I gave notice yesterday to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I think if the House will allow me to make a brief statement possibly it may not be necessary for me to take that course. I represent on the present occasion the Cumberland County Council, and they believe that their interests will be injuriously affected by this railway, which may be so constructed that under no possible circumstances can it be continued to Alston, which is the part of the county specially interested in this matter. If time had been given, the residents in Alston, and not only those in the eastern, but in the western, part of the county would have been able to lay before the Committee an alternative scheme which would have provided through communication from Alston by Wear Head to Stanhope. The Cumberland County Council presented a Petition to be heard by counsel, and they were prepared to show that their interests would be injuriously affected. The referees, however, decided that the Council had no locus standi, and it was my intention yesterday to have appealed from that Court to the House itself; but no doubt, in consequence of the time and circumstances of the Session and the rapidity with which it is necessary to carry Private Bills through their stages, the promoters had their Bill passed as unopposed yesterday morning; and, consequently, when I rose here yesterday for the purpose I have described, I found the Bill had already been reported to the House, and, therefore, it was impossible to refer the Petition of the Cumberland County Council to the Committee. Yet I feel bound to say that the County Council of Cumberland do feel that their interests may be very seriously affected if it should be found impossible to carry on the line from Alston by Wear Head to Stanhope; and I should like to ask the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), who takes so much interest in the railway system of Cumberland and Durham, whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will use his best influence to facilitate the endeavours that no doubt will be made in that district of Cumberland to procure a through line from Alston to Stanhope? If he will give such an undertaking as I have reason to believe he will be inclined to do, then I think I need trouble the House no further.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has waived his opposition. In laying out the line originally we had in view going forward to Alston, but subsequently we thought that one step at a time would be all we would be able to take. In the laying out of the line Mr. Wolfe Barry, the most eminent railway engineer of the day, was consulted, and under his instructions the line is projected in a way that will in the future allow it to be continued to Alston. All I can say, as an humble individual not pledging any company, but so far as I have any influence, I shall be happy to lend any aid I can to develop the communication in this direction and the idea the promoters had in the inception of the scheme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman our line is laid out so that it can be continued to Alston at some future date, and I will take care that the arrangements made are practically carried out.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what is the total number of persons who have been imprisoned in Ireland up to 31st May last under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?

The total number of persons who have been imprisoned in Ireland up to 31st May last under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, is 1,893. It may be of interest to the House to know that out of the total number of 2,978 prisoners in custody throughout Ireland on the 1st instant four only of these were in custody under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act referred to.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the English Government pay three shillings per pound for the sea conveyance of letters to America and threepence per pound for newspapers, whereas the American Government have their letters conveyed to this country, often in the same steamship as ours are conveyed in, for one shilling and eightpence per pound, and newspapers and other articles for less than threepence per pound; whether any distinction is made by the Steamship Companies in the mode of safeguarding, packing, and transmitting letters, as distinguished from newspapers, or whether they are all thrown together in the hold of the ship; whether any attempt has been made by the British Post Office to do away with the difference in the amounts paid to the steamship owners for the carriage of letters and newspapers respectively; what explanation do the French and Italian Governments furnish for charging 10 francs 50 centimes per kilogramme for conveying letters, from or to India and Australia, in closed bags between Calais and Brindisi, and only fifty centimes per kilogramme for newspapers and other articles, also in closed bags, and in the same compartment and the same train, between Calais and Brindisi; whether any attempt has been made by the British Post Office to alter this system of distinction in the trans-Continental charges, or whether he intends to make such an attempt; whether he will offer a fixed subsidy, irrespective of weight of mails, to the Steamship Companies sailing to America, based on the average amounts now paid to them for conveying our mails; and whether the present mail contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies to India and Australia are for fixed subsidies, irrespective of the weight of letters and other matter carried?

