question of the Highway Authority. Now, in Ireland the Highway Authority was the Grand Jury, and the sum was levied in every county by means of county cess. Among the pur- poses for which county cess was given was the maintenance of the high roads. If the hon. Gentleman had any benevolent intentions towards Ireland in reference to those roads, he would place the charge upon the Imperial purse, and no objection would be entertained on that side of the House. The people who paid taxes in Ireland—poor rate and county cess—were the poor occupiers; and he asked the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind this extraordinary fact—that, whereas 20 years ago the rates only amounted to 10d. in the pound, they were now nearly 2s., having been more than doubled. All those taxes fell upon the occupiers, and the increase was more than equal to the whole of the taxation 20 years ago. The landlord did not pay 1d. of county cess, but the whole of it fell upon the struggling occupier, who was only in one degree removed from the condition of a pauper. The injustice of the tax in the case of Ireland was manifest. In England the valuation was increasing, the people were well-to-do, the taxes fell lightly upon them, and were hardly felt by the bulk of the community; but in Ireland persons only one degree above the condition of paupers contributed every penny for the maintenance of the high roads. Notwithstanding that fact, they were required to pay £40,000 a-year out of their narrow means in aid of the maintenance of roads in England and Scotland.

said, he was glad to find that hon. Members from Ireland were becoming convinced of the pressure of local taxation in that country, and he would be glad to do anything he could to alleviate the burden so far as Ireland was concerned. He would most heartily support any proposition that would give relief from the burden of maintaining arterial roads in Ireland. Casual visits to that country led him to the conclusion that the high roads there were much superior to those they had in England. He did not see why a grant should not be given to the Irish Grand Juries, as well as to the Courts of Quarter Sessions or the Local Authorities in England. But, as a matter of fact, whatever might be the comparison between the amount of Imperial taxation paid by Ireland or by England, there were one or two little matters in Ireland in which the Irish people had an ad- vantage over the ratepayers in England. Take the Dog Tax; it was an Imperial tax in this country and a local tax in Ireland, and he should be glad to see some day or other that it was made a local tax for Great Britain as well as for Ireland. In the matter of turnpike tolls, he believed that, although they were unpopular, they were strictly just. Those who used the roads paid for them; and now the arrangement was that those who used the roads least paid the most. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) referred to the fact that England had increased very much in wealth. That was certainly not the case with regard to the occupiers of land. Their prosperity had not increased very much in the last few years; but, on the contrary, the owners and occupiers of land had considerably diminished in wealth and prosperity, although they paid almost the whole of the rates of the country. He maintained that any sort of contribution which the general wealth of the country could afford ought to be made towards the relief of local taxation, not only in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom.

wished to correct a false impression which might be produced by the statement of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) in reference to the Dog Tax. The tax amounted to something like £30,000 a-year in Ireland, but it was almost entirely absorbed in the payment of officials connected with the Office of the Registrar of Dublin Castle. A very small amount, indeed, went in aid of local taxation.

said, he thought he had heard the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) cheer some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken below the Gangway (Mr. Clare Read). He took it that that cheer meant that in England there was good cause for the grant towards the maintenance of those roads. Now, what were the purposes for which many of the main roads were made in this country? They were made for the purpose of connecting the large towns—for instance, London with Edinburgh, London with Liverpool and Manchester, and even London with Holyhead—and many of the Irish roads were made for a similar purpose; and he could not see why the ratepayers in Ireland should not receive the same grant in respect of the main roads of that country as was allowed to the ratepayers of this country. He had always felt and believed that the turnpikes should be maintained, and that the cost of maintaining the roads should be paid by those who made use of them; and it was well known that many of the main roads were of comparatively little use to the local inhabitants. It was not they who travelled by them, but the general public who made use of them; but, notwithstanding that fact, the farmers and residents of the poorer localities had to pay for them. He should like to hear one word from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board to intimate that the Government would recognize, in this case, the claim of the Irish people to some relief.

said, the hon. and gallant Baronetwas very insidious in the advances he had made. He (Mr. Russell) had greeted with a cheer certain sentiments which fell from hon. Members from Ireland, simply intending to indicate that they received his sympathy. It was not, of course, for him to lay down any general rule as to the taxation to be applied to the different parts of the United Kingdom; but granting that the principle of subventions from the Imperial Treasury, in relief of local taxation, was a sound one, it was very difficult to deny that Ireland had an equal right to such subventions with England and Scotland.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said that he did not know how the money raised for the maintenance of roads in Ireland was disposed of. Now, the Grand Juries in Ireland were the persons who were responsible for keeping the roads in repair, and, of course, they were the persons who determined what the contribution of the locality should be. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know that there were two areas of taxation upon which the Grand Juries imposed the rate in connection with roads. One was a charge on the county at large. In charging the county at large the amount went in relief of the local rates for the maintenance of the main roads of the country—for instance, the mail coach roads. But in places where no turnpike roads existed the charge was thrown upon the local baronies, and they were purely local rates in which the area for which the rate was required was specified. Originally, the cost of those roads was borne by the county in which the roads existed. In the county of Antrim, with which he was well acquainted, there was a main road from Belfast to Coleraine, and thence on to Londonderry, and there were three or four turnpikes on that road. It was a road of an arterial nature, and had to be kept in repair by the Grand Juries. There was another mail coach road in the county of Antrim, between Belfast and Dublin, upon which several tolls were levied; and there were tolls also upon the road from Belfast to Carrickfergus. There were no charges for tolls on those roads for Government purposes, or upon persons who made use of them for the purpose of going to church on Sunday. In those respects the roads were free. But tolls were very strictly levied in regard to any other use of the roads. Those tolls had now been entirely abolished; but the main roads were still required to be kept up at the expense of the ratepayers, and he considered the principle to be most unjust, because in many counties—take, for instance, the county of Down—the old main roads were very much better and wider than were required for purely local traffic, but, nevertheless, they were still kept up at the expense of the local ratepayers. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Water B. Barttelot), that the maintenance of the main and leading roads should be provided for by Parliament. In the case of purely local roads they could hardly expect a grant in aid from Parliament; but in regard to the main roads, they were certainly entitled to a contribution towards the expense of maintenance. In the county of Water-ford, the road between Waterford and Cork was a leading road, which certainly ought to be supported by a public grant, seeing that it was never used at all for the convenience of the locality, but merely for the through traffic. As these grants were given to England and Scotland, he failed to see why the Government should not hold out to the Irish Members the expectation that, if not immediately, they would, in the future, give a vote of this sort to Ireland. He believed the amount contributed by Ireland to the two countries which formed the United Kingdom, amounted to £60,000 a-year, and he thought something ought to be done to put Ireland on a footing of equality with England and Scotland, even if it became necessary to propose a Supplementary Vote in the present year. It was as clear as noonday that Ireland was treated unfairly, and that the Government had full power, if they chose to exercise it, of doing justice.

supported the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that the Government should bring in a Supplementary Estimate. If they did not wish to do that, they might make a subvention of £40,000 towards the maintenance of the Irish roads. He did not think that anything more unjust towards the Irish people could be imagined than the principle upon which the Three Kingdoms were dealt with in this matter. What the Irish people had to do with the roads in England was more than he could see, nor could he understand why they should be asked to pay £40,000 a-year for the relief of the English taxpayers. Certain roads in the neighbourhood of Cork were made for the convenience of the barracks, and they were mainly, at the present moment, used by the military. They included one of the most expensive roads perhaps in Ireland, and yet the people of the county of Cork were not aided to the extent of a single 1d. from the Imperial funds towards the maintenance of that road. The Government had passed a Land Act which had had the effect of reducing rents in Ireland; but the unfortunate people in whose favour the rents had been reduced had still to contribute their fall share towards county cess, whereas the very rich population of England received a contribution from the Imperial Exchequer towards the maintenance of the highways of the country. He thought that was a most outrageous injustice, and he trusted that his hon. Friends would, on every possible occasion, strongly protest against it. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to express sympathy with the views which had been uttered by the Irish Members; but he failed to see of what value that sympathy was if nothing resulted from it. They were quite accustomed to see hon. Members rise and admit that the Irish claims were just and reasonable; but his complaint was that no notice was taken of those claims when these Votes came on in Committee of Supply. He did not believe, in spite of the observations of hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Government, unless they were compelled to do so, would be disposed to give £40,000 in aid of the Irish roads, instead of compelling the Irish people to contribute that sum, as they did at present, towards the maintenance of the English and Scotch roads. During the last 10 years the number of paupers in Ireland had increased from 280,000 to 590,000, while during the same time the amount of pauperism is England had decreased. That fact alone ought to induce the Government to take time to consider before they called upon such a poor country as Ireland to contribute towards the maintenance of roads, or anything else, in such a rich country as England. £215,000 was now asked for as a contribution for keeping up the English roads, while not a single 1s. was proposed to be given to Ireland. Not only was that the case, but many of the roads which were kept up in that country were not necessary at all for the purposes of developing the resources of the country, having been made principally at the public expense for the convenience of the landlords. If that were not the case in Ireland, the county cess would be very much lower than it was. In some places it amounted to from 3s. to 4s. in the pound, and the poor rate was also very high. Ten years ago the poor rate in the Cork Union was 1s. 6d. in the pound, and now it amounted to 3s. 6d. or 4s. He believed there were very few places in England where the poor rate was as high as that; and even if it were higher than in Ireland, the people of England were able to pay it, while those of Ireland were not. He could entirely confirm the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Wick-low (Mr. Corbet) in reference to the Dog Tax. The total sum realized in Ireland from the Dog Tax amounted to £32,000, while the cost of collecting it amounted to £28,000; so that out of £32,000 the only sum contributed towards the relief of taxation was £4,000, and the unfortunate people who had to pay county cess were compelled to pay for sheep and other dogs on which no tax was levied in England. He trusted that the Government, even now, would see the justice of bringing in a Supplementary Estimate in order to give a grant in aid to Ireland.

