I rise to move the first of the series of Resolutions iden tical in terms of which I have given notice, at the instance of the London County Council, relating to a batch of Electric Railway Bills for the Metropolis now before Parliament. I ask the House to declare that these are cases to which the principle is applicable that the right should be reserved to the London County Council to purchase these undertakings after a limited period. The railways proposed by these Bills will traverse the Metropolis in various directions, being laid at considerable depth below the surface of the streets; and in order to save the expense of paying compensation to private owners, which would have to be paid should these railways pass under buildings, the lines are designed to follow the line of the public streets by tunnelling through the sub-soil. As an illustration of the expense which will thus be saved to promoters of these railways, I need only mention that the undertakers of the existing electric railway on the south side of London had to pay £3,000 compensation for the right to pass under one building to reach their terminus—namely, Hibernia Buildings. Therefore, it would seem that the community under whose streets a railway passes have a reasonable claim for compensation in some shape, in view of the expenditure thus saved to the promoters. These electric railways are more akin to tramways than to railways in the ordinary sense; they are, to adopt the language of the Joint Committee, required to relieve the overcrowding of traffic along the chief thoroughfares of London, and so we find the undertakers of these railways resisting the obligation imposed on other railways, such as the conveyance of goods, cattle, and minerals. Now, I do not propose to rest my case upon the analogy, or the suggested analogy, between the case of tramways and the case of these railways, although I think the analogy is much closer than it is assumed to be. For instance, tramways involve an easement over the surface of the streets, and these railways involve an easement through the sub-soil. Although it is true the Local Authority has not a freehold in the streets, yet it has been decided again and again that the Local Authority has very large, I may say undefined, easements in the sub-soil; and in the well-known case of "Coverdale v. Charlton" it was decided that the sub-soil is vested in the Local Authority for the purpose of doing what is usually done under the streets. It may be asserted that this case had relation to what was done within a few feet of the surface, although I think that can hardly be so with regard to the main drainage system of London. At all events, if it is found that means of conveyance can be successfully constructed at fifty or a hundred feet below the surface, on the same principle it may be maintained control over such tunnelling is vested in the Local Authority. If it is said that tram lines interfere with the beneficial enjoyment of the surface of the streets by that portion of the public which rides in ordinary vehicles, then I say that the construction of a railway under the streets practically precludes the Public Authority for all time from making use of the sub-soil for a similar purpose. Apart, however, from the suggested analogy between these lines and the ordinary tramway, I prefer to rest my case on the broad principle that the community should not part with the right to supply anything which is in effect necessary for that community, whether it be locomotion, light, or water, such for the time being a monopoly. The precedents of tram lines and electric lighting go to show that the right to purchase does not kill private enterprise. I may be told that, as regards the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, it did have that tendency, but since 1888 electric lighting has been greatly stimulated; and the Act of 1888, equally with the Act of 1882, maintained the principle of purchase by the public, so that the only lesson which can be drawn from the electric lighting case is this: that you must take care that your limited period is sufficiently long to give the undertakers a fair opportunity of recouping themselves for their initial outlay. I admit that the initial expenditure in the case of these railways is very much greater than in the case of tramways; but this does not involve any difference of principle in the treatment of the two cases; it only means that, in order to give to the undertakers a fair opportunity to recoup themselves, you should extend the time during which the undertakers may enjoy the benefit of the undertaking—the time during which the public will be kept out of its inheritance. The period has been fixed in the case of tramways at twenty-one years, and electric lighting undertakings originally fixed at twenty-one years have been extended to forty-two years. The London County Council, recognising the larger initial outlay in these cases, have suggested, and merely suggested, that the time to elapse before there should be any exercise of the power of purchase should be, say, sixty years. The time is opportune for taking such action as this I propose. For many years we have not had so many Bills of this character before the House, which are of vital importance to the Metropolis. The existing City and South London Electric Railway may now be regarded as an assured success, and I think we may say that such undertakings have passed the experimental and speculative stage, and it is high time that steps should be taken to secure the rights of the community in relation thereto. These Bills have been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that Committee have reported, but there is only one paragraph which in any way comes within measurable distance of my proposal for compensation for the powers acquired to tunnel under the streets. In the fifteenth paragraph of their Report the Committee say that, in consideration of the promoters having this power, they should be under the obligation of running cheap and convenient trains. But that cannot be in anyway suggested as an alternative to purchase, because it has been the policy of Parliament to impose this obligation upon all railways. In fact, the Joint Committee have deliberately given the go-by to the specific issue I now raise. They have ignored it, not, perhaps, wishing to undertake the responsibility of declaring a principle, having, in fact, invited the House to express an opinion upon it. I ask the House to declare the principle embodied in my Resolution—namely, the principle that it is right that the public should have an opportunity of pur chasing these railways after a certain period and under certain conditions, and I only ask the House to declare the principle, referring to the Committee the crucial question, after taking all the elements of the case into consideration, to determine at its discretion what the period shall be during which the undertakers shall enjoy all profits, and thus secure recoupment for their outlay.

As a Member of the Joint Committee, I desire to briefly say why I hope the House will not adopt this Resolution. The London County Council did very fully set out the reasons in favour of such a principle as the hon. Member has embodied in his Motion; and we considered it very carefully, and came unanimously to the conclusion that to accept it would be almost certain to endanger the success of these schemes. I may point out that the first Bill on the list of those to which the hon. Member proposes to direct his Motion—the Great Northern and City Bill—is different in character to those that follow. The hon. Member, I think, justifies his contention on the ground that these are local lines; and the other lines, undoubtedly, are merely local and metropolitan in their character. But, as a matter of fact, the Great Northern and City Line is not in any sense a local line; it seeks to connect the Great Northern line with a new terminus at Finsbury Place, and without doubt it will be a great relief to the traffic over the Great Northern line, but I do not think the hon. Member will suggest that the London County Council should undertake at any time the management of a portion of a great main line. In any case, this particular line is outside the category of the other lines with which the hon. Member wishes the House to deal by his Resolution. With regard to the proposal as it came before the Com mittee, I may shortly say that it was conclusively shown that if such a clause were incorporated in these Bills there would be but little hope of the necessary capital being raised for the construction of any of the lines. If hon. Members will look over the history of proposals for railways in London during the past twenty years they will see that London is, as it were, strewn with abortive projects, line after line having successfully passed the ordeal of Parliament, but having had to be abandoned because of the stringency of the terms imposed upon the promoters. The Committee, looking at these projected lines as a whole, and at the great public convenience they would supply, came to the conclusion that the electric system was an adequate system, that the routes proposed were adequate, that the carrying out of the projects would be of material advantage to London and Londoners, but they also saw that if such a clause as this were imposed the necessary capital would never be subscribed. The Joint Committee, therefore, rejected the suggestion of the London County Council, as I hope the House will now.

I think this very large proposition must have taken most Members of the House a good deal by surprise. Most of us, I think, did not see the Motion until we turned over our papers this morning. At any rate, the principle is so very wide, so very large, that all new railways constructed within the district of the London County Council shall, under certain conditions, ultimately become the property of the London County Council, that I think we must hesitate before accepting it. Now, while I am quite prepared in many ways to add to the responsibilities and usefulness of municipal institutions, I do think this is a case in which "vaulting ambition o'erleaps" itself. The County Council has a full load to carry, almost equal to its capacity. It has to deal with many subjects—the water supply, the question of "betterment" as applied to improvements, the acquisition of tramways, and other matters. Now, tramways offer no analogy to these railways; they occupy the surface of the streets, they interfere with the ordinary traffic, and have to be regulated with other traffic; but to give the County Council power at one swoop to take the management of underground railways in London is a proposal far too large to be adopted on a Motion on a Private Bill at a time when the minds of Members are occupied with other matters. I certainly think the Motion should be postponed until we have far more information on the subject and can give more consideration to the subject than is now possible.

I think, after the decision of the Joint Committee on the ground stated by my hon. Friend, we cannot accept such a Motion as this. No doubt all of us who live in London are more or less jealous of the user of rights of public thoroughfares, and it would be well if the London County Council showed some of the jealousy they are now displaying when tramway questions are sometimes before Parliament. No doubt at present these railways will be of a local character; but have we not often found that railways have been extended from the centre and have become main arterial lines? How is it possible for the Council to undertake the management of the London sections of our great main lines? How can they claim anything of the kind simply because the lines happen to run over or under the public thoroughfares? Really, the Council display such a busy, grasping policy that we are continually, in a state of wonder as to what form their next demand will take. Possibly some day they may ask for the power of appointment of officers to the Metropolitan Volunteer Corps. By their endeavour to introduce the betterment principle they have checked all private enterprise in London in the direction of public improvements; and now, to carry out fads of their own, they would interpose and prevent the subscription of capital for the carrying out of these railway projects for the convenience of Londoners and the employment of a large number of the working classes. The London County Council is a sort of municipal cuckoo. Instituting no great works of its own it interferes with the enterprises of others with its Americanised ideas and Socialistic schemes. This is a most unworkable proposal to introduce at the fag end of a Session, and I hope the House will reject it.

Such a speech should not pass unanswered. It is not the fault of the London County Council that they have to come to Parliament so often for powers; that is the fault of Her Majesty's Government, who did not confer on London by their Act powers enjoyed by other Municipalities. Now, I would like to see the whole of our railway system under the control of the State, but the present limited proposal is that the local London railways shall at some future time be under local public control, and I support such a proposal, believing that it will result in great advantage to the inhabitants of London. As to what the hon. Member has said about the betterment principle having stopped improvements in London, I have only to say if that is so it will be no disadvantage to the people of London, who will, I hope, ultimately have the benefit of the application of the principle that those who benefit most from an improvement shall contribute justly towards the cost of that improvement. I support the proposal of my hon. Friend, and believe it is a step that must ultimately be taken.

These railways are designed to be connecting links between the great London termini. Parliament has never considered the question of State control of railways, and surely we are not prepared at this short notice to delegate such powers of control to the London County Council. I recognise in this proposal another of the attempts made by the Council to get control of the employment of labour in London, by which they hope to command the suffrages which will give them power in Spring Gardens, and afterwards in this House. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to the restricted powers of the London County Council; but I am not aware that any Provincial Council has any such power as this, though I do not see how such power could be refused to any Council in the Kingdom if granted to London.

I think we may approach this subject without the introduction of jealousy with regard to the London County Council. My vote will be given on the ground that this proposal has already been discussed by the Joint Committee to which these electric railway proposals have been referred. The decision of the Committee was that it was undesirable to introduce the clause, and that its introduction would probably lead to the failure of the schemes. Satisfied with that decision, arrived at after full consideration, I shall vote against the present proposal.

As a Member of the Committee, I may say that in rejecting the proposal which was put before us by the County Council we felt that the Council were not consistent with the view they themselves expressed that these local lines should communicate with the open country. Control over the London section of the lines implied control over the outside section, and such control, in our view, should not be in the hands of a local, but of a Central, Authority.

I may be allowed to explain that, recognising the distinction my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitmore) has pointed out between the first Bill on the list and the subsequent Bills, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw the present Motion, and move it in regard to the second of the Bills mentioned.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury is in possession of any information which would give some idea as to the investments in ground rents or other land values of Friendly and Benefit Societies, Savings Banks, and other organisations, whereof the financial resources represent in the main the accumulated capital of the industrial classes?

No information is available which would enable me to give anything approaching a complete reply to the question. It is estimated that the registered Friendly Societies, excluding Collecting Societies, have invested more than a million in land, offices, and buildings, and about £5,380,000 in mortgages and other real securities. The investments, other than in trade, of the ordinary Co-operative Societies, are about £5,800,000, and of this a considerable proportion is invested in land and buildings. No doubt other Societies and Companies whose incomes are derived from the contributions of the industrial classes have considerable investments in real property, but I have no information as to the amount.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what steps have been taken by the Postal Authorities to trace a letter addressed to the manager of the Ulster Bank, Omagh, by Mr. John Leeman, of Aughnagar, County Tyrone, and handed to the rural postman on 17th March last, which, although it had only to be sent eight miles, has not been delivered?

Although the distance was a short one the letter would pass through several offices on its way to Omagh. The sender did not take the precaution of registering it, although it contained bank notes, and hence no record would be kept of its passage through any of them. Every effort has been made, and is still being made by personal inquiry, to discover what has become of the letter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the complaints recently received by him from a British subject residing in Rome, stating that the Rome Postal Authorities had declined to deliver at his house certain books despatched to him from Paisley on the ground that they were too numerous, to which the Secretary to the British Post Office replied that—

"The British Post Office has, of course, no control in such a matter as this, relating to the internal postal arrangements of a foreign country; but, as your complaint is not an isolated one, it has been thought well to make known to the Director General of the Italian Post Office the circumstance to which you have directed attention,"

whether he has any objection to give to the House the reply of the Rome Postal Authorities to his letter; and whether the Italian Post Office is bound under agreement with the British Post Office to deliver letters, books, and other articles sent through the post at the domicile of the persons addressed?

The Italian Post Office does not refuse to deliver book packets, but, when they are too heavy to be delivered by the first out-going letter carrier, they are sent to their addresses by special supplementary deliveries. The internal postal regulations limit to half a kilo-gramme for each person addressed, the weight of correspondence which the Post Office is bound to deliver. There is no special agreement between the British and Italian Post Offices on this subject; and the Universal Postal Union does not restrict the right of the contracting parties to organise their own system of delivery at their discretion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter from the Waterford County Inspector, R.I.C., to the Mayor of Waterford, calling his attention to the scenes enacted in the streets of that city on Sunday evenings at the time of closing the public-houses; and whether he will have inquiries made as to the state of the other four cities which are exempted from the operations of the Irish Sunday Closing Act, and, if necessary, have special instructions issued to the Chiefs of Police and to the Chief Magistrates of those cities?

The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper copy of the letter referred to in the question. The Constabulary Authorities report that the County inspector thought it advisable to bring the matter referred to before the magistrates, in order that they might by inflicting heavy penalties co-operate with the police in putting an end to the scenes complained of. No similar complaints in regard to the other exempted cities have come under the notice of the Constabulary Authorities.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to recommend a grant for the enlargement of the Catholic Chapel at Bere Island, in which the accommodation is insufficient for sailors of Her Majesty's ships and coastguards, in addition to the ordinary congregation who attend there?

I regret that I am unable to recommend a grant for the enlargement of the Catholic Chapel at Bere Island. Her Majesty's ships visit Berehaven only intermittently, and therefore it has been thought preferable that arrangements should be made for holding special services, for which a fixed rate of remuneration would be paid in addition to the authorized capitation grant.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Aughaville, County Cork, praying for increased postal facilities; and whether he is prepared to grant the facilities requested?

The Memorial referred to prays for a despatch in the afternoon instead of in the morning from the Post Office at Colomane, and it has been carefully considered. The mail to Colomane is sent from Bantry to Durras Road Station, where it is received by the sub-postmaster, who at the same time despatches a mail to Bantry. His work is thus finished before ten a.m. To give a despatch to Bantry in the afternoon would involve a second trip to and from the station, and would cost not less than £10 a year. A reply is therefore being prepared expressing regret that the circumstances do not admit of the Memorialists' request being complied with.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the ratepayers and inhabitants of East and West Schull relative to increased postal facilities; and whether he is prepared to accede to the prayer of the Memorial?

The Memorial was received on the 27th instant, and its receipt was acknowledged to the hon. Member on the same day. It is now under inquiry.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a Memorial from certain parents of children attending the National School at Ringstead, Northampton, stating that they have withdrawn their children from the religious instruction at that school under the Conscience Clause, and that their children have been in consequence treated as absentees, and placed at the bottom of their class, and asking redress of their grievance; whether this putting down of the children to the bottom of their class is a violation of the 7th clause of "The Education Act, 1870," providing that children may be withdrawn from the religious instruction without forfeiting any other benefits of the school; and whether he will have directions sent to the school managers to discontinue the practice of imposing this penalty on the children of Nonconformists?

