I wish to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take some steps to discourage harsh and cruel evictions on the part of the Irish landlords during the coming winter, and I should like to read to the Committee an opinion which has been expressed in regard to the cruelty of evictions of this kind by an old and respected Member of this House—Sir Eardley Wilmot, He says—

"As an old and staunch Conservative, as a cordial supporter of Lord Salisbury's Administration, as an earnest well-wisher to its success, and last, but not least, in the cause of peace and prosperity in Ireland, I hope that the Government will see its way to accept, subject to modifications, the 3rd clause of Mr. Parnell's Bill, dealing with evictions. Among rational and calmly judging men in Ireland there is but one opinion—namely, that evictions should be temporarily suspended, subject, of course, to investigation by the local Court as to the capability of the tenant; and because the proposal emanates from a Home Ruler whose political doctrines we abhor, if it is a good proposal, in God's name, why should we reject it?"

I trust that such an appeal from an esteemed Member of the Conservative Party will have some effect in inducing the Government to discourage evictions in Ireland during the coming winter. I will not be so unreasonable as to suggest that, in cases where the tenants are able to pay the rent, the Government should refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown, in order to see that the law is carried out; but we know how advantage can be taken from the employment of the forces of the Crown for the extermination of Irish tenants, and where there is no rent to be derived from evicting poor people, I think it is the duty of any Government having the slightest consideration for the lives and well-being of the population, not to be so cruel or so harsh as to employ the Constabulary in driving these unfortunate people from their humble, though happy, homes. I would further urge upon the Government the danger of putting too severe a strain upon the Royal Irish Constabulary. I would ask them to consider whether the time may not come when, rising to the level of the occasion, the Royal Irish Constabulary will refuse to aid grinding and oppressive landlords in exterminating the Irish peasantry, who are their own kith and kin? I warn the Government that a time may come when the Constabulary will refuse to be instruments in the hands of the Executive for carrying out the cruel and oppressive procedure of the exterminating landlords of inflicting ruin upon the people, and of bringing about destitution and possibly murder. We have every reason to expect that thousands of the Irish people will be driven from their homes during the coming winter. Both the Government in this House and the Prime Minister in "another place" have declared that it is their intention to see the law carried out in Ireland without regard to the cruelty or oppressiveness of evictions, and if they propose to lend the assistance of the Constabulary Force to carry out this nefarious work, it is to be feared that the condition of social order in Ireland will not be in a very healthy condition in the coming winter. I would also call the attention of the Government to the uselessness and absurdity of spending money on the protection of men who seek the protection of the Government without really requiring it. In my own neighbourhood there is a man who obtained police protection some time ago, and the duties performed were to convey this gentleman from one public-house to another. At length they became so tired of that duty that one of the constables, acting with the escort, actually arrested the man, and brought him before the stipendiary magistrate for drunkenness. It was not until then that the police escort was dispensed with. I know of another man in my neighbourhood who has police protection, but who, nevertheless, frequently goes round transacting his ordinary business without requiring the assistance of the police at all. This very person is, in point of fact, receiving pay for conveying his own police escort about with him on cars. In another case—that of a man who was escorted by two policemen—Inspector Maguire, the late County Inspector for the Division of West Cork, came to the conclusion that the man was actually making a profit out of the police escort, by accommodating the men with seats on his own car, and charging them for it. The Inspector, therefore, made an arrangement that the police should not, in future, be supplied with seats on the car that the man was himself accustomed to travel by. Accordingly, the police escort hired a car from a posting establishment; but the protected man purchased a horse for two or three pounds, and when the Inspector left the district, he hired out the horse and rode in front of the police escort on the car. The car, I believe, is still driven by his own driver. There are numerous other cases of this kind which might be mentioned, and I would ask the Chief Secretary to inquire into them, and also that he will take steps to prevent evictions from being pushed to extremity in the coming winter. Where it is evident that a man is unable to pay his rent through no fault of his own, and the landlord proposes to deal harshly and cruelly with him, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will refuse the assistance of the Royal Irish Constabulary in carrying out the eviction.

I wish to call attention to the case of Mr. Tilly, who, as Sub-Inspector of County Cavan and. King's County, has for the past six years been in reality performing the duties of County Inspector without even the rank or pay of County Inspector. Attention has, on several occasions, been called to this case, and the reason which has been alleged for the non-promotion of Mr. Tilly is, that he has an impediment in his speech, and is, therefore, incapable of performing the work of a County Inspector. Now, as Sub-Inspector, he is required to attend cases at Petty Sessions, and to give evidence before the magistrates; whereas, as County Inspector, he would not have as much work to do, and it would be of a character which would not require so much viva voce exertion on his part. I believe that Mr. Tilly has received medical certificates that he is perfectly fit to discharge the duties of County Inspector, and under these circumstances I think there is no reason why he should not be promoted. He has proved himself to be a highly efficient officer. I wish also to call attention to the case of Mr. Molloy, who was arrested in November last. He was arrested at the instance of the Board of Works, because he had thrown down a wall which had been built by the Board of Works on his own property. He was taken to the police barracks, and, although bail was offered for him by several most influential inhabitants, bail was refused, and when the case was brought before the magistrates next day, it was at once dismissed.

Order, order! The case now being referred to by the hon. Baronet does not appear to be connected with the Constabulary.

The Constabulary had charge of the case.

Even if that be so, it would apply to the Vote for the Metropolitan Force.

Then I will not press it further.

I wish to support the views which have been expressed by the hon. Baronet opposite in regard to Sub-Inspector Tilly. As Chairman of the Quarter Sessions and Foreman of the Grand Jury in the county of Cavan, I have been able by personal knowledge to acquire great esteem for Mr. Tilly, and I desire to bear testimony to the admirable way in which he discharges his duties. I believe that it is a case of great hardship to Mr. Tilly that he should have been passed over for promotion. I know it is the universal feeling among the magistrates in the county that Mr. Tilly is one of the most efficient officers they have ever had in the county, and I believe the only objection to his promotion has been that he suffers from a slight stammer. Gentlemen who have been present when Mr. Tilly has been discharging his duty and giving evidence in the trial of prisoners, have borne testimony to the fact that the disability which prevents his promotion did not interfere with the performance of his duties. I know it is a matter of surprise and regret to the magistrates of County Cavan that this gentlemen's services should have been so long overlooked. I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of the magistrates of the county—their unanimous opinion—when I say they believe that no officer in the county has ever been more deserving of promotion or of recognition of his services, than Mr. Tilly. I, therefore, sin- cerely hope that Her Majesty's Government and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will give him that promotion which his admirable services for so many years have so completely deserved.

I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) has taken up this subject. I was not aware that he proposed to address himself to it. It will be in the recollection of some Members of the Committee that on two occasions in the last Parliament I addressed Questions to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland on this subject, but I did not receive what I considered to be a very favourable reply. A few days ago I addressed a similar Question to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and I received a somewhat similar answer, whereupon I gave Notice that I should raise the question on the Estimates. I am sorry I was not in my place when the question was raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Esmonde); but I have no doubt that the hon. Baronet, as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, have presented the case to the Committee in a clear and proper manner. I have only to add my views to theirs, and to express a sincere hope that the Government will be able to see their way to give promotion to this gentleman for his long and faithful services. The pretext for depriving Mr. Tilly of promotion—namely, that he has a defect in his speech—is one that will not hold water for a moment. How any defective speech can affect a County Inspector further than it affects a Divisional Inspector, I fail to see. During Mr. Tilly's long term of service—now close upon 25 years—he has for six years discharged the duties of County Inspector, and there was no complaint of him during that time on account of any impediment in his speech. He was examined frequently as a witness before the Quarter Sessions, before the Judges of Assize, and before the magistrates sitting in Petty Sessions. No complaint whatever was made, and I think that it is preposterous to urge that a defect which does not attach to a Divisional Inspector is sufficiently serious to prevent the same man from being promoted to the position of County Inspector.

I desire to add my voice to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Antrim (Colonel Saunderson) and the hon. Members opposite, in favour of District Inspector Tilly. I am not personally acquainted with that gentleman; but I am informed that previously to being stationed in Cavan he was stationed in the county of Antrim, and I have received the strongest assurances from all classes of people in Lisburn as to the admirable manner in which he performed his duties. I am not aware that any allegation was made against him while he was employed in that county, nor was it considered that the defect which has been mentioned incapacitated him from performing his duty as District Inspector in an efficient manner. I am, therefore, of opinion that if he were promoted to the position of County Inspector, he is admirably qualified to perform the duties of the office.

In connection with this Vote I wish to bring under the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary a matter of some importance in connection with the inquiry about to be held in Belfast, as to the conduct of the Constabulary in the recent riots. It is generally reported that some of the Constabulary will be summoned to give evidence, and that they are afraid that if they state fully and clearly all that happened in the course of the riots they may probably suffer personal injury as the result of their testimony. Now, we wish to have it distinctly understood that any member of that Force who is called upon to give evidence will be protected against anything which may happen to him afterwards. I am sure now that the attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Inspector General of Constabulary has been drawn to the matter, that adequate protection will be afforded. I will only add that the Force themselves are extremely anxious that in a case of this kind they should be protected from suffering injury in consequence of the statements they may feel it their duty to make.

I wish to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the constant increase which has been going on from year to year in this Vote. There are two items in the Vote this year which show a very large increase. The first is the increase in the pay and pensions of the Constabulary. The increase in pensions alone amounts to £10,000. The Vote last year was £40,000 in excess of the Vote for the previous year; but that may be reasonably accounted for by the passing of a Bill when Mr. Trevelyan was Chief Secretary to increase the pay and pensions of the Force. I should have thought, however, that it was almost impossible for that Bill to have produced so large an increase in the pensions as £10,000. This is a matter upon which I think the Committee ought to receive an explanation. Then, again, I notice in Sub-head R, at page 317, that the Constabulary Transport Service last year cost only £1,500, but this year the sum put down is £5,000. That is a very large increase indeed, and I should like to have an explanation from the Chief Secretary as to the reason of the increase which has taken place in that item. There is another question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, to ask him to explain to the Committee the conditions under which the police are deputed to give personal special protection. The police are sent to escort persons in Ireland who make allegations that their lives are in danger, and I want to know whether, in any case, the persons who ask for this police protection pay any portion of the expense? There are many cases in which it is a public abuse to have the police following persons ostensibly for the purpose of protecting their lives when their lives are in no danger at all. Mention has already been made of a case in which a man rode on a horse in front of a car of his own, for which the two policemen told off to protect him had to pay. I have been informed that this man, as the owner of the car, gets 18s. a-day for car hire, in addition to which the two policemen placed at his disposal will throw, at the very least, a charge of £200 a-year upon the ratepayers of this country. I should like, therefore, to know whether there are any instances of persons so protected who do not really require protection, or, if they do ask for it, should be called upon to pay a portion of the cost? There is the further question as to the distribution of the Police Force throughout Ireland. There is scarcely a county in the South and West of Ireland which is not called on annually to pay a considerable sum for the cost of extra police. Some time ago I had an opportunity of raising that question in this House, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give the Committee some information as to the number of extra men stationed in the different counties, and as to the cost thrown on the local rates of such counties for the maintenance of the men? I should also like to know what ground there is for drafting a large extra force of constables into counties where there has been no outbreak of crime whatever, and practically no outrages? For instance, the county of Waterford has, in recent times, been very badly treated in this respect. The ratepayers of Waterford have been taxed to a very considerable amount for extra police, and yet there has been no such thing as an outbreak of crime, and peace could be preserved by one or two constables stationed in each village as easily as in England. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some information upon the points which I have placed before him.

I am glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. M. J. Kenny) has raised the question of the employment, in various counties in Ireland, of an extra police force, the cost of which is thrown partly upon the Consolidated Fund and partly upon the county. My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that successive Governments have been in the habit of sending out in Ireland large detachments of extra police under the 12th or 13th section of an Act of William IV., which authorizes the cost to be levied on the rates and Consolidated Fund. So far as I am able to make out at the present time there is no justification whatever for the maintenance of this extra police force in any part of Ireland. As to the county of Mayo, although I have been unable to see the last Return of the state of crime, I gather from the charges of the Judges at the Assizes, and the speeches which have been delivered by the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, that the county has been in a most favourable condition for a long time past. And here let me complain of the very inadequate means placed at the disposal of Members for obtaining satisfactory information with reference to the position of the Police Force in Ireland. I have searched the Library from end to end for a Return which ought to have been supplied to the House, stating what has taken place under the Constabulary Redistribution Act of August, 1885. It will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentlemen the Chief Secretary that in consequence of a very long and important debate which took place in this House on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Government of the day were compelled to bring in a Bill authorizing the Lord Lieutenant to redistribute the Police Force in Ireland, and to reorganize the position of the force in each county. I have endeavoured to find out what alterations have been made in the numbers of the Constabulary stationed in various districts in Ireland; but I have been unable to obtain any information on the subject, owing, I believe, to the fact that the Police Authorities in Ireland steadily set their faces against making any Return of their doings to the House of Commons. I hope that when this question, is next brought before the House we may have some better data to go upon. We ought to know exactly where we stand, and not be compelled to bother the right hon. Gentleman night after night for information as to the number of policemen in different parts of the country. In North Mayo there is an extra force of police, under the 12th or 13th section of the Act of William IV., at a cost of £1,530.

The section is the 12th.

And, roughly speaking, £1,500 is the sum which the ratepayers of the county are mulcted for the enjoyment of this luxury. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me that the extra police are sent down under the 12th section of the Act of William IV. That section empowers the magistrates, sitting in Petty Sessions, to petition the Lord Lieutenant to send down an extra force to any particular division of the county, and there is no authority in the Act enabling them to present also a petition for the withdrawal of such force. How long this extra police force may have been stationed in the county of Mayo, or elsewhere, I cannot tell. We endeavoured to extract information from Mr. Trevelyan, two years ago, but without success; and no Chief Secretary seems to be able to inform us how long these men have been quartered upon this part of Ireland under Section 12 of the Act of William IV. The inference is that for 12, 15, or 20 years this county has been burdened with a heavy expense, wholly uncalled for, and without having the power to petition for a removal of the grievance. I would ask the Chief Secretary to find out who the magistrates were who petitioned the Government to send down this extra force, and then to ascertain if they are still of the same opinion as they were when they presented the Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. There might have been some necessity for extreme precautions under the Crimes Act; but this force was not sent down under the Crimes Act, and be it remembered that the Crimes Act authorized the Lord Lieutenant to send down any number of men, of his own free will, to any disturbed district, and to charge the cost to the locality. Therefore, there can be no excuse for retaining this extra force in the county of Mayo, or, indeed, from anything I can learn, in any other part of Ireland. I have carefully looked into the Police Returns of crime for the present year as far as they go, and I do not think there is any justification for the continued retention of this force. The ordinary force at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenants of counties ought to be quite sufficient to preserve order. I find that in Mayo there have been 100 men, under the direction of a County Inspector and Sub-Inspectors, sent out to enforce evictions. I think it is high time the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should take the practice of utilizing the Royal Irish Constabulary for the purpose of carrying out evictions into his serious consideration. A hundred men have been sent where five or six constables are quite enough to preserve order, and I fail to see why the taxpayers of the country should be annually robbed of a very large sum of money which might well be disposed of in another way. On the West Coast of Ireland the poverty and destitution of the people is notorious, and they are at present altogether unable to pay rent. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give these matters the attention they deserve. I would also point out to him that some of the evictions now taking place are being carried out in cases where the unfortunate tenants have actually been obliged to receive relief from the Guardians. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the case of the county of Mayo, to withdraw the extra police, and to refuse to lend the assistance of the ordinary police to the landlords in carrying out these cruel evictions, leaving them where it is apparent that the victim is unable to pay to carry them out as best they can. There is a widespread fear that in the coming winter the destitution of the people will be far more severe than it has ever been before, and that they will be obliged, in many cases, to enter the workhouse in order to prevent themselves and their families from being actually starved. Another matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the appointment of medical officer to the Constabulary at Castlebar. The usual practice, when a vacancy has arisen, has been for the police authorities to appoint the dispensary medical officer. In this case, the dispensary medical officer was Dr. Jordan. That gentleman applied for the appointment, but, being a Nationalist, he was passed over. There is no other reason, as far as I am able to make out, that the Government can have for refusing to make the appointment. I understand that the excuse made by the Police Authorities is that Dr. Jordan is a very young man, and has not had sufficient experience to undertake the responsible duty of looking after 20, 30, or 40 persons; whereas the Local Government Board consider him quite competent to take charge of the dispensary district of Castlebar. If he is qualified for that duty, surely he is a proper person to look after the health of this police establishment. This is a matter which has given rise to a good deal of irritation in Castlebar, and the general impression is that a Nationalist has not the least chance of being promoted or preferred. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will, in this case, adopt the example set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) in the last Parliament. The attention of the right hon. Member for Stirling was directed to a case which was exactly similar to the present, in the county of Cork, and the gentleman who was appointed over the head of another actually filled the office for some months. But as soon as representations were made to the Chief Secretary, he ordered the County Inspector to have the gentleman who then held the appointment dismissed, and appointed the medical officer of the dispensary. In Castlebar, the appointment to which I refer has only been made within the last few weeks, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will find it an easy matter to rectify the mistake which has been made, and to give the appointment to the man who has the best right to it. In conclusion, I will only say that I have found it most difficult and, in some instances, altogether impossible, to obtain reliable information as to the police arrangements. The payment of the extra police falls upon the county rate, and the magistrates who are the means of bringing them into the county care very little what sum the unfortunate local ratepayers and the county are called upon to pay. I sincerely hope that the matter will receive full consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, that he will direct the withdrawal of the extra police in the county of Mayo, and that he will secure the appointment of Dr. Jordan as medical officer to the Constabulary at Castlebar.

The county of Waterford has been remarkable, for many years, for its peaceful attitude. Both the Judges of Assize and the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have constantly congratulated the county on its satisfactory condition. Nevertheless, we are taxed very heavily for the maintenance of extra police; and what makes the position more intolerable is that until the last few months the county did not possess the actual number of police which was fixed for it by Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, at the same time, it was required to maintain an extra police force without any allowance being made for the fact that the regular police force in the county was less than it ought to have been. If they really had the interests of the people at heart, I maintain that the magistrates ought to bring pressure upon the Government to withdraw the extra police. But, as has been shown by my hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), the Grand Jury, as a class, do not pay the rates out of which this extra police force is maintained. They are paid out of the county rate, which is not levied on property, but upon the occupying tenants. I believe the magistrates would be very chary as to the steps they take for the introduction of an extra police force into an Irish county if the expense of maintaining it was levied upon them instead of the holdings of the tenants. In consequence of the mode in which the expense is met the landlords are quite indifferent to it, and are perfectly willing that we should be called upon to pay a large annual sum for the maintenance of these extra police. With regard to the Constabulary Force itself, as a rule we make no complaint of the men, as far as individuals go; but we complain strongly of the system under which they are governed. We maintain that it is a system which is calculated to degrade the men, and one under which any man who holds views which do not accord with those of the powers that be is immediately "Boycotted." We had an instance of that in the treatment which Sub-Inspector Murphy received at the hands of the authorities. At the Presentment Sessions for the County Waterford attention was called to the charge for the extra police, and a unanimous protest was made against it. But the Grand Jury have not taken up the same position, and the only way in which the ratepayers can rid themselves of this intolerable burden is to make a strike against the payment. I fully recognize that that would be an extreme step; but I think that such a peaceful community would be justified, at any rate, in taking some step in that direction. In speaking upon the Vote for the Local Government Board the other day I was told by you, Mr. Courtney, that any question in relation to the working of the Explosives Act would come more directly under the present Vote. At present the appointment of Inspectors under that Act is in the hands of the magistrates, who are accustomed to appoint civilians; but we are of opinion that, owing to the nature of the duties, they would be better discharged by members of the Constabulary. At present the appointments are made at the different Courts of Petty Sessions, and in due course a charge is presented to the local Boards of Guardians for payment of the Inspector's salary, and the Boards of Guardians have no alternative but to pay it. In fact, they must pay it, whether they like it or not. There is a strong feeling that the Constabulary would be a far better means of inquiring where these explosives are kept and how they are kept; and I maintain that the Executive Government of Ireland ought to make it the duty of the Constabulary to perform the work. I do not say that a heavy taxation is imposed upon the Boards of Guardians in connection with this matter; but where the Board of Guardians comprises six or seven petty sessional districts the tax amounts in some cases to £60 or £70 a-year. When I raised the question on the Vote for the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made no reply. I have now called his attention again to the matter, and I hope he will see the reasonableness of our complaint, and that he will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance. I am glad to say that the treatment which the Royal Irish Constabulary have received in the last few months in the North of Ireland has had some good effect upon them, and that they now see that the system under which they are governed is radically wrong. They have found out that the Orangemen in the North may break the law with impunity as far as the Constabulary are concerned; while, in the South, such conduct would not be tolerated for a moment. Some of the constables have told me, since they returned from Belfast, that if anything like the same disturbances as have happened in that city had occurred in Cork or Waterford, the police would not have been 20 minutes in quelling them; but that in Belfast they were made the tools of the Orange magistracy, and exposed to fire and insult that was downright degrading to them. I am sorry to say that the Head Constable, who lost his life in those deplorable riots, came from my own county; and his death has created a strong feeling among the local Constabulary, together with the treatment which the Constabulary themselves received at the hands of the Belfast Orange magistracy. I may also mention that, in connection with this matter, they draw a contrast between the treatment they received at the hands of the Coroner's jury at Belfast and that which they received at the hands of a Coroner's jury in Kilkenny some years ago, when a verdict of a Catholic jury against them was altogether set at nought by the authorities. We trust that we may receive some satis- factory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman as to the withdrawal of the extra police force, and that something will be done to get rid of the strong feeling of irritation which their continued maintenance in peaceful Irish counties produces.