said, the only desire of his hon. Friends in this matter was to place the people of Ireland upon a par with the people of England and Scotland. He asked the Committee to bear in mind that in Ireland, owing to the scarcity of railways in many districts, the roads were still very much used for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails. To his mind, that was another reason why the Treasury should contribute towards the maintenance of the Irish roads. Certainly that was the case in the county he had the honour to represent (Water-ford). A considerable number of mails were conveyed daily by four-horse cars along the main roads; and his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had alluded to some of the routes upon which, within his own knowledge, mail coaches now ran. It could not be denied that the people of Ireland contributed their fair proportion towards the Imperial taxation. In fact, if the figures were properly gone into, it would be found that they paid more than their fair proportion. Another reason why the Government should make this grant, and place the Irish people on a par with those of England and Scotland, was this—that, owing to the Government not keeping their promises, the Grand Jury system still continued in Ireland. Her Majesty's Ministers had made repeated promises to deal with that subject; but they had never yet seen fit to keep them, but bad directed attention to other and far less important questions. So far as Ireland was concerned, that was one of the most vital questions that could be brought on for consideration. The county he represented paid, at that moment, a tax of £14,000 a-year to the shareholders of a Railway Company; and it was contended that if the Grand Jury system were reformed, and the counties governed on some representative system, a considerable portion of that local taxation would be got rid of. He hoped the Government would accede to the demand which had been made by his hon. Friends, which, to every fair-minded man, must appear to be of a most reasonable character.

said, he would be very sorry not to take part in any measure of justice to Ireland; but hon. Members seemed to have forgotten that in Ireland there was no Carriage Tax.

There are no carriages, except those belonging to the landlords, on which it could be levied.

said, hon. Members opposite had enumerated the advantages enjoyed by the two countries; but that was putting the question upon a false issue. As far as he remembered, the Vote now under the consideration of the Committee was founded upon an arrangement made by the Prime Minister in consequence of what occurred on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel Harcourt) in reference to the Carriage Tax. That Vote was given to England, and subsequently to Scotland, and he supposed it was not given to Ireland owing to the fact that there was no Carriage Tax in that country. He was quite of opinion that Ireland had a claim for consideration in the matter; but he hoped that the grants from Imperial Taxation in aid of local taxation would not be increased, and that the time was not far distant when this Vote would disappear altogether from the Estimates. He should support the Vote, although he admitted that a Vote for England and Scotland, and none for Ireland, presented a somewhat anomalous appearance.

said, he could not admit that there was any connection between the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite and the claim put forward by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman had cited the case of the Carriage Tax; but the people of Ireland who had carriages were not the people who maintained the roads. Those who kept their carriages in Ireland were not numerous compared with those in England; but whoever they were, they did not pay 1d. for keeping up the roads. It was the occupier, and not the landlord, who paid for them. He was glad to see the Prime Minister present, because it was desirable that his attention should be called to the fact that every 1d. of county cess in Ireland was paid by the occupier, and not by the landlord; and, therefore, there was no connection between the Carriage Tax and the demand made by the Irish Members in reference to the support of the roads. If the Prime Minister would allow him, in a few words he would convey to the right hon. Gentleman's mind the merits of the case. The Committee were now asked to grant £215,000 to England, and, in the next Vote, £35,000 to Scotland, as grants in aid of local taxation in connection with the maintenance of roads; and in the case of Scotland it was paid, although there had been no roads disturnpiked at all. In Ireland they were called upon to contribute 40 or 50 per cent towards this subvention in aid of the local roads in England and Scotland, whereas in Ireland itself every 1d. of the same expenditure for keeping up the roads came out of the pockets of the occupiers of land, who were the poorest class of people. That state of things occurred when, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, the capacity of England to bear taxation had been increased by 30 per cent during the last 10 years; whereas, on the contrary, the capacity of Ireland had diminished, and pauperism, instead of prosperity, was increasing. Every circumstance pointed to the equity and justice of some relief being given to Ireland, instead of that country being asked to contribute towards a subvention for England and Scotland. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see that the existing system was not one that ought to be continued; and it would give great satisfaction to the Irish Members if he would say a word in the same spirit as the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, or hold out any hope that the matter would be considered between this year and next, with the object of placing the taxation of the Three Kingdoms upon a more equitable basis.

said, that when Parliament—not the present Parliament, but the new Parliament—came, at the very earliest period, as he thought it ought to come, and must come, to a comprehensive consideration of the question of Local and Imperial Taxation, and the relations of Local and Imperial Taxation in the Three Kingdoms, undoubtedly this would be a point which would have to be put down more or less to the credit of Ireland on her side of the account. That was the admission he was prepared to make; but the question evidently formed part of a large subject to which a comprehensive consideration would have to be given. More than that he could not undertake to say. He stated that, because he thought that justice required it; and no doubt, when Parliament came to consider the whole matter, a fair and equitable view would be taken by those who represented the Three Kingdoms.

said, the observations of the Prime Minister were just and equitable; but the right hon. Gentleman talked of a prospective amelioration of the present position, whereas, unfortunately, the grievance was a present one, and the Irish ratepayers who were taxed now and had to pay their own cess were also called upon to contribute to a Vote in aid of the English ratepayers, with no immediate prospect of an improvement in their local administration or of their financial arrangements. No change hereafter in local administration or in local financial arrangements would give relief to those who would be necessarily taxed now if this Vote were passed in favour of the English and Scotch ratepayers. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury was evidently unacquainted with the exceedingly unfair incidence of local taxation in respect of roads in Ireland. He might inform the hon. Gentleman that the highway rate in this country only formed one-twentieth part of the local revenue, and represented a little more than £1,000,000 out of a revenue of £20,000,000, whereas in Ireland, out of a revenue of £3,300,000 raised for local purposes, no less than £333,000 was paid for the maintenance of roads. Therefore, while in Ireland one-tenth of the local revenue went towards the maintenance of roads, in England the amount was only one-twentieth. Therefore, the pressure upon the Irish people was double as heavy as in England, and yet, while in England a substantial relief was afforded, in Ireland no relief at all was given. He was grateful to the Prime Minister for the equitable language he had used; but it did not remove the fundamental objection he took to a proposal of this kind. Therefore, unless he obtained from the Government some undertaking that they would make a similar contribution for the maintenance of turnpike or disturnpiked roads in Ireland as that which was made for England and Scotland, or, at any rate, that they would give to Ire- land something in aid of local taxation more than they did now to enable the people to pay the local taxes, he should feel it necessary to take a division against the Vote. There were many ways in which the Government might make up to Ireland for what she had sacrificed in this particular instance. There were many things in that country which rightly called for some Government action, and some of the Votes which had hitherto been taken for Ireland were now at an end. For instance, there was the Vote for the Shannon improvements, and if the Government would continue the £10,000 or £20,000 spent heretofore on the Shannon for similar works in other parts of Ireland, where drainage was badly required, Ireland would not feel the injustice of this Vote so much. But unless they were promised the advantage of a Government subvention on something like the same terms as England and Scotland, they must show their objection to the present Vote in the only way that was open to them.

said, he had listened to the debate with considerable attention, and it appeared to him that a great deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into it which was not altogether consistent with the real facts of the case. The question before the Committee was whether Ireland was entitled to relief from local taxation or not. That was a grave question, and he was certainly of opinion that she was entitled to it. He thought it a great pity that the question had been mixed up with the Carriage Tax and the Dog Tax, and other extraneous matters. Nor would it alter the question whether there had been an increase of assessment in England or not. But with regard to there having been an increase of assessment, if that subject were inquired into in the rural districts of England, he believed it would be found that the assessment had been materially reduced. The rents had been reduced, and, sooner or later, a reduction of assessment was bound to follow. Then, as to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) as to the proportion of the burden of maintaining the roads which fell upon England and upon Ireland, he understood the hon. Member to say that in one case it amounted to one-tenth, and in the other to one-twentieth He thought tie hon. Member was mis- taken, and he did not know that that was the case anywhere.