The Department have received such a Memorial, and are now in communication with the managers on the subject; but I am bound to say that there is nothing in the terms of the Memorial to exclude the possibility that the children were so dealt with because they declined to attend before the registers were closed, and were, therefore, in fact, absentees.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will draw the attention of the school managers to the Circular Letter of 1878, requiring that children should not be exposed to any disparity of treatment under these circumstances, and whether he has received any Report of the circumstances under the requirements of the Act of 1870?

What usually takes place is—the registers are closed at the commencement of the school work, and if a child arrives after they are closed its attendance cannot be recorded.

I cannot consider the reply satisfactory, and shall put a further question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the contemplated new issue of Turkish Government Bonds, Her Majesty's Government is aware that there remain unpaid and unprovided for in any way a consider able number and amount of the bonds constituting the Turkish Loan of 1862, £8,000,000 sterling, in the hands of private persons, subjects of Her Majesty, to whom the amounts, together with coupons for interest unpaid since the 1st January, 1876, admittedly remain due; and whether Her Majesty's Government will draw the attention of the Government of the Ottoman Porte to the subject, and afford an opportunity, before fresh Turkish Bonds are issued to the public, of substantiating the facts herein alleged, with a view to obtaining a satisfactory settlement of the admitted claims of subjects of Her Majesty?

Her Majesty's Government are not acquainted with the particulars of the proposal for the new issue of Turkish Bonds. They are not, therefore, in a position to judge how far the interests of the 1862 bondholders—as secured by the arrangement of 1881 between the Delegates of the foreign bondholders and the Turkish Government—are affected, if at all. They are not, therefore, at present in a position to make any representation to the Porte on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Sunday, the 22nd instant, when a battery of Royal Artillery were quartered in Newcastle West on the publicans, two police constables named M'Garry and Dougal attired themselves in soldiers' uniforms, and thus disguised visited some of the publicans; is he aware that these men visited several houses, and on knocking at one were asked by the publican's wife, "Who is there?" and on their answering, "Soldiers," she said, "You must go away; I will give you no drink"; if he can say whether District Inspector Wright or Head Constable Butler authorised the constables to assume this disguise; if not, then by whose authority was it done; and were any officers of the battery aware that uniforms of Her Majesty's Royal Artillery were being used for such a purpose?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the constables referred to explain that they visited one public-house disguised as stated, but did not enter it. The constables did not go with the authority or knowledge of their officers or of the military officers, but upon their own responsibility.

I should like to ask if steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this conduct, and whether the constables were reprimanded?

I think it rather proceeded from over-zeal, and that the authorities do consider that they should take some steps to prevent the repetition of such conduct.

Do the officers think they were right in assuming this disguise without the knowledge of their superior officer?

I am not in a position to answer that question, as I am not aware of the regulations dealing with the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to that part of the Report of the District Inspector of Schools of Omagh, County Tyrone, published in the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in reference to school-houses, in which the following passage occurs:—

"One is situated in the middle of a field, half a mile from a road, with no path leading to it; two are placed in farmyards surrounded by manure heaps and stagnant pools, poisoning the atmosphere, and injurious to the health of teachers and pupils; and one is in a backyard off a street, where the atmosphere is stifling and pestilential";

whether his attention has been called to cases of overcrowding of schools as fruitful sources of epidemics; and whether the Local Sanitary Authority takes cognisance of these things, or whether there is any authority to grapple with admitted evils, and see that the necessary accommodation and convenience are provided for each child in attendance at school?

The Commissioners of National Education report that they have made representations from time to time to the manager of the first school referred to. They understand that it is his intention to have a school provided in a more suitable place as soon as possible. As regards the two houses placed in farmyards, the manager has, at the instance of the Commissioners, been making efforts to secure another site, while, in regard to both houses, the objectionable features are reported by the Inspector to be much diminished. With respect to the last school referred to, steps have been taken to provide a new school, as explained in the context following the passage quoted by the hon. Member. As regards the overcrowding, every effort has been made by the managers to provide ample accommodation, and while the accommodation provided by the National Schools throughout Ireland is at present in round numbers 778,000, the average daily attendance of pupils is only 490,000. It is believed that on the Sanitary Authorities becoming aware of any arrangements of a school prejudicial to the health of the pupils, they would bring the matter under the notice of the managers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware when quoting those figures that, according to the last Report, the number of children who attended school during 1890 was over a million?

I think the hon. Gentleman is giving the figures of the number on the school rolls. My impression is that the average number on the rolls is about 800,000 odd. I do not think it possible that the figures of the hon. Gentleman are correct.

I will quote the exact figures from the Report in the coming Debate on the Irish Education Bill.

As regards the attendance, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that children are left on the rolls long after they have ceased to attend school?

I am not aware that there is any case where they were allowed to remain on the roll for a long time.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education why no school accommodation has been provided at Milton, in the Parish of Buckland Monachorum, in the County of Devon; whether he is aware that there are ninety-four children at Milton residing from one to three and a quarter miles distant from the Buckland Monachorum school; whether he is aware that a landowner has offered to find a site for a school at Milton; and whether the school at Buckland Monachorum is in a satisfactory state?

On a careful review of all the circumstances of the case, it has been decided to acquire a school at the hamlet of Milton for fifty children up to nine years of age, and the elder children will, as heretofore, attend the school at Buckland, by which arrangement the district will derive greater educational benefit than by the establishment of a second school for children of all ages within its limits. The school at Buckland received a very satisfactory report at the inspection last month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the remaining parts of the Brehon Law Tracts, which it is understood that Professor Atkinson has been engaged in translating, will be published?

I understand that two volumes yet remain to complete the publication—namely, the fifth, containing text and translation, and the sixth, containing glossarial matter and indices. The fifth volume is nearly completed, and the sixth is so well advanced that the editor is in expectation of having both volumes published concurrently at the end of 1893.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the Terms Removal (Scotland) Act, and to an answer given on the 25th May last year, by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) on behalf of his predecessor in office, whether the Government is aware that the grievance then complained of was accentuated and more widely felt at the Martinmas term last year, and was again revived at Whitsunday last; and whether the Government has now before it sufficient evidence of the inconvenience and uncertainty then referred to to warrant its taking steps to remove them?

I am informed that since the answer referred to by my hon. Friend was given, the County of Orkney and the Burgh of Kirkwall are the only Public Bodies who have made representations to the Secretary for Scotland on this matter. I am afraid that the experience of the result of the recent legislation on the subject does not encourage a renewal of the attempt to amend the law until a much wider expression of local opinion in the various districts of Scotland has been obtained.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to state the cause of the fight which took place in Londonderry Barracks on the 23rd instant, between the Lancashire Regiment and the Derry Artillery Militia, and the number of men injured on each side; and whether any and, if so, what punishment has been inflicted on the combatants on either side?

The cause of the disturbance, which only lasted a few minutes, was a desire on the part of some men of the 2nd North Lancashire Regiment to pay off an old score against the barman of a neighbouring public-house, who was found to be a member of the Militia regiment. The men fell in at once when ordered to do so, and the six militiamen who were injured were able to march out with their regiment. Steps will be taken to punish the ringleaders.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information as to the experiment recently made of sending out to the Pacific Station officers and men of the Royal Navy by means of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and particularly whether the transport was effected at any special rates, or under any special contract, with the Canadian Pacific Railway; how the cost of transport by this means compared with that of the method hitherto adopted; whether considerations other than pecuniary were in favour of this route as compared with others; what was the effect upon the discipline and organisation of the men; whether the experiment was undertaken at the request of the Canadian Government or of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make general use of this mode of transport in the future?

The experiment of sending officers and men to the Pacific Station by the Canadian Pacific Railway has been tried in two instances: the first, on the occasion of the relief of the crews of the "Champion" and "Pheasant," when seven officers and two hundred and forty-five men were brought from Vancouver to Halifax, and twenty-four officers and three hundred and twelve men were taken from Halifax to Vancouver; and in the second, when four officers and two hundred and two men were sent from Halifax to Vancouver. In each case special arrangements were made, both in regard to the trains and also as to the rates to be paid. It is difficult to draw an accurate comparison as to the cost of relieving men or manning ships on the Pacific Station by the adoption of the Canadian route as opposed to the Isthmus of Panama route. The expense of the latter route depends on the necessity or otherwise of sending a man-of-war to Panama to receive the men, when the coal expended by the vessel would become a part of the cost. There are only one or two ships in the Pacific command which can accommodate extra men; while arrangements can always be made for the reception of the men at Esquimalt, which, as a naval and refitting port, is the place most suitable for recommissioning ships on the Station. The Canadian route is much the quicker, and thus the men sent out are sooner available for duty. According to the Reports which have been received, the journey by rail across Canada had no appreciable effect in one way or the other upon the discipline or organisation of the men of the Royal Navy. The experiment was made at the instance of the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Station, and was a success, the Railway Authorities taking great pains in looking after the comfort of officers and men. The use of the route will in future be considered by the Admiralty as one which has in certain conditions decided advantages over the other.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a tenant, named Daniel J. Mahoney, Knock-nagree, County Cork, who at the last Marlow Quarter Sessions claimed compensation for disturbance to the amount of £542; and is he aware the Recorder of Cork postponed judgment on the case until next Sessions, and that steps are being taken by the landlord to evict this tenant; and, if so, will the forces of the Crown be given to assist in evicting this tenant whilst the land claim has not been decided on by the legal tribunal?

The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the question. The landlord in pressing on the eviction for non-payment of rent is influenced, I am informed, by Mahoney's refusal to give other tenants on the property the use of turf, and that it is to enable the landlord to supply the wants of these tenants in this respect that the eviction is being carried out. It was open to the tenant to apply to the Court for a postponement of the issue of the writ. The Government cannot undertake to withhold protection from the Sheriff.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Government to the delay of the Recorder in giving judgment?

The delay of the Recorder in giving his judgment for a large amount is a matter over which the Government has no control whatever.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a meeting announced to be held at Money-glass, near Toome, on the 26th instant, to discuss the land question, has been proclaimed; and, if so, for what reason this course has been pursued?

The meeting referred to was proclaimed, as the authorities had reason to believe it was convened with the unlawful object of intimidating a person who had taken an evicted farm, and of intimidating others from taking it.

Are we to understand that boycotting is not, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, all over in Ireland, but that it still exists?

I think it should be taken the other way—not only that it does not exist, but that we are determined that it shall not exist.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Resolution, carried on the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), in favour of fair wages and the prohibition of sub-letting in Government contracts, has not been applied by the Irish Office?

I have made some inquiries, but have been unable to ascertain that there are any contracts of this kind made by the Irish Government. Probably, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, all works of this kind are carried out by the Board of Works under the authority of the Treasury, but I have asked them to look carefully into the matter, and find out if there are any such contracts to which the Resolution is not applied.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the Vote for the Board of Public Works in Ireland last Session, the then Secretary to the Treasury undertook to apply the Resolution passed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton), relating to fair wages, to all Government contracts in Ireland, and why this undertaking has been, up to the present time, disregarded by the Board of Works?

I find that the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stated last Session that—

"It would not be unreasonable that we should take the same course in Ireland, as far as the circumstances are similar, as we take in England."

I have made inquiries, and am told that it is not the case that the Board of Public Works have disregarded the Resolution of the House, inasmuch as their contracts do contain provision against sub-letting.

I wish: to ask whether the House having passed a Resolution, and the English Departments having issued a form in which that specification is contained, why the Irish Department has not also issued such a Circular, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will direct that such a form shall be issued by the Irish Department?

The Department does not disregard the Resolution of the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman will give a particular instance I will inquire into it.

When this matter was debated last year the discussion was directed to the question of fail wages rather than to sub-contracting, and I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman intends to insert in, the Irish Government contracts the same terms as are inserted in the English Government contracts?

I wish to ask whether what is known as the factory clause is put in the Irish contracts?

I am told that the Board of Works do not disregard the Resolution of the House of Commons. I made a general inquiry and received a general answer. If the hon. Gentleman will give a specific case I will look into it.

I have given a specific case. While the English Departments issue a form copying the Resolution, the Irish Department has no such form.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return, Local Government Act, 1888 (Compensation Appeals), will be laid upon the Table?

I hope that the Return will be laid in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a Bill to relieve drill halls of all local rates and taxes, for the benefit of the Volunteer Forces?

It is for my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to deal with the question of relieving from local rates the drill halls of Volunteers. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think it is likely or possible that a measure of the kind suggested will be introduced this Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is correct that it has been found necessary, in order to prevent leakage, to fit ferrules to some of the tubes of the "Royal Sovereign"; if so, is it in consequence of the boilers being of a similar type to those of the "Thunderer"; and whether he anticipates that the ferrules proposed to be used in the tubes of the "Thunderer," "Vulcan," and other vessels will prevent the unequal distribution of heat consequent upon the boilers being constructed with single combustion chambers?

The ferrules in question will improve the working efficiency of any type of boiler to which they can be fitted; and in order to test this in extended practice, the "Royal Sovereign," which is about to proceed on service in the Channel, has, with other vessels, been selected for a trial of the ferrules. Her boilers are not of the same type as those of the "Thunderer." Those ferrules do not prevent the unequal distribution of heat, but they tend to counteract in the weakest part of the boiler the injurious effect of the contraction and expansion of the tube plate and tubes consequent upon variations in the heat of the combustion chamber.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to be good enough to state the gross and net register tonnage, also the nominal and effective power, age, and condition of the boilers and engines of the "Capercailzie" yacht recently purchased for the use of the Admiral at Devonport, also the price paid to the owners; whether any, and what, alterations have been made, and the cost of the same; and whether he will consider the advisability of dispensing altogether with such expensive appendages, seeing that all the work necessary, whether at home or abroad, can be done with steam launches, which now form part of the outfit of all large vessels?

The gross tonnage of the "Capercailzie" is 365 tons, and the net registered tonnage 214. The engines have a nominal horse power of 76, and estimated indicated horse-power of 500. The engines and boilers are nine years old, and are in good condition. The price paid for the yacht was £14,000, and a further expenditure of £1,200 has since been incurred for alterations, repairs, &c., in the dockyard. The purpose for which yachts are required by the Commanders-in-Chief cannot be served equally by steam launches, thoroughly sea-going vessels being absolutely essential. The "Capercailzie" has been purchased to replace the obsolete vessel at Plymouth which was used by the Commander-in-Chief for his sea work. Vessels of a type similar to the "Capercailzie" have in previous years been supplied to the Commanders-in-Chief at Sheerness and Portsmouth as part of a general scheme for replacing obsolete tenders by vessels of a serviceable character. The purchase of second-hand yachts, and their subsequent adaptation to the duty for which they are required, has been found the best and most economical arrangement for the supply of efficient vessels for this particular service.

May I ask how the position of the Admiral differs from that of this Admiral on the Irish Station, who has only a small steam launch?

One has a far larger number of ships under his command than the other.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attenton has been called to the fact that lobby officers in the General Post Office in Edinburgh are not yet paid at the new rate for Sunday duty, and have not obtained the benefits of the new scheme of re-organisation; and whether he will take steps to have these servants placed in the same position as all other members of the permanent staff in Edinburgh?

It is a fact that the lobby officers in the General Post Office, Edinburgh, are not paid at the new rate for Sunday work, as they were not included in the scheme. The question of extending the scheme to all parts of the country is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will urge forward an early decision by the Departmental Committee on the subject of the Mutual Guarantee Fund of the Edinburgh Post Office?

The inquiry was extensive, and I do not think that any undue delay has taken place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what foreign nations have adopted legislation against the false marking of goods in the spirit of the Merchandise Marks Amendment Act of 1887, and of the Resolutions of the Industrial Conventions at Rome and Madrid; and in particular, whether any progress has been made in this direction by Germany and the United States?