I have no wish to detain the Committee for any length of time. On the contrary, I desire to assist the Government in obtaining the speedy passing of these Estimates; but it must not be forgotten that this is a Vote which affords more opportunities for the criticisms of Irish Members than any other. There is not a county in Ireland which has not got some scandalous record in regard to the action of the police. The existing system is most unsatisfactory; and it is the duty of the Irish Members to raise a constant protest against it. I entirely join my hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) in the appeal he has made to the Government to take into their serious consideration some remedy for the condition of affairs which has been shown to exist in that county. I maintain that there is no necessity whatever, in the first place, for the employment of this body of 22 police at all; and, further, I contend that the people of that county are quite unable to pay their quota of the expense of maintaining that force. The unfortunate inhabitants of that county are either actually starving, or nearly so. The Unions of the county are themselves almost bankrupt, and many of them have been scheduled under the Advances Act passed last Session. Moreover, the land of the county is going out of cultivation, and large bodies of the people are leaving it. Therefore, to impose an extra body of police upon this unfortunate county, where the people, in the first place, are almost starving, and, in the next place, quiet and peaceably disposed, seems to me to resemble very much the action of a former Czar of Russia, in sending a number of troops to garrison Warsaw when order reigned in that unfortunate city. I have gone over the records in the Library of the evictions which have taken place in Mayo for some time past, together with the number of agrarian outrages, and I find that the number of agrarian outrages does not justify the maintenance in that county of this force of extra police. I hold, with my hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy), that the ordinary police of that county would be quite able to cope with the condition of affairs which exists there at present. In 1883 there were 45 offences reported to the police in Mayo, a great portion of which consisted of the sending of threatening notices; but in 1884 that number of 45 dwindled down to 24; and the record of 1885 shows that the number was only 27. According to the latest Return, which was issued on the 31st of March, 1886, only nine offences have been reported to the police; and of these nine, six consisted of the sending of threatening letters. I maintain that, in this condition of affairs, it is not at all necessary to station in the county of Mayo an extra body of 22 constables, and to place on the people of that county, who are in a condition of suffering themselves, an unnecessary burden of £700 per annum. Doubtless, evictions in the county of Mayo, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are increasing very largely. I regret the fact myself, and I am quite sure that right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench will share my regret that evictions are so largely increasing in the county of Mayo. I find that while in the last quarter of last year ending the 31st of December, 1885, only 22 evictions took place in Mayo, and in the previous quarter, ending the 30th of December, they were only 20, unfortunately that record has been very much increased during the first quarter of this year. I find from the last Report which has been issued that instead of only 22 or 20 evictions having taken place there have been the appalling number of 129. I certainly protest against the maintenance of the extra police in the county for the simple purpose of enforcing evictions. As regards the state of crime in Mayo, the people are quiet, peaceable, and orderly, and there have been no instances of resistance to the Forces of the Crown, while the landlords have been engaged in carrying out these evictions. Therefore, I hold that the Government have no justification whatever for maintaining this extra body of police in the county. Under these circumstances, I join with my hon. Friend in his appeal to the Chief Secretary to see whether it is not possible to make arrangements for the immediate withdrawal of the extra police force at present stationed in the county of Mayo.

I feel it my duty to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the enormous police force stationed in Westmeath, and specially in the county town of Mullingar. In that town there are at present 29 men, although the population is only 4,700. I think it is a scandal that we should have 29 constables posted among a population of 4,700 persons. The statistics of crime show that Westmeath is one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland; and, therefore, it is an insult to the inhabitants to maintain a large force of police there. In Mullingar itself there are two police barracks, and there was an estimate submitted for the erection of a new one. No steps, however, have been taken, although the money was voted to erect the barracks, and at present the police force occupy two private houses, and there is an item for the rent of these hired offices in the present Estimate. Surely an item of that nature ought not to be continued, when Parliament has voted the money for the erection of a new barracks. I also desire to call attention to the system adopted of charging the expenses of the Medical Officer who attends the members of the police force upon the local rates. In most cases the Constabulary Medical Officer is also a dispensary officer; and I think he ought to be bound to attend the police for the same fee as that which he receives in his other public capacity. At any rate, as the members of the Constabulary are well paid, they ought to be in a position to pay for their own medical attendance in the same way as the general public.

I wish briefly to enter my protest against this Vote. I think that the sum of £1,397,153 is altogether exorbitant for the maintenance of a police force in a small country like Ireland. I agree with the objection of the hon. Members for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) and North Mayo (Mr. Crilly) and the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Tuite) in the representation they have made that those counties are afflicted with far too many police. But what applies to the cases of Mayo and Westmeath applies also to every county in Ireland; and of the 85 Irish Repre- sentatives who sit on these Benches there is not one who could not rise in his place and make the same declarations with regard to the county with which he is connected. We do not object to the employment of the police in the country in a moderate manner. No doubt, every country employs a police force—and an efficient police force is beneficial to all classes of the country. Therefore, I do not, by any means, wish it to be understood that, in protesting against this Vote, we are protesting against the existence of a police force. But what we are protesting against is the existence of an excessively exorbitant police force, particularly when it is not employed for the preservation of law and order, but in reality to curtail the privileges and power of the majority of the people in accordance with the will of a small class of people called landlords. There is no country on the whole face of the earth which is more free from crime than Ireland; and, that being so, I think it is extraordinary to find so large a police force equipped in a military manner. For be it remembered that our police are soldiers, and are not police at all. Year after year a large amount of money is expended in maintaining this force. The people of England and Scotland cannot realize to themselves what the Constabulary of Ireland is. It is not merely a Police Force, but an Army, drilled like Regular soldiers, equipped in every respect like soldiers, and accustomed to patrol the country armed with bayonets and loaded rifles. Therefore, it is not a Police Force we are protesting against, but we are protesting against an Army that is kept in the country for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of the landlord class. I should like, if it were possible, to see a Return showing the different kinds of duties performed by the Irish Constabulary. I should like to ascertain how much work they have done in Ireland that has been unconnected with the agrarian question. I should like to see how much crime they have detected and checked which was not entirely caused by the Land Question. I am satisfied that if a Return could be placed on the Table of this House, showing the different cases in which the Irish Constabulary have been employed, it would be found that out of every hundred instances in which police interference has been invoked 99 have had a direct connection with the Land Question in Ireland. Therefore, in protesting against this Vote, we protest not merely against the Constabulary itself, but also against the land system, which, in the opinion of the Government, renders such a force necessary in Ireland. Now, Sir, we do not at all adopt either the language or the action towards the Constabulary which the Orangemen in the North of Ireland have adopted. In the chief Orange quarters of Belfast, at the recent riots, when the Constabulary were engaged in quelling the disturbances they were assaulted, shot down, and attacked in every conceivable way in the exercise of their duty. We have no wish to pursue the same course. We have nothing to say against the force collectively, although, no doubt, it is composed, like any other force, of bad men as well as good men. I know there have been numerous cases where members of the Constabulary, from their over-eagerness for promotion, or from some other cause, have acted in a barbarous manner towards the people. In many places where the police have come into contact with the people of Ireland they have used violence that was altogether uncalled for; but, at the same time, I believe that there are a great many men in the Royal Irish Constabulary who are fair-minded men, and in protesting against the system I protest collectively against the force, and not individually against the members of it. I have spoken of a Return I should like to see laid on the Table of the House, showing what the Constabulary have done, and what this sum of more than £1,300,000 is paid for. I do not know whether it is practicable to lay such a Return upon the Table; but there is one thing which the Chief Secretary, when he rises to reply, may tell me. Under the letter F. I find a sum of £3,000 charged as extra for election disturbances, in addition to a sum of £29,000 for transport. Now, I want the right hon. Gentleman to say how much of the £29,000 is spent every year in Ireland in conveying large forces of police to and from the scenes where unfortunate tenants are being cast out on the road-side, because they cannot pay the rents demanded from them. Although the Government have carefully put down in the Estimates a sum of £3,000 for election disturbances, I do not find any item to show how much money it has cost the country in travelling expenses for the police in connection with evictions in Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give that information. It would go far to prove what I stated at the commencement of my remarks, that the Royal Irish Constabulary is nothing more nor less than an Army of Occupation in Ireland, and that its sole duty is to protect the landlords in their unjust proceedings against the people. I sincerely hope that the day is close at hand when it will be unnecessary to apply to a Committee of this House, or of any House, to ask for a Vote so large as £1,300,000 for the maintenance of an Army of soldiers in Ireland for the purpose of protecting the landlords. Let us have an adequate force of police by all means. We shall not protest against that; but we are prepared to acquiesce in such a demand. But let us not be asked, under the name of police, to vote such a large sum of money for au Army for the protection of the Irish landlords. I protest altogether against the Constabulary Institution in Ireland. I believe that the police have very little genuine work to do. What they do is in the interests of the landlords, and is detrimental to the good of the country; and for that reason I object to the Vote, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is the intention of the Government, during the coming winter, unreservedly to place the police in the hands of the landlords? The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) stated some time ago, in one of his speeches, that he had as good a right to get his rent as the butcher has to get the money due to him for beef; but would the Government place at the disposal of the butcher, or of any other person, an armed body of men to enforce the payment of the debt? What we ask is that the landlords shall not be given what is not given to any other debtor in the country—namely, an Army of men to prosecute his claim for an unjust debt; and we shall be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman if he will state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to allow the police to be placed at the disposal of the landlords during the coming winter. That is a most important point. The evictions which now take place in Ire- land are strongly deprecated by us; and I do not suppose that there is any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who is so lost to all the instincts of humanity as not, also, to feel regret at their frequency, and the mode in which they are carried out. What I wish them to understand is that the number of evictions in the coming winter will be largely regulated by the fact whether they give facilities for carrying out wanton evictions or not. If the landlords are made clearly to understand, before the winter comes on, that they will not be allowed to order the Constabulary and the soldiers about here, there, and everywhere—that they will not have the forces of the Crown unreservedly at their disposal, but that they will only be employed in extreme cases—if the Government make that clearly understood by the landlords, the Government may depend upon it that much will be done towards checking evictions. But if, on the other hand, you give the landlords in Ireland the idea that whenever and wherever they want to carry out an eviction they have only to scribble a line to the County Inspector in order to secure the services of a small array of men to assist them in driving the people out of their homes these cruel evictions will continue. If you allow the landlords to retain the idea that the forces of the Crown will still be unreservedly at their disposal you will simply encourage evictions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of common humanity, and on behalf of these extremely unfortunate people, for the peace not only of Ireland, but of this country also, to state in his reply that the landlords of Ireland must not expect to have complete power over the police for the purpose of carrying out evictions. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen most earnestly and most sincerely, because I know very well what has occurred in Ireland in the past. I know the distress which has occurred through placing the police at the disposal of the landlord in cases where the evictions were notoriously unjust; and it is because I desire to see all these things avoided in the coming winter that I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to say something now which will have the effect of moderating the action of the landlords, and showing them that they can no longer use the soldiers of the British Crown and the citizens of Ireland as instruments for working out their wicked will.

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies there is just one question I wish to put to him, and that is, whether he will take into consideration the propriety of fulfilling a promise given by his Predecessor, that a certain police hut in the county of Clare should be removed? The hut in question was erected there four or five years ago, and there are four policemen there to protect four acres of land—one policeman for each acre. What business the police can have in the place at all I fail to understand; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the continuance of the police in that hut is not calculated to get rid of the feeling of irritation which exists among the tenants against their landlord, Mr. O'Brien, a brother of Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, a prominent gentleman in Irish politics. All I ask of the right hon. Gentleman is that he should fulfil the pledge and promise made by his Predecessor in the last Tory Government to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny).

I would also press upon the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of withdrawing the extra police force now stationed in the Northern Division of Tipperary. As far back as 1874, when the right hon. Gentleman filled the same position he now occupies, evictions were carried out with great cruelty in that part of the county, and scenes of disorder were of frequent occurrence. Happily that state of things has long passed away, and an entirely different state of things now prevails. I may add that the Grand Jury have been pressed, although without avail, not once, but frequently, to bring under the notice of the Government the great abuse which prevails in North Tipperary by the retention of an extra police force which is entirely unnecessary. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to get rid of the grievance.

I wish to say a word in favour of a gentleman whose case has been recommended to the notice of the Government by hon. Members on both sides of the House—namely, District Inspector Tilly, who is now stationed in the county of Cavan. I have no personal acquaintance with him; but I know that, by some means or other, he has made himself extremely popular with all classes. I have received representations from many of my constituents, and hon. Members opposite have also spoken in his favour. I believe that Mr. Tilly suffers from a slight impediment in his speech; but I am told that if he were promoted to the office of County Inspector it would be of much less consequence than it is in the position which he now occupies. At present he has to drill the police and give the word of command to thorn; and, in addition, he has to appear in the Petty Sessions Court, and, in his official capacity, to address the magistrates. If he were promoted to the position of County Inspector he would not be required to speak at all, but would carry on all his business in writing. Under those circumstances, it could do no possible harm if the right hon. Gentleman would call the attention of Mr. Tilly's superior officers to his merits—some of them having already given him a high character.

The hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) seems to think that the Government, in dealing with evictions in Ireland, are in the habit of placing the Constabulary unreservedly under the control of the landlords, and that their only function in that country is to protect the property of the landlords. Nothing can be further from the truth. All that the present or any other Government have done in the matter of evictions has been, as I have already stated to the House, to afford adequate protection to the Sheriff's officers, when engaged in carrying the law into effect. It must be remembered that cases of eviction frequently have nothing whatever to do with the relations between landlords and tenants, and may be due to debts, owing to a moneylender or tradesman, to whom reference has been made; but if, in any case, the Sheriff has difficulties imposed in his way, he is entitled to protection as an officer of the law engaged in the execution of his duty, and the Constabulary Force is sent, not for the purpose of evicting the tenants, but of protecting the Sheriff in the discharge of the duty which the law imposes upon him. There is no foundation whatever for the supposition that the Government would act in such a matter with unfairness towards any particular class.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make it perfectly clear what it was that I meant? I say that in the cases of eviction which take place in Ireland it is a notorious fact that the Constabulary have frequently been employed, not merely for the protection of Sheriffs' officer?, but that large forces of constables, altogether beyond the necessities of the case, have been employed really for the purpose of intimidating and overawing the people, and driving them to desperation and despair.

If that has been done in any case, it must have been done by the Predecessors in Office of the Government. The only case which occurs to me recently where a large force of police was employed to protect the Sheriff's officers was that of Woodford.

I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Constabulary will not be used for that purpose in the future.

Then I can give the hon. Member no assurance that an efficient force of Constabulary will not be always sent to protect the Sheriff and his officers in the execution of their duties. Hon. Members opposite have referred to various matters connected with the Irish Constabulary, and I will endeavour to deal with them as well as I can, and I hope that I shall omit nothing. If I do, I trust that my attention will be called to the omission. The first matter that has been referred to by several hon. Members is the charge for extra police in certain counties in Ireland. No doubt, as time goes on, it is possible that the necessity for an extra police force may diminish in certain counties; and in that case such extra police force, although very much required when they were sent down, may be no longer required, and ought to be withdrawn. Any Government is bound to look into this subject at frequent intervals, in order to see whether such extra police force is maintained in any county for a longer time than it is absolutely necessary to maintain them. The force of extra police in the county of Mayo which has been referred to was sent there some years ago; I do not know the circum- stances under which they were sent, but in that and in many other cases in which extra police have been employed my first duty, after I am freed from the necessity of attending in my place in this House, will be to examine into the circumstances of Mayo, Westmeath, Waterford, and North Tipperary, which have been referred to, with the object of withdrawing the extra police force from those districts where it is not necessary to maintain it. I am pretty certain that each of those counties have benefited in this matter by the alteration which has been made in the amount of free force allocated to each county by the Act of 1885, and are now charged with fewer extra men than they were before. It does not follow that in no case is it possible to still further reduce the extra number of men charged; but it is only fair to say that the force charged is less, in each case, than it was two or three years ago. At the same time I do not think it is an infallible test of the condition of a county and the possibility of withdrawing the extra police that there is at present no large record of crime and outrage. In those cases where a large extra police force has been maintained, and in which it is alleged that but few outrages have taken place, it may fairly be assumed that the presence of such extra force has, in a large degree, tended to check outrages. An hon. Member has referred to the large increase in the Vote for Pensions to the Constabulary. That, no doubt, is a very formidable question. The expenditure for pensions in 1882–3 was, I find, £239,000, and it has sprung up in the Estimate of the present year to £280,000. I am not aware that there has been any large increase in the number of men who have retired; but the increase in the amount of expenditure is due to recent legislation in favour of the Constabulary, and therefore I cannot hold out any hope to the Committee that this item of expenditure will be reduced. The increase under the head of "transport" is due to extra travelling expenses occasioned by two Elections having been held during the last 12 months, and to the difficulty of procuring transport cars for the Constabulary, owing to the intimidation of the owners of such cars, and their consequent unwillingness to allow them to be used for Constabulary pur- poses. The last 12 months may be specially regarded as a year of Elections, and I hope we may not soon have such a year again. No doubt, a large portion of the expenditure has been incurred in conveying the Constabulary to the North of Ireland, where Party feeling was strong and disturbances were apprehended. With regard to the increase in the Estimates due to the practice of affording special protection to individuals in certain cases, that is, no doubt, a very expensive matter. The number of men so employed is considerable, and I will undertake to make very careful inquiries into the matter with the view of guarding against abuse. As the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) has pointed out, there is temptation in such cases for those to whom special protection is afforded to make a profit out of the circumstance. I will, however, have the matter carefully sifted, and will do my best to secure that those who receive protection shall not be able to put anything in their pockets, but, on the contrary, shall be called upon to make a small contribution towards the cost. At the same time, however, the Government are bound to protect the lives of persons who are in danger. The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) referred to the Constabulary huts. This point has not been specially brought under my notice; but, no doubt, it is also a subject which it is incumbent upon the Government to review frequently, and I will undertake that the necessary inquiries shall be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) has asked me to give some promise—I do not know of what nature—with regard to the consequences likely to follow upon the evidence which may be given by members of the Constabulary before the Belfast Commission. I should hope that the members of the Constabulary would give their evidence in this important inquiry completely and fully; and although it is impossible for me to say that no person will suffer on account of that inquiry, yet I should not wish to see any person suffer on account of evidence given by himself before the Commission. Several hon. Members have referred to the case of District Inspector Tilly. It is pleasant to find that there is an Irish official who is approved of by hon. Members behind me, and not less warmly by hon. Mem- bers opposite, and. whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) cordially unite to praise. The only allegation against Mr. Tilly, appears to be that he suffers under some impediment of speech, but I should have thought that would rather enhance his capacity for filling some posts in Ireland. Of course, there may be positions in which a Constabulary officer could not do his duty unless he was able to speak rapidly and intelligently; but I am told that, with the exception of this unfortunate impediment of speech, Mr. Tilly is an excellent officer. I do not think that a physical defect which does not prevent an officer from remaining in the force should interfere with his merited promotion. I have no desire to prejudice the case. I find that the decision against the promotion of District Inspector Tilly was taken by the Government of Lord Carnarvon, and that it was ratified by their Successors. Therefore I can only say that I will carefully keep in mind all that has been said in regard to the good qualities of District Inspector Tilly; and I will be glad indeed if I can, consistently with the public interest, secure his promotion. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), as to the recent appointment of a Constabulary Medical Officer in the district of Castlebar and the passing over of the Dispensary Officer, it appears to me that the reason given by the Inspector General of Constabulary which I have stated in answer to questions put in this House, is quite satisfactory, There is no rule requiring the Dispensary Surgeon to be appointed, and the Executive, in the exercise of their discretion, appointed the person whom they considered to be most eligible. The whole matter must be one of choice, and that choice must be exercised in reference to the medical qualifications of the practitioner. No facts have ever been brought under my notice to justify the assertion of the hon. Member that Catholics are debarred from obtaining these appointments. I believe that there are in Ireland quite as many Catholics appointed to the post of Medical Officer to the Constabulary as Protestants. [Mr. DEASY: I said "Nationalists," not "Catholics."] I was rather thinking of my previous experience in Ireland; and in those days the present Nationalist Party did not exist. I can only repeat that the desire of the Inspector General is to obtain the services of the best medical practitioner. I have been asked by the hon. Member for East Waterford (Mr. P. J. Power) whether it is proposed to make any change in the working of the Explosives Act, so as to place the local inspection in he hands of the Constabulary. For my own part, it would give me much pleasure to see the duty of inspection entrusted to the Constabulary. The late Government sent out a Circular on the subject to the Local Authorities—the magistrates who make the appointments. I have made inquiry as to the result of that Circular. I should be glad to further the appointment of the Constabulary by every means in my power; but in Ireland, as in England, I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Local Authorities, who are perfectly free to appoint whom they choose. I hope, after the practical discussion which we have had, the Committee may now be disposed to agree to the Vote.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the duty of the police at evictions has been confined to affording protection to the Sheriff's officers in the execution of their duty. I think the right hon. Gentleman is very much deceived, and that, instead of confining themselves to that duty, there have been many instances in which they have taken upon themselves the duties of the Sheriff's officers, and have broken in doors and evicted the tenants. I have heard of one case where the police violently ran down a poor woman, and the result of the treatment she received was that she was confined for some time to her bed. It is not the fact that they confine themselves simply to the protection of Sheriff's officers in the performance of their duties; and I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a promise that their future employment at evictions shall be really confined to the protection of the Sheriff's officers, and that they shall not become Sheriff's officers themselves.

My answer to that question is to ask what happened, at Woodford? In that case the houses were regularly garrisoned; the doors and windows were built up, holes were made in the roof, and persons were stationed at them to pour boiling water upon the heads of the bailiffs, who were assaulted in every way, and seriously injured. The Constabulary only did their duty in defending them; and it must be borne in mind that the persons by whom the bailiffs were assaulted were not only the occupying tenants, but persons who had been brought in to garrison the houses, and do their best to hinder the officers in the execution of their duty.

HOW about the woman who was injured, and confined to her bed?

I never heard of that case before.

Attention has been called to it on more than one occasion. The right hon. Gentleman says that the amount of the Estimate is large this year in consequence of the employment of the police at elections, and I presume that it will be large also in the next Estimate from the same cause; because I am afraid that unless something is done to prevent them evictions will continue to be carried out on the same costly scale as hitherto to the British taxpayer. At the Galway eviction referred to there were something like 1,000 men collected for a week; and in the end six poor farmers were evicted at a cost to the Crown of something like £6,000. If, during the winter, evictions throughout Ireland are to be carried out on the same costly scale, costing £1,000 for every poor person evicted, I think the British taxpayer will have an ugly bill furnished to him by the innocent Tory Government now in power—a Government elected mainly for the purpose of saving the pockets of the taxpayer. Economy was made one of the points of the Election, and this is a method by which it is proposed that a saving shall be effected. There is another point to which I wish to draw the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman; and that is the manner in which the bailiffs, evicting agents, and evicting landlords contrive to draw a profit out of the police protection afforded. I am myself acquainted with a gentleman who has a large establishment of cars, not merely for his own use and for the conveyance of his bailiffs when engaged in the business of eviction, but for the conveyance of the police; and I believe that instructions have been given to the Inspector of Constabulary to employ the cars of this agent on every possible occasion, and especially, of course, when the work in hand is eviction. The result is that this gentleman will try to carry on the campaign as actively as he can, and he will drive the police over the country as much as possible, in order that he may do a roaring trade. Having called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case, it is only right that I should give the name. The gentleman who has a regular establishment for this purpose is Mr. Hargreave, of Thurles.