A statement in the sense of paragraph one of the question has been made more than once; but it is incomplete, misleading, and not quite accurate. The prices mentioned are paid to the contractors for the packet service to New York in consideration of their stopping their steamers at Queens-town after leaving the Mersey, and then conveying the mails to New York. When the United States Post Office employs the return British steamer from New York it does not require the owners to stop at any other port to receive mails; and the price paid for the mere conveyance is one shilling and ninepence halfpenny a pound for letters and postcards, and twopence a pound for newspapers, &c. For conveyance by steamers sailing under the United States Registry, the American Post Office pays six shillings and eightpence a pound for letters and postcards, and fourpence a pound for newspapers, &c. The British contractors are not required to make any distinction between bags of letters and bags of newspapers, but are bound to provide a suitable and secure place for the whole mail. The system of paying different rates for the conveyance of letters and newspapers, &c., is not peculiar to the British Post Office, but is common to the transit system of the whole postal world, and co-exists naturally with the difference in postage rates. The British Post Office has not attempted to upset the transit payment system of the whole world, but has pursued the policy of making the best bargains it can from time to time; and there is no present intention of departing from that practice. The plan adopted for obtaining subsidised packet services at the lowest market price is to invite tenders, not to make offers; and no such offer as is suggested in paragraph six has been made or is in contemplation. The answer to paragraph seven is, "Yes."

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any vessels have taken mails under the American register from New York to England, and how long has the practice been followed?

I am not able to answer that question without notice.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that quite recently certain road contractors, while excavating for gravel in the ancient moat of Rathmore in County Kildare, came upon human remains, which showed that the moat was used as a cemetery, and that several skeletons were exhumed and left exposed; and whether he will order the moat to be enclosed, and thus prevent any further desecration of the place?

I am informed that about three weeks ago some very old human bones were found at the place mentioned. The County Inspector is in communication with the contractors and with the tenant and landlord of the land with a view to the place being preserved from further interference.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has come to his knowledge that a man lately discharged from Portland Prison applied to the Governor for certain information from the medical record at Portland concerning his health during the last two years of his imprisonment there; whether he is aware that the information asked for is required by an Insurance Company before the man can have his life insured for the benefit of his family; and whether, under the circumstances, and as the information can only be supplied by the prison doctor under whose care he was for the term specified, he will cause the Governor to give it?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of this case. I have given directions that the medical officers shall give any information in their possession to any Insurance Company that may apply for it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, under the new regulations as to re-addressed letters, all such letters, if not re-posted within twenty-four hours of arrival, are subject to an extra charge of twopence each instead of one penny, as under the old arrangement; and whether, as many persons, such as commercial travellers, &c., are prejudiced instead of benefited thereby, he will consider the desirability of a further alteration in the arrangement?

The extra charge would only be made if such letters were not prepaid; but the arrangement seems liable to cause inconvenience in certain cases, and I propose to amend it, so that a single fee only shall be charged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Lewis Gilks, late of the 24th South Wales Borderers, who was sentenced by Court Martial at Ranakhat in 1890 to five years' penal servitude for shooting with intent to kill in a quarrel with a fellow-soldier, and is at present serving his sentence in Portland Prison; whether he is aware that Gilks, who bore an excellent character in the Army, and was highly commended for bravery and soldierly conduct by Colonel Bromhead, was, at the time of the shooting for which he was convicted, invalided from Burmah to Ranakhat suffering from jungle fever, and that no injury was done by the shooting; whether he was aware that an influentially signed Memorial, supported by Colonel Bromhead, has been forwarded to the Home Office, praying for the release of Gilks; and whether, under all the circumstances of the case, and considering that Gilks has already been over two years in prison, he will take his case into consideration with the view to discharging him on a ticket-of-leave?

My attention has been called to the case of a man named Lewis Gilks, late of the 24th South Wales Borderers, who was sentenced by Court Martial at Ranakhat in 1890 to five years' penal servitude for shooting with intent to kill in a quarrel with a fellow-soldier, and is at present serving his sentence in Portland Prison. I gather from a Report from the Horse Guards that evidence of the prisoner's good character was before the Court which tried him, but the Report is silent as to the other allegations, that he bore an excellent character in the Army and was highly commended for bravery and soldierly conduct by Colonel Bromhead, and that he was suffering from jungle fever, while no injury was done by the shooting. The Memorial was sent to the Horse Guards, and not to the Home Office. The case has been fully considered by the Military Authorities, and I am informed that they are unable to recommend any mitigation of the sentence.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Recorder of Cork has confirmed the sentences given against Mr. Edward Fitzgerald, P.L.G., of Cork Union, in eight cases of forging and tendering proxy voting papers in his own favour in the late Guardians election; and whether the Local Government Board propose to remove Mr. Fitzgerald from the Board of Guardians and order another election; if so, when?