said, he had referred to the highway rates.

said, that it was a very great mistake to suppose that the proportion amounted to one-twentieth part. In talking of English local taxation people very often mixed up a number of things with the actual local taxation that had nothing whatever to do with it. For instance, they included water rates and gas rates—things that had nothing to do with the poor rate and nothing to do with the highway rate. If they took the highway rate and that which really constituted the local revenues—the poor rate—and the things which were properly included in them, it would be found that, instead of one-twentieth, the proportion of highway rates to poor rates was nearly one fourth—at any rate, in the rural districts. In his own district the poor rate was 2s. 6d. in the pound, and the highway rate would be 8d. But those points, he thought, were entirely outside the discussion on this Vote, the question raised being as to why, if relief were to be afforded in the matter of roads in England and Scotland, it should not also be afforded in the case of Ireland, and he considered it should.

said, that Members from Ireland would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for placing the question in a proper light. Certainly, no argument had been adduced to prove that this allowance should not be made; and he could not but think that the argument drawn from the poor rate was somewhat beside the question, which was as to whether they in Ireland were not entitled to the same relief in respect of the maintenance of roads as was given in the case of the roads in England and Scotland. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who raised this question. He thought that every county should have its share of the money, and he hoped that the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be carried out, and that next year a Vote equal in amount to that of the Vote now before the Committee would be put into the Estimates for the maintenance of the roads in Ireland.

said, he had already recorded his opinion that while England received the entire advantage in comparison with Ireland in the matter of these subventions, Scotland was the spoilt child of the Estimates. He had pointed out that the amount of the grants in aid of local taxation in Ireland was only about £500,000 a-year; whereas in the case of Scotland, with a much smaller population, it amounted to £525,000. Then there was another singular fact admitted in connection with this matter—namely, that some of the counties of Scotland relieved by this grant had no disturnpiked roads at all. The heading of the Vote in the Appropriation Act was simply "Disturnpiked Roads." In England some of the grant was for main roads besides disturnpiked roads; but in Scotland it was given for some roads which were not disturnpiked. 'The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had pleaded on behalf of these grants that before the roads were disturnpiked the cost of maintaining them was paid out of the tolls charged on those who used the roads, and he gave that as the reason why the localities should be relieved; but that could not be pleaded on behalf of the grants made for the maintenance of roads which were never disturnpiked; and therefore he said that the same claim on the Imperial purse did not exist as was alleged by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to England. He thought this transaction on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury was a most grave and questionable one, inasmuch as in addition to its unfairness it tended to withdraw from the cognizance of Parliament the expenditure of the public money. The meaning of the Government regulations with respect to those grants was, that while in England only the localities were relieved which had disturnpiked roads, in Scotland, whether the roads were disturnpiked or not, the localities should receive the same relief as if they had disturnpiked roads.

said, he could not admit that there was any justice in the observation of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that Scotland was the spoilt child of the Estimates. He would not go into the larger question, but could do so if necessary, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in showing that the contributions in aid of local taxation in Ireland were far in excess of any given to Scotland. In the case of the Police, for instance, the whole cost of maintenance was contributed by the Imperial Exchequer. ["No, no!"] There were also other contributions which he would not dwell upon. As regarded the particular question before the Committee, he was afraid that the hon. Member had not adverted to the heading of the Vote, because it was "Disturnpiked and other Reads." He would remind the Committee of the history of the matter. [Mr. SEXTON: Why is the heading different in the Appropriation Account?] He thought it was "Disturnpiked and other Roads," but perhaps the word "other "had been admitted by mistake; at all events, the word "other" occurred in the Estimate, which he proposed to deal with. The Committee would recollect that £250,000 was agreed to be granted as a contribution in aid of the maintenance of roads, and as had been stated by the hon. Member it was made in terms applicable to disturnpiked and main roads. It was true that the words "main roads "was an incorrect term—it was an error, and had been rectified since. Well, during the first year that the Vote was given, the only contribution was to counties, the roads of which had been disturnpiked since 1860. It was felt and represented in that House—and he believed that the representation was considered by the House generally to be a just one—that by going back to 1860 an injustice was done to those counties of Scotland which had anticipated the legislation which subsequently took place and which culminated in the Act of 1878. There were various instances in which roads were disturnpiked by County Acts between 1850 and 1860, and accordingly it was felt that the representation made that the counties concerned should participate was a reasonable one, and it was determined to carry back the period to 1850. He did not gather from the remarks of the hon. Member that he would complain of the practice with regard to those roads having come into operation somewhat earlier in Scotland than in England. The gravamen of the hon. Member's charge related to those counties where there were no disturnpiked roads. That question had been brought before the House very prominently by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), and the result was a prevalent or unanimous assent, so far as one could gather, to the view that those counties which never had received a contribution in aid, because they had maintained their own roads, had just as great a claim to a share of the general grant as those which had for some time received a contribution by reason of their having disturnpiked roads. The proportion given to Scotland was very nearly on the basis of population between the two countries, making a little allowance in consequence of the greater lines of roads in Scotland, and that was the allocation which appeared on the Votes. He did not suppose that hon. Members would care to pursue the matter very narrowly, seeing that Scotland only got a fair proportion of the grant, and that the domestic arrangement, as he might call it, of allocating the grant between the various counties was such as had received the prevalent assent of the House, and had the great merit of being just in itself.

said, he was glad the Committee had had the advantage of listening to a speech from the Lord Advocate because it appeared to him to be entirely in favour of the view taken of this matter by Irish Members. As a matter of fact, the Scotch case was exactly the same as the Irish case. The Scotch people had had a very able advocate, however, and got their share of the money. But the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was that the grant in aid was by way of compensation for the tolls that had been given up. The only argument against the claim of Irish Members had been upset by the Lord Advocate. It was practically admitted that Ireland was in the same position as that in which Scotland formerly stood. He would only point out the great disparity which existed between the two countries in this respect—namely, that whereas the Scotch people had got the money, the unfortunate Irish tenants who bore the bulk of the cost of maintaining the Irish roads were without relief. He trusted the Government would attend to the argument of the Lord Advocate.

said, he objected in principle to grants in aid of local rates; but the practice had been adopted of giving to England and Scotland money, and, in his opinion, it ought in that case to be distributed all round. He should vote for the grant in aid to Scotland only because England had already received it. If hon. Members from Ireland were to bring forward a Motion to give a grant to Ireland under similar circumstances, he should vote with them. In the case of Scotland there was no difference between the disturnpiked roads and others—they had all been taken over by the County Boards. He did not now see any difference between the case of Ireland and that of Scotland; and, as he had already stated, he was ready to vote for a Motion, if it were brought forward, to place the two countries in a similar position in respect of the maintenance of roads.

said, he hoped the Irish Members would be a little more consistent than the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay). The hon. Gentleman wished to have fair play all round; he had voted against the subvention for England, but he was not prepared to vote against that for Scotland. There was no subvention proposed in relief of local taxation in Ireland, and, therefore, the Irish Members objected alike to the Votes for England and Scotland. He hoped they were sufficiently consistent, having voted against the privilege extended to England, to vote against the privilege being extended to Scotland. The Irish Representatives objected to the system of subventions from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of local taxation. ["No, no ! "] It seemed they were not unanimous. He, however, was of opinion that there ought to be no subventions from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of local taxation. Every local area ought to bear its own local burdens, and the Imperial Exchequer ought only to bear burdens which were essentially Imperial. At any rate, if there was to be any departure from that principle, the departure ought to apply to every portion of the Kingdom. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had referred to a Scotch Member who, two years ago, made a stand against the proposed Vote for England, on the ground that Scotland was not allowed to participate in the same proportion as England in the scramble. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) divided the House two years ago against the Vote for England, and he objected to the Vote for Scotland on the ground that the distribution of the Vote was not equitably made in Scotland—that some portions of the country did not obtain the advantage that others did. What did the hon. Member for Falkirk say his objection to the Vote was? Why, that if the Vote was made at all, it should be made equally all round—that every portion of the Kingdom ought to obtain its share. The hon. Member was supported on that occasion by the Irish Members. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) was sorry to say that they did not find that the Scotch Members regarded it as a matter of reciprocity when the claims of Ireland in the matter were urged upon the House. There was this peculiar feature about the Vote for Scotland, that an allowance was made to the country in respect of those districts in which there never was a turnpike road. Now, the Committee were told by the Lord Advocate that the Vote was to be increased, in order that some inequality might be got rid of. The fact was, that when the Vote was only £25,000, they did not spend so much in Scotland; they only required £23,800 for this purpose. The last Appropriation Account showed that there was actually upwards of £1,100 surrendered out of the smaller Vote of £25,000. What was the case now? Whereas £23,000 odd was sufficient two years ago, Scotland now wanted £35,000, and the only thing to be said in defence of the increased amount was that the Scotch Members insisted on obtaining, and the Government assented to their obtaining, something like a fair proportionate share of this public grant from the Imperial Exchequer. Why should Ireland not be allowed to share in the grant? The Government told the Irish Members that they could not have it, but that they must wait until, by some measure or other to be brought in in a future Parliament, something like equality in this matter could be secured between the different parts of the Kingdom. He had no doubt that when there was a new Parliament, the Irish Members would be able to produce effects much greater than they could now. The pressure they would be able to bring to bear on the Government would be something like the effective pressure which the Scotch Members could now bring to bear on the Liberal Administration. There were now sitting on the Government Bench hon. Members who in previous years had recognized the hardship under which Ireland rested in this particular. The hon. Gentleman who was now the Secretary to the Local Government (Mr. George Russell) recognized last year the inequality of treatment in this respect, and he joined the Irish Members in the division against the Government proposal. He could not now ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his action, because the position of the hon. Gentleman was altered. The Irish Members would very likely find that, whatever individual Members of the Government felt ought to be done with regard to Ireland, they would have to rest content with the present state of things. He hoped, however, that they would go to a division, simply in order that they might have a record of their proceedings—a record of the protest on the part of Irish Members against this signal instance of unequal treatment which was meted out to Ireland in the distribution of public money.