I should like to say one word in regard to the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Mayo (Mr. Crilly) in reference to the employment of the police in the execution of decrees for the recovery of debt by tradesmen. No doubt he is perfectly right in theory, that the two cases are the same; but in practice they are entirely different. What occurs in the case of the recovery of a small debt is this—the Sheriff sends one or two of his bailiffs to levy the decree, and in a considerable number of cases the bailiffs act in collusion with the debtor, and receive a small bribe from him, to induce them to declare that there are no goods upon which the decree can be levied. That is a very common state of things; and even if the creditor succeeds ultimately in recovering his money it is handed over to the Sub-Sheriff, and the unfortunate creditor has as much trouble to get it from the Sub-Sheriff as he has from the ordinary debtor. That is the original mode by which debts are collected in Ireland; but if the landlord desires to evict a tenant the case is very different, and for this reason—the Sub-Sheriff is an employé of the High Sheriff, and as the latter is one of the landlord party he gives the assistance of the police to the landlord to carry out any business the landlord may have in hand. So far as the recovery of small debts in Ireland is concerned, I can assure the House that I have had very painful experience of not being able to get the amount of a debt after I had obtained a decree against a debtor. The collusion which exists between the debtor and the Sub-Sheriff renders it practically impossible to recover the money at all. Unless the creditor is a person in the favour of the Sub-Sheriff his task is a hopeless one. The landlords, however, are in a very different position; they are hand and glove with the High Sheriff, who takes good care that they are backed up by the Constabulary in enforcing evictions.

The expectation of the right hon. Gentleman that the debate upon this Vote will be a short one will certainly be realized so far as hon. Gentlemen who sit on these Benches are concerned. We have no desire whatever to prolong it. I have only risen now to call attention to an error which he has made as to the number of men employed in carrying out evictions. Since the commencement of the Sitting in this Parliament there were, in several instances, more than 100 men employed in evicting tenants in the county of Mayo and other counties, and the only people who have not received protection are those unfortunate persons who have suffered at the hands of the police. In a case which occurred recently at Castlebar, in the county of Mayo, more than 100 policemen were employed to carry out evictions, and they made a savage attack upon defenceless people, and the Medical Officers of the district had to attend both women and children who had suffered from ill-usage at the hands of the police. In order that something may be done to prevent similar occurrences in the future, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to put a stop to evictions, or, at any rate, take steps to prevent brutal assaults being made by the police upon women and children. I entirely dissent from the opinion the right hon. Gentleman has expressed in regard to the non-appointment of Dr. Jordan as Medical Officer to the Constabulary at the Castlebar Police Barracks. I do not propose to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman upon the matter, because he cannot be expected to be acquainted with it now; but unless it is set right between this and next Session I shall certainly avail myself of every opportunity of bringing this and kindred subjects under the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the grievance as a Catholic one, and when I informed him that it was a Nationalist grievance, and not a Catholic one, he replied that Nationalists were unknown when he last filled the Office of Chief Secretary. No doubt; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have made con- siderable advances in Ireland since he occupied the position of Chief Secretary some years ago. Religious differences are not so strongly marked as they were formerly, and so far as I am personally concerned I have never regarded a man's religion as a bar to his preferment. No matter what may have been the case in the past, the people of Ireland nowadays never take into account what a man's religion is. The only thing we inquire is, whether a man is a Nationalist or not; and I maintain that Dr. Jordan was not appointed to the position of Medical Officer of the Constabulary at Castlebar simply because his politics were not looked upon with favour by the Police Authorities at Dublin Castle. There is one other matter upon which I do not expect to get an answer, because I know that it has not been under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman before. I will, however, furnish him with full particulars of the case, so that he may consider it between this and the re-assembling of Parliament. I am afraid he has had no personal knowledge of it until this moment. I refer to the appointments of Medical Officers to the Constabulary in the city of Cork. Some years ago the position of Constabulary Medical Officer in that city became vacant owing to a death, and Dr. O'Callaghan got the appointment; but Inspector Barry, who was in charge of the division, recommended the appointment of a second medical gentleman, and the division of the city into two parts. This recommendation was adopted, and Dr. Curtis was appointed. The two medical men agreed that the salaries and emoluments should be equally divided between them, and this arrangement was actually carried out for a month. Inspector Barry then suggested that Dr. O'Callaghan, who lived in the southern part of the city, should take charge of the north district, while Dr. Curtis, who lived in the north, should take charge of the south. Anything more absurd I cannot conceive. The more reasonable course would have been to have allowed Dr. O'Callaghan to take charge of the district in which he resided, and Dr. Curtis to have charge of the other; but the Inspector had his own reasons for the suggestion, seeing that the emoluments of Dr. Curtis would be about £240 a-year, while those of Dr. O'Callaghan would not amount to more than £85 or £90. In addition to that fact, the extra police who went to the Cork Assizes for the purpose of giving evidence, &c, were stationed in the south district, and the fees and emoluments Dr. Curtis would receive from attending them would raise his salary to £300 a-year, whereas Dr. O'Callaghan would not get a single shilling for the quartering of any extra constables in his district. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he is furnished with full particulars, he will take them into consideration, so that Dr. O'Callaghan shall not be placed in an inferior position to Dr. Curtis? I may add that Dr. O'Callaghan has been for 40 years in practice, and is recognized as a most able and efficient Medical Officer.

In a former debate I alluded to some local matters in connection with the employment of the police, and I propose now to allude to some further local questions in connection with the same subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not, as he did on a former occasion, censure my conduct in alluding to local matters, because I can assure him that, although they may be of very little importance to him, they are of the highest interest to my constituents. The condition of the poor in Ballinasloe is a matter of vital importance to my constituents, because it is by the poorer class of the constituency that I have been sent here. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware, in reference to the police force in Ballinasloe and the neighbourhood, that if you take a circle of six miles round the town you will find no less than 11 police barracks included within that circle. In one direction—towards Shaunonbridge—including the Ballinasloe and Shannonbridge Barracks, there are four police barracks. What I wish to call the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is the fact that, in addition, there has now been a temporary police barracks erected for the protection of Mr. St. George, a law agent, who was intimately connected with the Woodford evictions. I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to place a portion of the expense incurred in giving police protection upon the persons who ask for such protection. This Mr. St. George receives a large amount of business as a law agent mainly on account of the severity with which he is in the habit of treating the tenants; and if he demands police protection it is most desirable that he should devote a portion of his ill-gotten gains to the payment of it. His residence is situated little more than half-a-mile from the Ballinasloe Police Barracks. Ballinasloe Barracks are the head-quarters of the County Inspector; there is a considerable force of police stationed there; and it does seem absurd that, with another police barracks on the other side of him, Mr. St. George should require the protection of a temporary barracks. The result of the arrangement, however, is that Mr. St. George gets all the advantage of a police force of his own. It is a strange thing that any landlord can have a police barracks erected near to his own house; and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, above all things, it is necessary in Ireland that the men appointed to control the Constabulary should be men entirely free from landlord influence and prejudice. The landlord, no doubt, is a strong man; he may be the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and where that is the case the police are altogether in his hands; and if a man receives the enmity of these gentlemen, as I do, because I have denounced the action of most of them in the county of Galway, he is soon made to feel it. Of course, I expected their hostility, and I have not been disappointed in my expectations. I have not, however, acted from any vindictive motive, but simply by a desire to promote the public interests. But what did these men do? They gave "the tip" to the sergeant of police or Sub-Inspector, and the consequence is that whenever I show myself I have two men on my track. [A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I can assure them that I have had two policemen constantly following me for two years. It is a notorious fact that in Ireland the road to promotion for the police is not by doing their duty properly, as men ought to do; it is simply by acting strongly, energetically, and very often criminally, against the people. I have known policemen who were reprimanded by the Judges themselves, and yet, notwithstanding that, they were promoted; and it may be said that a policeman is sure of promotion in Ireland if he acts against the law. This is not a proper system for the police them- selves, and I am only surprised that the men are as good as they are. The police are exposed to temptations which might be supposed to have a demoralizing effect upon them; they are well clothed, well-found, and with money in their pockets; but I am bound to say I do not think these things have had that effect upon them. They are a well-conducted body of men; and if they were taken away from the evil influences by which they are now surrounded, they might become better and more efficient than they now are. With regard to the increase of the police, I would also bring this matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have pleasure in appealing to him on this subject, because he is always ready to give his best attention to representations put forward by hon. Members on these Benches. I wish to point out that the decrease of crime in Ireland is more apparent than real. Before the Land League was established in 1878 agrarian crime had begun to manifest itself in the county of Cork, and it went on to such an extent that there was a tax of 10s. in the pound put upon the people for extra police. I went to the first meeting ever held in connection with the Land League, and there was a police hut upon the road then. I say that it is a mistake to suppose that agrarian crime arises from political causes. I believe that investigation would show that it arises entirely on agrarian grounds. At the time I speak of the Land League was not in existence, and yet the people of Cork had to pay 10s. in the pound as a tax for the extra police. After that agrarian crime travelled over the county; it permeated the agricultural classes; the police were increased in such quantity until there were 150 policemen in the town, and agrarian crime reached a higher point then than it has ever reached since. These are very important matters for consideration when you are trying to preserve peace and harmony in Ireland; and I say that at the head of the police throughout Ireland there should be an impartial, fair-minded, and good man, having no favour or bias towards one person or another. The subject is one on which very much might be said; but as there is a disinclination on these Benches to protract the discussion I shall not now trouble the Committee with any more remarks.

We all know that during the coming winter the Irish Representatives, when they return to their country and constituencies, will have before them a very serious task. While Gentlemen who sit on other Benches in this House will be able to return to their various employments, we shall have to go to Ireland, to stand by our people, and advise them as much as possible to keep within legal bounds, and endeavour to meet what we believe to be the pressure of the coming winter in a proper manner. That being so, great care should be had by the Police Authorities not to interfere with our people, who, within the limits of the Irish National League, should be allowed to take counsel together and form their plans for the future. I have received a letter from the Secretary of a local branch of the National League, to say that at one of their meetings in the neighbourhood there were three policemen armed with rifles, and that policemen were engaged in taking down the names of the members who attended the meeting. Now, I can inform the Committee that if that course is to be pursued, and if the people get it into their heads that they are to be prevented by the police from meeting in a legal way, there is reason to suppose that they will enter into those illegal organizations which we, the Irish Representatives, have no power to prevent. I trust, now that I have called attention to this matter, that the Police Authorities will instruct their Inspectors throughout Ireland that the people are not to be intimidated or prevented from meeting for the purpose of taking counsel under the National League with the view of meeting the difficulties which are coming upon them during the winter. In the years 1881 and 1882 there were private Circulars issued to the Constabulary, instructing them how they were to deal with the matter of the detection of crime. I trust there will be no attempt made to introduce again into the Irish Constabulary a system of police espionage, a system which would be disgraceful to any despotism in Europe. Perhaps I may call the attention of the Committee to the nature of some of the Circulars which have been issued during the White Terror of 1881 and 1882. In that period Circulars were issued to the Irish. Constabulary to this effect—that every effort should be made by constables in charge of stations to get some person, on consideration of a substantial reward, to give private information of outrages about to be committed; that if such constable should succeed in making arrests the reward would be paid by the constable, and no mention made of the fact, and that the reward would be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. It went on to say that the most likely persons to give such information were those in the confidence of the rioters; the Sub-Inspectors were to communicate with the police force in the district, with the view to carrying out this order; persons were to be told that they would not be required to prosecute, and that no mention would be made of names, and the reward for the discovery of felony would be from £20 to £100. I do not know whether this Circular is authentic; but it appeared in The Freeman's Journal at the time I refer to, and was not contradicted. However, we trust that during the coming winter there will be no such attempts made to procure testimony by unworthy means. We all recognize that it is necessary for the police to be present at evictions for the purpose of protecting the bailiffs. It is clearly the duty of the authorities, if they believe that protection is required, to take care that police are present on these occasions; but we do insist that the police should not be demoralized, but used for the purposes for which they were ever intended—namely, for the preservation of law and order. I cannot refrain from expressing my sense of the courteousness and fairness which has characterized the answers of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and I believe that if he will get himself free from the permanent officials who control these matters in Ireland, and look at the question in an impartial way, there will be no reason to complain of the way the Constabulary are used in the coming winter.

I wish to add my testimony to the fair and sympathetic manner in which the right hon. Baronet has dealt with this subject. If the Government will inquire into the existing abuses connected with the extra police system I believe that much good will result. I confess that in Kerry there is need of extra police at the present time, and I heartily regret it; nevertheless, I hope that the causes of the present state of things will be removed. I must also point out that, much as this extra police force is required in Kerry, there is considerable abuse in the way in which these men are distributed. There is the notable instance of a lady in Kerry who has nine policemen in her house. The representative of The Morning Post, who went down to the neighbourhood the other day, described the superior get-up and smartness of these men, to whom he properly applied the term "Herculean." It appears that this lady is continually making use of the policemen in various ways. I do not know whether she uses them in the capacity of shoeblacks; but they are used in various ways about the establishment. They have bicycles, and are most adept cyclists; and it is only a few days ago that this lady took it into her head to go boating, when she was accompanied by two of these policemen, with the result that when they were a short distance from the shore the boat was upset and the lady went into the water. Now, is it not perfectly absurd that the police should be used in this manner—that they should conduct this lady about the streets carrying band-boxes? It is absolutely ridiculous to say that this lady requires eight or nine policemen for her protection at, perhaps, the cost of £1,000. Then, again, on one portion of her property, a stretch of meadow and swamp, she has actually five police huts, and these have been there ever since 1879, at an enormous cost to the country. Why do you not say to this lady—If you require these police you can have them; but, of course, you must pay for them? Then, on another part of her property there are six policemen similarly occupied, making on all her property in the county a total of 50 policemen. I do not at all object to there being protection of human life; that is absolutely necessary, and I admit that it is too true that many persons in Ireland require police protection; but I say that the Government ought to move on the lines indicated by those who say that, as far as possible, the police should be reduced within economical limits. There are 300 extra police in the county of Kerry at the present time, besides the normal force. We contend that the police should not be used except for the legitimate purpose of protection. I mentioned a case the other day where two heifers were missed from a certain farm in charge of the police, who really act as caretakers in Ireland. It was reported as an outrage. These heifers were missed, it is true; but where were they found? They were found in the custody of the police and the bailiffs—and the police were protecting this stolen property. These are matters which I say should be inquired into, for it is preposterous that the police should be used for such purposes as I have described. I shall not dwell upon this subject longer. I feel that in dealing with it, and in trying to prove that there is no need of such an abnormal force in the county, I am handicapped by the state of a particular portion of the county; but there is an immense number of police in the county, most of whom are simply engaged in taking care of farms, and for whom we have had to pay for the last six or seven years.

I wish to allude to a case which occurred in my county, of the forcible entrance of a chapel by the police in the neighbourhood. I fully recognize the fact that matters like this are hardly such as should be brought before the Committee; but that points to the fact that the sooner the Irish people get the control of their own affairs the better it will be for Ireland and for the dignity of this Imperial Assembly. I want to show, however, that the action of the police in my county might possibly have led to a very serious riot. The peasantry there are not very excitable; but when their feelings are outraged they are not easily quieted. If anything would excite them, it would be the violation of their places of worship. I feel with my hon. Friends around me that this debate has gone on long enough, otherwise I should like to direct further attention to the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and to show how absurd it is to suppose that the people of Ireland could ever be satisfied with such a system as the present. I am bound to say that I believe that the people in this country would not submit to such a system for six months; and certainly, if the people of Ireland had the control of their own affairs, one of the first things they would do would be to effect a sweeping reform in the Constabulary Force. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at this. In this country, when a murder is committed, the Local Authorities communicate with the Home Secretary, and some experienced officers are sent down to investigate the case and endeavour to collect evidence. But what takes place in Ireland? A whole body of police are sent down to the locality. I remember that in my native place a gentleman was murdered; the authorities at Dublin Castle were communicated with, and they sent down a large force of police to patrol the district. No one can say anything against these police as men. They are fine specimens of humanity, strong, broad-shouldered, deep-chested, sinewy fellows; but let the Committee imagine the absurdity of these men sneaking up and down the country roads at night during a period of six months. While the authorities were doing their very best to hang innocent men who had a very narrow escape the police were patrolling the district. I hope the time may come when it may not be necessary to introduce matters of this kind into the House of Commons.

I am afraid I shall be liable to the imputation of want of taste if I move the reduction of this Vote for the National Gallery. The reason why I do not like to pass the Vote without a protest is that when we were proposing to pay an enormous sum for the Blenheim pictures we had not seen them. An hon. Member of this House made, I think, what was a very sensible suggestion, when he requested that the articles should be placed in the Tea Room. Now, I believe that if we had had those pictures before us we should never have bought them; but having to pay for them I do not think we should pass the Vote without some sort of protest. It is universally agreed that the country has given considerably too much for those pictures; but it is not only on that ground that I wish to raise the question. If I believed that in the market these pictures were worth the money we gave for them, which I do not think they were, I should still think it was a wicked and wasteful thing to buy them, especially at a time when we have not too much money to spare. Such a thing might have been done on the other side of the Atlantic, where they have more money than they know what to do with. But the fact remains that the people of America were not such fools as to buy the pictures. In my opinion, the price paid was enormous. I went to see the picture which cost £70,000; and, so far from its being to the taste of the British public, it is not, in my judgment, worth 70,000 pence. I have watched the demeanour of the British public in regard to that picture. It was not put on the wall like the other pictures, but was enthroned in the centre of a great room. The attention of the British public was invited to it; they were given to understand that it was a picture of enormous value. I watched their demeanour for a long time; I found that it did not fetch them at all; that they did not care a fig for it; nor, as a matter of fact, is there anything about it to lead the uninstructed mind to take pleasure in it. I do not think there is any more especial value in this picture than there is in a piece of old china or an old book. Indeed, in such hard times as the present, it seems to me absolutely wicked to pay such a price as £70,000 for a picture, especially when, as I say, the public scarcely appreciate it at all. I believe it was the most expensive picture ever bought, and that two or three times its real value was paid for it. But this picture, although I think that too much was given for it, and although I am convinced that it does not give any pleasure to the British public, is, after all, an innocuous, an inoffensive picture. I regard it with a negative sort of objection; but what are we to say of the other picture—the Vandyck—which was purchased at a cost of £15,000? It is an atrocious production—a repulsive picture. It principally consists of a horse—and such a horse! I ask hon. Members who are acquainted with the picture whether they ever saw such a horse in all their lives, whether they really believe there ever was such a horse in existence? If any Member of the Committee had such a horse it would be at once sent to the knacker. In short, the opinion must be universal that this horse was as badly a painted horse as it was possible to have, and as unlike a real, decent horse as one could conceive. The horse is the greatest part of the picture; but on that horse there is a man, and that man is Charles I. Well, I do not think anyone wants to perpetuate his memory. Connoisseurs say that these pictures are very valuable, and that the people can be educated up to appreciating them. God forbid that we should educate the people up to such a pitch that they cannot appreciate pictures unless they have cost tens of thousands of pounds! I have no special knowledge of Art myself, except as one of the public; but we all like pictures, and we like to buy them when they are cheap; but we do not want to give enormous sums for pictures which can only give pleasure to a limited clique, to connoisseurs, and so forth, particularly when they are pictures of horses out of drawing and badly painted. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote which stands in my name.

I am of opinion—and I think most of the Committee will agree with me—that neither the present occasion nor the present tribunal are suited for an Art criticism, and that this Committee is not suited to pronounce at all adequately on the merits or market value of the Old Masters. I would add to that opinion this—that of all the misleading teachers or preachers which this tribunal could possibly follow, it is obvious that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell) would be the greatest, because he has admitted in his observations and by his argument that he is absolutely without knowledge of the subject with which he deals. However, what I have to say on the subject under discussion is this—that just as we protested against certain issues which were raised by the Irish Members last night and the night before, attacking the conduct of the present Government for that for which we cannot be responsible, so a great deal more do we protest against the conduct of hon. Members in raising, as it were, this question of the purchase of pictures against the present Government. He talks about a waste of public money having taken place. Why did he not say that in the last Parliament? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I did say it.] But I am perfectly convinced that the hon. Member never ventured, in the presence of the late Prime Minister, to accuse him of "wicked and sinful waste of public money." I would the return of the late Prime Minister from Bavaria could have been accelerated, so that he could have listened to these accusations against him—to this charge which is brought against him, for the first time in his public career, of having been guilty of a wicked and sinful waste of public money. That is the accusation which the hon. Member is really bringing against the late Government, and I have no doubt he would be extremely glad if by his remarks he could throw odium on the present Government in a matter for which they cannot have the smallest possible responsibility. I would invite the hon. Member, on a future occasion, when he accuses persons whom he may think guilty of malversation of the public funds, to do so at the time when he thinks them guilty of it, and when they can be held responsible, and not to bring charges of this kind against persons who are absent. To impute by a side-wind charges against persons whom the hon. Member must know cannot be held in any way responsible is a proceeding utterly unworthy of the Committee.

The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have looked at the terms of my Motion, and I am sorry now I did not read them. My object was not to censure any Government, but to move a reduction of the Vote. I am not a Party man. I am not accustomed to regard questions in this House from a Party point of view, or to regulate my remarks by considerations of who is in power. I did denounce this Vote when it first appeared as a waste of public money. It was challenged, and I voted against it. But we had not then seen the pictures. It is only since we have seen them that I have thought it necessary a second time to protest against what I still consider to be a wicked and sinful waste of public money.

I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) on the present occasion; but I do most certainly disagree with him. I will not go into the whole question of the merits of the pictures which have been purchased for this large sum of money; but I think that the Government are bound to make the collection of Art treasures worthy of the country. Whether these pictures are worth £85,000, or £10,000, or a less sum, I do not know, nor do I think there are three men in the Committee who are able to decide what they are worth; and what my hon. Friend says, that the public should be called upon to decide what pictures are worth before they are purchased, should be looked upon as childish. In the first place, the public do not see the pictures before they are purchased; and, in the next place, they would not be in a position to offer advice on the question of value. I agree with the Government in what they did, and I hope they will continue to raise up the standard of the Art Collections in the country. I was unable to touch on the question of the British Museum last night; but I would appeal to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who supported me on a former occasion when I dealt with that Institution, and will make an appeal to him in regard to it, indirectly on the question of the National Gallery, to the effect that greater facilities shall be given to the working classes to visit the British Museum and the National Gallery in the evening. On the former occasion I refer to a Liberal Government was in power, and a promise was made that an estimate should be obtained for the lighting of these Institutions, more especially the British Museum, by the electric light, the lighting being one of the difficulties of the question of opening in the evenings. The promise was made that if it were possible to be done it should be done, and that these Institutions should be opened to the working classes at night. As I say, I think, if I am not mistaken, when I formerly moved in the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me his support. But if that were so or not, I ask those who are responsible for this Vote to make some effort to open these Institutions at night in order to enable the masses of the working population—who are the taxpayers, and out of whose pockets a large part of the money necessary to support them comes—to visit them. I ask that these people may have the same chance and opportunity of visiting these Institutions that we have. I believe that the opening of these Institutions at night would confer a very great moral advantage upon the working classes of the country. Wherever such places have been opened at night large numbers of people have attended them; and, if not all, certainly a large proportion of the people who have thus availed themselves of the facilities given to them would, if it had not been for this night opening, have spent their time in much less respectable occupations. I do not wish to press the matter further than to ask the noble Lord if he will do what lies in him to bring about the opening of these Institutions at night for the benefit of the working classes?