The Local Government Board for Ireland have been informed that the Recorder of Cork has confirmed the convictions against Mr. Fitzgerald. The Board have accordingly taken steps to set aside his election, and for the ordering of an election to fill the vacancy caused thereby.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Major Kirkwood, Local Government Board Inspector appointed to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances attending the election of three Guardians, Messrs. Creane, Roche, and Fitzgerald, alleged to have been returned to the Cork Board of Guardians by means of the forgery of proxy voting papers, refused to take evidence on the question of forgery, on the grounds that he (Major Kirkwood) could not go outside his instructions; and whether, as it was to investigate charges of forgery that the inquiry was asked for, and as one of the three Guardians (Mr. Fitzgerald) has been convicted of eight charges of forgery, the Local Government Board will so extend the scope of the inquiry as to enable Major Kirkwood to take evidence as to forgery?

The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. The only cases in which the Local Government Inspector declined to take evidence in regard to forgery were those in respect of which no votes had been allowed, and which therefore, even if they were forged, did not affect the result of the election; but where it was alleged that votes had been recorded by the returning officer in respect of the forged papers evidence was taken by the Inspector. The Local Government Board see no necessity for re-opening the inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Standing Joint Committee of the Radnorshire County Council have fixed the limit of age from twenty-five to forty for candidates for the post of Chief Constable of the county, although the limit is laid down at forty-five by the Police Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

By the rules made under 2 and 3 Vict., c. 93, the limit of age prescribed for candidates for the post of Chief Constable is forty-five. I am advised that it is within the discretion of the Standing Joint Committee of a County Council to curtail this limit, although it is not open to them to extend it.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will explain how it happened that, although a circular dated 1st March, 1892, was by the Irish Land Commissioners issued to the purchasers of land, informing them that they could have their purchases registered gratis under the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891, and designating the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for counties as the proper persons to apply to for registration purposes, a number of proprietors in the County of Waterford, on applying to Mr. Dennehy, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County and City of Waterford, were informed that he had nothing to do with the matter, and directed them to Mr. McCoy, solicitor, Waterford, the local Registrar, who informed them his fee in each case would be £2, even if the farm consisted of only five acres; are the intentions of the Act correctly indicated in the circular or in the replies of Mr. Dennehy and Mr. McCoy; and will the Land Commission be directed to issue clearer information concerning the exact intentions of the Act, or if the circular is correct will officials be requested to throw no unnecessary discouragement in the way of persons availing themselves of the provisions of the same?

It is expressly provided by the Local Registration of Title Act that a tenant purchaser shall be entitled to registration within one year without charge for office fees. I will communicate with the local Registrar, for I cannot help thinking there must be some mistake as to the facts. Of course, if the tenant purchaser finds it necessary to employ a solicitor, that would not be covered by the provisions of the Act. I am extremely anxious to facilitate registration in every possible way under the Act. I am in communication with the Land Commission and others, and no effort will be spared to influence Local Bodies in facilitating the application of the Act. A large number of tenant purchasers have taken advantage of it, and I hope it may be possible to simplify the procedure to make registration more accessible than it is at present.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Skibbereen Town Commissioners as regards the inconvenience and unsuitability of the existing post office in Skibbereen; and whether, seeing that a suitable site has been offered to the Department, situated in a convenient and central position, and that post offices have been built in other Irish towns with a smaller population, a post office will be built at Skibbereen?