The Protocol of Madrid for the prevention of false indications of origin has been signed by Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Brazil, Tunis, and Guatemala. The date for the exchange of ratifications is fixed for the 15th June next, when it will be seen whether all of the above Powers will ratify and put its provisions into effect. Germany and the United States have not signed, and have not, so far as the Foreign Office is aware, adopted any legislation in this direction.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the mails for the North-West of Ireland are so long delayed at Dundalk; and why, after their arrival at Enniskillen, letters are so long in being delivered that it is impossible to reply by midday mail to the English correspondence?

The day mails from Dublin for Enniskillen reach Dundalk at 8.2 a.m., but there is no train by which they can be sent forward until 9 a.m. The letters are received at the Enniskillen Post Office at 11.35 a.m., and the delivery which begins at 12.5 p.m. lasts about one hour thirty minutes. The letter box being closed for the despatch of the return mail at 12.45 p.m., there is little, if any, interval for reply; and the only means by which a satisfactory interval could be secured would be the establishment of a train specially for the mail service in each direction between Dundalk and Enniskillen. The outlay involved in such an arrangement would be far beyond what the revenue would warrant. I will consider whether, by any moderate expenditure, the delivery can be expedited.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or intends to take, any steps to bring about an arrangement with the Porte for the commutation of the annual payment of £92,800 now due as a tribute from Cyprus, and an arrangement with France to pay off the Guaranteed Four per Cent. Loan of 1855, and to raise the money on cheaper terms?

The two questions—namely, the commutation of the tribute of £92,800 now due to the Porte as a tribute from Cyprus, and an arrangement with France to pay off the Guaranteed Four per Cent. Loan, are not interdependent. The latter is the easier subject of the two, and I have not neglected it, but I cannot say that I have made progress.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at the recent test examination for forty vacancies on the grade of First Class Examining Officers of Customs the usual Civil Service method of calculating the marks on the aggregate was adopted, thus giving each candidate the full benefit of the total marks gained, or whether a very high maximum was made obligatory in each branch of practical knowledge, thereby contributing to the anomalous result of successful candidates obtaining less marks than unsuccessful candidates; whether the system of awarding marks has operated to the detriment of the senior experienced officers and the promotion of a large number of junior officers, whom the Board of Customs have since found it necessary to place on three months' probation, to acquire a knowledge of those practical duties which should have formed the subject of the examination; and whether there is any objection to the publication of the marks awarded at the examination?

At the recent test examination for promotion from the second to the first class of Examining Officers in the Customs, the five subjects in which the candidates were examined were all of a practical nature, and the Commissioners of Customs required that candidates to be successful should qualify in each of the five subjects, a knowledge of all of which is necessary to enable them to fill efficiently the position of Examining Officer, first class. The qualifying number of marks fixed by the Commissioners of Customs was three-fifths of the maximum number in each of the five subjects, together with an aggregate of two-thirds of the total maximum obtainable. Successful candidates have in some cases obtained a number of marks less in the aggregate than unsuccessful candidates who failed in one or more of the subjects. The system of awarding marks has not operated to the detriment of the senior experienced officers, inasmuch as only one officer who qualified in all the subjects failed to obtain the aggregate number of marks. The whole of the successful candidates, without reference to their position in the examination or their service and previous experience, were placed on probation for three months. It is not the practice, either in the Customs or Inland Revenue Departments, to publish the marks awarded to candidates, successful or unsuccessful, at Departmental examinations, and the Board of Customs do not recommend any departure from this practice.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the proposal to remove the Royal Foundation of Christ's Hospital to such a distance from London as would inflict hardships on the relations of the children to be benefited, and might considerably diminish the value of the reformed institution; whether he will inform the House by whom and to whom such a proposition has been submitted; and whether the Metropolitan Members will be afforded an opportunity of expressing their views before any final decision as to site is arrived at.

I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will look at Section 65 of the scheme he will see that the initiative in the matter is reserved to the Court of Almoners, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would grant a Return of the number of Boards of Guardians dissolved by the Government since and inclusive of the year 1880, with a statement of the reason in each case?

I have no objection to granting the Return if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, but I think it would be a little more complete if it included those Unions which have been warned and not merely those which have been dissolved.

I am quite ready to take it in that form.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant to the "principal" warders and "chief" warders of Her Majesty's convict prisons the same relative advantages in regard to an increase of salary and pension on retirement which have been recently accorded to the subordinate prison officers, including clerks and schoolmasters?

The chief warders and principal warders of Her Majesty's convict prisons have just received an addition to their maximum pay. The advantages given to assistant warders, clerks, and schoolmasters on account of delay in promotion are, from the circumstances of the case, not applicable to those who have already reached the rank of chief or principal warder.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now prepared to give any figures showing the relative volume of the mails sent from Dublin to Cork, including the American Mails, as compared with the mails from Dublin to Belfast?

A Return has now been furnished. It shows the volume and weight of the Inland Mails conveyed to and from Dublin on the Great Northern and Great Southern and Western Railways during one week to be respectively as follows:—Great Northern—Number of bags, 2,439; weight, 28 tons. Great Southern and Western—Number of bags, 2,591; weight, 28½ tons. This is, of course, exclusive of the mails carried viâ Stranraer. During the same week the volume and weight of the American Mails conveyed both ways between Dublin and Queenstown were respectively—Number of bags, 1,117; weight, 35 tons; while the weight and volume of the Canadian Mails carried both ways between Dublin and Londonderry were—Number of bags, 194; weight, 2 tons. The figures as regards the Foreign Mails of course vary much from week to week.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been come to by the Treasury as regards the sum required by the Post Office Department to improve the mail service between Dublin and Cork; and, if not, when it is likely that a definite reply can be given?

Negotiations are in progress on this subject, and I hope that a definite decision will be given before long.

When can I repeat the question?

In a week's time. Negotiations are now going on, and a decision will probably be given before that time.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if, having regard to the fact that the Irish Mayors have been removed from the Commissions of Assizes in Ireland and the Irish Judges have refused to lunch with the High Sheriffs, he will direct the discontinuance in future of cavalry escorts with trumpeters, sentries at their lodgings, and escorting and attending Judges in Ireland at ensuing and future Assizes?

I have no information, as a matter of fact, on the subject of the hon. Member's question; but I may say that the matters referred to in it are entirely outside my province, and I have no power to give such directions as are suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether marriages, between parties of whom one at least is a British subject, can now be solemnised in the Island of Malta in accordance with the provisions of "The Marriage Act, 1890," and "The Foreign Marriage Act, 1891"?

The Secretary of State is advised that such marriages cannot be so solemnised, as no officer in Malta has been authorised to solemnise marriages under those Acts.

Have they no power under the last Act?

That question involves a very important legal question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question to the Attorney General.

I will do so. I also intend to call attention to the subject when we come to the Marriages Abroad Bill, which is down for Second Reading to-day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the engagements or undertakings given to the Holy See as to the Maltese Marriage Law and the other matters broached by Sir Lintorn Simmons at the Vatican have been fulfilled, or has any remonstrance been received by Her Majesty's Government as to their non-fulfilment?

The undertaking given to the Pope by Sir Lintorn Simmons that a Bill to regulate the civil effects of marriages in Malta would be introduced in the Colonial Council of Government has not yet been fulfilled. Before determining the form of the proposed legislation Her Majesty's Government found it necessary to obtain fuller information as to the existing Marriage Law of Malta; and in view of the conflicting opinions of high authorities they have thought it right to submit certain questions for the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case for submission to the Judicial Committee is being finally revised by the Crown Advocate of Malta. The only other undertaking related to the surrender by the Government of the collation of certain ecclesiastical benefices in Malta, and this has been fulfilled as far as vacancies have occurred. No such remonstrance has been received as to the non-fulfilment of the undertakings.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Sir Lintorn Simmons represented to the Holy See that there would be such a difficulty in fulfilling the promise that for two years it would remain unfulfilled?

I am afraid I cannot inform the hon. Member. If the hon. Member will put a further question down I will look into the Papers on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Protocols submitted by the British Government to the International Sanitary Conference at Venice, and the Protocols and Report of the Conference?

Negotiations in connection with the matters discussed at the International Sanitary Conference are still proceeding, and until they are concluded it would be very undesirable to lay the Papers asked for.

In view of the distinct proposals made by the British Government in these Protocols, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to lay them on the Table?

I cannot undertake to lay them, because the negotiations are still going on with regard to the questions which were discussed at the Conference, and it would not be proper that part of the discussions and of the results arrived at should appear without the whole appearing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the recent Resolution of this House, declaring that public meetings should be permitted in schools in receipt of State aid has been communicated to the Board of National Education in Ireland; and, if not, will the Government inform the Board that managers who may permit meetings or conventions during the coming election to be held in their schools should now incur no censure nor run any risk of the withdrawal of the grants?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I should like to ask him whether the Bill which has been issued this morning dealing with elementary schools in connection with this subject is to apply to Ireland?

I have made inquiry, and I understand it does not apply to Ireland.

Why not?

The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is the Elementary Schools Bill, which, I believe, has just been circulated. I have no objection to communicate to the National Board of Education a copy of the Resolution passed by the House, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable; but I am not aware that they have any power to give effect to it, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there is a regulation which prohibits the use of schools, either vested or non-vested, in Ireland for political purposes; and I do not know what would be the effect of communicating the Resolution to them. I have no objection to that, but I do not think they have any power to enforce it.

This is not a matter of my desire, but of the intention of the House of Commons. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has listened to the statement which has just been made, and why it is that this Resolution is not to be given effect to as regards Ireland, because the Bill, as I understand, which has just been circulated—I have not seen it myself—does not apply to Ireland?

I do not think it was intended that the Bill to be introduced on this subject should apply to Ireland, because the whole course of education in Ireland has been actually and historically very different from that which obtains in this country. I do not know that there would be compulsory power to compel managers of schools in Ireland, whether they liked it or not, to open their schools for public meetings. My own impression is that when they came to consider the matter they would not only not desire it, but strongly object to it.

That is not the question. The question is, this House passed a Resolution with regard to schools in the three Kingdoms, which the Government consented to give effect to in a Bill; but that Bill is now before the House and it excludes Ireland, and my question to the Government is this—whether the Resolution will be communicated to the Board of National Education in Ireland; and whether their attention will be drawn to it, or whether the Bill shall be made to apply to Ireland?

At the time that this Resolution was passed by the House, neither by the Mover nor the Seconder, nor by any single gentleman whatever, was there any reference made to Ireland. There was not a word said about Ireland.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he, or will he not, communicate to the Irish National Education Board a copy of the Resolution which was passed for the three Kingdoms by this House?

If it were communicated it would have no effect, and I see no reason to make a communication which would have no effect.

Then I will block the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers' cottages with allotments have been provided under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts in the counties of Tyrone and Antrim?

No labourers' cottages have been provided or authorised in County Tyrone. In County Antrim twenty-six have been authorised, of which twelve were built at the date of the latest Return—31st March last.

I have not been able to catch one word the right hon. Gentleman has said.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the grounds on which the Irish Board of Works have refused to grant the Mullingar Town Commissioners a further loan for the erection of artizans dwellings, although Section 99 of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," empowers the Commissioners, although they are not an Urban Sanitary Authority, to borrow the necessary funds for the erection of artizans dwellings; and whether as the Labouring Classes and Lodging Houses Acts have been already adopted by the Commissioners and that those Acts have been repealed by the Housing of the Working Classes Act, they can proceed under Section 102, Part VII. of the latter Act to complete their scheme for the erection of those dwellings?

(who replied): The Board of Public Works refused to make the loan, because they are advised that the lending power given them by the Public Health (Ireland) Act is limited to lending to Sanitary Authorities. It is open to the Town Commissioners to apply to be constituted an Urban Sanitary Authority under Section 7 of "The Public Health Act,"

If the Commissioners are prevented from proceeding under the powers of the old Act, the Artizans Dwellings Act, are they not entitled to complete their scheme under "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890?"

I understand that the legal advice given to the Irish Board of Works is different, and that they cannot.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that a man named Eugene Sullivan, who worked on the relief works at Kilcrohane, County Cork, was dismissed from his employment by Mark Tobin, a bailiff to Mr. W. S. Bird, J.P., but was subsequently employed on promise to pay Mr. Bird, his landlord, one year's rent; whether Mr. Bird gave a letter in the following terms:—"Corporal Dixon, you may employ Eugene Sullivan"; and if he will explain how Mr. Bird was empowered to control the relief works at Kilcrohane?

The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers occurred fifteen months ago. They were brought under the notice of the Irish Government at the time, and were promptly dealt with. They are not, however, accurately described in the hon. Member's question. It is a fact that Sullivan was employed on the relief works under Tobin, who acted as ganger, and that on Mr. Bird's suggestion he was removed from the works. It is also a fact that Mr. Bird subsequently wrote a note authorising his re-employment, which had also been recommended by the Relieving Officer. He emphatically denies that anything was said about the payment of rent. Mr. Bird had no right or authority to interfere in the manner in which he did, and he expressed his regret to the Lord Chancellor, who accepted his apology. The ganger Tobin was also probably to blame, and he was superseded in that capacity by a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has not come to the knowledge of the authorities in Kilcrohane that this man, after having been dismissed because he owed rent to the magistrate, was afterwards re-employed on the magistrate's recommendation, on the understanding that he would pay a large portion of that rent out of his wages?

No, Sir. I do not think there were any recommendations of that kind.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Access to Mountains (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill will be printed and circulated?

had notice of the following question:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Access to Mountains (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, brought in and read a first time upon Thursday last, will be printed and distributed to Members?

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate that the Bill will be presented before Thursday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Indian Budget will be considered in Committee during the present Session?

It is rather premature to say when the Indian Budget will be considered.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government propose to fulfil the undertaking which they gave with regard to the introduction of a Bill for regulating the immigration of pauper aliens?

I am not able to name the precise day at this moment. The question is under the active consideration of the Government. It was thought necessary to institute inquiries not only at home, but abroad, before giving definite shape to the measure.

Arising out of that answer I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill will be introduced before Whitsuntide, and I should also like to ask whether, under the circumstances, the Government will afford an opportunity for the discussion of the subject, either by obtaining the withdrawal of the notice which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, or by some other way in which the subject might be brought forward?

My right hon. Friend has told the House that it would be impossible to say exactly on what day the Bill may be introduced. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that ample opportunity will be given for the discussion of the subject.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the rising of the tiles in the Central Hall?

My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has asked me to reply to the question of the hon. Baronet. I am informed that the rising and breakage of the tiles at the south-east side of the Central Hall was produced by the expansion of the tiles and their setting, causing the surface of the floor to rise about six inches in the shape of a small arch. This was the result of the pouring of the rays of a very hot sun through an open casement, and of their falling directly upon a portion of the floor affected. The expansion may probably also, to some extent, be accounted for by the fact that the ornamental centre of the Hall has been recently re-laid in cement, which would probably swell in setting, and so produce pressure on the portion of the tiling which was lifted. Such occurrences are not unknown to persons experienced in tiling, but in this case upheaval took place to an unusual extent. The necessary repair has been temporarily effected, and hon. Members may rest assured that the bed of cement from which the tiles lifted was almost intact and that the defect is only superficial, and can be permanently made good at small cost.

Then there is no suggestion that ii was caused by dynamite?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he cannot modify the restrictions imposed in consequence of the foot-and-mouth disease, and whether he considers them any longer necessary in the neighbourhood of Sittingbourne?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I regret to inform him that, although the county is free, I believe, from it every where else, foot-and-mouth disease continues to linger most obstinately in the district of Kent immediately to the north of Sittingbourne; and for some reason or other which I am unable to fathom at present, notwithstanding every effort and the most stringent precautions, we have failed in arresting its progress. Under these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking to-day to carry out any modification of the restrictions imposed; but I am well aware of the annoyance which they cause, and to-morrow the head of the Veterinary Department, Professor Browne, accompanied by the Chief Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, will visit the district by my direction for the double purpose of investigating and reporting—first, what measures, if any, can be taken for the eradication of the disease; and, secondly, whether any modification of the restrictions can be made with due regard to the safety of the rest of the county? As soon as I get the Report of these gentlemen I hope to make a further communication on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Waller and Charles Street, both of Hitchin, who were recently convicted by the local magistrates of unlawfully taking pheasants' and partridges' eggs, in which case the fines imposed amounted in all to £145; whether there is any precedent for such a penalty; and whether he will use such power as he possesses to obtain a mitigation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to add this—whether he has received a Memorial in favour of the prisoners signed by upwards of one thousand persons, some amongst them being magistrates?