I do not object to the amount given for the pictures which have been referred to. I think it is desirable that if we are to have a National Gallery at all we should have one that will compare favourably with the Galleries of other countries. But I must say that I think that so long as the money for these National Collections comes out of the public revenues the pictures we have bought ought to be divided so as to give a fair share to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. I think the word "National" is as applicable to Ireland as it is to England, and I certainly think that some of the pictures should be given to the National Gallery of that country. With reference to what has just fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy), I do not think that the opening of the Museums or Galleries in the evenings would be of much benefit to the working classes. I think, however, that it would be a very great benefit indeed to them if these Institutions were open on Sundays. Sunday is the only day of freedom they have, and I think it is a very hard thing that such places as the National Gallery, the Zoological Gardens, and the British Museum, should be closed to the working man on the very day on which he has an opportunity of visiting them. As to the picture the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) has referred to as having cost £70,000, I must say that if the working man stands before it and looks upon the figures attentively, particularly upon that of St. John the Baptist, he will go away with the impression that he has seen something that he is likely to remember for the rest of his life.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman who so eloquently advocated the opening of Public Galleries at night that the subjeet has engaged the earnest and, I may say, the sympathetic attention not only of the present Government, but of the late Government, and the first consideration which has deterred the authorities from moving in the matter has been the enormous expense. I may tell the hon. Member that tenders for lighting the Natural History Museum at South Kensington with electric light amounted, in addition to the prime cost of £15,000, to £1,000 for one night per annum—that is to say, if the Museum were open for three nights in the week the cost would be £3,000 per annum, and if it were open for six nights the cost would be £6,000. So far the Government have not felt justified in incurring that enormous expense. The same argument applies in a less degree to the opening of Public Galleries on Sundays. [Mr. MOLLOY dissented.] The hon. Member shakes his head; but, of course, there will be an expense involved in opening the various Public Galleries on Sundays. But there are other questions which excite a great amount of interest in the public mind, inseparable from the question of the Sunday opening of Museums. Not only have the public to be considered, but the interests of attendants and public officials must, of course, be borne in mind before a determination is formed to effect the change. Although Resolutions in favour of the opening of Museums on Sundays have, I think, on more than one occasion been carried in the House of Lords, hon. Members will recollect that the last occasion on which a decision was taken in this House a Motion in favour of Sunday opening was rejected by a considerable majority. There, therefore, the matter must rest until another decision is arrived out by this House.

The hon. Baronet has stated that it would cost £6,000 per annum to enable one of these Institutions to be opened to the working classes six nights per week. I hope he does not wish it to go forth that the working classes, who pay for these Institutions, are to be refused facilities for visiting them, because such a small sum of money as £6,000 per annum will be required to be spent.

As a Metropolitan Member I rise to support the appeal of the hon. Member opposite for the opening of these Institutions during week evenings. I do not go into the question of Sunday opening, for that is a much more debateable question; but I do appeal to the Government and the Committee to consider whether they do not think that an annual expenditure of £3,000 would be admirably laid out on the instruction and entertainment which would be afforded to the working classes by opening the National Museums and Galleries on at least three evenings in each week.

As most of the Radicals and economists who would have supported me are absent, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. But before I do so, I wish to say that I very much support the view of the hon. Member who says that if we keep up this Gallery at all, we ought to have it lighted up at night, when people can go to see the pictures it contains. There are very few people who visit the National Gallery during the day; therefore, if we wish to render these places more popular, we should adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

I wish to say a word in support of the suggestion which has been made that these Institutions should be lighted up at night. I do not ask the Government to give an answer to night; but I would ask them to consider during the Recess whether by some means or other they cannot save this sum of £3,000 or £6,000, said to be required for the purpose, out of the Navy or Military Esti- mates for the sake of popularizing these public Institutions, which are already costing the nation a great deal of money? We know very well how very popular the Exhibitions which are being held have become. We wish to develop this popularity, and we desire to see these Institutions, which are of a National character, compete successfully with the drinking saloons and music halls of the Metropolis.

The hon. Baronet opposite has not answered my question as to giving Ireland and Scotland a share of these valuable pictures, which are bought at the expense of the public.

I believe the Institutions in Dublin and Edinburgh are conducted under the same Regulations as those in London, with this exception—that I believe that some of the Galleries in Dublin are open on Sundays.

Will the hon. Gentleman give us any encouragement to hope that these Institutions will be open on Sunday? The public take a great interest in the question; and, certainly, if these Institutions are to be supported by public funds, the public, as a body, ought to be admitted to them upon the day when they are most at liberty, and are not engaged upon their ordinary employments. I think it would be most desirable indeed to open these places on the day on which the working classes have most freedom. I sincerely hope that hon. Gentlemen will pay attention to the fact that the public are longing to be able to make use of these Institutions.

I think the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down should not be allowed to go without remark or comment. I would remind the Committee that it is the expressed opinion of Trades Unions and Societies representing the great mass of the working class of this country that the Sunday opening of Museums should not be permitted. This opinion has been pronounced over and over again. I very much sympathize with hon. Gentlemen who have endeavoured to get a pledge from the Government that the subject of the opening of these Institutions on week evenings will be considered. When we find that the cost will only be some £3,000 or £4,000 a-year, I trust that there will be perfect readiness on the part of the country to vote such a small sum for the education of the people.

Once bit twice shy. I hope we shall have some information about the picture which it is proposed to purchase from the Blenheim Gallery. No doubt the picture is a much cheaper one than the others to which I have referred; but if we are to have a National Portrait Gallery, it seems to me that we should place in it portraits of distinguished celebrities. But who is this John Duke of Bedford, whose portrait it is intended to purchase? If the picture is one which it is really desirable to have, I shall offer no objection; but, at the same time, I should like to have some information with regard to it.

The picture in question is one of the finest pictures which could be obtained for the National Portrait Gallery. It is by Gainsborough.

May I ask who John Duke of Bedford was?

I cannot undertake to teach the hon. Member the history of England.

I take such little interest in this John. Duke of Bedford, whom I do not know, that I shall not even divide the Committee against him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this picture was really bought on account of the intrinsic merit of the picture and the value that is attached to it, or whether it was in order to relieve the impecuniosity of a certain noble Member of the other House of Parliament?

The picture was bought at an auction, because the Trustees of the Gallery believed that it would be of inestimable value in the National Collection.

Who John Duke of Bedford was I do not know; but I certainly do know that Gainsborough was a great artist, and that a work of his should find a place in a National Collection.

By way of protest I would merely say that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to believe that what has been done is an abuse of the National Portrait Gallery. The object of that Gallery, as I understand it, is to perpetuate the memory of great men; but it appears that the picture in question is the portrait of a man of whom we have heard nothing that is good, and of whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite is plainly unable to tell us any good. John Duke of Bedford was not a great man; and, therefore, I do not see what we want with his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery.

I am very sorry to take up the time of the Committee when they are anxious to get through with the Votes; but I think I can say that no one can justly accuse the Scotch Members of obstructing the Business of the House. Education is one of the most important questions in Scotland. It was not found necessary to debate at length matters connected with public education in England, because you have a Royal Commission sitting to inquire into the subject. So far, however, as Scotland is concerned there is no Commission sitting, and the only way in which we can ventilate the grievances of Scotland in the matter of education is by initiating discussions upon Votes referring to education. There is another reason why I bring the matter of education forward on the present occasion, and it is this—that as there is a change of Government, and as there is a new official at the head of the Education Department, it is very important that we should put matters thoroughly before him. Now, in Scotland there exists a very great amount of dissatisfaction on the part of parents and teachers, and also on the part of school boards and ratepayers. This dissatisfaction has not yet assumed the position of a formulated grievance owing to two causes; first, that the subject is of so technical a character—it is surrounded with Codes, Standards, Time Tables, and Inspectors; and, secondly, because the Education Department have given such illustrations of the working of the Education Act in Scotland as to keep down any appearance that the work is not being satisfactorily conducted. The object of the Education Act of 1872 was the sending of children to school who would not otherwise be at school. So far as the old Scotch education system was concerned, there was no difference of opinion in this House with regard to the value and superiority of Scotch education under the old system; the main object of the reform was rather to compel children to go to school who would not otherwise be at school, and to make local provision for the supply of school accommodation wherever school accommodation did not exist. The principal object of the Act, therefore, was the compulsory attendance of children at school. Now, so far as regards the working of the Scotch Education Act, it is just the Compulsory Clauses which have been least attended to. We have got statistics regarding the working of the Scotch Education Act so far as regards the intelligence departments; but so far as regards the compulsory department we have no very clear or definite information. The duty imposed on every school board in Scotland was to see that every child was attending school, therefore it became the duty of the school board to ascertain what schools existed in their parish, and what children were attending schools. Now, we search in vain through the Scotch Education Reports to find what number of schools exist in Scotland, and what number of children attend these schools. I mean not State-aided schools alone, but all the schools taken together. The statistics furnished refer only to State-aided schools. Now, I will show the Committee what fallacious impressions are produced by the limited statistics which the Scotch Education Department have published. They tell us, for instance, going back to 1872, that there was an average attendance in the public schools of Scotland of 213,549; and then they tell us that there are now, 1885, in attendance in the same schools 455,665. The impression thus conveyed to the minds of the public is, that the number of children receiving education in Scotland has doubled since 1872. That statement is utterly misleading, because it so happens that the statistics which are given here relate simply to State-aided schools, and the fact is not made patent to the public that the State-aided schools in 1872 only gave accommodation and instruction to one-half of the whole of the children of Scotland. "While there was an average attendance in the State-aided schools of Scotland in 1872 of only about 213,549 children, we find by the Second Annual Report of the Board of Education of Scotland that in 1872 there were 461,086 children on the rolls of the schools in 753 parishes and burghs—a part only of Scotland. It is, therefore, important to observe that the impression conveyed by the Scotch Education Department's Report, that the number of children receiving instruction in Scotland has more than doubled since 1872, is utterly erroneous. Then we search in vain the Education Reports to ascertain what the actual increase has been; but, very fortunately, we are not without some other means of information on this point. We refer to the Census Returns of Scotland; and it so happens that the Census Returns of Scotland give us what the Census Returns of England do not, the number of children receiving education in Scotland at the time the Census was taken. We therefore find that in 1871 the number of children in Scotland between five and 15 years of age receiving instruction was 541,995, or 69·77 of the population between these ages; and when we come to 1881, we find the number to be 675,314, or 78·98 of the population, an increase of 9·21 per cent, so that while the public are under the belief that the effect of the operation of the Education Act in Scotland has been to more than double the number of children receiving education in Scotland, in point of fact the amount of the increase does not represent more than 9·21 per cent. But then this 9·21 per cent is not due to the working of the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Act, and for this reason. Prior to the Education Act of 1872 the average school curriculum in Scotland would be about five years. The parent in Scotland considered his children received a fair amount of education if they attended school for about five years. Under the Education Act a system has been introduced whereby you prevent clever children from getting on, and you endeavour to keep the children to one rate of progress, requiring them all to pass together at the end of the year. You thereby have lengthened your curriculum to six years, and by lengthening your curriculum you naturally produce a larger amount of school attendance than formerly. So we have no evidence whatever, from perusing the Scotch Education Department's Reports, that the Compulsory Clauses of the Act have been enforced, as we are told they have. The object, therefore, which I have in view, in the first place, is to point out to the Scotch Education Department, and to the Head of that Department, that the statistics given us are no criterion whatever of the progress of education in Scotland; that, in point of fact, we have no evidence of the working of the Compulsory Clauses in Scotland; and that we ought to have some more clear and decisive evidence that these clauses are being worked out. We ought to have Inspectors to see that school boards are carrying out the Compulsory Clauses, and not to leave the matter entirely at the mercy of school boards, because we find, from the Reports of the Inspectors, complaints over and over again of school boards in all parts of Scotland neglecting this duty. Well, we have complaints of neglect of duty; but we have nobody to supervise the school boards to see whether they carry out the compulsory provisions of the Act; and I maintain that, as the compulsory powers were the main objects of the Education Act, we ought to see that they are really carried out, and that, no matter what expense may be incurred, we ought to appoint proper Inspectors to investigate the matter in the case of each school board, to test the working of every school board, and the result should be formulated and tabulated for all Scotland every year along with the other educational statistics. Now, as far as regards the City of Glasgow, I dare say that many English Members will say that Glasgow has been quoted as an example of how education is being carried on in Scotland. It so happens that Glasgow has received visits from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who was Vice President of the Council in the last Liberal Administration but one, and that that right hon. Gentleman gave a very glowing description of the great educational work which was going on in Glasgow. Now, the fact is that the statistics upon which the right hon. Gentleman's glowing statement was founded were utterly fallacious. So far as regards the City of Glasgow, you will be astonished to find that there are 91,000 children between the ages of five and 13 in Glasgow, and there are only 51,000 children in daily attendance at school; leaving 40,000 daily absent. No one who had listened to or read the glowing description of the work of education which was going on in Glasgow, given by the right hon. Gentleman the former Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), would imagine that such a statement as mine was possible. Now, it is but right that I should point out the fallacies upon which the late Vice President's statistics are founded. In the first place, the Glasgow School Board make up statistics for the year. Now, we all know how statistics for the year should be made up in a school board. We take the average attendance for the year; I suppose no one would ever think of statistics being made up on any other principle than that. But no; the Glasgow School Board do not make up statistics on these lines. They take the month of October, when the school attendance is highest—the best month in the year. They take a certain day in that month, the 7th day of October; they have their officers bringing out every child to school on that day. Every child who is able to come to school at all, although he may be absent every other day in the year, has certainly to be present on that day, and the statistics of that day are quoted as the statistics for the year. The late Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) took these statistics, and used them as if they were the real statistics for the year. What is the result? The result is that the statistics are 11·2 per cent higher than they ought to be—than they should be if they related to the year. Then there is another fallacy in the statistics, and it is this—that outside Glasgow there are many children in reformatories; but the Glasgow School Board include the attendance of these children in schools outside the boundaries of Glasgow as if they were attending schools in the City of Glasgow. In this way 1,746 children are added to the numbers supposed to be attending the schools in the City of Glasgow. Then we have to take into consideration this third point—the number attending school includes those under five years of age and those above 13 years. There ought to be deducted 2 per cent for children under five years of age, and 8·1 per cent for children above 13 years of age. And there is a fourth deduction which has to be made, and that is of the excess of children coming in from the surrounding districts to school in Glasgow over Glasgow children attending schools outside the municipal boundary an excess of upwards of 2,000 children. The result is that when you make these deductions you find, as I have stated, that out of 91,000 children between five and 13 years of age in the City of Glasgow 40,000 are daily absent from school. Now, let us see what proportion that bears as regards the whole of Scotland. That is 56 per cent only of the children between five and 13 years of age who attend school in Glasgow, as against 66 per cent in all Scotland; and yet you find the Glasgow School Board held up as a model, as having, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) speaking in Glasgow said, the best attendance in all Scotland—namely, 85 per cent. Then another point complained of is that members of the Scotch Education Department should come down and give erroneous impressions regarding the work of education in Scotland even in other matters. For instance, we are told about the superiority of the Glasgow School Board education. It would not be a matter to be surprised at if the education given by the Glasgow School Board were better than that supplied by the whole of Scotland, because if the Glasgow School Board neglect their compulsory powers, and allow the lower class of children to run about wild, and if they have so high a percentage as we are told they have—namely, 85 per cent—that shows that their schools are attended by the better class children, or by the children whose parents take an interest in their education. We certainly would not find that the educational results of the Glasgow School Board are superior to those in the whole of Scotland if all classes of children were included in their schools. We find that in Glasgow there are 20,000 children of the lower class who are not in the school board schools at all, but are in the free and charitable schools, in the Roman Catholic schools, and in the reformatories and industrial schools. We likewise find that the Glasgow board schools are the best-equipped, schools in Scotland. They have the highest-paid teachers, and they have a teacher for every Standard. Now, in the whole of Scotland we find that one-third of the schools have an average attendance of under 60 children, and, therefore, only require to have one teacher. There is, therefore, no comparison to be drawn between the schools with only one teacher and the schools with one teacher to every Standard. Even granting all these advantages to Glasgow, Glasgow is behind all Scotland. Now, that is most remarkable. If we take Standards IV., V., VI. and Ex. VI., it is found that in every one the percentage of children presented is less in Glasgow than it is in all Scotland. Standard IV. in Glasgow has a percentage of 17·2, against 18 for all Scotland; Standard V. for Glasgow 12·5, all Scotland 14; Standard VI. for Glasgow 5·0, all Scotland 6·1; and Ex. VI. for Glasgow 1·6, all Scotland 2·4; a total of 36·3 for Glasgow, and 40·5 for Scotland. So that whilst Glasgow was held up as a model for all Scotland, and as a model for England, in point of fact it was inferior to Scotland; and what we complain of is that members of the Scotch Education Department, who know nothing about the matter, should come down to Glasgow, walk through the schools for a day, and then say they have seen the great educational work going on in Glasgow, as if anyone could see it simply by walking through the schools. Again, it so happens that the grant for standard work in Glasgow is actually less than for all Scotland. Glasgow has the advantage of Scotland in the matter of specific subjects, and it is there where the difference arises whereby Glasgow actually, in the grand result, gets to the top. But what are these specific subjects? In the Glasgow schools, where there is a teacher for every Standard, you have plenty of opportunity for specific subjects. But it is only in the elementary specific subjects that Glasgow takes up her money. Dr. Wilson, one of the Inspectors of the Southern Division of Scotland, in the Report for 1884, says—

"The first stage of mathematics, or of physical geography, or animal physiology, for in- stance, can be easily got up in a fortnight by a boy of not more than average ability."