said, he hoped that this was the last year in which these subventions would appear on the Estimates. A more objectionable system than that comprised in these grants in aid could not be imagined, for it really amounted to putting money into the pocket of the people with one hand and taking it out with the other, then to be spent without that check which was felt when it came out of their own pocket. He trusted that between this and the assembling of the next Parliament, calculations would be made with the view of getting rid of these subventions. That might be effected by transferring to localities a number of small taxes yielding an income of about £6,000,000—more than suffient to cover the subventions. He could not help pointing out to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who were very fond of calling attention to the amounts of public money received by Scotland in comparison with those granted to Ireland, that those hon. Gentlemen disregarded the fact that Scotland contributed in many respects considerably more to the Revenue of the United Kingdom than Ireland.

said, that this was a matter of great practical importance. A great many things were to be relegated to the new Parliament which they were told would do a great deal of justice which could not at present be obtained; but he would like, if they could, to do a little good in this Parliament. It was small comfort for them to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) that they should devote the time between this and the next Parliament to mating calculations. There were no more intelligent or calculating people in the world than the Irish, and one of their peculiarities was that they could make their calculations with every reasonable rapidity. If the Government told the Committee that they really meant to remedy the state of things which existed in Ireland—if they meant to apply a remedy as soon as the people were ready to supply them with the necessary calculations, he assured the Government that those calculations would be forthcoming a great deal quicker than his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) imagined.

said, he had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) with considerable pain, because, so far as he could gather, the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged the Government to depart from an agreement entered into by their Predecessors. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) regarded this Vote as a corollary of the Turnpikes Act of the late Government; and, therefore, any indication of an intention on the part of the Government to depart from the agree- ment entered into in consequence of that legislation, would be a distinct breach of faith. Whatever might be the merits of the relative amounts of expenditure upon what might be called the systems in Ireland and Scotland, there could be no change of intention on the part of the Government on this point. He should be glad to hear from the Government that he was right in assuming that to be the case.

said, he did not quite understand the process of argument of their Irish Friends. He was willing to admit that Ireland had a claim for relief of local taxation; but he did not see why, because Ireland had such a claim. Irish Members should move to negative this Vote. Their proceeding seemed to him very curious, to say the least of it. He did not understand the logic of it, because the ratepayers of England and Scotland were entitled to relief under an agreement come to between the Prime Minister and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel Harcourt). That there was not such relief afforded to Ireland was no real reason why the Irish Members should object to the English and Scotch receiving it; it was a very good reason why there should be relief given to Ireland, but it was no reason why it should be refused to England and Scotland. At the same time, the attitude of the Irish Members was quite as consistent as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay). The hon. Gentleman said he was opposed to those grants altogether, and being opposed to them he voted against that proposed for England. He was, however, prepared to vote for the grant to Scotland, and the reason he gave was that England already had got the Vote. He (Mr. Warton) hoped they would be able to test the sentiments of the hon. Member for Forfarshire next-year by reversing the order of the Votes. He very much questioned whether, if the Vote for Scotland were proposed first, the hon. Member would be found voting against this objectionable system, for he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman would on no account vote against money being granted to Scotland.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Warton's) observations were very unfair to the hon. Gentleman the Mem- ber for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay). The interference of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay) in the debate was kindly meant towards Ireland, and his statement was perfectly consistent. The hon. Gentleman was in favour of a grant being given to Ireland as well as to Scotland, and being a Scotchman he naturally voted in favour of the grant being continued to his own country. The Irish Members had no means whatever of giving the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of voting for a grant for them. No one knew better than the hon. Member himself that it was impossible for any private Member to bring forward anything like a distinct proposal of the kind. The reason of the Irish Members' attitude was perfectly intelligible. They were opposed to the Vote for Scotland, not that they disapproved of that Vote, but because it was unaccompanied by a Vote for Ireland. He was glad that this Vote was intrusted to the care of the present Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). There was no Member of the Government whose mind was more open to reason, and who was more willing to give expression to his opinions when they had been changed by arguments addressed to him, than the hon. Gentleman. Now, the hon. Gentleman had heard that discussion—a discussion of a very remarkable character in one respect. Practically all the speakers, representing nearly every shade of opinion in the House, had joined in backing the claim of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was kind enough, a short time ago, to speak in a spirit friendly to Ireland, and no doubt he would be found amongst the supporters of a grant being given to Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin 'Mr. Gibson), who was separated from the Irish National Party by as wide a chasm of political difference as could separate any two Parties, pressed upon the Government the desirability of meeting the claim of Ireland in this matter. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), who was not unacquainted with questions of this kind, also spoke in favour of Ireland. Every section of the Committee, therefore, had practically united with the Irish Members in pressing this claim upon the attention of the Government. He was almost precluded from urging any argument in favour of the principle of the demand which was made. He assumed that the demand would not have received such unanimous and highly respectable support if it were not founded on reason and justice. The only point he wished to press on the Government was the desirability and possibility of their dealing with the question promptly. He quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that it was a rather perilous proceeding for them to postpone until the next Parliament all matters of reform. He joined with most other people in looking to the next Parliament for the introduction of very great and desirable reforms in the three countries; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the next Parliament would, in all probability, find, like all preceding Parliaments, that it had more work to do than it could get through. It was only due to the next Parliament that if they could introduce small reforms in this Parliament they should do so. What he would respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) was that he should deal with this question by Bill. The measure need only contain a very few clauses, and it would certainly be one of a non-contentious character. It would not receive any opposition either direct or indirect. Members' minds were made up on the matter; the Bill could be got through in the small hours of the morning; and, in fact, it would be like the Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution Bill, a measure which could be passed in the course of a week. Any action of the kind he had suggested would have a most beneficial effect. There was nothing more exasperating to the Irish Members than to observe the gigantic disproportion between the amount of money expended in Ireland upon Police and Constabulary, and the sum expended for purposes of reform—for education or local aid, for instance. He thought his hon. Friends were justified in pointing out the extraordinary inequality in this matter which existed between the two countries, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would take that opportunity of redressing a generally admitted grievance.

said, he was precluded by an engagement from giving his reasons for voting against the system of subvention on the English Vote; but he would take the opportunity of doing so upon the Scotch Vote, which was, of course, of a similar character. He understood that during the debate upon the English Vote, the Prime Minister admitted the apparent justice of the claim of Ireland to a proportionate grant in aid of local taxation in the direction of the maintenance of roads, and said that he would look into the matter, and that if he found upon full examination that the claim was a just one, he had no doubt the House would apply a remedy. But in a matter of such importance, one in which it was evident the general feeling of the House was in favour of the justice of the claim, the Irish Members were entitled to something a little more definite, at all events, as regarded the time when the ameliorating action, by Bill or otherwise, would be taken. He did not know whether it would be necessarry to pass an Act of Parliament at all; but, assuming that it would be necessary, it was obvious, from the kindly feeling expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that the Bill would neither be blocked nor opposed on the Opposition side of the House. As the Government could control and influence their own followers, it followed that the Bill would not meet with opposition from the Ministerial side of the House either. The Bill, consequently, would be a non-contentious Bill, and would be passed without any difficulty if it were taken up by the only power able to take it up, that power being the Government. He was perfectly willing to leave to the Prime Minister the investigation as to whether justice and right were upon their side; but what he asked was, would the Government introduce a Bill for the purpose of remedying this grievance if the Prime Minister decided that their claim was based upon a just foundation? It was absurd to put the Irish Members off till next year. Many of them might never come back; be-sides, it was, in any case, their duty, having pointed out this glaring inequality, to use all reasonable means of getting it removed. It might be said that the Government were taken by surprise. But the question had been raised by the Irish Members before now. It was raised upon the Bill, now an Act, upon which this Estimate was founded. They supported the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel Har-court), when, in the early days of this Parliament, he moved his Motion in favour of relief of local taxation. The majority upon that Motion was so small that the Government were compelled to take action by legislation. Although the Irish Members supported the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Harcourt), they found, when the time came for legislation, that Ireland was left out in the cold. They were entitled to some plain declaration from the Government with regard to this question. The Government ought to say whether they would introduce a Bill that Session for the purpose of removing the inequality which existed. Of course, if the Bill were opposed by the Irish Members, the Government would be justified in abandoning it; but if it were only opposed on the Government side of the House, the Irish Members would be entitled to ask the Government to use their influence to secure the withdrawal of the opposition. He asked the Government to show that their sympathy was bonâ fide, and not shove the Irish Members on one side for the rest of the Session. He protested against Ireland being cheated annually out of something like £40,000 or £50,000, to which, in comparison with Scotland, they were entitled. When English people went over to Ireland the Irish people were always very glad to see them; but, after all, visitors drove and walked over the roads at the expense of the Irish people. When, however, Irish people came over to England, they found that they drove over roads towards the maintenance of which they contributed. Such a state of things was not fair or just. The Government ought to speak candidly and straightforwardly in reply to the question he had addressed to them—namely, if the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that their claim was a just one, would legislation be initiated that Session to meet it?