I have not yet received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, but I have received a Report from the Clerk to the Magistrates concerning this case. The prisoners, one of whom was the landlord of a public-house, were convicted of being in unlawful possession of 235 partridges' eggs and forty-five pheasants' eggs unlawfully obtained, and, in default of payment of the fine of £70 allowed by the Statute, were each sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The prisoners at the trial were tried separately, and were each defended. The magistrates informed them of their right to appeal to Quarter Sessions, and allowed them seven days to pay the fine and to obtain advice as to the steps they should take. I am not aware whether there is any precedent for the amount of penalties, but I should think that the number of eggs stolen is unprecedented. I am informed that in the neighbourhood in question a regular system exists by which well-known receivers of this stolen property employ and give good prices to small receivers in the villages, who in their turn employ men and boys to obtain the eggs. The fines, in case of conviction, are in most cases paid by the principal receiver. I am told that in this case, had the penalty not exceeded £20, it would have been paid by a receiver. The two magistrates, who are gentlemen of considerable experience in magisterial work, held the case to be fully proved, and, upon the information now before me, I see no sufficient reason for any interference with the sentence which in the exercise of their discretion they have imposed.

In view of the amount of excitement which has been created in the neighbourhood, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything was proved but that these eggs were in the possession of these men, whether these men did not give a straightforward account of their coming into possession of them in the ordinary way of business, as parcels the contents of which they did not know; whether he is aware that when the case was tried three of their employers were in Court ready to give evidence as to character, but that they were not allowed to by the Magistrates on the ground that character had nothing to do with the case; and also whether Street is not an elderly man with an unbroken character, and whether he has not received a police notice that he will lose his licence and livelihood?

I think the hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to answer a number of questions of a minute character such as those, of which he has given me no notice whatever. I have looked through the evidence in this case, and the evidence appears to me, so far as I know, to be absolutely clear upon the point as to how the prisoners came to be in possession of the eggs, and that, so far from their having given a straightforward and true account of how they came by them, one of the prisoners, the publican, stated that he received them from a woman whose name he mentioned, and that woman when called as a witness said the statement was totally untrue.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what class of people buy these eggs?

As to what market they ultimately come to I have got no information; but there appears to be a regularly-organised system for dealing in these eggs.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what Statute these men were convicted?

The Statute was the 1 & 2 William IV., under which, I think, as I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman opposite, being in possession of the eggs unlawfully is sufficient to convict.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission on Vaccination in their recent Report, he can see his way to recommend Local Authorities to refrain from prosecuting until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the before-mentioned Report?

It would be an unprecedented and an arbitrary course of conduct on my part to recommend Local Authorities to disregard the provisions of the unrepealed law in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, and I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regiment, after landing at Chatham from India in 1888, was sent last autumn to the Portsmouth Garrison, where it has had no barracks of its own, but has been separated in detachments over three of the Portsdown forts, and also at Gosport and Portsmouth, in consequence of the Royal Artillery having been given the vacant Infantry barracks at the latter station; whether this arrangement has been costing the country at the rate of £200 a year in order to bring the various detachments together for regimental and other parades three times a week; and how much longer a state of affairs so detrimental to recruiting is to continue?

During the reconstruction of some of the barracks at Portsmouth there has been difficulty in concentrating the 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regiment, and four companies have unavoidably been quartered in the Portsdown Forts and at Gosport, which has involved a cost of about £10 for tolls on the floating bridge when they had to cross to Portsmouth for parades. Whatever troops may be at Gosport have to cross to Portsmouth for field days, and tolls have to be paid. When the new barracks are finished it will not be necessary to divide a battalion as in this instance.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the statement, in the Eastern Daily Press, of 26th May, by the Rev. Dr. Jessop, Rector of Scarning, to the effect that three of his parishioners had been dismissed from employment by the managers of the Great Eastern Railway, under pressure from the Farmers' Alliance; and whether, as the facts stated appear to disclose a primâ facie case of criminal conspiracy on the part of the Alliance, he can undertake that an inquiry will be made with a view of ascertaining their true character?

The question of the hon. and learned Member has not given me sufficient information to enable me to answer it. If he will give me further particulars I will make inquiry on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the case of James Donnelly, Rocktown, who was evicted by the Magherafelt Board of Guardians on the 20th inst., has been brought under his notice; whether the Local Government Board have communicated with the Guardians rebuking them; and whether the Guardians had a legal right to evict this man, and what action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?

The Clerk of the Magherafelt Board of Guardians reports that an order was made against Donnelly directing him to pay £6 odd and costs within six months, and, as he failed to comply with the order, his farm was sold. The Local Government Board did not consider that they were called upon to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the electors of the Parishes of Geevagh and Kimeetray, County Sligo, have to go seven and twelve miles to record their votes; and what steps will be taken to give these people better facilities to record their votes at the forthcoming General Election?

The district polling stations for the Parishes of Geevagh and Kimeetray in the County of Sligo were fixed in 1885 pursuant to the provisions of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act of that year. There is no power to alter the existing district polling stations, except on a resolution being passed by the Quarter Sessions and Justices of the Peace having jurisdiction in the county.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Commissioners of Lunatic Asylums has been drawn to the case of Thomas Garry, late land steward to the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum, who was recently killed by a horse, the property of the Governors of that Institution; and whether, having regard to the fact that Garry was killed while in the service of the Institution, and to the number of years during which he faithfully discharged the duties of his position, any compensation will be given to his young and helpless family?

The attention of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums has been called to the case of Thomas Garry, late land steward to the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum, but they are not aware of any power under the existing law by which such compensa tion could be awarded as is suggested. If the Board of the Asylum had passed a resolution on the subject, the matter would have been carefully considered; but the Board declined to pass a resolution, as the resident medical superintendent had himself offered appointments to the children, which they, however, refused to accept.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to say if the sums payable to Parochial Boards under the Education and Local Taxation Belief (Scotland) Bill will be paid during the current financial year, and on what basis, whether on population or on valuation, or both?

With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot say more than that if the Bill passes in its present shape the basis of distribution will be both population and valuation, as they shall be ascertained by the Secretary for Scotland; and as regards the first point, any sum that may be allocated to Parochial Boards will be paid as soon as possible after the receipt of the moneys by the Secretary for Scotland; but that may not necessarily be so early as the close of the present financial year.

In view of the fact of the backward condition of Public Business, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to devote to-morrow, or to permit to-morrow to be devoted, to the consideration of the horse race which takes place on Wednesday, and whether the Government intend allowing the House to adjourn over Wednesday for the purpose of attending the said horse race?

I have no power to prevent the discussion of the Adjournment for the Derby, which by long custom has been allowed to precede all other business of the day. But I would point out to the hon. Member that if the Motion were carried the loss of time would not be connected in any way with Government Business. It would only affect two private Members' Bills.

On a point of Order, may I respectfully ask whether the notice of Amendment to the Motion put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge) is in order, and whether it can be discussed?

I should prefer to give my ruling when the question arises. But it appears to me that it is not in order on a Motion of that kind, which, for the convenience of the House, has a special precedence accorded to it, to move a "reasonable" Amendment, as a reason why the Motion should not be granted. It would be dragging the House into the discussion of a question utterly irrelevant to the subject, and it might lead to a long debate on a question of general morality not exclusively connected with the Derby Day.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be good enough to answer a question I wish to put to him as to the proceedings after Whitsuntide. As I am one of the unfortunate Members who have their Motions put off until after Whitsuntide, I should be glad if he would say whether the Government propose to take the whole of the time of the House after Whitsuntide? It would at least put us out of our misery if he would be good enough to say whether he proposes to take the full time of the House after Whitsuntide?

I do not like to give a specific answer to a question of this sort. I can only say now, and I think it is not impossible, that I shall have to ask for further facilities after Whitsuntide, as Governments have been obliged to ask for such facilities on previous occasions. My own experience is that private Members' chances after Whitsuntide are very doubtful and dubious.

I think it a matter of great regret that the Government, in disregard of the suggestions which were made to them at an early stage of the Session—suggestions approved by the Irish teachers and in general by the public opinion of Ireland—have insisted upon treating in this Bill two subjects which in principle are not connected. One of these subjects is the allocation and distribution of a money grant, and the other is the application of the leading principles of compulsory attendance. In the judgment of many Irish Members these proposals are very dissimilar in their merits. The proposal to allocate a money grant gives rise to no dissent, but it is exceedingly inconvenient, upon the Second Reading of the Bill, to be obliged to determine between dissimilar proposals. I think the Government would have acted well if they had adopted the suggestion of dividing this Bill into two—of dealing in one Bill with the money grant, under which all education in Ireland should have an option, and in the other dealing with the question of compulsory attendance. But they have preferred, in the true coercion spirit, to try and induce or compel us to govern our action upon the Second Reading of the Bill by reason of the fact that the Bill contains a money grant. We all desire to improve the position of the national teachers, and if the Bill only concerned their position and the improvement of their incomes it might pass after a brief debate. But the Bill is freighted with a question of principle of even greater importance, and I have to say for myself that I cannot yield to such a contrivance as that of dealing with two subjects which are not connected in principle. I shall, therefore, have to express my opinion, and to act upon my opinion, in regard to the scheme and provision for compulsion as if it were the only matter in the Bill. We are told that a great financial boon is about to be conferred on Ireland, and that the giving of this boon affords an opportunity for doing something else. As to the great financial boon, I cannot forget that Ireland's share of the grant last year was seized and taken from us to make good a deficiency caused by an error of the Imperial Treasury, for which Ireland is not responsible. I lay emphasis on the fact that the Government, by refusing to distribute the whole sum available for education in these countries in proportion to average attendance, have reduced and out down the share allotted to Ireland by nearly £100,000 a year. As to the great financial boon, if your scheme is carried into law, I venture to think that by the time the salaries of clerks and officers are paid—the salaries of committees nominated by the Board of Education, the costs of prosecutions, and the expenses of administration—Ireland will be no gainer by the great financial boon, but will rather be a heavy loser. As to the financial scheme of the Bill, I cannot refrain from observing that, having £210,000 a year to distribute, which is double the amount of school fees collected in Ireland, it might have been expected that you would so arrange your scheme as to abolish the school fees and at the same time to improve the position of all the teachers. But you have done nothing of the kind. The school fees are not to be abolished; a considerable amount of them is still to be collected, and, upon the other hand, the inquiries which I have made leave me in not the slightest doubt that the position of many of the teachers in Ireland will be injured and not improved, and that the Catholic Bishops, who speak for their clergy—and their clergy are the managers of two-thirds of the national schools in Ireland—are so apprehensive of the effect of the great financial boon upon the position of many of the teachers that they ask you to allow them, in this Bill, the same option allowed to England by Section 1 of the Act of 1891—the option of a manager to determine for himself whether he will accept your financial boon at all, or whether he will continue to apply the existing system. That claim put forward on the part of the Bishops does not indicate that your financial scheme can be regarded as a success. The only other financial observation I will make is this: that the convent schools, undeniably proved by the official records to be the most efficient schools in Ireland, are still to be by far the most poorly paid. A grievous and offensive disparity will continue to exist as to the mode of payment of these schools in comparison with others much less efficient, and I have to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a provision for the payment of these excellent schools will have to be considered in Committee. The financial boon, concerning which I have said these few words of criticism, is offered as a reason why the Government should ignore our advice and seize the opportunity which, they say, is afforded of doing something else. What else do they propose to do? They propose to get rid of the notorious defects of the system of national education in Ireland. The existing system could easily be improved, but their proposal leaves it quite untouched. The fatal error of the Party opposite in dealing with the affairs of Ireland consists in this—when they find, or think they find, anything unsatisfactory in the state of that country they conclude that the fault is not in themselves, or in their system, or their Boards, but with the Irish people. I say that in this case the fault is not the fault of the Irish people. It is the fault of your system and of your Board. The Party opposite and the Government now in power do not believe in attracting the people of Ireland, and do not believe in leading the people of Ireland, of their own wills, to do what is considered right. They prefer to drive them by coercion. Coercion is their one sauce for every dish. Even in the Land Purchase Bill we had compulsory treatment; in the Local Government Bill, which is now a thing of the past—a pathetic or comical memory—there was to be a compulsory ejection of public bodies from office; and in the Bill before us there is to be a compulsory attendance at school. You propose a costly scheme which, in my judgment, is likely to be ineffectual for its purpose; but if an Irish Minister, responsible to an Irish House of Commons or Legislature, were called upon to deal with this question, he would propose a scheme which would not cost one penny, and which in the course of one twelvemonth would give you a better average attendance at the national schools of Ireland than the most rigorous compulsion ever secured for you in Great Britain. You may ask me what this Irish Minister would do. In the first place, he would put some life into the Board of Education. That Board (although the right hon. Gentleman, in an official exigency which I respect, spoke of it in the language of eulogy) is a coterie of ex-politicians, including many rejected candidates—a kind of museum of relics; and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that that Board has the confidence of the Irish people he may as well talk about having confidence in a collection of waxworks. An Irish Minister would put life into that Board; he would put on it some men of public force, of energy, with the faculty of initiative; and that step alone—the creation of an energetic Board, acceptable to the people, or even the introduction of an acceptable element—would work a magical effect upon the question of attendance. An Irish Minister would propose to get rid of the dry, dull, pedantic, and antiquated text-books of the present Board, which must be a torment to the unfortunate children who are compelled to read them; and he would substitute others suited to the taste and genius of the country, and up to the level of the time; and this he would accomplish by the very easy and simple method of putting an end to the absurd monopoly which the Board now holds in the production and sale of these books, and of making in Ireland, as in England, the supply of text-books for schools a matter of public competition. An Irish Minister would end the "model" schools, which are not primary, or even mixed, schools, and which, though you call them "models," exhibit nothing whatever but this—the maximum of cost with the minimum of useful result; and the money which would be saved by extinguishing those schools might be applied to really useful and salutary purposes. It would be sufficient to provide a real training in domestic economy for the girls in the national schools of Ireland, to give the boys in the towns some practical instruction in mechanics, and the boys in the rural districts some practical instruction in agriculture; and—it may seem strange to the House—it would be left to an Irish Minister to propose that a few thousand pounds a year should be applied in providing a good fire in winter in these poor schools in the West of Ireland, where hundreds of ill-fed and ill-clad children come miles in the rainy weather and sit shivering in the cold all day. By that modest, un-ambitious programme which can be carried out on the savings of the "model" schools of Ireland, at the end of only one twelvemonth the great natural love of the Irish people for education, attracted by fair conditions, would procure a vastly better average attendance in the national schools of Ireland than you ever have in this wealthy country by the most vigorous system of compulsion. But this Government prefers to rush on with coercion in this sphere as in every other. There is, however, a previous question which they have ignored. It is: Have you made your system what it ought to be, have you made your schools as useful to the people, as attractive to the children as you ought to make them before you resort to the rash experiment, in a country holding such relations with you as Ireland does at the present time, of turning the school into a lock-up and giving to the sphere of primary education a compulsory system which would certainly have to the Irish people the poisonous savour of coercion? There is that previous question, and a duty lies upon you to discharge it before you resort to coercion in the sphere of primary education in Ireland. The Catholic Bishops perceive that there is a previous question. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has read a resolution of the Episcopal Standing Committee which was passed a month ago. The Catholic Bishops I hold to be competent witnesses in the case. Whatever success your primary system has achieved in Ireland, in spite of its various and notorious shortcomings and defects, is due in the main to the action of these Bishops and their clergy. They have done more for education in Ireland than the promoters of this Bill, and it is no offence to the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland feel a deeper interest than any British administrator can feel in the welfare and progress of their own people, in which, of course, educational advancement is included. The Catholic Bishops, the value of whose testimony the right hon. Gentleman will not deny, say that the most urgent need is better facility for education—that you ought to have more schools, and that your schools should be better than they are. They point out that in Ireland there is no compulsory power for the acquisition of sites for schools; and when the right hon. Gentleman says, as he did in reply to a question to-day, that there are 700,000 "places" in schools in Ireland, he did not tell us how near these places are to the children. The mere statement of the existence of these places does not prove that there is sufficient and suitable accommodation, because it leaves out the vital element of the distance of the schools from the homes. Why have you denied these compulsory powers to Ireland, and why do you propose to proceed to coercion before you give to Ireland these facilities for a better school supply that you afforded a long time ago to England and to Scotland? You gave these powers to England in the principal Act—the Act of 1870; you gave them to Scotland under the Act of 1878. England has had these powers for twenty-two years; Scotland has had them for sixteen years; they have been found sufficient in both countries, but up to the present moment you have never given to any authority in Ireland power to acquire compulsorily the site for a school. Now let me bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a case that lately came to my own in the village of Ballygarrann. In the parish of Woodford, in the County of Galway, there were a number of children who had to travel four miles in order to reach school. The infants and children of tender age could not make the journey. Application was made to your Board of Education. The Board of Education agreed to recognise a school in case they obtained a lease of the site for a term of ninety-nine years. The inhabitants applied to Lord Clanricarde for the site—a site upon a piece of barren mountain land of no earthly use to Lord Clanricarde or anyone else in this world. Lord Clanricarde refused to give a lease. Between your Education Board and your Irish landlord the people went to the wall, and the school could not be established. The parish priest assembled a number of peasants, and in this year of grace, towards the end of the nineteenth century, sixty years after the establishment of your system of national education in Ireland, these men dug sods, and built a hedge school. A teacher was brought from Tipperary, and sixty children of the village are now in attendance at that school. It is not recognised by the National Board, and the people are trying to get their education as they got it in the penal days when you made all education a crime. These sixty children attending every day at that school are amongst the 110,000 Irish children who, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are not at school at all. How many cases of that kind may be found existing in Ireland? And every such case is excluded from the enumeration and these children, taking the best advantage they can of all the facilities afforded them, are counted as amongst the absentees whose absence from school entitles the right hon. Gentleman to make this proposal of compulsion. Will you give compulsory powers for the acquisition of sites in Ireland, as you have given it long ago to England and to Scotland? The Bishops make a claim to which there can be no answer but concession; and the Bishops also represent—and I think with conclusive force—that in a great many districts in Ireland, where there are no schools sufficiently convenient to the homes, you ought to establish infant and preparatory schools which would enable infants and children of tender age to attend. Will that provision be made? The Bishops also represent that not only do you need more schools conveniently situated, but that your schools should be improved, and they make two practical suggestions in this regard. One has regard to the fact that the bulk of the Irish teachers are still untrained, and cannot make their schools attractive and useful as teachers who are trained can make them, and the suggestion is that you should establish special courses of training for untrained teachers of long service, and further that the organisation of classes at present in many cases lamentably defective ought to be attended to by a staff of competent experts. I think you will do better work in attending to these suggestions of the Bishops made with the fulness of their knowledge than by embarking rashly on a system of compulsion which, if enacted by this Parliament, might have a very different effect in Ireland from what it would have in this part of the United Kingdom. The Bishops are not wholly opposed to compulsion. They favour a system of indirect compulsion, and their language in this regard is well worthy of close attention. They say that a system of indirect compulsion would be free from the evils and hardships which, in their judgment, would be inseparable from the execution of your scheme. And the proposals which they make are these: that employment should be restricted; and the Bishops, and I presume the clergy for whom they speak, are willing to favour a more stringent proposal upon the restriction of employment than you have inserted in the Bill. They also suggest that monitorships and all other prizes and rewards in the schools may be made dependent upon regular attendance. And I have no doubt whatever that at a much less cost than the necessary cost of your scheme it would be possible to institute a system of prizes and rewards which would be more effectual in securing regular attendance than any scheme of compulsion. In one respect what I may call direct compulsion is favoured by the Bishops, and they hit a very obvious and grave defect in your scheme. Long since you allowed local school authorities in England and in Scotland to develop a system of industrial schools. There is no such proposal in this Bill. The Bishops urge the establishment of a system of union industrial schools, to be used for certain classes of children when they are found habitually absent from school. These classes are destitute orphans, deserted children, and the children of vagrant mothers. And allow me to point out to you that even if your scheme of compulsory attendance were made the law to-morrow it would not touch these classes of children, because the parents of these children are dead, or they are out of reach, and no person could be made responsible. So, therefore, it is clear, whether compulsion is enacted or let alone, at any rate the suggestion put before you by the Bishops is one that deserves atttention. If the right hon. Gentleman has not read the Resolutions, I would direct his particular attention to the language of the Bishops with regard to the compulsory clauses of this Bill. They say—