It is simple specific subjects like these in which Glasgow gets a large grant. Gasgow's attendance is one-tenth of all Scotland, and we should expect Glasgow to have one-tenth of the presentation of Scotland in the higher specific subjects. But we find, in the third stages of Latin, Glasgow stands as 35 to Scotland 738; Greek, Glasgow 4 to 33 for Scotland; mathematics, Glasgow 5 to 152 for Scotland. I am quite well aware that some one will challenge my statistics, and say—"But you do not include the High School of Glasgow, which is under the School Board." My explanation is this—that one-half of the children attending the High School of Glasgow do not belong to Glasgow at all. My next reason is that the High School of Glasgow is a secondary school, not in receipt of Government grant, and compares with the secondary schools of Scotland, being attended by a class of children who do not attend the public State-aided schools at all. Now, there is no doubt whatever that there is a very great amount of educational work going on in Glasgow. The ratepayers are perfectly well aware of this, if only on account of the enormous rates which they have to pay. But what is that educational work? It has not been undertaken with a view of bringing out the children for whose benefit the Education Act was passed. One great object of the Board has been to supplant private schools, with the view of giving school board education to those children who belong to the middle and upper classes of Glasgow. For instance, we find that since 1873 there has been a reduction of no less than 5,000 children in the number which were attending the higher-class schools in Glasgow paying over 9d. per week, and that at the present time there are only 1,255 children in attendance at private schools paying over 9d. per week. It would be interesting to ascertain how it is that the Glasgow School Board have managed to attract the middle and upper classes. They have done it upon the principle of grading their schools socially. If you take a certain locality you will find three different classes of schools within a stone's throw of each other. You have one school where the children pay a small fee, another school where a higher fee is paid, and a third school where a still higher fee is paid, all for the same standard of education. The result is that the upper classes are able to send their children to a comparatively select school which receives the benefit of the local and Imperial grants. Now, this is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Education Act. According to that Act, a parent who, on the score of poverty, has the school fees paid for him by the Parochial Board, is placed on an equal footing with the parent of plenty of means, and can select any State-aided school he pleases. His poverty is no bar to his choice of school—the intention of the Act of Parliament being that there should be no social distinctions introduced into the schools, and that the poor man's child should have equal education, and side by side, with the rich man's child. And, indeed, under the old parochial system of Scotland the son of the landed proprietor or of the Peer attending the same parish school received education on the same form as the peasant's son. Now, the Glasgow School Board are introducing social distinctions in their schools, with the view of encouraging the middle and upper classes to reap the advantage of the school board education; and they are doing that by saddling the ratepayers, both local and Imperial, with a great deal of the cost. Then there is another thing which tends to entice children of the upper and middle classes into the Glasgow board schools. There are £700,000 left as charitable endowments for the benefit of the poor in the City of Glasgow. These endowments have been taken possession of under the Education Act, and a great part of them have been allocated to board schools without any restriction whatever as to the ability of the parents to provide education for their children. Part of the endowments, I admit, is devoted to the assistance of those who are in circumstances requiring aid; but the greater part of the endowments is not so allocated, and the result is that monies left entirely for the benefit of the poor are dispensed for the benefit of those members of the wealthy classes who are attracted to the board schools, and who compete with the poor children (who are not in a position to receive assistance in their home lessons), thus succeeding in carrying off the bursaries and other prizes. These educational en- dowments have been put into the board schools on the footing that board schools are representative of a certain class of people—the working class; but in Glasgow they have got the upper classes into the schools, and these classes are reaping the benefits intended for the poorer children. Now, look at the position of the working man in Glasgow, and compare him with the man of the middle or upper classes. Before the Education Act came into operation the fee for working men's children in all Scotland was, I think, about 10s. per head on the average attendance; but the average fee in the Glasgow board schools just now is 16s. 5d. The working man, therefore, notwithstanding the enormous sums paid by the ratepayers and by the Government, has to pay 16s. 5d. instead of 10s. for the education of a child. Then there is the cost of books, as well as his share of the education tax to be borne by the working man, who has to keep his child at school till he has passed Standard V. We find in the case of the middle class that nearly three-fourths of the education is paid out of the local rates and Government grant, and that they get their share of educational endowments, bursaries, &c.; whilst, as we have seen, the working man in Glasgow has now to pay 16s. 5d. in school fees, where in 1873 he paid only 10s. It is the middle and upper classes, and not the working classes, who thus truly reap the pecuniary benefit of assisted education in the board schools. Now, I ask, how long do you expect that such a state of affairs will go on in Glasgow if once the people wake up to the true state of the matter? I would also point out that the working of the Education Act by the Department has been entirely at variance with the Act of Parliament. The intention of the Act of 1872 was that school board education should be supplementary, and entirely supplementary, to the then existing system. So far as the Scotch Act is concerned there is no question about that. As regards the powers of the Department in the matter of school accommodation, there might be a question in the English Act; but so far as regards the Scotch Act it states distinctly that no school board, either now or at a future time, shall erect a school without the consent of the Department. I may mention that one point which the late Vice President of the Council stood upon was that the Preamble of the Act said that education was to be provided for all classes of the people of Scotland. There is no question whatever that the meaning of the Act is that the school board is to see that every child, rich or poor, is educated. The Preamble simply says you are to see that every child is educated; but the Department interpreted that as meaning that school board education was to be provided for every child. That, as I have said, was not the meaning of the Act; it simply meant that every child was to be educated, and the Act itself afterwards described how. It provided that all the schools, public and private, were to be taken into consideration, and that you are to find out whether there is any deficiency of accommodation, and, if so, that the school board shall supply that deficiency. It was absolutely necessary that if children were to go to school there should be a room in which to receive them, and this must be provided by the ratepayers. As I have shown, the real meaning of the Act was that the school board should supply the deficiency; but before any action could take place the Act provided that the consent of the Department must be obtained. I find that the school accommodation in Scotland amounts to 683,360 places. Well, the average attendance is only 471,175, showing that there is a surplus accommodation of over 212,185 places. Now, perhaps the Scotch Education Department may tell us that there is an increase going on in the population, and that it is necessary to keep up with it. But I wish to point out that the accommodation is increasing in greater ratio than the attendance, and the surplus is increasing year by year; and I may say that in the counties of Inverness and Sutherland, and in the Highland parishes generally, the accommodation is double what the actual attendance is. You are saddling the ratepayers there with heavy taxation, and then you have to come to Parliament for extra grants. What is the reading which the Scotch Education Department take of their duty as regards school accommodation? They take the number of the children between five and 13 years of age, and provide accommodation for these. Can there be anything more absurd? In Scotland if once a child passes Standard V. it is entirely free of the school board, and all that the board can insist on is accommodation for the time during which the child may reasonably be in school, and for the time the school board could equip him and send him out of school. You will find the same sort of fallacy here as you have fallen into before—namely, that having compulsory powers with regard to children between the ages of five and 13 years, you assume that every child between those ages must be in school. One of the fallacies of the Scotch Education Department is that they imagine that the number of children on the roll is evidence of great educational work, whereas that may be evidence of neglect of work—of the school board keeping children longer at school than they ought to do. What has been the result as regard the different schools in Scotland? We find that whilst in 1872 half the schools were State-aided, in 1885 we find that five-sevenths of the whole number of schools in Scotland are under school board management, and one-seventh under other management, as State-aided schools. There is only one-seventh of the whole population of Scotland who belong to the upper class who do not send their children to these schools; so that, practically, six-sevenths of the whole education of Scotland is under the thumb of the Education Department. Well, Sir, what is the result of all this? You simply deprive Scotland of one of the most important advantages—that is to say, the advantage of private competition. We are told that in Glasgow only 7 per cent of those on the roll are under six years of age, while the percentage of children in Scotland under six years of age is 9; and when you come to England you will find that the proportion is larger. It is said in Glasgow that Scotch parents have a prejudice against sending their children early to school; but that is no answer—for this reason, because we find in 1874 that, under the old Code, 15·64 per cent of the children on the roll were under six years of age. And then there are the Roman Catholic schools in Glasgow; they have probably the worst part of the population to deal with, and yet we find that the Roman Catholic schools in Glasgow have 14·7 per cent on the roll under six years of age, or double the percentage that there is on the books of the Glasgow School Board. The answer will be—"Oh, but then the Roman Catholics take an interest in the children, and in the working up of their schools." Exactly so; but then that is the best evidence we can have that private schools ought to be encouraged, because they introduce some additional and special interest in the children on the part of the school management. Again, it will be said, perhaps, that, having established public schools in Scotland, we shall be burdening the rates by allowing the establishment of private schools. Now, that is a very great fallacy. It has been found, where private schools have been started and the work of the board schools rendered less, that the managers have been able proportionately to reduce the staff in the board schools, so that, with reduced numbers, they have been conducted at less expense than before the private schools were established. As a matter of fact, the private schools are the cause of a saving of the rates, and this is noticeable particularly in the case of Lancashire, where the average school attendance is 10,000 above the attendance in all Scotland; and where, in Lancashire, owing to the greater prevalence of private schools, the amount paid by the rating authorities is only £127,366, as against £443,684 for all Scotland. Take the case of Glasgow, where there are 14,000 children in the Roman Catholic schools, the existence of these schools saves £10,000 per annum to the ratepayers of Glasgow; because if you shut up the Roman Catholic schools you would have to saddle the rates with the amount. Now, let us look at the educational results, having spoken about the expense of the system. I would not attempt a comparison between the present system and the old system of Scotland, or say which is best; but I think I am entitled to say that I will point out the defect of your school board system, without reference to the question of the balance between the two systems. I want to point out defects which you ought to be able to remedy. Now, the school board system is based on a fallacious principle. It aims at uniformity—it expects equal results from all children of the same age, no matter what difference there may be in the feeding, clothing, or housing of the children. You have to make your school standard so low as not to bear harshly on children of feeble ability. What is the result of that? We have in Glasgow those children who attend school one day and work the next day, and yet in these half-time schools the passes average 96 per cent. Take Lancashire, again, and you will find with regard to the half-time schools a similar result. Why is this? Because, although only attending school every second day, you have discipline in the case of these boys; they are systematically at work. And it is systematic work which produces this result. What is the result under the full-time school-attendance system? We know that the thing which can be done at any time is never done at all; and the clever boy, who finds the lessons easy, is taught simply habits of laziness, because he has to wait for the other boys, so that they may all pass the Standard at the same time. In this way you destroy those habits of progress which ought to be instilled into every boy; and that is what is being done in Scotland. There is another disadvantage of the school board system, which is that the child must attend 250 times at one school before he can be presented to the Inspector for examination to earn his grant and pass his Standard. Take the case of Glasgow, where a great many schools are inspected between December and March. We find that if a parent removes to another part of the city, the child, although attending school constantly, will be kept back at the new school one year in his education, because he has not attended 250 times in that school prior to the examination. This is because the teacher will not get any grant for passing him at once, and so he keeps the child till the next year. At the same time, you compel the parents to pay school fees for the time the child is kept back. In Scotland, where there are so many removals, this is a serious grievance. Then another most important matter is that, so far as Scotland is concerned, you have changed altogether the motive of the teaching. In Scotland, no doubt, under the old parochial system, the salaries were very small, and the teachers, on the average, had only £50 a-year, with free house. But the teacher then had a position in the parish, and teaching was a profession; but now you have lowered it to a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and the result is that a teacher does not now look so much to the advantage of the children under his care, his only thought being as to how much money he is to have for the work he does—he looks forward to the pecuniary result only. If he passes a child he gets the grant, but otherwise he gets nothing; and so he neglects the clever children who are sure to pass, in order to concentrate his attention on those who will have a difficulty in passing. So far as Scotland is concerned the board schools are lowering education. In Scotland we had formerly secondary education as an essential part of elementary school teaching. In Scotland, no matter where you resided—supposing you resided in the most out-of-the-way parish—you found a school with a teacher competent to prepare children for the Universities; and the result was that the Highlands of Scotland were equal to any other part of the country in the matter of education, and you found that pupils were turned out capable of entering the Scotch Universities, and of eventually occupying distinguished positions in the world. But what is the state of things now? In the board schools in Scotland, in 1880, there were 596 pupils in the third stage of Latin; in 1884 the number was reduced to 532, a reduction of 11 per cent; there was also a reduction, in the third stage, of 50 per cent in mechanics; 26 per cent in animal physiology; 9 per cent in domestic economy; and 7 per cent in magnetism and electricity. All this reduction has been going on, while in the last four years the attendance in the board schools has increased by 44,000. So that the higher education will be found to be going down year by year. It would be a gross mistake to imagine that in a country like Scotland, where the population is so much scattered, that you can meet the wants of the people by secondary schools. In secondary schools you lack the enthusiasm of the teacher in the early training of his pupils, whereby he is led to single out the clever children, and to inspire in them the desire for secondary education, at the same time directing their elementary training towards that goal. In England the school fees average 9s. 4d., as against 16s. 5d. in Glasgow and 13s. for all Scotland; and we find school attendance, and the attendance of the younger or infant children, increase as the school fees get less—the attendance being highest in England, second highest in all Scotland, and lowest in Glasgow. To sum up, the great evil of the school board system is that in Scotland you do not develop the faculties of the child, and do not give him an opportunity of continuous progress. You fix a standard, and send all the children into that standard at once, and keep them moving together, instead of adopting the old parochial system of allowing the child to progress according to his individual ability. I think I have given sufficient reasons to satisfy this Committee that as in England you have a Commission sitting to inquire into the working of the English Education Act, so we ought to have a similar Commission appointed for Scotland. I think it will be seen that the Scotch educational system has been worked from England, and that, therefore, of course, the same evil results as you have in England have taken place in Scotland. The only difference is that, unlike Scotland, in England you had no educational system to spoil. I think this is an opportune moment for bringing these matters before the Scotch Education Department. I ask the Committee to understand that I have put forward this question in no hostile spirit, but simply with the view of urging upon the Government the necessity of seriously considering whether the time has not arrived for causing a thorough investigation to be made into the working of the Scotch Education Act.

I would not trouble the Committee with any observations only that we are about to begin a long Vacation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will have during that time ample opportunity of considering any suggestions that may now be made; and if there are any suggestion that he approves of, and upon which he can take action, we shall have saved a whole Session by bringing them forward. I have not had the advantage of hearing my hon. Friend who preceded me, except in his concluding remarks; but if I understood my hon. Friend rightly, he attacked a good many features of the present school system in Scotland on various grounds, and charged the responsibility for the whole upon the fact that for many years past Scottish education has been dominated, not by native, but by English ideas. On that point I agree with my hon. Friend; and I wish to carry forward the argument, and call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to one or two points which I think are well worthy of his consideration. First of all, I wish to say a word or two about the Training Colleges. These Training Colleges cost the Government £27,000 a-year. What they cost the owners I have no means of knowing; but they cost the State and Imperial system £27,000 a-year. Now, my first objection—and here I cannot expect to have any expression of sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman—is that they are denominational and sectarian. I have listened during the last week to praises of sectarianism in education from hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House. This is about the only point now on which the Tories and the Parnellites are in agreement. I, therefore, cannot expect any sympathy for my views from either of these sections of the House; but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as I have been able to judge, the public opinion of Scotland on this question is with those who object to the denominational system, though, now that I remember them, I think my hon. Friend's remarks rather tended to support it. But, apart from the objection to sectarianism, the sectarianism of the Training Colleges has this extra absurdity—that the Colleges are meant to supply with teachers a system that is becoming more and more undenominational every day. The sectarian schools in Scotland are dying out. The native religious denominations—the Presbyterian denominations—are gradually giving up their hold upon the schools. There are, in fact, comparatively few Established Church and Free Church schools left. The only sectarian schools which are growing in numbers are the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic schools; and in Presbyterian Scotland, of course, these denominations do not count. It is an additional absurdity that you should attempt to man an unsectarian system with teachers in sectarian seminaries; and—to recur to what I started with—this denominationalism in the training of schoolmasters is one of the evil results which we owe to our educational system having been changed to the backward and Conservative and prejudiced public school system of England. My next objection to the training seminaries is that they are not doing their work well. The work they are doing is work which ought to be done by the Universities, which the Universities would do very much better, and which they are anxious to do. Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, which are so situated that they command peculiar advantage for the training of schoolmasters, are particularly anxious to take in hand this great public work, and we interfere with their laudable ambition on account of being bound to take this sectarian training school system that I have spoken of. I have to express my disappointment that this very important subject of the extent to which the training of public schoolmasters can be undertaken by the Universities has been dealt with in a most meagre, imperfect, and iadequate manner in the last Report of the Council of Education in Scotland. All you have in that Report is a bare allusion of the most grudging character, which promises the usual official consideration to the question, and, smiling, puts it by. In the body of the Report you have from the Chief Inspector of Training Schools, Dr. Wilson, an allusion to the subject which illustrates the backward spirit which prevails in regard to this question in official quarters. Dr. Wilson advocates, not that schoolmasters should be trained as members of other learned Professions in Scotland are trained at the Universities, but that a select few of them should attend a few classes; and let the Committee mark the reasons. He said—

"If you send a few of these schoolmaster students to the Universities they will have the great advantage of mixing with the students following the learned Professions who are going to follow a far different career from their own."

That is where the difference comes in. The career of students who attend the Scottish Universities are very much the same, in many instances, as those of the students who attend the Training Colleges. Do you suppose that the village doctor, the parish minister, the Dissenting minister, in the very neighbourhood, or in the intimacy of whom your schoolmaster is going to pass his life, are the beings of a superior social order to whom Dr. Wilson alludes in his Report? I think Dr. Wilson has got hold of the wrong end of the argument. I think that, instead of selecting a few students, and sending them to the Universities to see how these superior beings conduct themselves, the whole body of these schoolmasters should be turned over to, and the training of them undertaken by, those who have charge of the education of the higher Professions in Scotland. The only argument I have ever heard advanced against the transference of the Training College students to the Universities is that the Universities have no practising schools. Well, it is a very curious thing that those who make this objection never seem to recognize that practising schools are not a necessity of the training for the higher schools in England and Scotland. You never hear of a practising school for the training of schoolmasters who are going to Eton or Harrow. You trust the students to pick up the faculty of teaching partly from being successful students, and partly from the advice and guidance of the masters under whom they are trained; and, for my own part, I have always thought that you may rely very much on the same thing in regard to the elementary schoolmaster. But even if that were net so, you may, I believe, command in all the University towns, not, perhaps, a special practising school such as you have in Edinburgh, but the ordinary public State - supported schools of the town, and you can make them practising schools. At all events, you have in two, if not three, of the Universities special Chairs of Education, the incumbents of which are, I believe, well qualified, and only too anxious, to take in charge this great public matter of the training of the public schoolmasters of Scotland. Let me, in leaving this subject, point to one hallucination which still seems to hang about the Education Office, which had charge of English and Scottish education. The old idea of the Committee of Council on Education was that there was so little in the Profession of a National schoolmaster to tempt the young men to undertake it that they had to be bribed to undertake it; and, moreover, that they had to be mutilated for it in order to be incapable of following other Professions. If that were true it certainly is no longer so. The Profession of the National schoolmaster is certainly self-supporting. Salaries are increasing every day; the posi- tion is becoming better every day; and I think it is time we should allow this Profession to look after itself, and allow those who wish training for it to take their chance with men who are training for other Professions. I believe that Free Trade in the training of your National teachers will give you at least as good and, I verily believe, better men than you can possibly have now. Well, Sir, what I have said about Training Colleges is only one part of a much larger subject which I am certain, whoever happens to be Secretary for Scotland, will very soon have to direct his attention to. What we want in Scotland is more decentralization in educational affairs. We want Home Rule in Scottish education. There has been growing of late years a feeling to which my hon. Friend has given partial expression to-night—a feeling of dissatisfaction with the red-tape system under which Scottish education has laboured for so many years. My hon. Friend gives us a remarkable instance, from which I do not know that he drew the same inference that I draw; but he told us that the half-timers in Glasgow pass better examinations than the full-timers in Glasgow or anywhere else. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wanted to draw the inference that we ought to resort to half-time universally; but the conclusion I came to is that the routine examination of percentages by Inspectors and Examiners is a mistake, and is no real test whatever of the value of the education which is being conferred on the children of Scotch parents. We have deposits in Scotland from that which was an excellent model for educational management. For centuries Scottish education was managed by a local area—the area of Presbytery. That, in itself, at one time was an excellent system. In course of time it became a sectarian system; but you passed away from the government of the Presbytery—the government of the clergy—which was a mild and a gentle, and, I believe, an effective rule, and you have handed over your system to West End clerks in London, who never in their lives knew anything about it. Now, you have got to reverse your system. You are not, of course, going back to the Presbytery. Denominationalism is past praying for in Scotland; but you can go back to the local area, on which our old Scotch sys- tem was based, and if we have that we can have an effective Board in Edinburgh to which we can hand over the control of any funds granted by the State for the purpose of education, instead of to clerks at Dover House, and this Board would manage them better. There is just one other matter of detail to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee. I think it is high time the right hon. Gentleman revised, in the way I have endeavoured to indicate, the Inspectorship system at present prevailing in Scotland. I daresay a good many Members of the Committee have seen the evidence that Mr. Arnold gave before the Commission now inquiring into National Education in England. He was asked as to the Inspectors appointed in England—I am only quoting from memory, but this was the substance of the question put to him—whether the men appointed as Inspectors were appointed on account of any supposed qualification for the office? The reply was to the effect that that was the last thing that was thought of, and that the Inspectors were appointed, not because they had any special fitness, or because they knew anything about the work, but because they were young University men with good testimonials, or, what was the same thing, with considerable influence. You will have to drop all that sort of thing in Scotland when once you hand over the management of school affairs to the people. You may depend upon it that they will be as much alive to it as the Committee of Council on Education in England; in fact, I do not know that the latter have ever adopted a single reform that has not been forced upon them. Once you hand over the management of the public school system to the people themselves in their local areas, whether counties or towns, rely upon it that you will see that the standard of public education is kept up, and it may also be relied on that the people will not select, as judges of the efficiency of that system, young gentlemen from Oxford or Cambridge, who have probably never entered an elementary school in their lives, and would probably manage nothing worse than one of these schools if they were set to manage it. The people will utilize the Inspectorships as fair prizes for the men who have worked under the system, and will set men to test the system who have had experience of its working. I sympathize with the spirit which prompts these suggestions—which are not mine, but are universally made outside. I would suggest that, instead of having a few assistant Scotch Inspectors to help the supervising Inspectors appointed from the English Universities, we should take the bull by the horns, and whilst keeping the present Inspectors in office—you could not well do otherwise with them—take care, in all new appointments, to select men who know the system they are to deal with. I think that is all I have to say to the Committee on this very important subject. I will only conclude by saying that I am perfectly certain that no person has held the Office that the right hon. Gentleman holds now, and I believe that no person will hold it, who is better qualified than he is to deal with educational matters in Scotland. I am sure he will receive the suggestions made to him in the spirit in which they are offered. He has not, of course, the advantage of representing a Scotch constituency; but I believe he has the advantage of being a Scotchman. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration, as a whole, this matter of public education in Scotland, and more particularly that he will take it in hand in connection with that other question he is bound also to take up—namely, the question of University reform in Scotland. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman cheer that remark, because my firm conviction is that there is no use attempting reform in Scottish Universities unless it is made part and parcel of a general educational reform which will take in hand the whole National school system in Scotland, and, more particularly, with that portion which deals with the training of schoolmasters for the service of the State.

I have no right to complain of the length of the speeches which have been delivered if I consider the importance of the subject with which they deal; but I think the Committee will agree with me that it is not a consideration of that kind alone that we must consult now, and you will therefore forgive me if, in replying to the two able and exhaustive speeches we had heard, I condense my remarks into the briefest possible limits. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down looks forward to a possible decentralization which shall substitute for the existing Body at Dover House a Board of Education in Scotland. I confess I find it rather difficult, in my capacity as Scottish Secretary, to meet all the wishes in regard to Scottish Government that I come across, when I recollect that when we were discussing other Estimates only a few days ago the complaint against the Office of Scottish Secretary was that I had not sufficient control over the Boards in Edinburgh in the conduct of other Scottish affairs. Yet, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, he desires to institute in Edinburgh a Board precisely as independent of the Scottish Secretary in regard to education as at the present moment are the Board of Supervision and the Fishery Board; so that, in that respect, he will be found to differ from some of his Liberal Friends who sit near him. The hon. Gentleman who initiated this debate made a general attack upon the whole system of school boards in Scotland, and he told us that they entirely failed in that which was their primary object of compelling a larger attendance of the children of the poor in the elementary schools. In order to support that contention he produced a large body of statistics, which I confess I am unable to look upon as other than inconsistent with the results which might be broadly arrived at from a consideration of the present system. As to this question of attendance, the hon. Gentleman says we did not give statistics enough; but I will give him one piece of statistics that ought to convince him. According to the information of the Educational Commission of 1865, I find that the number of attendances in inspected schools at that time was 105,000. The hon. Gentleman said it would not be fair to take inspected schools alone, and wanted to take uninspected schools as well, so as to make the comparison fair. I add to that figure 122,000 for non - inspected schools and 29,000 attending private adventure schools, giving a total of 256,000. The attendance now in inspected schools is not 256,000, but over 455,000. Now, whatever deductions you may be able to make from that, surely the broad result remains that the effect of the Act of 1872, and the subsequent modifications which have been introduced into it, have been enormously to increase the attendance of children at inspected schools in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman in general attacked the school board system, and especially that embodiment of the system which exists in Glasgow; and part of his able speech was devoted to an attack on the Glasgow School Board and upon one of my Predecessors (Mr. Mundella), who appears in this House to have committed himself to some eulogy of the Glasgow School Board which greatly raised the wrath of the hon. Gentleman. I am not responsible for the statement of the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella); but I am bound to say that all I have heard of the Glasgow School Board induces me to believe that it is a Body which exercises its functions with great ability, zeal, and discretion. When the hon. Gentleman tells us that the Glasgow School Board so manage their affairs that the poor have their interests sacrificed to the benefit of the rich, I would remind him that, after all, the Glasgow School Board is an elected Body; that the working classes of Glasgow have the entire control of that Board; that the Scottish Office, centralized though it is at Dover House, has no power of control whatever over that Board; and that for its offences, if offences it has, it alone is responsible. Then the hon. Gentlemen went on to state that under the present system we have compelled Scotland to over-build itself in the matter of schools. If Scotland is over-built, the people responsible for it are not either the English Education Department as it was constituted before, or the present Scottish Education Department. The people responsible for it were a Board of the kind which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see started in Edinburgh—namely, the Scottish Education Board. ["No!"] Yes; they, and they alone, are responsible, if overbuilding there is. But I must rather take exception to the reasoning by which the hon. Gentleman proved there was over-building. He compared the accommodation in Highland schools with the number of attendances, and he proved easily enough that on that principle of comparison there is a great deal more school accommodation than is required. But what you ought to compare is not the accommodation in the Highland counties with the actual attendances, but the attendances that there ought to be in those counties, because, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware, the Highland counties have lagged far behind the rest of Scotland in this respect—so far behind that we have been obliged to give, at the cost of the taxpayers, great additional stimulus to attendance, in these schools, in order, if possible, to bring them up to the level which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom. Then the hon. Gentleman told us that State-aided schools are cutting out private enterprize. I admit the fact; but I do not understand that the hon. Gentleman suggested any remedy. I do not know whether the hon. Member means that board schools are cutting out private enterprize, or that State-aided schools are doing so.