said, he felt that after the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was proper some remarks should be made by the Government upon this Vote. He was extremely sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was not present during the discussion upon the English Vote, because he would then have heard what was said by the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Hibbert) was not able to go beyond what the Prime Minister said on that Vote—namely, that the subject should be considered in connection with the whole system of local taxation and local government. The hon. Gentleman had said he was given to understand that the Prime Minister stated that he would consider this question itself. The right hon. Gentleman hardly went so far as that; he said he was quite willing to consider this question in connection with other questions of local taxation, and he would take care full justice was done to Ireland, not only in respect to this particular question but other questions. He (Mr. Hibbert) regarded the protest which had been made by hon. Members as a protest against this grant being given to England and Scotland unless it was given to Ireland also. His own impression was that it was much more likely that this discussion would lead to the abolition of the grants in aid to England and Scotland rather than a grant being given to Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. He believed that that was so, because when this grant in aid of disturnpiked roads was assented to it was only intended to be a temporary means of meeting the difficulty. It was always understood that the matter would be reconsidered when the whole question of local taxation came to be reviewed. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to him personally. Of course, if he could meet the views of the hon. Gentleman he should be very glad to do so. He was always anxious to deal with questions, no matter from whatever part of the House they were raised, in the most open and liberal spirit. He should be very glad if this question could be settled in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but he was not prepared to go further [than the promise made by the Prime Minister—namely, that the whole question should be considered as affecting the Three Kingdoms.

said, that surely upon the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister there was every reason why the inequality between England and Scotland and Ireland should be remedied that year. If the Prime Minister admitted—and he did admit—that the inequality existed, then he (Mr. Dickson) maintained it was the duty of the Government to remove the inequality that very year. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had very fairly stated that there would be no difficulty in passing a Bill to remedy this undoubted grievance. He (Mr. Dickson) was persuaded that no Member of the House would be found to assent that Ireland should be treated in an exceptional manner with respect to local taxation. If English and Scotch Members really knew how burdensome local taxation was becoming in Ireland they would at once concede the demand now made in regard to Ireland; they would readily admit that if such countries like England and Scotland received subventions in aid of local taxation, a poor country like Ireland should certainly receive such assistance. What did he hear the other day from a friend? Why, that in one county of Ireland he had found that local taxation already amounted to as much as 10s. in the pound. It was a notorious fact that taxation was rising at such a rate in various counties that already the reduction of rents was being rapidly neutralized by the increase of taxation. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill to place the three countries, with regard to grants in aid of local taxation, in the same advantageous position.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork Mr. Parnell), who endeavoured, on occasions like this, to derive for the public some benefit from discussions which might otherwise have a tendency to become academical, had suggested that the Government should bring in a Bill to remedy an admitted grievance in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) who was in charge of the Vote seemed to raise some question of the accuracy of the interpretation given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) of the Prime Minister's words. Of course, it was impossible to be always verbally accurate; but he (Mr. Sexton; certainly understood the Prime Minister to admit the justice of the claim made on behalf of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said the question should receive consideration, and he held out the hope or prospect that when the larger question of local government came to be considered all sections of the House would be found willing, and even desirous, to concede the just claim of Ireland on this question. As long as the justice of their claim was recognized he saw no reason why a Bill, and subsequently a Supplementary Estimate, should not be brought in this year to give Ireland the relief which was its due. The Bill could be prepared in a few minutes; it would not arouse any hostile susceptibilities in any quarter of the House, but would be regarded as a praiseworthy effort to deal justly with Ireland. He thought that if the Prime Minister were informed of what had taken place during his absence from the House he might be inclined to reconsider the question. He would not move to report Progress, because he understood there were other hon. Members who wished to address the Committee; but he thought that before the debate was brought to a conclusion it was desirable that the view of the Prime Minister should be had with respect to the appeal which had been made to the Government by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

desired very respectfully to add his voice to the unbroken chorus of unanimous approval which had come from all the Irish Members in that discussion. He did not know what answer could be given in justice or in equity to the demand which was now made. It was perfectly plain on the face of this Estimate that large sums were being given to England and Scotland for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the turnpike roads. It had been proved, and it had not been questioned by the Government, that the necessity for such subvention was stronger in Ireland than it was in either England or Scotland; and, under those circumstances, he could not see why the Government should not frankly undertake at once that they would, pari passu with the relief which they were now giving to Scotland and England in this matter, give similar and proportionate relief to Ireland. It could not be a very large sum; but to make the grant would facilitate the course of Business very much. It would be not only a gracious but simply a just thing to do if the Government were at once frankly to say that they would, without postponing the matter until that vague and shadowy time when they could introduce a measure dealing with local taxation gene-rally, redress this admitted grievance. Let the Committee have an assurance at once that the Irish people should not be kept out of that which he sincerely and honestly believed Ireland was entitled to; let them be told at once that the Government would concede the unanimous demand of the Irish Members of all Parties, to which demand the Government had not attempted to make any proper or just answer.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) was good enough to give him a more accurate version of the statement of the Prime Minister than that which he had been able to receive otherwise. It now appeared that the Prime Minister desired to leave the question over until the consideration of the question of local government in the Three Kingdoms. They were also very candidly told by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that, in his judgment, the reconsideration of the whole question of local government would end in the withdrawal of the two Votes which they had been considering that evening, or, in other words, instead of Ireland getting relief, relief would be taken away from England and Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had also reminded the Committee that the Vote which they were now discussing was one of a temporary character. That consideration, however, strengthened very much the position of the Irish Members. They were willing to leave the final settlement of the question of relief of local taxation out of the Imperial funds to the time when the Government might bring it before the House, either in that Parliament or the next. That time might be next year, or it might not be for several years to come. Their case was simply this—that it was not just to vote these sums annually for England and for Scotland without at the same voting a proportionate sum for Ireland. Parliament might decide upon stopping these Votes when the whole question of local taxation and local government came up for consideration; but what the Committee had to do now was to deal with the situation of affairs at the present time, and as matters now stood the Irish people were by their contributions to the Imperial Revenue paying a certain portion of the expenses of the roads in England and Scotland, while the English and Scotch people paid nothing whatever in aid of the maintenance of the roads in Ireland. Such a state of affairs might last for one year, or for several years, or it might last always. These contributions might always be given; but whether they lasted for a short time, or for a long time, it was the duty of the Irish Members to exhaust the means at their disposal to insure that the same treatment should be meted out to Ireland with regard to grants from Imperial sources as was meted out to England and Scotland. He thought that was a fair and reasonable proposition. He noticed that since the debate on this particular Vote commenced, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), a Member of the Cabinet and a Gentleman who, from his position, was qualified to speak on this important question, had entered the House. The right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during a very important period; he discharged the duties of that Office to the satisfaction of the Members of the House of Commons, and, no doubt, of the majority of the people of England, though certainly not to the satisfaction of the Irish Members, or as they believed to the satisfaction of the majority of the people of Ireland, and anything that came from him upon this question would have great weight. It might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to assist the Committee in unravelling this entanglement into which their proceedings had unfortunately got, and if he would do so he would certainly earn the gratitude of all present.

desired to say a few words in justification of the position he took up upon this question. Hon. Members had urged equality of treatment between England and Scotland on the one hand and Ireland on the other. It must, however, be borne in mind that there were some items of Imperial taxation in respect to which Ireland had an advantage over the other parts of the Kingdom. While equality of treatment in this matter might be urged with unanswerable force, it was only fair to recognize the fact that there were items which were paid by England and Scotland, but which were not paid by Ireland. Having said that, he hoped the Government would understand that the strong objection in principle and in practice that many Members of the House entertained to these grants in aid remained with them as forcibly as ever. He trusted the Government would adhere to the often-expressed determination to remove this system of subvention, which he considered was as vicious a system as could be imagined.