"The compulsory clauses of the Bill are declared to be unwarranted by the school attendances in Ireland, and we therefore protest against them as a gross interference with the rights of parents. They are particularly opposed to the natural feelings of our people and in their results, if passed into law, they could not fail, to a large extent, to render the schools unpopular, to restrict the period and the extent of school education to the minimum required by the Act, and to render the administration of the law odious in Ireland. We therefore respectfully and urgently call upon the Government to remove them from the Bill."

Now, that is the unanimous verdict of a very responsible body of men who have done great service in Ireland, and I ask for it the most careful attention of the Government. But what strikes me most in connection with this scheme is that the time is most inopportune for it. We are now upon the eve of a General Election. The question in that election—substantially the only question—will be that of the future government of Ireland. When the electors have decided in favour of Home Rule it must be evident that the question of Irish education could be more effec tually considered by the Irish Representatives than by any other. I therefore submit that the question of compulsion—the vital question of compulsion—in the sphere of primary education is a question which should properly be reserved until the appeal to the people has been made. I must add that the scheme is unfortunate in its sponsors. The Government have applied coercion to their entire sphere of political action; and if it is proposed to apply coercion to the sphere of education, the effect will be to kill the great natural love of the Irish people for education rather than to improve school attendance. Although you may secure some augmentation of attendances in the schools, let me tell you that you will inflict a vital blow at the cause of education. I should be inclined to lay it down as a principle, that before you can successfully apply coercion to the question of education in Ireland you must, as a preliminary, withdraw coercion from the political life of the country. If an excellent scheme were put before us, it might go far to dispose of these objections, but this is not an excellent scheme. It is blemished by serious excesses; it is marred by the most lamentable defects. The whole scheme rests, and is made to rest, upon an unfounded imputation—an imputation injurious and offensive to the people of Ireland—that the parents in that country are neglectful of the education of their children. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that imputation. The whole pivot of the case of the right hon. Gentleman for any scheme of compulsion rested upon his statement that there are in Ireland 110,000 or 120,000 children who ought to be at school, but who are not there. I say that is a delusion. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at home, in England, where, on the testimony of the Commissioners, there are at least a million of children whose names are not on the school registers. There are no such children in Ireland from which I am entitled to infer that Irish parents like to educate their children. Therefore, I say you should make education in Ireland attractive, instead of compulsory. The Reports show that there were 20,000 attendances more in Ire land last year than in the previous year. Then, by the strangest of all possible errors, the right hon. Gentleman omitted from his compilations all the children of schools other than national schools. He omitted altogether the children of the Church Education Society schools, of the schools of the Christian Brothers, and of other religious bodies in Ireland. Now, that was a gross—and if the right hon. Gentleman were not so amiable a man I should have said it was an unpardonable—error. These schools represent attendances of not less than 60,000, which, added to the 20,000 increased attendances when comparing the years 1889 and 1890, and others, make up a total of 80,000. Therefore, instead of there being 110,000 children in Ireland who ought to be at school, the total is less than one per cent. Now, will anyone contend that the difference of one per cent. of the population in the average attendance in Ireland and England affords a rational or tolerable plea for compulsion? Consider that England is the wealthiest country in the world, and that Ireland is one of the poorest; consider that the population of England is three-fourths larger than that of Ireland, and that the schools of England are at the doors of the children; consider, also, that the West of Ireland children suffer from the utmost squalor, that they are without suitable food to eat, that they are without decent clothes to wear, and that they are subject to the stormy weather to which that part of Ireland is particularly liable; and I think it must be admitted that even if compulsion were the law in Ireland, instead of the voluntary system, the difference of one per cent. of the population in attendance in England and Ireland would not be a matter of disgrace to Ireland. I say, therefore, that the present scheme rests upon an assumption that is unfounded, and which is injurious and offensive to the people of Ireland. I also object to it, because it inflicts a great injustice on certain voluntary schools. They had grievances before; but since education has been made free their grievances have become intolerable. Why should the Christian Brothers have been excluded from the benefits of the Bill? They are recog nised and aided by all classes, by the Science and Art Department, and by the Education Board. They are put under ban in no country but Ireland. If their schools were in England they would be recognised. Why, then, are they to be excluded in Ireland? Because of an absurd and ludicrous rule which was made fifty or sixty years ago under a state of things very different to that which exists in Ireland at the present day. I refer to the rule of combined secular and separate religions. The national system of education in Ireland was intended to be a system of separate religious instruction, but the intention was one thing and the result quite another. By the combined efforts of Protestant and Catholics there has been established in Ireland practically a system of denominational education, so far as they can make it so, by providing schools for separate creeds. The schools of the Christian Brothers are to be shut out from participating in the grant, although they meet the requirements of the law as regards attendance, examinations, inspections, and other tests. They do not ask that their religious instruction should be paid for — they provide for that themselves — but they claim to be admitted to the benefit of the system of free education which is now to become law. They are to be shut out because they will not suppress the crucifix—a strange demand to be made in a Christian country. The Christian Brothers were the pioneers of primary education in Ireland, but they are now called upon not only to remove the crucifix from their schools, but to burn their class-book, give up their religious instruction, and, in short, to violate their consciences in order to submit to what I say is a most unreasonable requirement. I cannot countenance this or any other scheme that proposes to do a gross injustice to these voluntary schools, which have rendered, and are rendering, great services to Ireland. This scheme proposes to inflict a fine upon the Irish parent—be he Protestant or Catholic—because he acts according to the dictates of his conscience in the choice of schools for his children. I warn you that unless you admit the Christian Brothers you will bring your system to a deadlock in the principal cities and towns of Ireland. You cannot deny that the schools of the Christian Brothers are efficient schools. The only choice in many of the cities and towns is between the Protestant schools and those of the Christian Brothers. Suppose that a Catholic parent in either of the cities or towns refuses to send his children to the Protestant schools, and says, "I have as good a right to free education as anyone in Ireland, and I claim the right to send them to a school of the Christian Brothers, and that you shall pay the fee?" It must come to this: you must either provide the equivalent of the fee in the schools of the Christian Brothers or the law will become a dead letter. The system of free and compulsory education cannot go on in the cities and towns of Ireland unless the schools of the Christian Brothers are included in the scheme. May I now point out to the House what seems to me to be a conclusive reason why this scheme should be rejected? When you established compulsion in England and Scotland there was the popular franchise. Parents had a right to vote in the election of the Local Authorities which were to administer the law. But in Ireland both parents are excluded from the vote. We introduced a Bill in the very first week of this Session to confer the popular franchise in the cities and towns of Ireland, and its principle was unanimously confirmed by the House. Its Second Reading was consented to; but from that day to this the Government have refused to make any further progress with it. Is it seriously contended, for instance, that we can approve of a scheme under which a population of forty thousand in the City of Limerick would have to submit to the will of four hundred persons who would have the power of appointing a School Committee and of administering authority under the Bill? I lay it down—and it cannot be contradicted—that the condition precedent to the enactment of any such scheme as that provided in the Bill is the provision of popular franchise for the cities and towns of Ireland, and I will give no countenance to any scheme to submit the Irish parent to compulsion in the matter of education or anything else until you give him the same franchise as has been given to parents in England and Scotland. If our Bill had been accepted, or if it were accepted now, that would alter the case, but it has not been accepted. I also object to this scheme because it makes compulsion absolute. There is nothing in the difference between the school attendance in England and Ireland to justify such a course. When you passed the Compulsion Act for England the attendance in the schools there was only eight per cent. of the population and the number of children examined only five per cent., whilst in Ireland at the present time the average attendance is twelve per cent. of the population. I further submit that this is a Bill for cities and towns and not for the rural populations of Ireland, and that is another reason why I object to it. I cannot consent to the powers proposed by this Bill being given to the National Board. The Board of Education in Ireland stands in a different relation to the people than the Education Department in England and Scotland. It is nothing more than a mere sub-agency of the Castle; and if you give to the Board, as you propose, the power of dictating what shall be the standard of annual school attendance, I warn you that you will produce a conflict in policy, in opinion, and possibly in action, between the Local Authorities and that Board. The scheme, of course, would not be complete without some special coercive power in the hands of the Government, and in this Bill you provide such a power. Indeed, you have found a new word. The Local Government Board remove or dissolve a Board of Guardians; the two Judges are to remove the County Council; but in this Bill you provide that the Board of Education shall "supersede," shall have power to supersede. Supersede is, I suppose, a more delicate word than dissolve. The word may be different, but the act is the same. It is only our venerable friend coercion making a new entrance in a costume slightly altered for the part. I cannot admit that this coercion would be properly exercised. You propose, not only that this nominated Board, this irresponsible body, shall have power to turn out of doors at any moment, at its mere pleasure, without cause assigned, any School Attendance Committee, but also to substitute any gentlemen whom the nominees of the Lord Lieutenant may be pleased to nominate, to give them such salaries as they may be pleased to fix—and we know that public Boards are as liable as other people to be generous with money that is not their own—and to charge those salaries for an unlimited period upon the local rates. You propose to apply in the sphere of education the worst and most intolerable propositions of the Local Government Bill. I certainly feel it my duty to use such facilities as this House affords to prevent the passing into law of any proposal which will give to this coterie the power of overriding the will of the Local Authority in regard to the School Attendance Committee. Whilst I complain, on the one hand, of the proposal to vest this arbitrary power in an irresponsible Department, I say, on the other hand, there is no provision in the Bill for the due protection of creeds, of the rights of conscience of different denominations. You make no provision whatever as to the rights of creeds upon the School Attendance Committee, or amongst the attendance officers. I know very well—and I think you know—that wherever the Catholics are in a majority they will act in a spirit scrupulously fair and even generous towards other creeds. But what would happen in some parts of Ulster? I take a most conspicuous example—the City of Belfast, where, if the Bill were passed, the Corporation would appoint a School Attendance Committee and also the attendance officers. In the City of Belfast the Catholics constitute one-fourth of the population; they number seventy thousand; but by a system of juggling and trickery these seventy thousand Catholics are shut out from representation on the City Council, on which, although it consists of forty members, there is not one Catholic. In civil affairs they are without a voice. What, then, would happen if this Bill were passed? The Protestant City Council—which for a quarter of a century has never appointed or recommended any Catholic to any official post, in regard to which it might offer recommendation—will proceed to appoint a School Attendance Committee and the officers to administer the Act, and both will be of a purely Protestant character.

I do not think so.