Board schools.

The action of the Department is strictly limited by law in that matter. In England, I understand, where a school board already provides sufficient accommodation, it is not possible to erect a denominational school. That is not the case in Scotland. In Scotland any denomination which has an adequate number of members in a school board district may, if it pleases, erect a school and will get from the Public Funds a grant for that school. That does not appear to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and he wants the Government to sanction the erection of schools which are not denominational schools, but which shall receive a public grant, and shall be rivals to the board schools. If that is the hon. Gentleman's object there are two objections to it. The first is that we cannot do it as the law at present stands. The second objection would be that you would indeed, if you did carry it out, produce that over-building of schools in Scotland which the hon. Gentleman in another part of his speech so strongly objected to. If the hon. Gentleman's plan were carried into effect, you might then have in every parish a board school and another school not being a denominational school, which would receive a public grant, and which would attract scholars from the board schools. Whatever merit that scheme would have it would undoubtedly have the demerit of greatly and purposelessly augmenting the school accommodation in Scotland. Then—and this is the last observation I shall have to make—the hon. Gentleman mourned the old parochial system. I also mourn some of the things we have lost in the old parochial system. I recognize the enormous debt which Scotland owes to that system. I quite grant the elasticity which exists in the old parochial schools, and that the teaching which, in country districts, was given under that system, which in England we should call the secondary branch of education, is admirable. I grant all that; but if you are to drag into your educational net the whole population of the labouring class in Scotland, it is inevitable that that system should vanish, and that for it you should substitute some system like the present, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that though in country districts I admit there may be some loss in the teaching of these higher subjects, if we are to look to Scottish education as a whole, so far from there being a falling-off in the teaching of these higher subjects in the elementary schools, the teaching in them is greatly augmented. I find that in the higher subjects 2,000 out of 3,000 inspected schools took some of these subjects up; that over 60,000 scholars were presented in one or other of the subjects, instead of 4,400 when the system was initiated in 1873; and that the number presented last year in Latin was 6,037, and in mathematics 3,800. In the face of these statistics we may drop a tear over the parochial system; but I think we cannot truly maintain that, taking the length and breadth of Scotland, education in the higher subjects has really seriously suffered. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has referred to Training Colleges. Though I do not agree with the hon. Member's views on secondary education—and I should like to say a word or two about that if there were time—I feel that the subject of Training Colleges requires consideration. I have been asked, both by him and the other hon. Member who spoke, whether I will appoint a Commission to inquire into Scottish education on the same lines as the English Commission? I think it highly inexpedient that there should be two Commissions at the same time.

I did not make that suggestion. I am content to leave the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. I have more confi- dence in him than I should have in a Commission.

He threw it out as a suggestion.

No; not I.

A Commission to inquire into the same branch of the subject in Scotland in addition to the Commission in England would produce confusion probably, and delay certainly; but I do think it might be desirable to appoint a small Departmental Committee, or something analogous—[Laughter..] [An hon. MEMBER: Of Scottish Members.]—an independent Committee to inquire into the national aspect of the Training Colleges, and into the question of area which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and possibly into one or two other points not touched upon by the great Commission now sitting. I hope hon. Members will admit that I have been sufficiently brief in my remarks, and I trust we shall now be allowed to take the Vote.

I should like to know why there are certain burgh parishes that obtain the special grant while others are debarred from it? The people living in the parishes belong to the same class as those in the parishes benefited by the grants, and require the same stimulus. I also desire information as to why the Department give 4s. to one teacher and 10s. to another for the passing of a pupil in certain subjects. In both cases the examination which takes place is the same; but in one case the teacher happens to be an undergraduate and the other is not. Men of the old schoolmaster class are not considered very eligible for new appointments, because, as a rule, they are not graduates, and therefore for every pupil they pass the school board only receives 4s., whereas if the teacher happens to be an undergraduate the board receives 10s. for every pupil passed. This state of things acts very unfairly upon the great bulk of the old teachers of Scotland. The position of the teacher under the present system is not what it ought to be. I cannot altogether approve of the aut vitam aut cutpam tenure of office of the old system; but I think there ought to be more security of tenure given to a teacher than there is at present. Nowadays a teacher can be dismissed at the whim or caprice of the school board. A teacher ought cer- tainly to have the right to appeal to the Education Department. I know of several cases of arbitrary dismissal of teachers, dismissals which could never have been upheld had there been the right of appeal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will consider the question of the status of teachers, and endeavour to give them more security of office and to make them more independent. Under the old system teachers were too independent; but now they were too much at the mercy of local influences. I am afraid that the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) has been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). My hon. Friend pointed out that the old endowments of Glasgow, which were given for the education of the poor and needy children, have now been devoted to the education of the children of the rich and well-to-do.

Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to one or two observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I think it would have been more judicious if, considering the amount of care with which the statistics I have laid before the Committee were prepared, the right hon. Gentleman had suspended his judgment regarding them, and had refrained from either condemning or eulogizing the Glasgow School Board until he had thoroughly considered the matter. I think he will find that the object I had in view was to present a different view of Scotch education to that which was presented to him through the Official Department. He has asked me to refer to the statistics of 1865, from which I shall see that the attendance was not so great at that time as it is now. I have much more reliable statistics than those of the Commission. I have the statistics of the Board of Education in Scotland for 1874. These statistics show us that in 1872, when the School Board system came into operation, in only 753 parishes in Scotland there were 461,086 children attending school, and that there were 558,258 children between five and 13 years of age in those parishes; showing that the school attendance in Scotland equalled 83 per cent of the number of children between five and 13 years of age. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) also referred to the teaching of specific subjects, and said that thousands of children were receiving instruction in specific subjects. I, however, showed by the Report of one of the Inspectors that certain specific subjects could be got up by a child of ordinary ability in a fortnight. With regard to the question of school accommodation the right hon. Gentleman said that if a private school were built it might amount to over-building. But it would not be over-building at the public expense; the ratepayers would not be called upon to defray the cost, so there would be no hardship upon them. Judging from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think there is much hope of the matter being investigated with an unbiased judgment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether I was right in assuming that he was prepared to deal with the Scotch Universities next Session?

Yes; I think in referring to the speech of the hon. Gentleman I said I was so prepared.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the question of the Theological Chairs?

That is not pertinent to this Vote.

I hope the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will be able to answer one or two questions with respect to this Vote. He has just said, and I believe he also stated so in the early part of the Session, that he is going to bring in a University Bill. It is quite unnecessary for anyone connected with Scotland to be told how much the country owes to the Universities, and how generally acceptable such a Bill will be in Scotland. In the Bill introduced by a previous Government there was a clause which implied that there was a certain finality in the amount given to the Scotch Universities. I should like to be assured that such a clause will not exist in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is about to introduce; and I should also like to ask whether, by the Bill, he intends to appoint a Commission for the Scotch Universities, and whether the Bill is to give the Commission power to consider the curriculum in the Scotch Universities?

Of course, it is quite impossible for me now—I think it would be almost out of Order—to state the provisions of a Bill I intend to introduce. With regard to the question of finality in matters of finance, I should be always glad to get as much money out of the Treasury as I can for educational purposes.

I do not intend to detain the Committee at any length; but I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) if he can now answer the Question I gave him Notice of some days ago with reference to the position of the teachers in certain schools in places where half of the population speak Irish? The Question I asked the right hon. Gentleman was whether he would see to the extending to these schools the provisions of the the law as embodied in the Code for Scotland in respect to the teaching of Gaelic? I wish that the Irish-speaking children should be put on the same footing as the Gaelic-speaking children in Scotland.

I have made inquiries into this matter, and it seems to me, speaking generally, that the subject is more liberally dealt with by the Board of Education in Ireland than by the Education Department in Scotland. I should be very happy to confer with the hon. Member upon the point, because, I assure him, I should be extremely anxious that no advantage which is given to the Gaelic-speaking children of Scotland should be refused to the Irish-speaking children. I think, however, that the Gaelic language, or the Irish language, or the Welsh language, can only be treated as a vehicle for learning English. On that principle there should be facilities given for the teaching of the Irish-speaking population in Ireland. In regard to the use of the Gaelic language in school hours, there are regulations in Ireland which seem to me to put the matter on an equal footing with Scotland, and I do not see that it could really be materially improved. If the hon. Member will confer with me, I will show him what these regulations are, and if they can be amended in any way so as to meet his views, and not interfere with the efficiency of the education of the children, I shall be very happy to make an amendment.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think I am already conversant with the regulations which obtain in Ireland, but I am not so certain with regard to the regulations which obtain in Scotland. All I propose is that there should be embodied in the Irish regulations the provisions of Section 19 B of the Scotch Code with regard to the Gaelic-speaking children of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman will have that done, and I think it is a reasonable request, I shall be perfectly satisfied.

I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to the question of Training Schools in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that a change has at last been made in the direction desired by the Catholic people of Ireland and the Catholic Bishops—namely, the establishment of Denominational Training Colleges. There was a long battle; but it ended, as I have said, in the establishment of Denominational Training Colleges; one has been established by the Catholic Bishops, and another has been established for the education and training of Protestant teachers. The Reports of the Commissioners for last year and previous years show that these Training Colleges have succeeded in a very gratifying manner. But there is still a very great grievance, at least the Catholic population think so, to which attention should be directed without delay. The grievance consists of this—that there are several differences between the terms granted to the State Training College in Marlborough Street and the Denominational Colleges. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee very long, but I will state very briefly the points upon which the grievance exists. In the first place, there are no building grants for the Catholic College. The State College was built and established out of State funds, but the Catholic College has been established out of private funds. This difference between the two Establishments is felt very keenly by the Catholics. In the second place, the expenses of maintenance and repairs are paid in the case of the State College out of public funds; but in the case of the Catholic College, and, I believe, in the case of the Protestant College, out of private funds. Again, the cost of the maintenance and training of the pupils in the State College is entirely borne by the State; but in the case of the Denominational Colleges not more than 75 per cent of this expense can be borne, or is borne, by the State, the remaining part of the cost being defrayed by the people of the respective denominations. The fourth difference is that the actual travelling expenses of the pupils attending the Colleges—the expenses to and from home, and the expenses attendant on the journey of the pupils—are borne in the case of the Marlborough Street College by the State; but in the case of the Denominational Colleges no such allowance is made by the State. In addition, 1s. a-week as pocket money is allowed out of State funds to each pupil attending the Marlborongh Street College, while there is no such allowance out of the State funds for the pupils in the Denominational Institutions. Lastly—there are some other points of difference, but I pass them over—a most important point is that the expenses in the Marlborough Street College are defrayed as soon as they are due or incurred, whereas in the case of the Denominational Colleges, certainly in the case of the Catholic College, they are paid under circumstances and conditions of the most irritating character. The expenses are paid out of a credit fund, which is created in this way—a certain sum of money, I believe £100, is placed to the credit of each pupil who shall have attended the College continuously for two years, and shall further have continued a teacher continuously and consecutively two years longer—that is to say, the payments will not be made unless the pupils have attended continuously for four years the College and a school. The result of this is that if a pupil has, after spending, say, a year and a-half at the College, for some reason or other, to leave, no payment is made on his account; and also if he fails, on leaving College, to obtain a situation as teacher, the grant fails. And even if he gets a situation as teacher, but fails, on account of illness or other unavoidable cause, to retain it for two years, the money payment on his account is forfeited. Now, it seems to me that this is a very grievous hardship. There are no such restrictions, no such limitations, on the payment of expenses incurred in the Marlborough Street College. Now, all we ask is equality. We say either level up or level down; put the Institutions by either process on an equality and we shall be satisfied. We do not think you ought to call upon the Denominational Establishments to compete with the State Institution, which is placed on very much more favourable terms. I do not like to take up any longer the time of the Committee. I think I have explained satisfactorily, though briefly, the points of difference between these Educational Establishments; and I think that not only are these points worthy of attention, but of immediate attention. It cannot be gainsaid that our demand for equality, either by levelling up or levelling down, is a very fair and reasonable demand. We shall certainly agitate with ever-increasing energy until our demand is granted. I think it is right to say, though I am not authorized by any member of the Board of National Education to make the statement, that a very prominent member of the Board of Education, not unknown to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), recently proposed a resolution at a meeting of the Board, asking the Government to grant the demand which is now made upon them, and that that resolution was carried. I do not know whether the resolution has yet come before the Government or not; but I am sure, when it does, it will carry with it conviction as to the justice of the claim set up by the Catholic Bishops. I do not appeal for the Catholic as against the Protestant College; I do not want to ask anything for the Catholic Establishment which will not be granted equally to the Protestant Establishment. All I say is that, at present, there is a grievance to be remedied; that the State College is placed in a position of great advantage over the other Institutions, and that this is not fair; and I repeat that the grievance will be brought again and again before the notice of the House until it is remedied.

I trust that, as I have the honour of being a member of the Governing Body of several of the Training Colleges in England in connection with the Established Church, the Committee will allow me to make a few observations. As far as I could gather from the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy), he has described with perfect accuracy the conditions under which grants are made to the Training Colleges in England; and all I have to say is that whatever is just to our English Colleges is also just to the Colleges in Ireland. I do not think it is fair that Denominational Colleges in Ireland should stand in a better position or in any inferior position than the corresponding Colleges in England. Of course, I am speaking now of the annual grant. The conditions described by the hon. Gentleman under which grants are made to the Denominational Colleges of Ireland are similar to those which obtain in England. I may have to complain sometimes, and the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) will, perhaps, agree with me, that more ought to be given to our schools in England. I do not complain of any advantages given to the Marlborough Street College; but, at the same time, I do not see why all the Colleges in Ireland should not be placed upon an equal footing.

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. S. Powell) forgets that in England Training Colleges have no competitors, whereas in Ireland the Denominational Training Schools have a competitor in a State Establishment. That is what we complain of. You in England obtained grants when establishing your Training Colleges, although you had no competitor; we got none although we had and have a competitor. Surely, then, the difference between the Irish Colleges and the English Colleges is perfectly plain. We, as I have said, have a competition with a fully equipped State Institution which has already had building grants, the cost of the maintenance and repair of which is borne by the State, and the expense of the maintenance and training of the pupils attending which are defrayed by the State; whereas our Institution only receives 75 per cent, or 15s. in the pound, on this head. In England you have no such competition, and up to the present you have had everything provided for you out of the public funds.

I should like to say that towards the building of the last Training College in England not a single farthing was given or will be given by the State.

Of course, this matter is, as the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) has said, complicated by the fact that the system prevailing for many years in Ireland was one of a single Training College, that Training College being entirely supported by the State. Denominational Training Colleges, as the Committee are aware, are of very recent date in Ireland. I think their institution was a salutary change, and that the Government of the day were quite right in admitting Denominational Training Colleges in Ireland to the same privileges which have long been enjoyed by Denominational Training Colleges in England. Now, the question is how are we to put Denominational Training Colleges in Ireland and the State Training College on an equal footing? If we level up we put Denominational Colleges in Ireland on a better footing than similar Institutions in England. I am not quite prepared to admit that there is cause shown for that. I suspect, if that were done, there would be steps taken to obtain an improvement in the position of the English Colleges. But, on the other hand, if we level down, if we deprive the pupils at the Marlborough Street Training College of some of the advantages they at present enjoy, we might impair the efficiency of that Institution; therefore I confess I should like to have some time to consider this matter before expressing a definite opinion upon it. There is one rule, however, which the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) referred to which I think ought to be properly attended to, and that is the rule under which the Government contribution, whatever it may be, is paid to the College authorities after a service by the pupil of two years at the College and two years in teaching a school. I think that is a very valuable provision. I am afraid it has happened that students at the Marlborough Street School have received education there, and then not proceeded to give the State the benefit of that education by teaching afterwards. Anything of that kind ought to be guarded against, whatever the institution should be. I should be sorry to see any change made in the rule to which I have referred; but I can promise the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) that the whole subject will receive my consideration.

I have only to point out to the Committee that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland supplies us with a good argument, and, indeed, a fresh one for Home Rule. Our case is a perfectly good one; but we are not to be allowed to get what we are entitled to, simply because, if we did get it, several demands of a similar character, which it would be inconvenient to meet, would be made upon the Exchequer from London. The Irish people will note the fact and draw their own inference.

Mr. Courtney, I shall endeavour to occupy the attention of the Committee for as short a time as possible while I state the case of the National School teachers of Ireland. The case of the Irish National School teachers stands at present in this position, that hon. Members of every shade of opinion agree as to the necessity of having the National School teachers of Ireland at least upon an equality with their brethren in England and Scotland. I think the teachers are fortunate in having as Chief Secretary for Ireland at the present moment a right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who is in sympathy with their demands. It is admitted—it has been admitted by successive Governments—that the National School teachers of Ireland have a good case; those responsible for the government of Ireland have admitted the fact, and have promised to do all in their power to satisfy the demands and to rectify the grievances of the teachers. At the present time the position of the Irish National School teachers is very uncertain. The Acts which have been passed from time to time have been merely tentative and experimental, and, to a great extent, incomplete. Now, Sir, previous to the Act of 1875 the average salaries of Irish National School teachers amounted only to £43 per year; but at that time it was decided by the Parliament then in existence that £120,000 should be set aside for the purpose of improving the teachers' position; £60,000 was devoted to the purpose of an unconditional increase in their salaries, and £60,000 was set aside for a conditional improvement of their position. The conditions laid down were that if the Poor Law Unions of Ireland would contribute a sum of money in the shape of result fees, the Government would set aside from this £60,000 a similar amount in each case. Well, it was hoped by those who were responsible for the introduction of that measure that the Poor Law Guardians of Ireland would come forward and subscribe liberally, in accordance with the Act of Parliament; but, on investigation, it was found by the Poor Law Guardians of Ireland that they would not be justified in meeting the Government half-way. They, I think, very properly declined to contribute to the result fees, because they would not be justified in thus taxing the community when they had no voice whatever in the management of the National Schools of Ireland. For that reason, Mr. Courtney, the good intentions of the Government of the time and the object of the Act were frustrated. The sum of £60,000, half the sum mentioned in the Act of Parliament, is practically lost to the National School teachers of Ireland. In the year 1875, 65 Unions resolved to contribute to the result fees, and 98 resolved not to contribute. Since that time the Unions have gradually withdrawn their contributions to the result fees; the number of Unions contributing has gradually decreased until at the present time it is practically nil. Well, in 1881, the Commissioners of Education in Ireland entered into a calculation, and from their Report it is found that the average pay of the Irish National School teachers is £57 9s., and in order to arrive at this average the Commissioners left out of the computation 2,748 of the worst-paid teachers. If these had been included the average would have been found to be very much less. Now, Sir, I shall for the information of the Committee quote what the comparative salaries of the Irish National School teachers and those of their brethren in England are.

Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the Irish teachers have houses besides?

Eighty per cent of them have not.

The figures I shall quote were prepared in 1881, after an additional grant had been made for the purpose of improving the teachers' position. Notwithstanding the increase, it appears from a Parliamentary Return issued in August, 1881, and which was authenticated by the signature of Dr. Newell, Senior Secretary of the Commissioners of National Education, that the average salaries of the Irish National School teachers, males and females included, amount to £57 9s. The average salaries of teachers in England are, for males, £120 19s. 2d.; females, £73 15s. 9d.; and the corresponding averages in Scotland are £135 1s. 4d. and £64 13s. 11d. for males and females respectively. Now, Sir, that clearly proves that the Irish National School teachers are not on a level with the teachers in England. In the matter of residences, to which the hon. Member (Mr. F. S. Powell) referred just now, the Irish National School teachers are also in the background. Several attempts have been made from time to time to remedy their position in this respect. With the permission of the Committee I will read what some of the Inspectors say concerning the housing of the Irish School teachers. Mr. Macauly, an Inspector, says—

"It is much to be regretted that the Act does not make it compulsory on landlords to grant sites for schools and residences, at an equitable rent or fee, as is done in the case of railways and other public works. If this were so, great benefit would be conferred not only upon the teachers individually, but also upon the public, whose interests would be better served by a class of people permanently and respectably housed, than they can be by persons whose lodgings are, in most cases, quite unsuitable."

Mr. M'Donnell, the Bantry Inspector, remarks—

"The want of residences near the school is a great hardship to the teachers. Only seven have residences in this district. I know of more than a dozen cases where the teacher has to walk from eight to 12 miles a-day to and from school, to the great injury of the school."

Mr. Eardly, of the Templemore District, writes—

"Only 20 teachers in this district have free residences, and in 10 instances the teachers reside a distance of three miles or more from their schools. In severe weather these teachers either do not attend at all, or arrive with their energies so impaired that a satisfactory day's work is not discharged."

I think hon. Members will agree with the Reports of these Inspectors. It is utterly impossible for a school teacher who has walked a considerable distance in the morning to fulfil his vocation during the day with anything like satisfaction to himself or benefit to the children he is supposed to instruct. Well, to improve this state of things many attempts have been made from time to time. We have had promises from the various Gentlemen who have lately occupied the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, amongst others, we have had a promise from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who at present is Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the year 1875 the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in introducing a measure for the relief of the teachers—

"We do not intend this to be a permanent measure. We consider it would be highly important to get the Boards of Guardians to contribute, and we would like to train them up to it. If it succeeds, well and good; the teachers will be reasonably remunerated; if not, the Government will take such steps as will secure that the remuneration now intended will be paid to them."

That was a very serious promise; but the right hon. Gentleman knows, as the school teachers to their regret know very well, that that promise has not since been fulfilled. It was not fufilled up to the year 1878, and it has not been fulfilled since. In 1878, Mr. Meldon, who then occupied a seat in this House, brought up the subject, and the following Resolution was passed:—

"That the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1875, and the other means adopted by the Government having failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish National School teachers, this House is of opinion that the present position of the Irish National School teachers calls for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of their claims."