remarked, that the unanimity on this question had, at last, been broken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford—[Mr. ILLING-WORTH: No, no!]—but, after all, the hon. Gentleman dealt rather with the general principle than with the particular question under consideration. It might or might not have been wise in Parliament to have given these grants in aid; but that was not the question the Committee were discussing. Parliament, whether rightly or wrongly, had given these grants in aid, Ireland being debarred from any participation in them. He rather regretted the attitude which the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had taken up on this matter; but he did not despair even yet that the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) might be able to give them some satisfaction in this matter. The statement of the Prime Minister, which he had not the advantage of hearing, was very good so far as it went; but he thought it gave the Irish Members very little satisfaction indeed. According to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), the Prime Minister meant to say that when the large and general question of local government and local taxation came to be considered the case of this particular grant in aid would be considered also. The Prime Minister must be very sanguine indeed if he supposed that the Irish Representatives could gather any great amount of consolation from such a general promise as that. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and his hon. Friends were very desirous of seeing a thorough reform of local government in Ireland. They had been waiting for some such reform ever since the very beginning of this Parliament; and they would not be at all displeased if, when the future arrangements of the Session were announced, a Bill for the reform of local government in Ireland took its place amongst the proposals of the Government. So far so good; but surely this was a very small part of the general question of local government. The question of local government in Ireland was a very large question indeed, and he was afraid that the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket) who had given such strong support to the proposal in respect to this small reform would not be found amongst the supporters of the larger reform. He was afraid that any such proposal propounded by Her Majesty's Government would receive a considerable amount of opposition from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway; it would, indeed, be by a stroke of singular good fortune if the Government succeeded in getting such a measure passed during the present Session of Parliament. To postpone this question until the larger one of local government was considered was practically to postpone this grant in aid to Ireland until the next Parliament. Looking at all the facts of the case, and at the moribund condition of the present Parliament, he feared that any hope of getting such a large reform as local government in Ireland passed that Session was very remote. He hoped the next speaker from the Treasury Bench—and he assumed there would be another speaker—would assure the Committee that this question would receive immediate consideration. That was the demand of the Irish Members. No one needed to be at great pains to see the monstrous injustice of giving large rates in aid to rich countries like England and Scotland, and leaving Ireland out in the cold. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had referred to the sum contributed by Ireland to the Imperial Revenue. He assured the hon. Gentleman that the comparison between the amount of taxation contributed by Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer and the amount contributed by other parts of the Kingdom was one on which Irish Members would enter with the greatest courage, for they were firmly convinced that any fair and impartial comparison of the contributions of the Three Kingdoms would show that Ireland contributed not less, but far more, than her due share of the general taxation of the Kingdom. He had no desire to enter into that subject now; but he might state that in the case of whiskey, for instance, Ireland was far more heavily and disproportionately taxed than England. The point now under consideration was that the two richer countries received grants in aid of local taxation, while the poorer country did not. That was a monstrous injustice, which ought not to be tolerated a moment longer than was necessary.

said, that the hon. Members who were present when the Prime Minister made his statement would admit it was extremely difficult for anyone upon the Treasury Bench to add to that statement. It would be conceded that the right hon. Gentleman said the very utmost which the situation justified him in saying. ["He did not say anything."] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman said something; and from the account which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had heard, both privately on the Treasury Bench and through the speeches of hon. Gentlemen and the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), he gathered that the Prime Minister said all that he thought safe under the circumstances. In saying any thing more he would have shown an indiscretion of which he was quite incapable. This was a question which had been started for the first time. [Mr. HEALY: No, no; nor the second time.] It was a question which had been started, not on its own merits, but by way of objection to two Estimates laid before the House for the first time. [Mr. HEALY: What other way have we?] He did not complain, by any means, of the way in which it had been started; but it having been started under such circumstances, the point was what amount of response it was possible to give to it. The response of the Prime Minister was to the effect that the question would be considered as one of the items of account when the whole matter of local taxation came before the attention of the Executive. It was impossible to go further than that. He (Mr. Trevelyan) certainly could go no further, except to say that all the arguments which had been used since the Prime Minister left the House should be brought before the right hon. Gentleman's notice. He would personally engage himself to urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter into immediate consideration. He objected to go deeper into the matter, because, if he did, he should at once embark upon controversies that were not unfamiliar to hon. Members of the House, both with regard to the incidence of taxation in Ireland, as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, and with regard to contributions, direct in the shape of grants and indirect in the shape of advantageous loans, which Ireland received, but which other parts of the Kingdom did not receive. Let him take the single instance of loans to Irish farmers. The argument the hon. Member had used on the subject differed from those which reached the ear of the Prime Minister, and should be brought before his right hon. Friend, who would be urged to give the question a broad and comprehensive consideration of a nature which would enable him to make a statement on the subject at the very earliest opportunity. More than that it was impossible for any Member of the Government to say at that moment; and, as hon. Members were well aware, it was impossible for the Prime Minister to say more. Under those circumstances, he earnestly trusted that the Committee would allow the Vote to be taken, and enable them to get on with those which, directly or indirectly, concerned Ireland.

said, that hon. Members had extended the scope of the debate by introducing a sort of comparison between the local taxation of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, it was not a question of the comparative local taxation between the two countries, but a question between the State and the locality. It was a question between the public, as an entire body, and a smaller body of the people on whom the taxation really fell; and the reason why the question arose at all was that the public, as a body, had a user of the roads which was not confined to those who dwelt in the locality. It seemed perfectly fair to him that the State should recognize that fact, and should make a contribution out of the Imperial funds in aid of the local rates. It was, therefore, not a question between England and Ireland, but one between the State and, the locality; and that being so, there was no reason why the State should do one thing in England and another thing in Ireland, or why it should do more in Cornwall or Yorkshire than in any of the Irish counties. It was unjust to deprive a certain number of localities, because they happened to be situated in Ireland, of the right to relief in regard to local taxation, which in Ireland pressed so severely on the occupiers of land. The Committee had been much impressed by the magnificence of the language of the Prime Minister; but, after all, it did not amount to very much. They were all fond of putting forward some grand scheme which would embrace all the areas of local taxation with all their complexity—some grand telescopic plan blinding in its results when seen through a kaleidoscope, but when calmly contemplated through an ordinary medium discovered to be nothing more than a gorgeous vision. He hoped they would all remain Members of the House until that prospect was realized, and he thought they would have a pretty long enjoyment of their seats. He only hoped that he might live to see the day when this grand scheme would come off. He was afraid, however, that it never would be realized either in this or the next Parliament. The earlier days of the coming Parliament would be very much occupied in considering Constitutional questions and the position of Parliament itself; and, after those questions were disposed of, it would be found that there were a great number of new Members, all of whom would have their own ideas, and there would be very little prospect of this grand scheme of local government taxation being carried out.

I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he is travelling from the Question before the Committee, which is really a Vote in aid of the maintenance of roads.

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; but he had been led astray by the almost impossibility of rigidly adhering to the text. As they all knew, a sermon very often differed from the text. The question was really one of granting relief to Ireland. They were all agreed that the relief asked for ought to be granted, and the only question was whether it should be immediate or prospective; but after the warning he had received he would not touch upon that question further. He ventured to think that this was the Parliament in which the relief should be granted. At any rate, something should be done quickly, for the purpose of remedying an injustice which the Government themselves admitted was only to be continued temporarily.