Yes, Sir, and the district surveyor has been in constant correspondence with the town clerk on the subject. I hope that a satisfactory result will be obtained. It is usual in similar towns for the postmaster to rent an office, the Department furnishing the rent. The Department is anxious that a suitable office shall be provided at Skibbereen, the present accommodation being insufficient.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if the Irish Land Commission are now able to state when a Sub-Commissioner will sit in the County Cork for the hearing of fair rent applications?

The Irish Land Commissioners report that Sub-Commissioners were continuously employed in the County Cork from December, 1887, to the 22nd August, 1891, during which period there were at times as many as six Sub-Commissioners working in that county at the same time, and at no time less than two. A Sub-Commission will probably commence its sittings in that county at the beginning of the next Circuit.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the greatly increased difficulty of the test copy in the last examination in second grade freehand drawing; whether, in view of the fact that no notice was given of the intention to make the test more difficult than in former years, and also of the endeavours now being made by teachers of advanced age to obtain drawing certificates in order to retain their present positions, he will instruct the Inspectors of the Science and Art Department to deal leniently with the candidates at the forthcoming examination; and whether he can assure the existing teachers, who have satisfied Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools by their teaching of drawing, that they shall not be compelled to obtain a certificate from the Science and Art Department?

The test copy in the last examination was intentionally made more complex, and in that sense more difficult, with a view to afford the candidates more opportunity of showing their ability, and the examiners of testing their skill. But the examiners will, in making their awards, take into account the nature of the test copy prescribed, and there is no intention of raising the standard abruptly. Whether at any future time the Science and Art Department's certificate will be required must depend on further experience of the operation of the present rule. But it is most improbable that those existing teachers who have shown by the results of their teaching that they are qualified to teach drawing will be required to obtain a certificate, and it is the intention of both Departments to administer the regulations on the subject with special regard to the interests of the older class of teachers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the importance of the territories of Zanbana and M'Begisa on the future of Swaziland and the newly-annexed portion of Amatongaland, Her Majesty's Government will act on the advice given by Sir Charles Mitchell, Governor of Zululand in 1889 [C. 6200], and annex the said territories, or otherwise prevent foreign influence obtaining control over the Lebombo Mountains?

My right hon. Friend (Baron H. de Worms), who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to say, in view of the provisions of the Swaziland Convention, that Her Majesty's Government do not consider it open to them to entertain a proposal to annex the territories of these chiefs. They are not aware that any foreign influence is obtaining control over the Lebombo Mountains, and are fully alive to the importance of preventing such a result.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government intend to facilitate the construction of a harbour and railway from Sordwana Point to the Swaziland, frontier under the concessions granted by native chiefs to Colonel Coope; and whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the whole of the Correspondence which has taken place in reference to Colonel Coope's concessions between the Governor of Zululand, the Colonial Office, the Mapootaland Syndicate, Mr. Van Laun, and others interested in the scheme, from the year 1888 up to the present time, including the recommendations from the following Chambers of Commerce—namely, London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, and Sheffield?

The Secretary of State has referred for the consideration of the High Commissioner in South Africa and the Governor of Zululand the question whether permission can be granted for laying a railway between Sordwana Bay and the western limit of British Zulu territory. If they report favourably the permission will be granted by the Zululand Government, and will not be a concession from the local chiefs. The Correspondence referred to in the second part of the question is incomplete, and the Secretary of State cannot undertake at present to lay it before Parliament.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, before any such concession is granted, communication will be made with the Powers having authority over the neighbouring territory?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the case of Mr. Purdie, arrested by the French police on a false charge, and for several days refused permission to communicate with the British Ambassador?

The French Government have expressed regret for the unfortunate mistake by which Messrs. Purdie and Lockwood have been subjected to serious personal inconvenience; but they maintain at the same time that the police acted with perfect good faith, and that French citizens would have been similarly treated under similar circumstances. With reference to the refusal of the permission to communicate with the British Embassy, further communications are in progress with a view to arriving at an arrangement for similarity of treatment in such cases in the two countries.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention to submit proposals to the Treasury consequent upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Scotch Prisons, in time to enable effect to be given to it before the Dissolution?