Now, that Resolution was passed unanimously by the House of Commons, and yet that which amounts to almost nothing has been done to satisfactorily adjust the claims of the Irish National School teachers. However, in the year 1879, a grant of £46,000 was made; but how far did that go to satisfy the demands of the Irish National School teachers? I shall endeavour to show the Committee that it scarcely improved their position at all. A few days ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question on this subject, and, in reply, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the position of the teachers was improved in several particulars. The teachers of Ireland emphatically say that their position has not been permanently or even visibly improved by this grant. In proof of that we have to say that the £46,000 was placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of National Education for increasing the fixed or class salaries of the teachers, and the rates of pay then decided on have continued up to the present; but of these salaries the teachers contribute £12,000 per annum as premiums to the Pension Fund; and as the amount received from the contributory Unions in aid of the result fees has fallen from £30,500 in 1876–7 to £13,600 in 1885–6, it is clear that the increase the teachers receive is only the difference between £46,000 and £29,000, which is £17,000, and this amount divided amongst 11,000 teachers gives a small sum indeed to each. Taking into account that a large amount of the £46,000 goes to the Pension Fund, their present position is not very materially improved. Now, Sir, this state of things is having a very detrimental effect upon the cause of education in Ireland. So much for the promises of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who now occupies the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. But I have also to state that his Successors in Office held out hopes to the National School teachers of Ireland which have not been fulfilled. For instance, on the 11th of June, 1883, a deputation of 20 Irish Members of Parliament presented a Memorial, signed by 83 of their body, to Mr. Trevelyan, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, requesting him to take immediate steps for improving the condition of the teachers, and, in reply, that right hon. Gentleman said—

"He was so strongly impressed with the statements of the deputationists that he ad- mitted action ought to be taken by the Government, and that, if possible, it ought to be taken at once."

As regards the teachers' salaries, he added—

"I recognize the pledge which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach gave to Parliament in 1875, and I recognize likewise that the measures taken by the Government for the redemption of that pledge since have been only of a temporary nature, and rather as palliatives than remedies. I shall be extremely glad to introduce a measure on this subject, and at once."

The Successor of Mr. Trevelyan attempted to introduce a measure, but owing to the pressure of Parliamentary Business the Bill promised was not introduced until the following year. It was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, but it only reached its second reading. The position of the Irish teachers is now substantially the same as it was in 1878, when Parliament resolved unanimously that it required the immediate attention of the Government. It is very difficult to get men of ability to remain in the service, and it is also very difficult to get young men whoso parents and families may wish to push them on in the world to take up Irish National School teaching as a profession. That I may prove this I shall ask the Committee to bear with me while I read the opinions of some of the National School Inspectors upon this subject. Mr. Gordon, of Newtownards, says—

"The onward progress of this district is in danger of being impeded from another quarter. It has been found impossible, in many cases, to secure the appointment of suitable male principal teachers when vacancies occur. I mean by suitable, men either actually or potentially equal to their predecessors in zeal, talent, and classification."

Mr. Hynes, the Inspector for the Ennis-killen District, says—

"At present there is in this distraction et dearth of candidates, and it is remained now few of my teachers seem to have adopt the profession from choice."

Mr. Keenan (Letterkenny) reports—

"I observe that there is a growing desire upon the part of many teachers in this district to become the owners of small farms, so that by farming they may increase their incomes. I generally find that teachers who have become the owners of farms never apply themselves to their studies with a view to improving their classification, but spend the greater part of their time, outside school hours, in working upon their farms. These teachers are neither good teachers nor good farmers; they are satisfied with imperfectly following the example of the neighbouring farmers in the cultivation of their farms; and in manner, dress, and conversation they have a greater resemblance to agricultural labourers than to school teachers."

Mr. Browne (Lurgan) says—

"I have lost some of my best teachers, and although the antecedents of more than 81 per cent of those who entered the service during the same period (three years) can be referred to with considerable satisfaction, yet, when vacancies arise, the difficulty experienced in securing really suitable successors shows that the supply of good teachers is very limited."

Well, now, Mr. Courtney, I think these quotations from the Reports of the Inspectors of the National Schools in Ireland are sufficient to prove to the Committee that the status of the teachers is being gradually reduced, that, in fact, as Mr. MacMillen, the Inspector of Ballinasloe, says—

"The service is still the dernier ressort of those despairing of more coveted posts."

It is an unfortunate state of things that a system which in many respects has been successful should be reduced to such straits by the neglect of the Government to provide such remuneration to teachers as will make National School teaching advantageous for young men as a profession. I hold, Mr. Courtney, that the education of the people is, or ought to be, the first duty of the Government, and how can they fulfil that duty effectually while they keep the teachers of Ireland on what may be called starvation allowance? A teacher, by accepting this position, condemnshim-self to a life of drudgery, without any hope of emancipation, and to what may be said to be an old age of poverty. Why should this be the case? The school teachers of Ireland have shown very good results. Comparatively speaking, they have shown better results than the school teachers of either England or Scotland. The correctness of my assertion might be substantially proved by a few figures, which would show that the results produced by the Irish teachers are not inferior to those of the English and Scotch teachers; and, in the face of that fact, I think that the Irish teachers, on the ground that they have performed their duties well and faithfully, have a claim on the attention of the Government. What they have done also has been done under discouraging circum- stances. They are not only worse paid than the teachers in England and Scotland, but they have very much less hope of advancement. It was established, I think, by the Minute of the Government in Ireland, on the advice of the Education Commissioners, that if the school teachers could get a certain amount of the fees, the Treasury would make up the difference. Now, the result of that is that you actually put a premium on dishonesty; you hold out temptation to the National School teacher actually to pay money out of his own pocket in order to bring up the amount necessary to lay a claim upon the Government. This is a bad system, inasmuch as it is one which encourages immorality. You have in England a system of compulsory education; parents are compelled to send their children to school; but in Ireland that is not the case, and that, of course, operates against school teachers. For these reasons, the Irish National School teachers are in a position which is very hard indeed. In the matter of salaries they are much behind school teachers in England and Scotland, and in the matter of residence their position is deplorable. I do not think it is desirable that all National School teachers should be provided with residences; but in a country where they have to walk three or four or even seven miles to school, a labour which unfits them for the vocations of the day, enervates them and destroys the power they should preserve in order to impart the knowledge they possess to their pupils, I say that residences should be provided for them. For these reasons—because of the promises made to them by succeeding Governments, and the hopes which have been held out to them by succeeding Chief Secretaries for Ireland—I maintain that their position is entitled to be reconsidered by the present Government. I think they are greatly to be congratulated on the fact that we have at the present time a Chief Secretary who has, since he has been in Office, made no pledge which has not been fulfilled, and also a Government that holds out a hope of improving the material interests of the several classes in Ireland. I said, at the outset, that I would not detain the Committee at any unnecessary length in stating a case which is already very well known, and which has been stated in this House from time to time by many advocates much abler than I am, and more experienced in these matters. I believe the right hon. Baronet sympathizes with the National School teachers in their deplorable condition; I believe he desires to improve their condition; and he now has an opportunity of considering their case and fulfilling the pledges made to them from time to time, as well as of promoting the interests of the profession, which is of great service in Ireland, and which has shown that it is capable of discharging the duties imposed upon it by producing good results. In advocating the cause of the National School teachers in Ireland, I feel that I am appealing to a sympathetic Government; that I am appealing at a time that is favourable for the consideration of their just claims, and I believe that I shall not appeal in vain. I asked the right hon. Baronet a few days ago to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of improving the material condition of the National School teachers of Ireland. He declined to do that; but he can at least inquire into their condition. He has had evidence before him; he has the Reports of the National Schools, and he has other evidence, taken from time to time, which I am sorry to say has been sadly neglected. I believe that the grievances of this class of public servants will have the sympathy not only of Members on both sides of this House, but of every shade of opinion. There can only be one idea on this subject—namely, that the men who have to train up youth and direct the minds of young people in the way they ought to go in this life are deserving of every consideration. They are deserving of the full reward of their labour; and I again impress on the right hon. Baronet to take their case into consideration—to give this large, deserving, and, I will say, long-suffering class some hope that before long their condition will be materially improved, and that the time of this Committee will not be taken up year after year in pleading their cause.

I wish to acknowledge the spirit in which, the hon. Member has dealt with this question, and the manner in which he has referred to the Government. But I cannot admit that any promise I have made has remained unfulfilled. The hon. Member has accurately quoted the statement which I made in 1875—namely, that I would introduce a Bill dealing with the pay of the National School teachers in Ireland. He said I then expressed my intention to secure for thorn a reasonable remuneration through the working of that Bill; and promised, that if the Bill failed to do this, other steps would be taken. I think I may say that this promise has been fulfilled. That Act was based upon the principle that certain result fees, which were paid to the teachers at the time, should be doubled if the Unions contributed an equal sum. In the following year the sum of £28,000 was received from the Unions for this purpose; but in the year 1885 I find that only 21 Unions contributed, and that the total amount received was only £14,000. Within a few years after the passing of that Act it became clear to the Government that it had failed in its object, and therefore the Government agreed to accept, instead of the amount which they had hoped would have been provided by the Unions, any sum that might have been provided by school fees or voluntary subscriptions, in order to give the teacher of a school a claim to an equivalent amount of the second half of the result fees from the Government. That was a very considerable concession; but the hon. Member says that it was calculated to lead to fraud. Now, I must remind him that it is guarded by several useful restrictions. It requires a certificate from the managers, and a certificate from the teachers and the Inspectors that these subscriptions have actually been paid; and if you are to look with suspicion on those certificates, I am afraid you will have to look with suspicion on certificates in other matters which have to be signed by the school teachers in Ireland. The result of that concession was practically that the whole of the second half of the result fees which would have been obtained by teachers if the Act had been adopted in every Union in Ireland, has been actually paid to them by the Government. Last year the total of these fees was £91,500, of which the teachers actually obtained £90,152. Therefore, I think it was rather hard of him to say that the promise which I made in 1875, that if the Act failed the Government would take other steps to secure the same object, has not been fulfilled. This is my answer to that part of the statement of the hon. Member. He went on to say that the position of the teachers had not been improved since 1878. Well, Sir, I, on the contrary, say that the position of the teachers has been very materially improved since that date. In 1878 the amount payable to the teachers was £461,000, while in 1885 it was £587,200, or an increase of £126,000; and yet the hon. Member says that their position has not been improved in any way. I think these facts entirely contradict the allegations which, the hon. Member has made on the two points to which I have referred; but I do not think we can say that the present arrangement is entirely satisfactory. I think it is unsatisfactory, and I will very shortly explain to the Committee why. I do not at all wish to say that the salaries in the higher classes are as much as they ought to be; but I do not think that they quite carry out the allegation with respect to starvation which was made by the hon. Member in the course of his speech. In dealing with this matter, however, I must impress on the Committee that the House of Commons ought to take care to do something more than increase the salaries of school teachers. The House ought to take care to increase their efficiency as well; and I am quite sure, from my own experience, that a very large number of the teachers of the third class ought not to be allowed to teach at all. I may impress upon the Committee that the object should be to increase the efficiency of the teachers, and to draft out those incompetent teachers who really retard the work of education in Ireland. The hon. Member has referred to the benefits of compulsory education. That is a very material point in this question. Anyone who looks at these statistics of schools in Ireland, and the ratio of attendances in those schools, will see that something ought to be done in that matter. If hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies will only consider the great question of Irish Education with a view to placing it as far as may be on the same footing as it occupies in Great Britain, safe-guarding in every way the independent management of the schools, then, Sir, I hope we may come to a real settlement of this question of elementary education in Ireland. I, at any rate, shall approach the subject from that point of view. I hope to be able to improve the position of the teachers, but that will not be my only object.

I wish to press home the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) with regard to the position of the school teachers. My hon. Friend divided his subject into two parts—first, the inadequacy of salary; and, second, want of residence. With regard to the salary, I think the small average amount received by teachers ought to impress itself on the mind of the Committee. In one respect the teachers are perfectly in accord with the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He is aware that the Irish teachers are perfectly willing to become efficient in every way by a course of study, and also that they are willing to use the best method of instruction. He is also aware that, in the matter of obtaining a certificate, the number of marks has been raised 10 per cent; and I think they are perfectly justified in making complaint about this, because no notice has been taken of their demand for reform in the matter of salary. With regard to the question of residence, I say that the residences should be near the schools, so that the teachers should not have to make a long and wearying journey to get to their work. Then they are required to study hard in order to obtain promotion. But they cannot undergo this study unless their homes are cheerful and favourably placed, and these are not to be obtained by them on account of the smallness of their means. Their salary does not enable them to have houses of a respectable class; and, therefore, it becomes doubly necessary that the teachers should obtain residences. They have another grievance, and that is the scale of pensions. Teachers in Ireland have been treated with a fair amount of liberality with regard to pensions. They are asked to pay a premium in order that at a certain age they may enjoy a pension according to their class; but the age fixed is too high. They are asked to retire at the age of 65. Anyone knows that a man at 65 is totally unfit to do his duty as teacher. I have had experience, and I know well that young men out of the Training Colleges super- sede the old men; and it is one of the standing grievances that the School Board are obliged to retain middle-aged men when they might obtain younger and more active men, because they do not like to get rid of them. If they were retired at 60 years of age, there would be a chance of promotion for younger men in the Board schools; and there would be content in this respect amongst the teachers. I urge upon the right hon. Baronet that he should take these matters into consideration, and make 60 the age for retirement instead of 65. Again, female teachers are required to work until they are 60 years of age. We know that the prospect of a pension will keep females at work; but I say that 60 is too advanced an age until which they should be required to work in order to obtain a pension. Now, I think the right hon. Baronet ought to make the retiring age 60 in the case of males, and 50 in the case of females. By this means, I think, the grievance of the Irish teachers as regards pensions would be done away with. We have, then, three complaints on the part of the teachers—first, with regard to salary; secondly, with regard to residence; and, thirdly, with regard to the pension scheme. But the teacher in Ireland has a social grievance and also a political grievance. He dare not take his place on a platform, and the Commissioners demand that he should be surrounded with all sorts of disabilities, one of which is that he may not take a public-house. Now, I think that he ought to be at perfect liberty to do the same as any other person, as long he does what is right, and satisfies the Commissioners on the particular subject he is engaged for. These are matters which demand the earnest attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I say that teachers in Ireland ought to be placed on the same footing as the teachers in England and Scotland; there ought to be no distinction between them in the matters of salary, pensions, and residence.

I am afraid the Chief Secretary for Ireland has fixed rather a distant date for the redress of the grievances of the school teachers in Ireland, if he is going to wait until there is compulsory education there. I am afraid before that is settled there will be so many vexed questions arise that the National School teachers may be left out in the cold, and I would much rather the right hon. Baronet would say that the miserable stipend of the teachers should be increased at once. The great mass of the teachers, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, have very small salaries as compared with the salaries of the English teachers—the average amount being a little over £50. Now, the average salaries of the corresponding class in England is £117, and in Scotland it is a little higher. There is no great difference between the positions of the Irish and English teachers in respect of the cost of living, and I think that they might very well be placed on the same footing as regards salary. We have heard this evening that, in the Highlands, education is stimulated by increased grants; and I certainly think that the same generosity should be shown with regard to Ireland, because a great portion of Ireland is in the same position as the Highland districts of Scotland. The teachers in Ireland are left in a wretched position under the present system, and no amount of rhetoric on the part of the Government can justify the fact that they only receive a salary of £50. The right hon. Gentleman said that the teachers in England were better educated than the teachers in Ireland. I have always heard that the National School teachers were willing to accept any scheme that would place them on the same footing with the teachers in England and Scotland, and in this they are ready either to pass an examination or be judged by results. I do not see any way out of the difficulty except by making a grant from the National Exchequer; for it is of no use to give the control in this matter to the Poor Law Boards, and to have the cost thrown on the poor rates. As far as my experience goes, the Poor Law Boards do not want to have the management; and if they had it I do not think it would be nearly as good as it is as present, while as for raising any large amount of money locally, that would be a matter of extreme difficulty. The rates in Ireland being in some cases 11s. or 12s. in the pound, you cannot expect the people, already so heavily taxed, to pay this new education rate. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland has shown a considerable interest in this subject, and I have some hope that he and the Leader of the House, who did a good deal for intermediate education when he was a private Member, will take this matter speedily into consideration; for I think it would be a shame on the Government to leave the Irish teachers in their present position.

I am afraid that it will be some time before the condition of affairs in Ireland will admit of education there being placed in the same position as in England. If the teachers have to wait until then for an improvement in their position, I am afraid that many good teachers will be quite out of the race, and that the cause of education will suffer very materially. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who spoke in this debate, that there is a great difference between the elementary education in England and that in Ireland. In Ireland there is a State system of elementary education; but it is not so in England. In Ireland the people have no control over the management of schools in many very important particulars; whereas in England the people have that control. Again, in Ireland we have not got a large number of resident gentry, who take an interest in education, as you have in England and Scotland. I know that I was very favourably impressed with the state of affairs when I found that gentlemen of means and position in this country take a deep and absorbing interest in the education of the poor. Now, that is one of the things which, unfortunately for us, we have not got in Ireland. The system of education in Ireland is not looked on with any great favour by the people; and the consequence is that the teachers engaged in the work are in a doubtful position between the State and the people, and they suffer accordingly. I should like the right hon. Baronet to take into account these things, and give a favourable ear to the case of the teachers. I quite agree with him that there are a great many men holding the position of teacher who are not at all fitted for it; but that is not the case with the great body of those engaged in the work. I believe that there ought to be some restrictions placed on the admission of men into the rank of teacher. At present, any man without qualification can look forward to taking a posi- tion as teacher in the schools of lower class; and in this way places are being filled up constantly, to the exclusion of qualified men. I think it will be found that a very large number of teachers are leaving the service in Ireland; and it is owing to the fact that the prospects in the service are not sufficient to induce men of superior talents and energy to remain. I believe this matter ought to be looked at not only from the point of view of the teachers, but from the point of view of the welfare of the country generally. The welfare of the nation undoubtedly depends on the education of the people, and the people cannot be educated unless they have good teachers, and the teachers cannot be efficient unless they are paid for; and there certainly ought to be no hesitation on the ground of giving them sufficient remuneration, when we remember that the men who are engaged in teaching the children in Ireland, and are preparing them for the great battle of life, are not so well paid as the drill sergeant who prepares the recruit for the work of war. I point out by way of illustration that a great many teachers in Ireland are not so well paid as labourers who dig the foundations of houses, and they are certainly paid very much less than the men who build the houses—a good joiner or good mason is better paid than the average teacher in Ireland. This is not a satisfactory state of things; and, as I believe that it calls for immediate attention, I trust the right hon. Baronet will be able to give us some assurance that there will be an improvement shortly in the position of the Irish National School teachers.

I have listened with great interest to this discussion, and I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will look into this matter, and consider between this and next year whether he can make any proposal on the subject. Anyone will agree, who looks into the subject, that the salaries of the Irish School teachers are insufficient. The average salary is so low that it is greatly to be wondered at that good men can be had at all for the money. I know many of these men personally, and I can say that they are most deserving men, although their salaries as a rule are less than that of a policeman; and the same may be said of their pensions. There is a great deal to be said about getting the localities to assist in this matter, but I will not say it on the present occasion; and I would urge upon my hon. Friends opposite not to prolong this discussion, which there is no good in doing now. The Chief Secretary has given an assurance that he will consider the question in a thoroughly sympathetic spirit. We know the question will be again raised next year, and we are content to give the right hon. Baronet until next Session to consider it.

I have a few words to say on this Vote. I agree with every word that has been said on this subject by the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) and the hon. Members who have followed him in this discussion with regard to the salaries of the Irish School teachers being too low. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated the salaries of the teachers according to their class, and we remind him that they only get those salaries when there is a certain attendance at the school. There are certain schools in the poorer parts of Ireland where the teacher may be of the first or second class, and where there is not a sufficient attendance of scholars to enable him to draw his salary. Another point is that the salary is uncertain. A certain salary, though less, is better than a larger one that is uncertain; and I hope that the money which the teachers are entitled to will be voted by the House of Commons before the end of the financial year. In conclusion, I desire to add my appeal to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that he will earnestly consider the position of the Irish School teachers.

I wish to draw attention on this Vote to the question of University education in Ireland, and to the enormous discrepancy in the sums obtainable by the three different classes in Ireland—the Protestant Church of England, the Secularists, and the Catholics. The Episcopalian Church are extremely well off; they have an endowment in Trinity College of £70,000, which was obtained at so ancient a date that it is very doubtful whether at the time you could call the religion of the country Episcopalian or Catholic. Then there is, in this Vote, £25,000 for the Secularists, while the Catholics only get about £6,000 a-year. By this it will be seen that the Catholics in Ireland labour under an enormous disadvantage with regard to University education. Well, Sir, I do not ask that the Catholics should be placed on equal terms with the Protestants in this matter; but I think that we may very well claim for them that they should be placed on the same footing as the Secularists. I do not wish to divide the Committee, but simply to point out that in this matter of University education the Catholics suffer a great grievance.

I do not think there is any general desire on the part of the Committee to discuss this very important question now; but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen that the subject will be considered in the spirit indicated by my speech on this very question last year.

I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that this is a question which I should not attempt to discuss to night; but the opinion he has expressed is exceedingly important, and will give rise to some discussion hereafter.

Whatever may be thought of the Queen's Colleges, and the system on which they are founded, everyone, I think, will admit that Belfast College is a great success. But this College is crippled at present for the want of a very small sum of money which, if the Treasury would grant it, would enable them to carry on the classes in Chemistry and Science in a more efficient way than they can at present. I do not believe the people of Ireland would grudge the money to enable the experiments to be carried on in the proper way, and I put it to the right hon. Baronet to take this into consideration as soon as he has time to do so.

There is one small matter that I desire to refer to in connection with Queen's College, Cork. That College has lately been greatly improved by a large expenditure of money which has been generously given by the citizens of Cork. Amongst some of the advantages which have accrued from this is the purchase of a green immediately adjoining the College on which it is intended to build residences. Unfortunately, the authorities have not sufficient money to complete the design, and as the scheme is a reasonable one I hope the right hon. Baronet will be able to induce the Treasury to advance the amount required.

This matter had not been brought to my notice, but the hon. Member having now mentioned it, I will give it my attention.

I observe in this Vote, under Sub-head B, a charge which did not come on the Estimates last year of £520 for Transcription, Editing, and Publication of the Annals of Ulster. This is one of those extremely interesting items allied to the editing of the Celtic manuscripts. The translation of these documents goes very closely together, and they are matters of extreme interest to Irish scholars. I am certain that the persons appointed to the Commission that has this matter in hand will not know a single word of the Irish language, with the exception of Mr. Justice O'Brien, who may know a few words. Now, I think there can be no doubt that the Commission should be composed of experts, and there could be found in Ireland a considerable number of men who have a very close and intimate knowledge of the Irish language, from whom the Commissioners ought to be selected. I notice that from 1876–7, when the first Vote was taken, until 1884–5, the Votes and re-Votes amounted to £1,893, while up to the 31st of March, 1885, the total expenditure amounted to £176 only. I think that fact requires some explana- tion from the Secretary to the Treasury. How is it that £1,893 have from time to time been voted in the course of eight years, and that only £176 have been actually expended on the work? I should like, if possible, to have an explanation at the present time with regard to the work which is being done in consideration of this expenditure of £520; and I should also like to hear from the hon. Gentleman what has been done with the balance of the money which has been voted for the last eight years? I should like also to know the exact amount that has been expended on the work?