The hon. Member is more sanguine than I am; but on what experience does he found his opinion? Why do the Corporation appoint no Catholic to any official post in their service? Why is it that I am in a position to tell the House that for twenty-five years that has been the record of the Belfast Corporation? Why does he think they will appoint any Catholic either to the Committee or as an attendance officer? I say they will do nothing of the kind, and that the administration of the law in the City of Belfast, if you pass this Bill, will be the Protestant administration of the compulsory law on the Catholic community. The enforcement of the law will become a matter of creed and of the prejudices of creed. Excuses of any kind will be good enough in one case for non-attendance, and in the other no excuse will be valid. And let me tell you that if you had applied to fanatics to draw up a Bill which would excite the Irish people to resistance of the law, you could not have gone about it better. This Bill is full of errors and defects; but if it contained no other than this—that it offers no provision whatever for securing fair play and equity to the Catholic community in Belfast, it would be my duty to offer to it any opposition in my power. I have not argued against compulsion in the abstract. I have said that under certain conditions compulsion may be useful; but I say in regard to this scheme that it is a bad scheme, that it is a crude scheme, and that it is not accompanied by popular franchise; and I have to add that unless assurances are forthcoming in the present Debate that the errors and defects which I have pointed out will be remedied, I shall consider it my duty to oppose the Second Reading.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Sexton) has, I believe, claimed not only to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland but also on behalf of the national teachers of Ireland.

I made no claim to speak for the national teachers.

I am glad to find that I misunderstood the observations of the hon. Gentleman, because I hold in my hand a letter I received this morning from a national school teacher in the North of Ireland, who is the Secretary to the Coleraine branch of the Teachers' Association, conveying in strong terms the desire of the Association for the passing of this Bill. He says—

"For various reasons we are extra anxious to get the Bill passed this Session. It contains the most important principle that we have been agitating for for a long time—namely, compulsory education. Although, unfortunately, this principle is not carried far enough, yet the Bill recognises its usefulness. It would bring us more into line with England and Scotland on the subject of assisted compulsory education. For these and other reasons we are most anxious that the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible."

Here we have evidence of a desire on the part of the teachers that this Bill should become law as soon as possible. The hon. Member wished that some life should be infused into the National Board of Education, and in that I agree, because I think it would be well if that were done. The hon. Member also indicated his desire to see that Education Board abolished. I myself would prefer to see the education of the United Kingdom placed in the hands of a Minister for Education, with a Department for each of the three countries, and a Department for Wales if it were necessary. One reason the hon. Member advanced in favour of a change of method of the Education Board is that it would put an end to the model schools. These schools, I contend, are amongst the most useful schools in Ireland—they are liked, and they are well conducted. I wish there were more of them in Ireland. As to the important question of compulsion, I think that principle is desirable from the point of view of getting a regular attendance at school. If there are many such cases as that described by the hon. Member where sites have been refused for national schools by Lord Clanricarde, I see no reason why the principle of compulsory acquisition of sites should not be acceded to by the Government. For my part, however, I have not heard of many such instances. Then I also think the suggestion that there should be local infant schools is reasonable in character. Such a provision is, I think, advisable, and it would not, I believe, prove expensive. The hon. Member also spoke with considerable force of the number of schools in Ireland which are purely and solely Protestant. We desire to see less of these in Ireland and more of the mixed schools. Such schools would, to my mind, tend to foster the feeling of toleration towards those holding different religious beliefs I sincerely hope that the Belfast Committee will include Catholics among its members; indeed, if Catholicism had not some share of representation, the Corporation of Belfast would be disgracing itself. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Belfast as to the number of Catholics in that city.

The figures are taken from the Census Returns.

But even if the number were smaller than has been stated, it is perfectly clear that there ought to be Roman Catholic representation on the School Attendance Committee, and also that some of the attendance officers should be of that belief. I firmly believe that a feeling of justice will pervade the minds of those who have the making of these appointments. I hope that this Bill will pass into law, as it is greatly desired by those who are largely interested in educational work.

I should have preferred the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) to have defined his position—whether he spoke on this subject as a Scotch or as an ex-Irish Member.

Ex-Irish.

When the hon. Member represented a Northern Irish constituency some weight, of course, attached to his expressions of the views of his constituents; but now, as regards Irish topics, that qualification, apart from his personal talent, has disappeared. The hon. Member has told us that everyone interested in this Bill is very much in favour of it, and I have no doubt whatever that any body of men, where such a sum of money is concerned, would display a lively desire to get the greatest possible advantage and to secure possession of the money as soon as possible. In the case of the Irish teachers there is some reason for this interest. They have been cheated out of £100,000, which the English teachers have got, and they are very much afraid that they may lose a further £210,000. Thus I am not surprised that they should swallow a bad Bill if it will aid them in securing possession of the funds. I complain of the way in which these Irish questions are treated. When last year the Government introduced the Bill making a large grant to English education, I pointed out that England would first receive her money, and then that the Irish people would be left either in the lurch or that the grant would be postponed indefinitely, and that when the grant was made there would be coupled with it some hard and unfair conditions wholly unsuited to Ireland. I am sorry to see that my prediction has been fulfilled. I entirely deny the suggestion that this grant is a gift. It is only our fair share. We have always maintained that Ireland has paid far more than her fair share to the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, when you give England something like £2,000,000, why, when you give Ireland £210,000, should you describe the grant as a gift and accompany it with certain unpalatable conditions? We are anxious that there should be a good system of education in Ireland, that the position of teachers should be improved, and that all sects should in regard to this grant stand on an equal footing; but here you give nothing to the most efficient schools. When in the English Bill the Government insisted on treating all schools fairly I voted with them. Now, however, the principle is not to be extended to Ireland, and the most efficient of denominational schools in Ireland—the Christian Brothers' Schools—are entirely left out of the scope of the Bill. I come now to some of the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, I consider that the present condition of education in Ireland renders compulsion unnecessary. Even where school fees have had to be paid, the children have flocked to school; and so, with free education, I believe that almost every child in Ireland will attend school. Compulsion will be unnecessary and odious. But there are two classes of compulsion in this Bill, while in England, I understand, you have only one. You can punish the parent for not sending the child to school, or, in districts where there are no Board schools, you can punish the employer for employing a child who has not passed the regulation standard. You are going to apply both these methods to Ireland. You are both going to punish the employer and the parent. The point I consider most unsuited to Ireland is the punishment of the employer, because everyone is aware that there is a great want in Ireland of sufficient employment for children. The Census shows that in Ireland we have a very large proportion of children and old people, and this is accounted for by the melancholy fact that when young men and women reach the ages of seventeen and eighteen they emigrate to the United States. These children would be of great assistance to their parents if they could obtain employment, but the effect of this Bill will be to prevent them from doing so. Take the case of hay-making. Employers will not think it worth their while, for the sake of employing children a few weeks in the year, to inquire for certificates. The consequence will be that they will cease to employ children, and do the work by means of machinery. Now, I acknowledge that the principle of compulsion in this Bill will not have a very widespread effect. In my own constituency, for instance, it will not affect more than about half-a-dozen families, and there are several other constituencies in the same position. This principle of compulsion is one which bristles with difficulties in Ireland. Let me ask, to what schools are the boys in the towns to go to? The girls may be compelled to go to the convent schools, and there will be no unfairness in that, because these schools for Roman Catholic girls are to all intents and purposes national schools; but there are no national schools for Catholic boys. If you compel the boys to go to the Christian Brotherhood schools, you will be acting unfairly, inasmuch as no grant is to be made to these institutions. And in case these schools should refuse to take the extra number of children, are their parents to be punished by the police? I should like the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) to say what he proposes to do under these circumstances, because it seems to me that the alternatives under the Bill are unfair. I now come to another matter, and that is the very unjust way in which it is proposed to deal with the Christian Brothers. These schools have always been very unfairly dealt with except in one instance. I allude to the Bill which authorises grants to be made by the Science and Art Department—without any conditions as to religion, and under which the Christian Brothers receive an appreciable sum of money. But apart from this grant they receive nothing whatever from the State. And here I may as well explain what the Christian Brothers are. They are simply a teaching community, the children in some cases being educated gratuitously, and the money for carrying on the work is derived exclusively from voluntary subscriptions in the different towns. It may be said that it is a matter of opinion whether the Christian Brothers impart a good education or not, and that I have exaggerated the excellence of their teaching. I will, therefore, fortify my position by calling the attention of the House to the Reports of the Royal Commission of 1854 respecting these schools. The Marquess of Kildare, the Chairman of that Commission, stated that they had received no complaints about the schools, and that the Assistant Commissioners had expressed most favourable opinions with respect to them. It was also added that the education given was of a very excellent character. The Assistant Commissioners, besides speaking most highly of the education given by the Christian Brothers, reported that the school premises were in every way satisfactory, being both commodious and well furnished. Now, with one or two exceptions, these Assistant Commissioners are Protestants. They are official witnesses, and I believe their character is unimpeachable, and consequently the House may have every confidence in the high standard of education given at these schools. I might add that a certain amount of technical education, exceedingly valuable in Ireland, is also given by the Christian Brothers. Notwithstanding that the instruction given by them is satisfactory in every way, they are refused any grant—except that from the Science and Art Department—because they also give a certain amount of religious teaching. In England, schools that impart some religious instruction are not deprived of the yearly grant, and I think it is unfair that these popular educational establishments in Ireland should be treated in a different manner. Some of the Assistant Commissioners point out that in the cases where Protestant children attend these schools there is no attempt at proselytising. Under those circumstances—and I am quite willing that the Government should put a Conscience Clause in the Bill—I think it most unfair not to include the Christian Brothers in the grants it is proposed to make under this Bill. No one can say that the children turned out of these schools are specially noted for bigotry, and as far as I can discover the teaching of the Christian Brothers is not in the least directed towards proselytising or attacking the members of religious bodies different from their own. Now, let me say a word with regard to Protestant children in particular. I am sure every Irish Member wishes to see them fairly dealt with, and there are two things to which I think they are entitled. In the first place, when there are a large number of them they should have a school of their own; and, secondly, when there are only a few in any particular district and they attend Catholic schools they should be strictly protected by a Conscience Clause, and they should not be taught out of any books of which their parents disapprove. I believe that in the Board schools in this country a chapter of the Bible is read every day. It is said that that is not religious education, and that it is a proceeding which should be tolerated by all communities. Now, the Catholics object to any such system, while the Presbyterians in Ireland are in favour of it. They say they do not want religious teaching. All they wish for is to have a particular chapter of the Bible read—I will not say haphazard—but with the discretion of a teacher. The Presbyterians have a right to their own opinion, but I deny that they have any right to control the system of religious teaching by any other religious body. It is most unfair to say that there is in Ireland no religious persecution, because a man can send his child to any school. But by refusing to allow a grant to Catholic schools you are handicapping a particular religion, and the Catholic taxpayer, if he desires to send his child to a school belonging to the Christian Brotherhood, does not get any return in grants, and he is paying simply to educate other people's children. I will now pass from the consideration of the merits of the Bill to a practical question—namely, what are we to do with it? Here we have £210,000 proposed to be divided amongst the national schools. Now, in the first place, this Bill introduces compulsion where it is not wanted; and, secondly, we have to decide whether we will accept this £210,000 on the conditions prescribed or go without it altogether. That is a position from which the Government should relieve us. I should like to ask if the Government will strike out the first fourteen clauses of the Bill dealing with compulsion? I think they ought to consider the Irish Vote particularly in this matter, and not allow the English and Scotch Vote to decide it, because if they do that the Irish will naturally be outvoted. Another practical question I should like to ask is this:—If an Amendment is introduced, as no doubt there will be, proposing that the Christian Brothers shall receive a minimum sum of threepence per week for each scholar, what course will the Government take? I hope these points will not be passed over in silence, but that we shall be plainly told what course the Government intend to take with regard to them.

There is a great difference between the tone of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill and that on the First Reading. When the Bill was introduced it was received by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with acclamation, and, apart from the question of the Christian Brothers, they appeared to be almost unanimously in favour of it. Now, Sir, there are details in connection with this Bill which will require attention when we go into Committee, but which I do not propose to deal with on this occasion. The small schools, which under the Schedule of the Bill are to receive increased grants, have been largely called into existence not by educational, but by denominational necessities. But these are points of detail which do not require attention in a Debate on the Second Reading of a Bill, and I will deal with what I consider are the two main principles of the measure which is now before us. The first is the modified form of compulsion, which is embodied in the Bill, and the second is the enlarged grant that is very much wanted to the national school teachers of Ireland. I say frankly that hon. Members below the Gangway may take the responsibility if they like of rejecting this Bill, and starving the national school teachers, but I do not think that they will vote with the unanimity that seems to be expected. With respect to compulsion, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) over and over again referred to the compulsion in this Bill as coercion. We have had worse kinds of coercion than this applied to Ireland, and I think we can put up with it; and the use of this word coercion now will show English Members how lightly the term is used in Ireland. Of course, compulsory education is coercion. The whole moral law is coercion. But this is coercion that has been applied to England, to Scotland, and to Wales with very great advantage; and in the face of the illiteracy in Ireland—forty-five per cent. of illiteracy in Galway and thirty per cent. in Donegal—I do not see that any Irish Member ought to endeavour to prevent the passing of a Bill which will compel parents to send their children to school and put an end to this great scandal. Why do hon. Members who sit below the Gangway oppose compulsion? Not a word was said against it on the First Reading, and the Member for West Belfast said over and over again that the Bishops were opposed to direct but were in favour of indirect compulsion. I think I shall be able to prove that the Bishops were in favour of direct compulsion up to a certain point. I believe that the real author of the system of modified compulsion which exists in this Bill is Archbishop Walsh. He attended in 1890 at the Congress of the National School Teachers, and referring to a resolution which was to be submitted to the meeting he said—

"The fourth resolution raises the vitally important question of compulsory attendance. Personally I am strongly in favour of a reasonable measure of compulsion. I note that the resolution to be proposed on the subject is most carefully worded. It speaks of a system of compulsory attendance adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the country. The meeting is of course aware that the question is a delicate one surrounded by many difficulties. In expressing my personal concurrence in the proposal I must say I limit that concurrence to the case of such a city as Dublin, or of large towns and cities if there are any similarly situated."

But compulsion is not to be applied to the whole country. It is limited to the cities and the large towns, as the Archbishop said it should be when he spoke in 1890, and I think the hon. Member for West Belfast must have forgotten that this principle of modified compulsion was first of all proposed by Archbishop Walsh. If hon. Members from the North of Ireland—from Ulster—find any fault with this Bill it is that it does not go far enough. There is a strong feeling that if the Government have erred at all it is because the principle of compulsion is modified and limited in the area over which it is to extend. But the people of Ulster are not foolish enough to reject the Bill because it only goes part of the way they desire. They recognise the principle they desire to have, and they hope to extend it if possible. But as soon as this Bill was printed and its contents became known in Ireland, Archbishop Walsh on the 6th March denounced the compulsory clauses as an insult to Ireland. I think that is going a good deal too far, and if they never receive from this House a worse insult than this which gives compulsory and practically free education they will be able to stand a good deal in the way of insult. The Bill, as it stands, and this cannot be too widely known, has the enthusiastic support of the whole body of national teachers. It is all very well to say that they are the people who are going to receive the money, and, therefore, they are anxious to get the Bill; but I know other people who are glad to receive money and will make great sacrifices to get it, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had any reason for the taunt he uttered.

I uttered no taunt.