The Secretary for Scotland intends immediately to submit proposals to the Treasury relative to this subject, but is, of course, unable to say whether effect will be given to them before the Dissolution of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police have any instructions to take the numbers of and summon cabmen who seek for fares while "crawling"?

The police instructions provide generally for carrying out the Acts relating to public carriages, and the Orders of the Secretary of State made under those Acts. By an Order of the Secretary of State, dated 10th March, 1871, the police are enabled to summon drivers of cabs for plying for hire elsewhere than at some standing or place appointed for that purpose, or for causing obstruction by loitering or wilful misbehaviour.

There are no other special instructions in reference to cabmen?

No.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is true, as stated in a letter dated 13th May, 1890, and signed by W. Harris Nicolas, as chief clerk to the Exchequer and Audit Department, that, under an agreement entered into between the Right Honourable H. C. Raikes, M.P., as Postmaster General, and Sir Charles Lister Ryan, the Auditor General, all vouchers relative to Post Office accounts to the year 1881–2 inclusive have been destroyed; and whether he will consent to furnish the litigants in the actions of William Hind v. the Right Honourable W. H. Smith, as the First Lord of the Treasury and others, 1888, Joseph Steer Christopher v. the same, and William Hind v. the Postmaster General, with verified copies of such vouchers for £8,000,000, and also allow them or their agents to inspect the books and documents of the Electric and International Telegraph Company and the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company?

It is the fact that all Post Office accounts and vouchers for the year 1881–2 have been destroyed. As regards the retention of Post Office accounts and vouchers at the Audit Office, the only requirement of the Post Office is that they shall not be destroyed within six years, the period fixed by the Statute of Limitations. This requirement was communicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1880, on the advice of the solicitor to the Department, and has since been maintained.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the new regulation in the Code of 1892, Section 106, Sub-section (b), paragraph (v), it would be competent for the Technical Instruction Committee of any County Council to aid any evening schools with respect to those scholars who, having passed the fifth standard in an elementary school, are presented for examination in any special subjects which are permitted to be taught by the Science and Art Department as technical instruction subjects?

There is nothing, so far as I am aware, to prevent a Local Authority giving aid to evening schools in respect to those scholars who under Article 106 (b) (v) of the Code are no longer receiving instruction in the obligatory or standard subjects.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why the Board of Customs gave no previous notice to the candidates attending the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer what subjects would be obligatory, what standard of efficiency they would require, or what value was attached in marks to each paper or question; and whether any value was given by the Board of Customs to the official characters previously earned by the candidates in the discharge of their duties?

All the subjects at such examinations, which are of a practical nature, are obligatory, and, therefore, no notice to this effect was necessary. It has not been the practice, nor do the Board of Customs think it desirable, to announce the standard of efficiency required or the number of marks to be assigned to each paper or question. Special inquiry was made as to the official character of each candidate, and none but candidates approved by the Board were permitted to be examined.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a knowledge of gauging was obligatory at the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer, and, if so, will he explain why officers who had no practical acquaintance with this duty were successful, and passed over the heads of senior practical gangers; and how many officers were admitted as having "approved" characters for promotion to the examination, wherein all the subjects were obligatory, who from their first appointment to the second class of examining officers had only performed two or three out of the four kinds of duty on which they were examined; and why the Board did not have the officers examined during the day, but required that they should present themselves after performing their day's work, a course which acted with severity against officers employed during the very inclement weather in January gauging in the open air, and how may this be remedied in future?

Gauging was an obligatory subject, and of the officers who were successful all but one possessed a practical knowledge of it. The appointment of this officer—who passed the written portion of the examination—to the first class on probation was postponed until he had been instructed practically and was reported to be an efficient gauger. In approving officers for examination the Board had to consider only the character which they bore in the Service; their fitness for promotion in other respects was to be tested by the examination. Being a test examination, it was necessary that it should be in all cases on the same day and on the same papers, and the time of day was fixed after full conference with the practical officers of the Department, who were in direct touch with the subordinate officers.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the system of awarding marks at the recent examination for the position of first-class examining officer of Customs, which may have acted detrimentally to at least one experienced senior officer, whether it can be arranged that this officer, who passed the necessary qualifying standard in each subject, will receive his due promotion in the grade?