remarked that the Committee were placed in an extraordinary position. The Irish Members were asked to consent to the taxation of their own constituents for the benefit of England and Scotland. Every single Member who had spoken, as the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had pointed out, had spoken in one voice with regard to the sense of the House about an injustice which was recognized by the Conservative and Liberal Members alike. Even upon the Treasury Bench there was an admission of the injustice, and, that admission having been made, the Committee were quietly asked still to vote the money without any further discussion, so that they might get on, as the Chancellor of the Duchy suggested, with the other Votes. The right hon. Gentleman had not the advantage, as he had himself admitted, of hearing the remarks of the Prime Minister; and he was also under the disadvantage of not having heard the two previous discussions of the question before the Committee of Supply last year and the year before. The very same arguments and the same objections urged that night had on both of those occasions been brought under the notice of the Committee of Supply, and then, as now, the answer was that this was only to be a temporary charge, and that as soon as the general question of local expenditure and local government could be dealt with, as it would be in the near future, the difficulty would be removed. That was exactly what had been repeated by the Prime Minister that night. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy said—"Oh, yes; the Prime Minister did say something. He said a great deal; but he did not go beyond a certain point, and he exercised a wise discretion in the matter." Now, it seemed to him (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Chancellor of the Duchy had exercised a wise discretion also; because, although towards the end of his remarks he said that he would urge upon the Prime Minister that the question should receive immediate consideration, he gave the Committee clearly to understand what his own general bias in the matter was—namely, that Ireland had counter-advantages to be thankful for, and he pointed out that those advantages consisted in the advances made to the owners of property for improvements. It was no satisfaction to the taxpayers of Ireland, in respect of the distribution of the present Vote, to know that other persons could, if they paid interest for them, obtain advances from the Treasury. The present question was not one of loan, but of granting and voting money from the Imperial Exchequer; and the retort he would make upon the question of loans was that any advantage the Irish tenants were able to derive in respect of them was a great deal more than counterbalanced by the manner in which other grants were distributed. In this case England and Scotland got all the money, and Ireland got nothing at all. In the same way, the Army and Navy Votes were distributed almost exclusively for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country, and the Irish taxpayers, who contributed an equal proportion, got merely a nominal share of them. Every Member on both sides of the House who had taken part in the discussion had expressed an opinion against the inequality of the present system. The Prime Minister, although, no doubt, an important Member of the Cabinet, could not be the only man who was authorized to speak on behalf of the Government. Surely, any other Cabinet Minister ought to be able to express his opinion upon a matter of this kind frankly and boldly, and to say whether he would be prepared to give the Irish Members his substantial advocacy when the question came to be discussed, and whether he would, between this and the Report of Supply, ascertain if the Cabinet were not able to take some further step. The Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) had frankly admitted at that Table that he entertained a strong opinion as to the unfairness of the present system, and, as far as he could gather, that was also the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). He asked, then, that the Government should lot the Committee clearly see what their view was, and it ought not to be too much for a Cabinet Minister to say what he was prepared to do personally—even if not in a position to speak for the Cabinet—when any proposal upon the subject was brought forward. He could not understand why, long ago, the Prime Minister had not been asked to reconsider his utterances. A mere reference to the possible discussion in the next Parliament of the whole question of local taxation and expenditure was simply to laugh at the Committee, and treat them like a parcel of children. In the meantime, the Irish taxpayers were being unduly burdened for the benefit of the rich taxpayers in England and Scotland. The simple statement of a grievance should be enough to secure that the Government would either withdraw the Vote or promise to bring forward some measure to provide equal treatment for the Irish taxpayers to that which was meted out to the taxpayers of England and Scotland. The attitude of the Government, however good their intentions might be, was such that he found he had no other alternative than to divide the Committee against the Vote.

said, that, if he remembered rightly, there had been one Vote in the present Parliament, and others as long ago as 1873, in favour of assistance to local taxation in England. The Vote now before the Committee carried out that principle, and there was no reason to think that the new Parliament would alter the principle of taxation which had been affirmed by two Parliaments. For that reason he thought the Irish Members ought to still press for an extension of the principle of subvention. It was all very well in theory to say that it would be brought forward at some future time; but, unfortunately, although the consideration of this important question had now been promised for a very long time, the introduction of a Bill for establishing local self-government seemed to be as far off as ever. In the absence of any tangible scheme of that kind, what the Irish Members wanted was a temporary measure which would place the Irish people on the same level as those in England and Scotland in regard to this particular question. He did not see upon what grounds the Government could refuse such a fair demand. This grant to Ireland, if it were now made, would only continue in existence until the time shadowed forth by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), and supported by hon. Members behind him—namely, the time when this assistance to local taxation would be cleared away for ever. But, until that time came, it was only fair and reasonable that Ireland should get her fair share of these Votes. As had been pointed out, in the course of the debate, there were no doubt that several taxes, such as the House Tax and the Carriage Tax, were not paid in Ireland. Now, in regard to the House Tax, if it were laid on in Ireland it would bring in a very small amount of money, because a large proportion of the population were so poorly housed, that no tax could be levied; and in regard to the Carriage Tax, it was levied on a particular class of the people who were well enough off to keep their own carriages, and therefore a large portion of the population either in England or Ireland was not affected. It was only those people who lived in a luxurious way, who were able to drive their own carriages, who paid the Tax, and the Committee had already been told that the collection of the Tax cost seven-eighths of the entire amount raised. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had pointed out, as a counterbalancing advantage, that loans were made in Ireland; but he (Mr. Biggar) presumed they were not made unless good security was given for the money advanced. It was not a grant, but a loan, on the condition that the money was repaid to Parliament or the Government; and, on the whole, he thought Parliament had no cause to complain of those loans. The whole case resolved itself into this—whether they ought to be called upon to wait until some time in the future—perhaps the remote future—before they were placed on this footing of equality with the other parts of the Three Kingdoms. He thought the arguments of the Government were no real defence at all. A complete case, showing the inequality of the treatment of Ireland in comparison with that of England and Scotland had been made out; and so far as the loans to the Irish tenants were con- cerned, it must be remembered that they only benefited a very small number of persons, and not the majority of the whole people. In the county of Down, according to a local paper, there had only been two loans granted in the whole of the county, and it was very rarely indeed that any demand was made upon the Treasury. That argument was, therefore, of the weakest nature, and one which it was hardly worth while for the Chancellor of the Duchy to use. Seeing that the mind and sense of the Committee had been clearly manifested in favour of the contention of the Irish Members, he trusted that the Government would give way.

said, the justice of the case of the Irish Members was not denied in any part of the House. It was obvious that it could not be called in question. No Party in that House denied their claim, and there was nothing in the state of Public Business, or in the prospects of the Session, to relieve the Government from the duty of providing relief. The Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) had been good enough to promise his personal influence with the Prime Minister; but even that promise did not make the case of Ireland more hopeful, because in making it the right hon. Gentleman had let in some rays of light as to the state of his own mind by hinting that, if it were necessary to go further, something to the disadvantage of Ireland, in reference to this claim, might easily be established. Now, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman either at the present time, or any other, to come to an issue upon that point, and he (Mr. Sexton) would be fully prepared to go into all relative injuries sustained, assistance given, and advantages enjoyed by the Three Kingdoms. The right hon. Gentleman said that loans were given upon beneficial terms to the Irish tenants; but fortunately for themselves the English tenants required no loans. They were generally possessed of some capital, and in that respect they differed from the Irish tenants who were possessed of no capital at all. The English farmers had money enough to enable them to cultivate the land themselves; but in Ireland it was found necessary to assist the tenants on terms which saved the Treasury from loss, and even left a profit. How, then, could the Government talk about their philanthrophy in a case of that kind when they were actually making a profit out of the money granted? Then, again, out of the large number of tenants in Ireland who had applied for loans, but very few indeed had received them. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, in putting forward a plea of that kind, had somewhat lost his grasp of the details of Irish questions, or, if he had not, the observations he had made must be attributed to his ignorance. The only loans which had been granted on advantageous terms were those which had been granted to the landlords. Something like £150,000 had been lent to the tenants at a good rate of interest; but more than £1,000,000 had been lent to the landlords at 1 per cent, and there was not an impecunious landlord who had not taken advantage of that circumstance. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that the idea of the Government was to abolish this Vote altogether. If that was the latent intention of the Government, there was certainly no evidence of it on the surface. How could it be said that it was intended to abolish the Vote, in face of the fact that the amount of the grant itself was increasing year by year? It might have been thought that the Government would desire to emphasize the fact of the withdrawal of the Vote by gradually reducing it year by year. Last year Scotland got £25,000, and this year it was proposed to give her £35,000, while to England, which received £100,000 last year, it was now proposed to grant £215,000. If that was to be taken as an exhibition of the tendency to abolish these grants, it was the most retrograde and crab-like way of proceeding towards an end which could be conceived.

expressed a hope that the Government would meet the case which had been put before them frankly, and that they would, that Session, redress the inequality. Scotland and England, during the last three years, had received in aid of local taxation a sum of £700,000, while Ireland had received nothing. There was no reason whatever why Ireland should be treated in a different way from England and Scotland. All he had to say was, that if the question was allowed to stand over for the Reformed Parliament, Ireland would never receive a single 1d. of the money, because, no doubt, the tendency of future legislation would be to abolish these subventions. He therefore asked the Government why they refused that year to redress the inequality? He would suggest that the Vote should be postponed until a later hour in the evening, in order to give time for the Members of the Government on the Front Bench to announce something more reassuring in regard to their policy.