The whole body of the national school teachers are in favour of the principle of compulsion. All the Protestants are strongly in its favour; and though I have no right to speak for the Roman Catholics I know that many of them have publicly asserted that they will vote for this Bill. The real truth is that the only opposition is from the Clerical Party, who are represented in this House by the Member for West Belfast, and I hope the Government will stand firm by the teachers, and, as I think, by the majority of the people of Ireland of all classes. I now come to the Christian Brothers. I have never said a word either against them or against their education. They are a most devoted body of men, and they give, I believe, a good, sound education. But as to the principles on which that education is given, I should like to ask the attention of the House to a higher authority than that of the Member for Galway. The Director of the Christian Brothers, Brother John Augustine Grace, gave evidence before the Powis Commission, which sat from 1868 to 1870, and I should like the House to remember that these schools were not excluded from the advantages of the National Board by any action of the Government or by any action of the Board of Education. These schools were actually under the Board for six years, and enjoyed all its advantages, and then withdrew. I will read the evidence given by the Director of the Christian Brothers before this Commission. He was asked—

"Did you ever take part in the management of any of the schools that were under the Board? I did.—Did you find the requirements of the Board tend to restrict your operations? Very much, as regards the religious element of our system.—In what respect? By the rules of the Board we were not permitted to teach in a Catholic spirit. We did not feel at liberty to avail ourselves of the reading lesson to communicate religious knowledge when a suitable opportunity presented itself; and moreover, all reference to religious subjects was to be excluded for a certain number of hours each day. Now after having given the system the fullest trial and taking into account the pecuniary advantages of our connection with the Board with the religious restrictions which the connection imposed, we came to the conclusion that to continue the connection would be inconsistent with the original aim of the Society, viz., to give a sound Catholic education to our people, for that is the main end of our institution. The Society would never have been formed if it had not been for the purpose of communicating religious knowledge, and that being the case many of our members became dissatisfied with the restrictions imposed on the discharge of their sacred and self-imposed duties."

Then with regard to the emblems he was asked—

"Are the emblems in your schools such as would be generally objected to by Protestants? I think so, my Lord.—Would it be advantageous to your objects to receive a subsidy on the same plan as the nuns receive it, at so much per hundred children, subject to examination and inspection? The nuns receive the grant, as I understand it, subject to the rules of the Board, by which all religious teaching is prohibited during what is properly known as school hours. We could not submit to that.—You would require it as a condition that you should be allowed to retain this exception? Decidedly."

Here then we have a Society founded not for the purpose of giving secular education, but for the express purpose of giving religious education, and now we are asked to admit that society to the benefits of this Bill without the Society abating one jot of the principles which it has a perfect right to hold, but which it has no right to ask the Government to pay to maintain. I am told that if this Society existed in England it would receive a grant. I am speaking in the presence of English educationists, and I venture to tell Members below the Gangway that if the Christian Brothers were in England with the present rules and laws they would not receive one farthing of public money. ("Oh, oh!") The right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) knows more about education than any other Member in this House, and I do not hear him cry "Oh, oh!" I say that to introduce these schools into the National system of education would be to break up the foundation principle of that system. That may be a proper thing to do, but it should be done with fair notice—fairly and squarely. There is no reason why every denominational school should not be admitted if the Christian Brothers are admitted, and there is no reason why the State should not proceed straightway to endow religious teaching of all kinds. But we in Ireland have disestablished a Protestant Church, and we are not willing to endow another Church by this indirect but thoroughly effective means. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) referred to the large number of schools which were denominational so far as attendance was concerned, and which were bound by the rules of the National Board, and he has claimed that where the attendance at these schools was denominational the system should be denominationalised. That would require the overturning of the foundation principle of the National system of education. These schools are denominational in their attendance now, but at any moment that state of affairs might be altered. A stationmaster might be removed from another place, an exciseman might be removed, a policeman, or even a Resident Magistrate, might be removed, and if the children of any of these people went to a school which is now denominational a change would at once have to be made. And I say that the House has no right to subject the children of such people to any danger in the matter of their faith through the teaching given at the expense of the State. The hon. Member for West Belfast also mentioned the question of the model schools, which have been long a subject of attack. I admit that if you take many of these schools in the South and West of Ireland their cost cannot be defended. They were started as high class intermediate schools, and they have succeeded in the North of Ireland and in several districts in the South. In the North I do not know a single case where these schools have failed. In Ulster they have been entirely successful. Nobody challenges their success in the City of Dublin; but I will admit that if you take these schools over the whole of the South of Ireland their cost is not defensible. This is accounted for by the fact that the Bishops and clergy have ordered that Roman Catholic children shall not attend these schools, and those who do attend do so in spite of this prohibition. The hon. Member for West Belfast declared that these schools were carried on at a maximum of cost and a minimum of good. I deny that altogether, so far as Ulster is concerned, and I will give some facts on that point—

"The entire cost of the Ulster model schools for the year 1889–90 was £16,706. This sum includes the school fees paid by the pupils. One-third of these fees are claimed by Her Majesty's Treasury as an 'extra receipt.' This third in the Ulster schools amounts to £922. If this sum is deducted, the balance will be £15,783."

It must be remembered that these schools are not only teaching schools but they are also training schools for teachers, and in this way they do good and effective work.

"The cost to the State of a student in one of the denominational training colleges in Dublin is £50 per annum for males and £35 for females. It has already been stated that there are ninety-two male pupil teachers and twenty-eight female pupil teachers in the Ulster model schools. The male pupil teachers are boarded, lodged, and educated at the public expense; the females receive an allowance in lieu of board. Setting aside the same sum for training each of these as in the training colleges, the amount would be £5,680. Deduct this sum from the balance mentioned above, and the net cost of the Ulster schools would be reduced to £10,103, and if this sum is divided by 4,193—the aggregate average attendance of pupils at these schools in 1889—it will be found that the average cost per pupil was £2 8s. 2d. The following table shows the average cost per pupil in average attendance in a number of ordinary national schools for the same year: Carmichael National School, £4 0s. 2d.; Hardwick Street National School, Dublin, £3 1s. 10d.; Sullivan Male National School, Holywood, £3 9s. 1d; Fisherwick Place National School, £3 1s. 7d."

So far as the model schools are concerned, they have been an unmixed blessing and boon to the entire population, and the Government that would seek to lay violent hands on the model schools in Ulster would raise a storm about their heads that they would not be likely to forget. Whatever may be said about these schools in the South they have been an entire and triumphant success in the North, and I am glad the Government are standing firm, so far as the main principle of national education is concerned. That principle has worked wonders in Ireland. At first it was boycotted by the then Established Church. It was not very popular with the Roman Catholic Church. The only religious community in Ireland which accepted the national education system in its entirety was the Presbyterian Church. We have lived to see the Roman Catholic Church use that system without danger to the faith or morals of a single child. The Episcopal Church, once established now disestablished, has adopted the system, and it is now used practically all over Ireland. It has had to contend with the administration of a non-representative Board, but that is an inheritance of evil days which might be remedied. There is no pleasanter reading than the Census Returns which show the tremendous inroads which have been made in the illiteracy of the country. If you look at each decade you will find that a steady inroad has been made, and at the present time in Antrim you will find that only nine per cent. of the children over five years of age are illiterate. In Belfast it is only eight per cent. and in Down eleven per cent. These Returns show the necessity for compulsion, and you will find also that the great mass of illiteracy belongs to the Roman Catholic Church.

And so does the poverty.

I do not say it does not, but that is no argument against compulsion, because the education would be free. I am glad the Government have stood firm by their foundation principle, and so long as they do so I am perfectly certain that this Bill will be accepted by the majority of all sections in Ireland, and it will turn out to be a great benefit and a great blessing.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down used to speak for South Tyrone. Latterly he has developed a tendency to speak for Ulster, and to-night he has spoken for all Ireland, and for all classes and all conditions of men. I repudiate his right to speak for anyone but the electors of South Tyrone, so long as they return him to this House. With his usual exaggeration and undue emphasis he has told the House that certain middle class schools were more or less successful in all the provinces of Ireland. I venture to assert that with a few exceptions in Ulster these schools have been a failure. They are schools where well-to-do parents send their children to be educated at the expense of the ratepayers, and the schools have absolutely failed in the purpose for which they were established. I challenge contradiction when I say that the character of the primary education given by the Christian Brothers in Cork and the large cities is superior to the model school education. The hon. Member for South Tyrone argues against facts and figures; but though he desires to see the number of unmixed schools decrease, he must take Ireland as he finds it; and if he finds, as is the fact, that the number of unmixed schools is growing, that is proof positive that the bent of the Irish mind is to have schools founded on religion. The denominational schools in Ulster increased from 2,562 in 1867 to 4,393 in 1890, and the number of children from 380,000 to 574,000. That shows, whether the Government like it or not, that the tendency of education in Ireland is towards denominational education; and so long as the results are satisfactory, as shown by the attendance and examinations, you are bound to support the schools, whether mixed or unmixed. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) referred to the evidence of Mr. Gryce, with regard to the Christian Brothers, before the Commission years ago, as to why they withdrew their schools from the National Board. The schools were withdrawn because it was found impossible, within the regulations of the Board, to carry on the Christian Brothers' system of combining secular and religious education. It could have been no light cause which would have induced the Christian Brothers to withdraw their schools from the advantages secured by being under the National Board. It was on conscientious grounds they withdrew, and they are deserving of all admiration for it. If these schools are not to come under the Bill, I do not see how the Bill will work. The compulsory clauses, for the present, are to apply to towns and cities, and it is there that the Christian Brothers work, and that their schools are most numerous, and are attended by the children of the bulk of the population. What are you going to do under the compulsory clauses where there is no other accommodation for Roman Catholic children than the schools of the Christian Brothers? There are thirty-two towns in Ireland where there are no national schools for Roman Catholic boys except those of the Christian Brothers. Will any School Attendance Board punish Roman Catholic parents because they do not send their children to the Protestant schools? If there is no other Roman Catholic school to send them to except the Christian Brothers' schools, what will be the result if they refuse to educate all the children without the help given to other schools? You would have to set up new buildings in all these cities at considerable expense, and surely it would be wiser, and would show some thought for Irish feeling, to recognise the claim of the Christian Brothers, and bring them under the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that if the Christian Brothers' schools were in England at this time, and were carried on as they are now, they would not receive State aid. We traverse that statement, and say that with the system carried on as at present, and with the Christian Brothers willing to submit to inspection, they would in England receive State aid.

I understood the hon. Member for South Tyrone to say that they would not receive State aid unless they adopted the Conscience Clause.

The contradiction of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was the first I have heard of the statement made on the highest authority—that in England the schools would receive State aid. There is a strong feeling in Ireland with regard to the Christian Brothers, and resolutions have been passed by many Public Bodies asking the Government to bring them under the Bill; and I believe that if the Government had desired to do so they would have found the way without much difficulty. I fear very much, if the right hon. Gentleman does not consent to some such proposal, the passage of the Bill will not be easy, for we shall have much to say on the point in Committee, and have to point out many ways in which the Christian Brothers could be brought under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) proved that the compulsory clauses are not required in the towns and cities, and we cannot consent to their introduction into a Bill of this kind until you have widened the franchise under which the School Attendance Committees are elected. In many of the cities the franchise is high and restricted, and, if the Board is to deal with the working classes, the working classes should have some voice in their election. There are one or two suggestions I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman. Assistant teachers must have third-class certificates, and they are eligible to compete for second and first-class certificates; but we think the seven years' limit too long, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point with a view to reducing that limit. There may be many men with third-class certificates, who may not have served seven years, and yet may be more able than men of longer service. I would suggest that the limit should be reduced to something like three years. The present limit is a premium on indolence, and does not encourage improvement, as the assistant teachers do not care to make any efforts when they have to wait so long. As regards the whole Bill, we do not see that any case has been made out for compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman is very amiable, but I have begun to observe that he is also very obstinate, especially with regard to suggestions from these Benches. But I would beg him to understand that when a question like that of Irish education is before us, the opinions of the Irish Representatives are entitled to some weight; and I hope, when he comes to tell us what the intentions of the Government are, we shall have some earnest of more liberal intentions, and that the feelings of the Irish people and their Representatives will not be overlooked.

The chief points of objection taken to the Bill by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) were the question of compulsion and the grants to Christian Brothers' schools. With regard to compulsion, he spoke of it as a species of coercion, and suggested that the policy of the Government was founded altogether on coercion, and that in putting compulsion in this Bill they were carrying out their usual principle. I have often thought if a prize were offered to hon. Members of the Irish Home Rule Party for a speech in which coercion was not mentioned, it would be a long time before it was claimed. Compulsory education is in force in England; and as hon. Members exclusively apply the term coercion to Irish matters, I fail to see how they can apply it to compulsory education. I read an account of the action of the Irish Bishops in regard to this matter, and one part of it I cannot understand. I can understand objecting to compulsory education, but I fail to understand what they mean by indirect compulsion. The term "optional compulsion," used by the hon. Member for West Belfast, is still more difficult to understand.

I meant that for a while Local Bodies are to have the option of adopting compulsion.

That makes it clear. With regard to compulsory education, the hon. Member knows very well the state of affairs in Ireland. The number of illiterate voters is not satisfactory to any Irish Representative, and the charge is made—not by me — that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of education. The charge was made distinctly in some of the publications of the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I take it that a man's religion is in almost every case an accident; it depends on the religion in which he is born. Feeling that, I approach the question impartially, and try to put myself in the place of the Roman Catholics. Doing so, I feel that if I were accused of being the enemy of education, I should try on all possible occasions to free myself from every appearance of evil, and try to have the appearance of being anxious for education. Is it reasonable to think that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church are opposed to education? For they must know that people will say, "There are the Roman Catholics again; when there is a chance of education they take the lead in preventing people being compelled to educate their children." The hon. Member for West Belfast spoke of the natural love of the Irish parent for the education of his children. I am sorry I must differ from him on that point. In these matters we should speak of the places we know best, and the locality I know best is the Eastern Division of Donegal, which is one of the most prosperous in the whole of Ulster. I was for many years a pupil at several schools there, and I know that a very small portion of the Roman Catholics sent their children to school.

When was that?