I do not admit that the system was unfair to any candidate, and I see no reason for treating exceptionally the case to which the hon. Member refers. The case has been carefully considered, and the Board of Customs have every desire to deal impartially with every officer.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Yeomanry Committee?

The financial effect of the Yeomanry Committee's recommendations has been under the consideration of the Treasury; but, speaking generally, the Secretary of State is prepared to carry out the changes recommended in the Report, subject to variations in some of the minor details.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if Captains Lugard and Williams have now enjoyed a much longer spell of leave than that usually allowed to regimental officers, and if the Commander-in-Chief would now recall these officers to their regiments; if these officers now receive pay from the War Office; and if these officers receive any pay from the East Africa Company, or money in any other shape?

No question of leave arises, as these officers are seconded in their regiments. The period of seconding is usually for five years. They receive no pay from Army funds, and I have no knowledge as to their emoluments from other sources.

had notice later on: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Captain Lugard and Captain Williams are in receipt of full or half pay; and, if so, what services do they render Her Majesty in return for it? He now said: I believe the question has already been answered, but am I right in understanding that neither of these officers receives any pay?

Yes, Sir, the hon. Member is quite correct. Neither of these officers receives any pay whatever from the Army funds.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Times of the 13th instant, with regard to Uganda, that the British East Africa Company have issued an order to abandon it; whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Company to abandon a sphere which has been allotted to Great Britain; and whether any attempt is to be made to sustain Captain Lugard and his men in the position which they have occupied up to the present time?

Before the First Lord answers I should like to ask a question on the same subject. I should like to ask the First Lord if care will be taken that any additional force under Captain Lugard will not be used either directly or indirectly for the purpose of confiscating the property of Catholics or of taking their lives?

In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), I have to say that he appears to assume, firstly, that Captain Lugard has been employed in the destruction of the Catholics; and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government have approved of that course. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely in error in both those assumptions. With regard to the question on the Paper in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I believe the Company have sent instructions to their agents to retire from Uganda at the end of the year. The Government have not, as I understand the matter, any power to compel them to stay. But it must be borne in mind that the withdrawal of the Company's officers by no means implies the abandonment of the country. I can give no opinion on the question put to me in the last paragraph until we obtain information as to Captain Lugard's actual position and prospects, but I may remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that in our opinion the proper way to maintain our position in Uganda is to construct a railway to the eastern shore of Lake Victoria Nyanza; that the surveys are being rapidly proceeded with, and would so far seem to show that the project presents no engineering difficulties.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this one other question. As I understand his answer, it is the intention of the Government that we are to maintain the sphere in which Uganda is situated?

I apprehend there is no intention of altering the sphere of British influence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that, upon the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the Bucharest Legation, that post was converted into a first-class Mission, and the salary of the Minister raised from £2,500 to £3,500 in consideration of its increased rank and importance, whether he can state why, upon the promotion of Sir H. Wolff to another post, the salary of his successor was reduced by £1,000, the class of the Mission remaining unchanged?

The Legation in Roumania was raised to a first-class Mission, but the salary attaching to the post was not increased. The allowance to Sir H. Wolff was a personal one, and ceased upon his transfer to Madrid.

Is it thought desirable to continue the personal allowance on Sir H. Drummond Wolff proceeding to his present appointment?

No; the allowance ceased on his being sent to Madrid.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that some memorandum or statement should be given, explaining the nature of the case and the reasons for departure from ordinary practice?

I think such a statement was made at the end of the Session by my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson).

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, having reference to the recent Report on the proposed ranges for military purposes in the New Forest, he would now re-consider the question of establishing ranges on the North Denes, Great Yarmouth?