As this matter is brought under my notice, I will make inquiry, and refer to it on Report.

I had meant, on an earlier occasion, to put a question to the Government as to who has control over the printing of despatches and Reports connected with this House. First one Minister and then another tells us that he has no control over the matter, and it almost invariably happens that the Papers we require are presented to us the day after we have had need of them. I must confess that I was greatly discouraged and disappointed at the answer given by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question which was put to him with regard to the prolongation of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff. The noble Lord did not, as it is usual for Ministers to do on such occasions, say one word about entertaining any hopes as to its being possible soon to bring the Mission to an end. It would, therefore, seem that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep Sir H. Drummond Wolff in Egypt. I originally supported the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, because I considered it a temporary measure connected with the re-organization of the Egyptian Army, which re-organization was to have the effect of enabling us to withdraw our troops from that country. I did not even object to the appointment of Muhktar Pasha, a Turkish officer, to assist Sir H. Drummond Wolff in his undertaking. But, I always considered that Muhktar Pasha was a Turkish soldier. As regards the re-organization of the Egyptian Army, Police, and other matters, it really seems to me the time has come when a reasonable settlement might be made. We all understood that Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission and the co-operation of Muhktar Pasha were mainly to settle what the character of the future Egyptian Army should be, and that when that was settled, and the Egyptian Army properly established, our own troops in Egypt might be relieved. When we get beyond the question of the Army we deal with matters which one efficient officer could satisfactorily arrange, and which would not require the services of two high diplomatic functionaries to settle. If the question of the Army had been dealt with, what further necessity is there to keep both Sir H. Drummond Wolff and Sir Evelyn Baring in Egypt? I fail to see any earthly reason why these two diplomatic officials should be both kept in Egypt both doing the same work. I see no sign of the conclusion of that work. As regards Muhktar Pasha, it seems to me that the prolongation of his stay in Egypt means the prolongation of the meddling of Turkish officials with the affairs of Egypt; and that it is a point we may fairly ask Her Majesty's Government to decide whether or not they are determined that the power of Turkey shall be increased in Egypt? Our position in Egypt depends not upon the will of the Sultan of Turkey, but upon our obligations towards other European Powers. It is clear that no Mission of Muhktar Pasha can redeem the pledges which we have given to Europe, or can enable us to stay a day longer in that country than we are entitled to do under the undertakings we have entered into with Foreign Powers. I very much doubt whether Turkish interference in the affairs of Egypt can have any possible good result. A great deal has been said, and, I believe, falsely said, as to the influence of the Sultan in Egypt. I myself believe that Arabi Pasha's rebellion was directed more against the Turkish dominion than anything else, and it certainly appears to me that the presence of Turkish officials in Egypt is likely not to soothe the people of that country, but to irritate them. But, be that as it may, unless Her Majesty's Government wish to reinstate the dominion of the Sultan in Egypt, they should not allow Muhktar Pasha to remain there too long. So long as he does stay there, Cairo must remain the centre of intrigue. But what still more alarms me than the continuance of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff or of Muhktar Pasha, is that I do not see any signs of the British Army preparing to leave Egypt, or of any preparations being made to enable the Army to ultimately commence the evacuation. So far as I have jet been able to learn, I do not believe there has been any bonâ fide attempt to establish those autonomous institutions which it was said had to be established prior to our leaving. The automony which exists in Egypt is altogether a sham; and I do not think the slightest bonâ fide attempt is being made to make her a self-governing country. Neither in regard to the police, the judiciary, nor the prisons, have we had any success; and what I am afraid of is this—that there is a very large party in Egypt, official and non-official, who are procrastinating as to these reforms, who are trusting to the chapter of accidents, who are hoping against hope, and who believe that the chances are that we shall not leave Egypt at all, but shall end by annexing it, a step which they think will be a good thing for Egypt, but one which I believe would be the commencement of a very heavy burden upon this country. It is rumoured that Her Majesty's Government are preparing a grand coup, but I do not believe anything of the kind. I do not believe the right hon. Gentlemen opposite can for a moment contemplate the breaking of those solemn pledges which this country has given to the rest of Europe. But, at the same time, though I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government contemplate remaining in Egypt, still, in Egypt we are. What is the result of it? Why, our troops are wasting away in Assouan, and other parts of that ter- rible country. The Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), who himself not long since answered a Question on the subject, must have formed a good idea as to the terrible burden which our occupation of Egypt imposes upon the British arms. We have heard of frightful sufferings of our men from the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard that the temperature in the huts of our soldiers average from 110 to 122 degrees from April to June. It may be very true that there is not much definite disease there at present, and that there is not much excitement; but I maintain that that terrible heat, epecially when unaccompanied by excitement, must lead to the wasting away of the right hon. Gentleman's battalions. Whether the men die or not after being subjected for a few months to the torture of such a climate as this, the men must necessarily be rendered totally unfit for service. But in keeping your troops in Egypt, not only do you expend the lives and the energy of your soldiers, but you also very largely waste the money of the British taxpayer. You are swelling the ordinary Budget of the Secretary of State for War by millions of money, and I, therefore, say that both as regards the British soldier and the British taxpayer your occupation of Egypt is a very heavy burden. I am quite prepared to admit that if we could get rid of foreign obligations, and bondholders, and European pledges, we should, perhaps, find ourselves able to administer the government of Egypt in a very satisfactory manner. It would be a pleasant country enough if we could only keep out the speculator and the bondholder—if we could do that we might make a good deal of it; but the Government knows very well that under existing circumstances we cannot stay there and administer the country as a British Possession, and, therefore, it is that I think that Her Majesty's Government had better devote themselves to the attempt to get out of it as soon as they can. Not only is the administration of Egypt a great burden upon us, but, indirectly, it is a great burden to us all over the world. I have often quoted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who once said that the day we went to Egypt our friendship with France ceased; and it is the same all over the world, whether it be in the Pacific, in Asia, or in Africa—everywhere we have the same jealousies to encounter. In our present attitude towards Egypt we are unquestionably sacrificing the good feeling of France, the people of which country are entitled to expect that we shall act in good faith. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to say what they mean to do. Are they really trying to settle matters in Egypt so that they may be able to get out of it? As I said before, so I say again, that if you are to stay in that country until you establish a satisfactory form of government, there you will have to stay till the Millennium. I do hope that the Government will give us the assurance that the Government before them gave—namely, that they are doing their best to get out of Egypt. It is certain that with respect to this question of Egypt Her Majesty's late Advisers played the part of the son who said—"I go; but he went not." I have great confidence in the practical statesmanship of the Marquess of Salisbury, and I trust that the present Government will not follow that example, but rather will imitate the son who first refused to go, but afterwards repented and went. Yet the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when answering a Question put to him on this question, did not say a word about the withdrawal of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, but, on the contrary, seemed to speak with confidence of the decided intention of Government to detain that Gentleman there, as well as Muhktar Pasha. Under the circumstances, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £4,000.

I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion for a reduction of this Vote, and I trust sincerely that the hon. Gentleman will go to a division on the question. It is a question which has been raised over and over again in this House, and I earnestly hope that so long as I am a Member of the House no Vote for Diplomatic and Consular Services in Egypt will ever be proposed to this Committee without a similar division being taken. If no one else will divide the Committee against such a Vote, I will do it myself. This system of devoting large sums of money to the payment of Agents in Egypt has continued for many years. Year after year we are told that the occupation of that country is drawing to a speedy termination; but as time goes on, instead of that occupation coming nearer to its end, it is manifestly receding farther and farther away from us. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; I know hon. Gentlemen opposite delight in this course; but I am convinced that the majority of the people of England are not of their opinion. If the Government dare to go to the country, taking a General Election upon this issue, whether or not Egypt is to be permanently occupied by English troops, I undertake to say that the Government would find that there is an enormous majority against them. I protest against this large sum being voted—I protest against these preposterous salaries being paid to Agents who are sent out to Egypt who know no more about Egypt than do Members of this House.

We are not all Dillons.

I hear an hon. Member say "We are not all Dillons." The hon. Member may be very learned in these Egyptian questions; but I am quite prepared to admit that I am not. The point of difference between us is that I would not undertake to govern Egypt, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member would be prepared to do so to-morrow if you gave him £5,000 a-year. What I want to call attention to is this. You send out a man to govern Egypt at a large salary, and he makes a terrible muddle of it. What do you do? You do not recall him, but you send out another man to supersede him, and pay him £5,000. ["No, no!"] No! Then, what was Sir H. Drummond Wolff sent out for? Was he not put over the head of Sir Evelyn Baring? Why do you want two men to do the same thing—if Sir Evelyn Baring is doing his work well, why send out Sir H. Drummond Wolff? I think we are entitled to an explanation. The noble Lord opposite stated this very evening that Sir H. Drummond Wolff is about to lay important proposals before the Government. If that is so, I think we are entitled to appeal to the Government that they shall not bind the country to any now departure in Egypt until they have taken the opinion of the House of Commons upon it. The noble Lord, when questioned here to-night, gave an answer which conveyed to my mind that it is in the contemplation of the Government to commit this country to new obligations and to a new departure in Egypt without consulting the House of Commons. We know that that has been done over and over again. We know that Alexandria was bombarded without giving the House of Commons any opportunity of pronouncing upon it beforehand. In the case of the Soudan War, when the Government were questioned, over and over again their answer was that certain things had taken place, and that we were committed to certain proceedings and could not withdraw. Before the House has had an opportunity of arriving at a decision on these matters it has found the country committed to a definite course by the decisive action of the Government. There is one point I wish, especially, to put to the noble Lord. He stated the other day that Papers on the Egyptian Question would soon be laid before the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] Well, some Member of the Government did—I think the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He stated that additional Papers would be issued, and I should like to know whether they will contain full information about the Daira Loan? There have been negotiations going on for some time with the object of consolidating that loan with the other public loans of Egypt; and, so far as I can understand the matter, no more scandalous swindle could be perpetrated than to throw the responsibility of that loan, which is a private loan contracted by the late Khedive on the mortgage of his own personal estates, upon the Egyptian taxpayers. This would be a most infamous swindle on the people of Egypt. God knows they have burdens enough on their shoulders at present; and if you are going to permit such a shameful transaction as this it will be, so far as I can understand the history of the matter, to add another to the many crimes which have been committed against the unfortunate people of Egypt. I am convinced that the majority of the people of England are opposed to this system of plundering the people of Egypt for the sake of the bondholders, and I do hope the Government will promise to lay full information on the subject before the country. I trust that before any undertaking is entered into which will have the effect of consolidating this Daira Loan with the other loans of Egypt, and making the taxpayers of that country responsible for it, the British House of Commons will have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the matter.

How I regret that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not sitting below the Gangway, because if he were, judging from the mode in which he has so often, from the very place which I am now occupying, protested against this bondholders' occupation of Egypt, against our war in Egypt, against the reckless expenditure in Egypt, I am sure that he would have supported me now in advocating the Motion which my hon. Friend has moved. When the noble Lord, in common with his Colleagues, came into Office last time we understood that Sir H. Drummond Wolff was sent out to Egypt with one object—namely, to come to some sort of agreement by which the views which the noble Lord had so ably and so often expressed should be carried out, and that we should leave Egypt. I, for my own part, voted for the payment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's salary, believing that that was the object with which he was sent out to Egypt. But at present we are told that new propositions are going to be made, and we find that every time the Estimates are brought forward fresh sums of money are asked for from us in order that they may be expended in what is called "maintaining order" in Egypt—that is to say, for the securing of the interests of the bondholders. That is the real object of our remaining in Egypt. Now, I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken that we ought to have some clear understanding from the Government that if these fresh propositions are going to be sent to the Government by Sir H. Drummond Wolff no sort of liability shall be incurred by us that may tend in any sort of way to extend our occupation of Egypt without the House having an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the commencement of the evening, said that Parliament had the control. Well, we know what that means. Parliament may refuse to vote the Estimates which are necessary to enable the Executive Government to carry out the arrangement. Practically, however, that is no control, seeing that the liability is incurred before Parliament is asked for the money. We ought to know what these propositions are; Parliament ought to have a voice in deciding whether it is desirable that these propositions should be agreed to or not. The obligations ought not to be entered into before Parliament is called upon to provide funds for them. Why, Sir, have we not seen all the newspapers—all the Conservative and Unionist organs of this Metropolis—denouncing what the Russians are doing in Bulgaria. But what have the Russians done in Bulgaria in comparison with what we have done in Egypt? We went there unjustly. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Not this Government.] The noble Lord implies that we on this side did it—that is to say, the Liberal Party. But the noble Lord will bear me out that I always supported him when he protested against the action of the Liberal Government in regard to this matter. I know that the noble Lord does not approve of what was done in Egypt; that he always protested against it; and that no one took a stronger view than he in regard to the desirability of our leaving Egypt as soon as possible. The noble Lord is now a Minister of the Crown; he is now Leader of this House, and is responsible for what we are doing in Egypt. I can understand that it may be difficult for him to leave Egypt immediately; but is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to remain in Egypt? ["Hear, hear!"] It may be the policy of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, judging from the cheers given just now. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side of the House.] There again! Clearly, then, it is their policy. We want to have it from Her Majesty's Government, however. I look upon ourselves as absolute marauders in Egypt. I say we have no right to be there, and I maintain that in the end, if we continue to remain, we shall get into conflict with the whole of Europe. We shall be called upon by Europe to leave the coun- try. It does seem to me to be desirable, for the dignity of England and in common honesty, that the noble Lord should now maintain the views when in power which he held when out of power, and that he should pronounce to the House that the policy of the Government is as soon as possible, in some reasonable time, to withdraw from Egypt.

I am sure the Committee will not think the acceptance of the Amendment consonant with our position in Egypt, and with our responsibility for the government of that country which we have been unwillingly compelled to assume. The Amendment is confined to a narrow limit—namely, the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to Egypt; but it is well understood that he means by that the desire that the Mission should come to a close. The object of the Amendment is directly to obtain an expression of the opinion of the Committee on the whole subject. It would be quite legitimate if I were to confine my remarks to the one point raised by the Amendment; but one or two things have been said which are not altogether to be passed by. I much regret that the Committee are not in possession of Nos. 4 and 5 of the Papers on Egypt, which I believe will be delivered to-morrow. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I have done all in my power to insure their early delivery to Members. And let me remind hon. Members that if the Session had been closed at the ordinary time we should have been in Recess now, and it is quite certain that the Papers could not have been delivered before the close of the last Session. I can only assure the Committee that the present Government are not responsible for any delay. It is well known that there is a great demand for Papers of public interest; and I can only say that the production of the Papers in question has been pressed forward with as much speed as the capacity of the Printing Department admits of. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell) is anxious to know when this Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff will come to an end. He says we have one well-paid Diplomatic Agent in Egypt, and that it is not reasonable that we should have two. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing can be less desired by the Government than that we should spend more money than is necessary; but let me remind the Committee that in June last, on the Vote on Account for the Diplomatic Service, there was a full discussion of this matter, and the late Prime Minister pointed out that Sir H. Drummond Wolff must be maintained in Egypt until his Mission has been accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman pointed particularly to the Report Sir H. Drummond Wolff is drawing up; and, as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told the Committee, the Government must wait until that Report is in their hands. It is obvious that the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, which was to carry into Egypt the authority of the Sultan as our most legitimate ally, in putting that country into a better state of order, was a Mission of a very important character, and was not to be fulfilled in a day. In order to fulfil it, he had to take a comprehensive review of all the circumstances of the country; and the Government cannot be accused of want of expedition in framing their policy if they have waited until they received the comprehensive Report which was in preparation. I cannot think the Committee will refuse any portion of the salary necessary to maintain Sir H. Drummond Wolff in Egypt until his Mission is concluded. The Government are asked to say what is to be the duration of our stay in Egypt. The House of Commons has had a painful experience of too early prophecies and promises concerning our departure. I think it will be remembered that some of our greatest difficulties have arisen from too early declarations. If an impression prevails that we are to be "here to-day and gone to-morrow," we cannot expect confidence in our measures, nor the earnest co-operation of those whom we are seeking to help. It would be inexpedient, rash, and unpatriotic of the Government, for the sake of gaining temporary applause from any part of the House, to say that our stay in Egypt is on the point of coming to an end. We have a Mission to accomplish in Egypt. We ought not to pretend that we are going to leave until the reforms we have sought after, and some of which are already bearing fruit, have been fully accomplished. ["Oh!"] Well, it is not desirable at this hour to lengthen the remarks it is my duty to make; but I will remind the Committee that last Session the late Prime Minister bore testimony to the great improvement effected in Egyptian affairs. It would be out of place to go into details; but an immense improvement has been effected in the finances of the country, as will be shown by the Papers that will be in the hands of Members immediately. The finances of the country particularly are in a state which has not been known before in our time. Last year there was a surplus of nearly £500,000; and if the year's Expenditure does not exceed the Revenue—and I believe it will not—we believe we shall be able to pay off the demands upon the Coupons of 1885–6, upon which the payments were postponed by agreement as a temporary expedient. I trust that the House of Commons will not do anything to throw discredit on the good work that is being done. We are not always sure whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) should be taken seriously; but I am quite sure the hon. Member does not seriously suggest that the Government should state what proposals are to be made. Did the hon. Gentleman ever hear of any act of diplomacy being carried to a successful conclusion if we played with our cards on the table? I feel sure that the hon. Member has not made his proposal seriously, and I am sure, also, that the House will not support him. At this time, when the Government are charged with most anxious duties, I am sure that the House will not desire to weaken our hands by saying that we are not supported in a patriotic spirit. As to the rumours which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I trust that the Committee will pay no attention to absurd stories in the Levantine and French papers, which may be intended to influence Stock Exchanges, but which are almost too childish even to have that effect. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon) has asked a question with reference to the Daira and Domain Loans. I assure the hon. Member that there is no intention nor thought of amalgamating those loans with the other Debts of Egypt. The difficulty about those loans is this—that the value of the security has fallen, and the land cannot be disposed of for the nominal amount of the Debt; but there is an earnest desire to use these estates in the most legitimate manner—namely, for the commutation of the pensions which operate as so severe a charge upon the Revenues of Egypt. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a grave suspicion of fraud in the management of these estates; but I will not now go into particulars on that matter. I fully admit it. But I may say with confidence that the frauds have been probed; that they will take place no more; and that the estates in future will be managed with economy. I hope the country will gradually emerge from its condition of degradation and distress, and that when our Mission is accomplished, which I hope will be soon, it will be universally acknowledged that our trusteeship of Egypt will redound to the credit of this country, and will be acknowledged to have been beneficial to Egypt.

I do not think the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) has met the difficulty which many of us feel in this matter. So long as Votes are asked for for carrying on the occupation of Egypt by this country we shall feel it our duty to protest; and so long as Votes are asked for which seem to necessitate the continuance of that occupation we shall feel ourselves doubly bound to protest. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about playing with our cards on the table; but we have flung our cards on the table long ago. At the very outset we proclaimed to Europe that our occupation of Egypt was only temporary, and that we proposed to get out of it as soon as we could; and yet we go on incurring various forms of expense, which looks to all the world as though it is our intention to remain in that country. It may be a humiliation to have again and again to repeat that we do not intend to remain in Egypt; but we can escape from that humiliation by keeping our pledges. I believe that we, who protest against this prolonged occupation of Egypt, have more at heart the honour of this country than any of those hon. Gentlemen who cry "Hear, hear!" when annexation is talked of. We have promised to Europe to retire from Egypt, and those who cry "Hear, hear!" when they hear annexation whispered seem to think that it would be an honourable thing on the part of this great Empire to break its word before the whole world. Against that notion I feel bound to protest, and I think this discussion should not be brought to a conclusion without a distinct intimation being given by the Government that this country distinctly holds to its promise of withdrawing from Egypt as soon as it possibly can.

I hope the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) will divide the Committee on this Vote. I hold that the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, whenever the question of annexation is mentioned, justifies the action we are now taking. Some of us are not afraid to admit that we are pledged against annexation. The Government, when they went to Egypt, distinctly declared that they would not annex that country. We are in a critical position, and everyone who has been watching the course of Egyptian affairs, whether inside the House or out of it, has been, for some time, looking for some indication that we are going to clear out of that country. It seems to everyone—especially as we unfortunately have not the Papers in our hands to instruct us to the contrary—that we are as far from clearing out of Egypt as we were when we went into it. Are we to have any clear indication as to what the policy of Her Majesty's present Government is to be in regard to retiring from Egypt? The right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said that, if it were not for the exceptional time of the year at which we are met, we could not have expected to have had any Papers submitted to us on this question. That is quite right; but seeing that an exceptional state of things has brought us together, and that an exceptional opportunity is afforded us for seeking information, I think we should have been allowed to have these Papers. When we once break up, it will be a long time before we shall have another opportunity of discussing our position in Egypt; and what is likely to take place there whilst we are not sitting? This is a very serious subject, and I earnestly hope that Ministers will be able to give us some intimation of the kind we ask for.

Notwithstanding the courteous and comprehensive manner in which the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has treated this matter, I feel bound to divide the Committee upon the Vote. I must say that I should have been extremely glad if the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Radical opinions upon this subject the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) alluded to, could have said one or two words with regard to it, in addition to what we have heard from the Under Secretary of State, who is not so deeply pledged against this occupation of Egypt as is the noble Lord. What does the statement of the Under Secretary of State amount to? It amounts to this—that we cannot say we are going away from Egypt, because, if we did, the people of that country would have no confidence in us, and we should be unable to get them to work with us in the carrying out of necessary reforms. Well, the only construction which it is possible to put upon words like that is, that we wish everybody to believe that we are going to stay in Egypt. We have pledged ourselves to go, and directly we refuse to repeat that pledge the supposition must be that we are going to stop. With regard to the right hon. Baronet's allusion to the late Prime Minister's knowledge of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Report I think there must be some mistake; but the point is not one which I will pursue. One statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State has alarmed me very much. It gives us an official confirmation of that popular rumour which we did not credit before—namely, that the 5 per cent is to be returned to the bondholders, that which was levied as a small contribution towards the expense of defending their interests. As to the surplus Revenue in Egypt for the present year which the right hon. Baronet has referred to, I think the Papers which we shall soon have in our possession will show that it has not been fairly obtained, and that it has only been arrived at by a process of cooking the accounts—namely, by applying a portion of the loan of £9,000,000 for the operations in the Soudan and other purposes, which ought to have been paid out of Revenue. I feel greatly grieved that it is intended to pay these sums to the bondholders out of the loan.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) seems to be preaching a most extraordinary doctrine. He does not seem to be aware that we are bound by Treaty and Convention to pay the bondholders in full.

Yes; but I object to cooking the accounts by paying the annual expenses of Egypt out of the loan, and in that way making an apparent surplus out of which to repay the loan.