I am speaking of the time when I was at school myself. I think, on the whole, therefore, compulsion should be adopted; I think it would be for the good of the people, and I am sorry to see any hon. Member opposite, or any members of the Roman Catholic Church, opposing it. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said you were going to apply this system in the teeth of four-fifths of the Irish Members. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that there are six distinct Parties from Ireland at present in the House, and that he can only speak for one—the Parnellite Party. On the First Reading of the Bill one of the ablest Members of the Parnellite Party, the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane), made a speech in favour of compulsory education, and he has repeated what he said on the First Reading of the Bill—namely, that he would support this Bill; and therefore he has not changed his opinion with regard to the matter. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in bringing in this Bill, had omitted from his calculations of the children attending school the children in the Christian Brothers' schools, the Church Education Schools, and several denominational schools. That is quite true; but, at the same time, I consider that this money, as I understand, is to be applied to the national system; and I think it was perfectly natural that the Chief Secretary should confine himself to the educational system which was within the purview of the Bill, and therefore I think his calculation was perfectly fair. But the hon. Member for West Belfast argued from England to Ireland, and said it was not fair, because England was the richest country in the world and Ireland was one of the poorest. That statement, of course, was to my mind unfair coming from a Representative of the City of Belfast. Belfast is, I think, from all points of view, the most prosperous city not only in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe. The progress of its wealth and population has been greater than that of any other city in Europe during the last fifty years, and yet a Representative of that city talks about Ireland being the poorest country on the face of the earth. What applies to Belfast applies to a great many of the towns in the North of Ireland; it applies to four of the Irish counties. The hon. Member forgot that in all the Unionist portions of Ireland the prosperity is greater than in England or Scotland; and if there is anything that makes Ireland the poorest country on the face of the earth it is in the parts represented by the hon. Gentleman's own friends and own Party; and, therefore, I think I am justified in applying the same tests to England and Ireland. I have shown that there is the same prosperity in the Unionist portion of Ireland as in England; and there is no doubt when Home Rule is put aside for ever, and when gentlemen like the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) turn their attention to real constructive statesmanship, that the same prosperity will attend the rest of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Belfast said he objects to this Bill because it is grossly unjust to the Christian Brothers. For certain reasons I am in abject terror in referring to the Christian Brothers, because the last time I referred to the Christian Brothers I got myself into trouble, which obliged me to go to my constituency and hold six meetings in order to elaborately prove that I was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. By producing documentary and other evidence I succeeded in proving that I was not a member of that Church. Having learned from experience I shall not venture to say anything on that subject at all. But I think I may be permitted to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to fail to catch our point; but I am sure in point of fact they see the point very well. We have no objection whatever to the Christian Brothers' schools in themselves. What we object to is the system of denominational education, and we cannot permit—and we are not authorised by our constituencies to permit—that to be done indirectly which we are not prepared to do directly. The reason we are opposed to the system of denominational education is that we think that the bringing together of Catholics and Protestants in the same school and in the same college tends to do away with the religious bigotry which all Gentlemen, I think, on both sides of the House, deplore. Having been a pupil in a national school, and again in an intermediate mixed school, where there were Roman Catholics, and having been a student in the Queen's College, Cork, and the Queen's College, Galway, where half my fellow-students were Roman Catholics, I think it has been very beneficial to me and to all my companions. It is not from any bigotry that we object to the Christian Brothers' schools. If the objection to them arose from bigotry, I, for one, would never go into the Lobby to prevent them having a share of this grant. I would not object to them on that ground at any risk. But I think there is no bigotry in saying that we object to denominational education, because we consider that endowing denominational education is endowing the Church; and I think I can prove that very clearly. When there was an attempt made in Ireland to get rid of the Established Church, and when there was a compromise made with the Presbyterian Church and an offer made to endow the Roman Catholic Church, we knew very well that the Presbyterians took their endowment in the form of £75 a year to each congregation; but the Roman Catholics took their grant as an endowment to the College of Maynooth, clearly proving, in my mind, that they regarded the endowment of education as the endowment of their religion. The hon. Member for West Belfast brings up again the matter of the seventy thousand Catholics in Belfast, who have got no representation on the Town Council. That statement has been made so often in this House that I confess to a feeling of weariness. It seems that the Town Council of Belfast consists of some forty Members. I can assert with confidence and without fear of contradiction, from an intimate knowledge of Belfast extending over twenty years, that there are three hundred Protestants in Belfast who would come in in the position of Town Councillors before any Roman Catholic would come in at all. I bring forward this in order to show that Belfast is not open to the charge of bigotry which that statement would seem to indicate. I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), that denominational schools in Ireland had increased marvellously between 1867 and 1890. The Established Church in Ireland was against the National Board at first, and it had a large number of schools under its own wing; but when it was disestablished, or was about to be disestablished, its leaders knew there was no fund for keeping up the schools, and they recommended that all the Church denominational schools should come in under the National Board. Consequently, an enormous number of Church schools came in at once after the Disestablishment, and that accounts, in my mind, for the enormous increase in the number of denominational schools since 1867, which the hon. Member for North Cork referred to. As to the question as to the want of a general desire to have this Bill passed, I wish to say that my own experience is this: that there is a strong desire for the passing of this Bill in all parts of Ireland. I have received letters and resolutions of the strongest kind from all quarters in favour of this Bill; and hon. Members opposite, so far as I know, have not produced any testimony with regard to the Bill from the national teachers or from any section of the Irish people outside the clergy. I may read one resolution which I have received from the national teachers irrespective of creed, I understand. It states—

"That perceiving from Mr. Balfour's statement in the House of Commons that he hopes to pass the Irish Education Bill before the General Election, provided no very prolonged discussion takes place upon its clauses, we respectfully call upon our Representatives to aid Her Majesty's Government in passing this measure which is so much calculated to benefit national education in Ireland."

I therefore desire most heartily and most strongly to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I differ from some of the Members who sit on these Benches, inasmuch as I support the present Bill for what it is worth. There are many points in the Bill that I wish to see amended. I think that the compulsion is far too restricted. We require more compulsion. You should have the same power to compel a man to do his duty to his children as you have in this country. This compulsion is to be restricted to a few places, and not to those which want it most. Against compulsory education and against free education we have had the prophets of evil, just as we had them twenty-two years ago when the Education Bill was introduced by Mr. Forster. We were told that his Bill would uproot the Constitution, that crime would increase, that you would have to build more gaols, penitentiaries, and convict establishments, and that life and property would not be secure. Every one of these prophecies has been reversed, and there is nothing more consolatory than to take up the educational statistics in England side by side with the criminal statistics. We find that in the five years ending 31st December, 1869, 1,978 people were sentenced on indictment in England to penal servitude. That was when the population was twenty-one millions. But in twenty years after the passing of Mr. Forster's Act, when the population had increased by nine millions, the convicts had decreased to 729. Many people complained of the amount of money expended on education, but for it you have an excellent return in the diminu tion of the money expended on prisons. No less than eight convict prisons in England, containing accommodation for upwards of six thousand prisoners, have been since 1882 assigned to other purposes. These prisons have been swept away by reason of the Education Act of 1870. We expect the same result in Ireland, we expect to increase our industry, we expect to turn our gaols to other purposes. The decrease of crime in England since education was made compulsory has saved £150,000 a year in spite of the increase of population, and we know that that amount represents a very large capitalised sum. The money, therefore, that was begrudged to education has produced large returns in every respect. This is a matter in which we may also take a lesson from other countries. At one time 95 per cent. of the French in Canada could not sign their names. That was a disastrous state of affairs, somewhat similar to that which exists in many parts of Ireland at the present time. The patriotic Canadians who advocated education were denounced as men animated by the worst ideas of the French Revolution. But the introduction of a splendid system of education produced excellent results, which were so well illustrated at the Colonial Exhibition in London. An analysis of the Returns for the counties of Ireland shows that illiteracy and pauperism go together. It is no use putting our heads in the sand, and, ostrich-like, believing that the rest of the world cannot see these things. It does see them. I may lose my seat in this House for what I am saying, but I do not weigh it against my duty under the circumstances. When we go into the history of other countries we find that it is illiteracy which conduces to the destruction of nations. The educated nations are the safe nations, and they are always victorious in war. In 1870, twenty per cent. of the soldiers of France were illiterate, and even men from the ecclesiastical colleges could not use the maps with which they were supplied by the French Government. Hence French soldiers lost their way, and were taken prisoners by the Germans; but there were no instances of Germans being similarly made prisoners by the French. In Spain the Inquisition strangled education until, as the French Ambassador said, "Science was a crime and ignorance a virtue." The result is that Spain is now backward and non-progressive, in spite of her great mineral wealth. Holland, a little country with no such advantages as Spain, had an excellent system of education, and is now thriving and prosperous, whilst Spain is miserable and degraded. Those are the results of education, or the want of it, in nations. I will now say a word or two as to the political results of the want of education. I am in favour of manhood suffrage, but manhood suffrage has for its complement and supplement the right of universal education. Some illiterates are acute and able men, but unfortunately there are too many who cannot grasp the ideas of the age in which they live. Nothing that we have in the way of scientific skill or appliances has come from the rich. We have got it from the poor men. One of the benefits that education would give to the people would be self-reliance—it would enable them to mistrust the statements given on authority without examination. As this Parliament has educated the workmen of England, they have become self-reliant—they respect themselves more than they used to do; crime is less, and there are fewer inmates in the convict establishments, which are being turned to better purposes. Let compulsory education be given to Ireland, and to the same extent as in England. We cannot have too much of it. There is not the slightest danger of anybody being coerced more than they deserve to be. I am not afraid of there not being school accommodation for the children. There was not enough school accommodation in England when the Education Act came into force, but millions have been spent since then on schools and appliances. One special duty which is cast upon the Government in connection with this Bill is the protection of teachers, in order to prevent them being turned adrift after, perhaps, ten or fifteen years' service. I am in favour of giving teachers the right of appeal against the managers which they have not hitherto had. Altogether, I think that the teachers have a claim upon this House and upon the Government such as no other class of men in Ireland have, and it is only right to say that the amount of money given under this Bill is entirely too small. It is only one-fifth of the sum which is annually spent on the Constabulary. The amount that is spent on education will be saved ultimately in prisons and in the reduction of crime. I intend to vote with the Chief Secretary in support of this Bill, but to amend it as far as I can in Committee. I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider the points which have been raised in a spirit of justice and equity towards the national teachers of Ireland.

I agree with those who have argued that compulsion in the matter of education will not be well received by the people of Ireland at the hands of the power which dealt out coercion to them in other measures. When also one considers the relations of the clergy to the people of Ireland, it is impossible to leave out of account the opinions of the Bishops on the subject of a compulsory system. Some hon. Gentlemen have spoken very slightingly of the Catholic Bishops; but when we find that they represent three-fourths of the people of Ireland, it is impossible not to feel that the question must be very carefully considered. What we want to see in regard to education is that it shall be a system which is in full accord with the wishes of the people. A desire has been manifested by some sections of Protestants to hinder the full development of the Catholic population of Ireland. Now, that appears to me to be a great mistake. It is desirable to produce fully-equipped citizens instead of cramped and partially-developed members of the community. It is unfair to throw illiteracy in the face of the Catholic population, because Catholic education has been hindered by Protestants. If Catholics are behind Protestants in the matter of education, the fact is not to be wondered at; it is the inevitable result of past legislation. Anyone who examines the statistics contained in the Census Returns will now see that there has been a rise of educa tion all over Ireland at quite as quick a rate among Catholics as among the Protestants. Gentlemen from Ulster have opposed undenominational education. I find that the religious denominations in Ulster, in comparison with the same denominations in other parts of Ireland, have more illiterates. As regards the Catholics, in seven out of the nine counties in Ulster about twenty per cent. are returned as illiterate, whereas it is only that in five of the eighteen counties of Munster and Leinster. In Armagh, Donegal, Londonderry, and Tyrone the Presbyterians are worse in the matter of education than the Presbyterians in other parts of Ireland. So that I do not think the systems of education in Ulster can be viewed as models. At present education in all its branches is narrowed. The national schools of Ireland have only twenty-five literary books to choose from, including geographies, whereas the London School Board has a list of 750 books of the same character. Then history is prohibited on the plea that Irish education must embrace nothing of a political character, but in the library of the London School Board on the Embankment I have seen books for use in the Board Schools as unfair as any Irish histories can be said to be, and religious prints and pictures are allowed that would not be allowed in an Irish Catholic School. So much regarding the general system. If there is one thing in which the Irish people are largely interested, it is this subject of education; and as regards the Christian Brothers, I have received more resolutions from Boards of Guardians and Town Councils respecting the exclusion of their schools from the grant than I have received on any other subject since I have been connected with this House. When I see how these Brothers have been entrusted with the care of boys, and when I remember that in Gibraltar and other possessions they are receiving grants, I do not discern how that course can be much longer neglected in Ireland. These men are devoting their lives to education; their schools are admirable, and the present attitude towards them is a violation of the very principle upon which Mr. Forster's Act was based. The very essence of English legislation is that we avail ourselves of present institutions and powers, and as we have in the Christian Brothers a system working admirably, to fail to utilise it seems to me a very narrow policy. I do not think that the effort to force people to educate together is productive of so much real enlightenment and toleration as the wider system of education. I have seen the books used in the schools of the Christian Brothers, and those of the National Schools are not to be compared with them. Attending one of the celebrations at Cork last Christmas I examined the books given to the boys. The presents embraced the best English works, and indeed I do not believe it is possible in more than one case out of twenty to judge from the works the religious character of the institutions of the Christian Brothers. It is a great mistake to suppose that they are giving a narrow education, their whole endeavour being to bring out the faculties of the boys. It will be a great mistake if the Government does not lend them support. It will be impossible much longer to refuse to acknowledge the religious feeling of parents in Ireland. All parents desire that their children should be influenced by the religion they hold. I believe that our future depends largely upon education. If we are to be cramped in this connection, results in the domain of social advancement may be as disastrous as during last century, when efforts were made to put down our material prosperity.

To my mind this Debate has been very insincere. The speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) did not convey the impression to my mind that he was insisting upon a Division. Neither did he move the rejection of the Bill. I come to the conclusion that the propositions he advanced were aired for the purpose of hoodwinking the Bishops of Ireland. There is no intention whatever to oppose this Bill, and it would have saved the time of the House if hon. Members on this side had refrained from opposing the Second Reading. The hon. Member for West Belfast said there was no connection between the compulsory clauses of the Bill and the money grant. Why, we have been for the last twenty years taught by the hon. Member's friends that compulsory education could not be enforced unless it were accompanied by free education. We have compulsory education in the clauses of the Bill, followed by a money grant which pays for the extra work which the teachers in Ireland will have to discharge, so that I think there is a very near connection between compulsion and the money grant. I think that to-night the teachers of Ireland will find that they have good friends in the House of Commons. I venture to say that hon. Members who sat here when the First Reading was asked for applauded the compulsory clauses of the Bill, and shouted out jubilantly that it was time compulsion should be enforced in Ireland; and I think those Members will to-night give a silent vote in favour of the Bill. I myself was in doubt as to whether compulsion should be applied to Ireland until I heard the leader of the hon. Member for West Belfast declare that compulsion was necessary in some form or other. The words of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Justin McCarthy) on that occasion were—

"The right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length of compulsion. I never understood that there was in Ireland any absolute objection to the principle of compulsion, provided there was a certain amount of care in the time, the development, and the application of it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as to the necessity of elasticity in the application of the principle. What we want to know is whether the elasticity is to be elastic enough, and whether the elasticity always means that it will be elastic at the right time and in the right place."

I venture to say there is enough elasticity in the Bill provided by the right hon. Gentleman. I know something of the compulsory clauses of the English Education Act, and I am satisfied that the clauses in this Bill are much easier than the clauses applicable to the people in this country. Three miles is the limit in England, two miles in Ireland, and where there is difficulty in the way of a child going to school, the limit may be decreased. Then, again, with regard to the exemption from attendance, there are provisions, and the reasons are also taken into consideration. Thus there is plenty of elasticity with regard to the working of the compulsory part of the Bill. But while I approve of these conditions, I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in carrying them out. If the Bill sins at all it sins in omission. Neither the Government nor the School Attendance Committee can carry out the provisions of this Bill unless ample accommodation is provided for the scholars in future. I remember that when Mr. Forster put forward his Act of 1870 he said he would scatter good schools throughout the country. When he made his average attendance 1,800,000, school places to the number of 1,500,000 were lacking, but the working of the Education Act since that time has provided places for 5,500,000 children. In the application of the compulsory clauses the late Mr. Forster saw that it was necessary to provide additional accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to make that provision. In reply to a question by me the right hon. Gentleman adduced statistics to show that in Ireland there was plenty of accommodation. If he will look at the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education he will find on page 1 a foot-note stating that the number of pupils on the rolls who made any attendances at our schools between 1st January and 31st December, 1890, was 1,037,000. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the average attendance of boys and girls was a little over 440,000, and that the accommodation was equal to 770,000 school places; but that leaves a deficiency of a quarter of a million of school places. Suppose you were to put these compulsory clauses into operation to-morrow, how would you provide places? It would be like trying to get a quart of liquid into a pint bottle. I trust before we go into Committee on this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will do something in the direction of increased accommodation. To-day I asked a question with regard to certain insanitary schools in the County Tyrone. Of that answer I have nothing to complain; but those schools are not alone. There are many insanitary schools in Ireland, and for that reason the attendance is in many cases low. If we add children who on account of insanitary conditions do not attend school, the necessity for increased accommodation is further shown. I am prepared to give my hearty support to the compulsory clauses believing that the Government will provide the necessary school places, and by making the schools satisfactory in a sanitary sense remove cause for hesitation as to sending children to school. As compulsion will cast additional work upon the teachers, I think the £210,000 is rightly allocated to them. I go quite as far as any Member on this side of the House in my regard for the Christian Brothers. My earliest recollections are in connection with them. And although they are doing a good work in Ireland we must remember that these schools are really secondary schools. Although I deprecate this discussion, and believe it to be half-hearted and misleading in its character, yet I am of opinion that great good will result to Ireland by the Bill, and I shall give it my cordial support.

I have observed that during the Debate the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) has been lying supine on the Treasury Bench.