said, he hoped the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) would be accepted by the Government. He was sure that its acceptance would save time rather than otherwise. It was quite plain that if the debate closed without having the views of the Prime Minister upon the subject, it would be necessary to raise the question again upon the Report stage of the Estimates when, in all probability, the discussion would occupy a longer time than if it were settled to-night. So long-as Scotland was so strongly represented in the Cabinet by an hon. Gentleman who possessed the sympathy of the great majority of his fellow-countrymen, the House would be afraid to resist any claim that the Scotch Members put forward. The Irish popular Party had no such Representative, and the Government, therefore, treated them in an entirely different manner. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) could not have been present during the early part of the discussion, or he would have heard the arguments the Irish Members urged in support of their claim. No doubt the Income Tax was much less in Ireland than in England and Scotland; but it was right to remember that the manufacturing industries in that country were not in a flourishing condition, and that while there were large coal and iron mines in England and Scotland, in Ireland the people were entirely dependent upon agricultural pursuits. The late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) alleged that it was no injustice to Ireland to place this tax upon the farmers of that country, because the Government were in the habit of granting loans to them; but the profit made in consequence of those loans went into the pocket of the landlords, and did not benefit the tenant at all. Even under the Land Act the Commissioners had confiscated all the improvements effected through those loans; and the result was that the tenants were actually in a worse state than if no loans had been granted to them. He was rather inclined to think that the Irish farmers would have been better off if not 1s. in the shape of a loan had been given to them for the last 10 or 20 years. He was further of opinion that, owing to the way in which the Land Commissioners had proceeded, it would be impossible to settle the Land Question until the people of the country took a determined stand. ["Question!"] He might be out of Order in raising that question, but he would not have referred to it if it had not been for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy; and he would simply say that he saw no excuse for the course taken by the Government in refusing, that Session, to grant a Supplementary Estimate in aid of local taxation in Ireland. He could not believe that such a proposition would meet with any opposition from any section of the House. They were often told by the Government that they could not ask for Supplementary Estimates because certain Gentlemen strongly objected to them; and yet they never hestitated about bringing in Bill after Bill, and carrying Money Votes, to which Irish Members were strongly opposed. The Government were now asked for an Estimate in regard to which the Committee were all united; and although it would only occupy a very short time to dispose of, the Government objected. They put the Irish Members off by saying that the new Parliament would be able to make provision in some general measure for all that the people of Ireland demanded. But it I might happen that the Liberal Party would not be in Office in the new Parliament, and that they might have changed sides with the Opposition; and the consequence might be that the next Parliament would be allowed to go by, just as this had gone by, without remedying the injustice complained of. So long as he could remember he had hoard of promises made by successive English Governments to introduce a large measure of local government reform, and yet they seemed to be as far off as they were 10 or 15 years ago. He did not think the Government were really serious in offering this. He thought their real motive in not acceding to the views of the Irish Members was that they were not inclined to do justice to Ireland. Of course, they did not avow that intention openly; but it was perfectly obvious, to those who had watched their proceedings night after night, that they had no intention of doing justice. No doubt, they had passed certain Acts for the benefit of that country; but they had not passed them as Acts of justice to Ireland, but simply because hon. Members on those Benches made it impossible for them to refuse. In the next Parliament the Irish Members would probably have an opportunity of getting their views still better known; but that was no reason why the Government should rob Ireland of £40,000 in the meantime, and compel the poor taxpayers of the country to maintain their own roads unaided by the State, while they contributed towards the maintenance of those in England and Scotland. He saw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) was now in his place, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee his opinion and that he would endeavour to induce the Prime Minister to bring in such a Bill as would meet the demands of Irish Members. He was certain there would be no desire or disposition, in any part of the House, to obstruct such a measure. The Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) had told the Committee that he would place the views of the Irish Members before the Prime Minister; but the right hon. Gentleman had carefully abstained from stating what his own opinion on the subject was. He was inclined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman had given no opinion, because he was rather against the claim of Ireland to receive a sum out of the Imperial Exchequer in aid of local taxation. It was unfortunate that the people of Ireland, who were paying in some cases rates and taxes to the amount of 10s. in the pound, should be obliged to contribute £40,000 for the maintenance of highways in England and Scotland. The proposal was made two years ago that Scotland should receive a portion of the grant, and that proposal was accepted by the Government, and there was no reason why Ireland should not be included. The Government acknowledged that they were right in asking for relief, and only said that the question would be dealt with in the new Parliament amongst the first measures to be taken into consideration, or else there would be a total abolition of grants to England and Scotland. That, however, was no reason why, between this time and the new Parliament, the present injustice, in the case of Ireland should be continued. If the Government acknowledged that the Irish Members were right now, surely they ought to give them back the amount they had contributed towards the maintenance of highways in England and Scotland. It would be a very easy matter to give them what they asked. The Government did not hesitate to spend £100,000 in additional police in Ireland, and they would not hesitate to spend millions to-morrow if they were wanted in order to uphold the power of the landlords in Ireland, or to give annoyance to the Irish people. He did not see, therefore, while the fairness of their demand was acknowledged by everybody who had spoken in the debate except by the Chancellor of the Duchy, why even at that hour they should not adjourn the debate until they could have the views of the Prime Minister on the subject, or a promise that a Supplementary Estimate would be introduced.

concurred with the observations which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson); and he trusted that the Government would not consider it worth their while to persevere in the attitude they had taken up, but that they would find it possible, by bringing in a short Supplementary Estimate, to redress the injustice proposed to be done to Ireland in the matter. It was conceded, on all hands, that the days of this grant were numbered, and that they would hear very little more about it. Under those circumstances, was it worth while to continue what was practically a grievance and a cause of complaint in Ireland—namely, that a grant of such a considerable amount should be paid to England and Scotland, and that nothing should be given to Ireland for the same purpose? As far as he understood, it was not proposed to ask the Government to refund what would be a considerable sum of money if totalled up; but it would be a satisfactory settlement of the question to Ireland if the amount asked for that year were made to include a grant in equal proportion to Ireland. He had said that he presumed the days of grants in aid of those rates were numbered, and that the Government were looking forward to an early day for the introduction of a new system of local rating under local supervision and management in Ireland such as partially existed already in this country under much less expensive arrangements than those which were adopted in the case of Ireland. He had hoped that the time for the consideration of that subject would have arrived long before this; and last year, with the assistance of the Foreign Office, he had been able to procure some exceedingly valuable information from a country with which they were now, unfortunately, not upon the most pleasant terms. In the Returns which had been laid upon the Table the whole of this subject was minutely gone into, and details were fully supplied by the Embassy at St. Petersburg in reference to the Russian system of local administration. In those Returns the Committee would find much to assist them in the consideration of the subject. He trusted that in the very small shape in which the matter now stood the Treasury Bench would be able to see their way to do something to carry out the views which had been so generally expressed by the Committee.

said, that to this most reasonable proposal of his hon. Friend's the Government had opposed an objection of a very unreasonable kind. That proposal had been supported by a number of hon. Gentlemen—by the two right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket and Mr. Gibson), who, as a rule, dissented from proposals made on those Benches; by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons). Again, not only was it supported by Irish Members of all shades of political opinion, but it had also received the support of Scotch Members. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had, he believed, spoken more than once upon the subject. He was bound to say that the manner in which Her Majesty's Government had received the almost unanimous opinion of the Committee on that occasion was most disappointing. They had not held out the least hope that they would remedy the grievance complained of; they merely asked Members to postpone the question for two or three years in view of the introduction of legislation that would be introduced to deal with the entire question. A more unsatisfactory proposition could not have been made to hon. Members who raised this question. Everyone knew the difficulty of forecasting political matters; and from the manner in which legislation of the kind proceeded as a rule, they might take it for granted that nothing would be done in the matter for several years; in other words, it was not competent for this Parliament to speak the mind of a future Parliament; and therefore, if the Government adhered to their position in reference to this question, it was obvious that the grievance would continue. He did not think there could be a greater example of unfairness than the way in which Ireland was treated in respect of those subventions. Here was a case in which England and Scotland received from Imperial sources a large grant in aid of the maintenance of roads. Both England and Scotland were rich countries; but Ireland, the poorest of the Three Kingdoms, received nothing at all. In fact, the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had put the case in a nutshell when he said that on this question not only ought they to legislate for the future, but make some restitution for the past. It was clear that for many years England and Scotland had been receiving considerable sums from the public purse, while Ireland had received nothing. The proposition of legislation on the subject was entirely vague; and even the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, with all his knowledge of Parliamentary life, was not in a position to promise that this Government or its successor would be able to deal with the matter. His hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), certainly a competent judge of the subject, was of opinion that considerable time would elapse before Parliament would be in a position to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had said he would convey to the Prime Minister the views which had been expressed in the Committee in his absence; and in saying that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had led them to believe that his own opinion was certainly not favourable to the view taken by hon. Members on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had in the course of his remarks spoken of the great advantages which farmers had in Ireland in respect of Government loans; he said that money was advanced to tenant farmers for the improvement of their holdings, which was not the case in England and Scotland, and that they in Ireland had exceptional advantages. It was certainly peculiar that those advantages, if they existed, should not be availed of; but there were some reasons which, perhaps, accounted for that, and amongst them he would point to the very cumbersome and unsatisfactory manner in which the business was worked. On that point he had some personal feeling, because he had lately induced two farmers to apply for loans for the improvement of their holdings. One farmer applied for a loan of £600 or £700.