The difficulty in the case of the North Denes arises from want of room, but the Secretary of State is still giving the matter careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the manner in which a number of non-commissioned officers and men of the 15th Hussars, now stationed at Cahir, were employed in connection with a political meeting held in a park in Cahir on Friday, the 3rd June; whether he is aware that the Hussars were employed with their horses and waggons carrying tables, forms, chairs, &c., from the cavalry barracks to the place of meeting in the park, and another corps of the same regiment were engaged in removing the furniture after the political meeting; and by whose orders and by what authority were these soldiers so employed?

The following telegram from the General Commanding in Ireland contains all the information I have on the subject of the hon. Member's question:—

"Officer commanding 15th Hussars states, with reference to inquiry respecting political meeting at Cahir Park on 3rd June, no noncommissioned officers or men of his regiment were employed, nor is anything known of a political meeting held as stated."

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Military Authorities know nothing of the meeting being held?

It is quite possible that the meeting was held and the officer knew nothing of it; the information is explicit that no men of the 15th Hussars were employed.

Then it is an absolute denial that the men were there?

I have read the telegram, which gives all the information I have.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether any further attention is being paid to the wish of senior and junior students in the Queen's College, Belfast, for a Summer Session for Anatomy; whether he is aware that such a session is provided in Dublin, and that Belfast students requiring the additional course are at present compelled to take a Summer Session at Dublin University Medical School, at the Catholic University, or the College of Surgeons, and whether any steps will be taken to provide for the alleged want?

The President of the Queen's College, Belfast, reports that no application for a Summer Session of Anatomy has been made to him, nor is he of opinion that any necessity for it exists.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, amongst the official notices in the Uig Post Office, a notice has been exhibited of the days on which rent will be collected on the Kilmuir Estate, and calling upon the tenants to come forward on the rent days and make payment of their rent and arrears, so as to put themselves in a better position with the estate; and whether the postmasters are permitted to use their premises for notices of this kind?

A notice such as that described was exhibited in the Uig Sub-Office; but it was removed by the sub-postmaster some days ago. It is contrary to regulations to put any private notices among the official notices.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, as the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots and other Early Memorials of Scottish History, a volume published by the Treasury, is now out of print, it is intended to again reprint it for sale; and, if not, why not?

It is not intended to reprint the volume referred to, as it is not considered that there has been sufficient public demand to justify the expense to the public that would necessarily be incurred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the book is out of print, and that a premium of ten shillings is charged for it, and that no one can print it, the copyright being with the Treasury?

I believe the book is out of print. The first issue was a small one, and the public demand does not justify reprinting.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the book has a historical interest which should make it worth while to reprint it?

I have not perused the book in question.

If the Treasury will not reprint it, will they waive the copyright and allow others to print it?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the authorities concerned.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade propose to draw the attention of the Cambrian and four other railway companies mentioned to the following paragraph on page 4 of the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour):—

"Sometimes long hours are evidently due to mismanagement, as in the case of the Cambrian, the Waterford and Central Ireland, and the Midland and South-Western Junction Railways; sometimes to a congestion of traffic which ought to have been seen and provided for by additional accommodation and additional staff, as on the North British and the Lancashire and Yorkshire"?

I think it appears from the recent evidence before the Committee and from the papers presented to the Committee that the particular instances referred to in this part of the Report were being remedied; but with regard to the subject generally, I have given instructions to the railway department of the Board of Trade that the procedure recommended by the Committee in reference to excessive overtime should at once be carried out, as far as is possible, without fresh legislation.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, why the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Servants Hours has been issued without the Minutes of the Proceedings which I understand and believe to be the usual course; and whether, having regard to the general interest in the proceedings of this Committee, he will take steps to have the Minutes of the Proceedings issued immediately?

I was informed by the Clerk to the Committee that he had been told by the printers that, owing to the great length of the alternative Report which the hon. Member proposed, it would be impossible for him to print as usual the Report with the proceedings so as to be issued without very considerable delay. As a very inaccurate statement of the Report of the Committee had already appeared in the public Press, I thought it most desirable, as the matter was one of considerable interest, that the accurate Report should at once be issued. I therefore directed that it should be issued at once without the proceedings, at the same time directing that the full Report and proceedings should also be issued as soon as possible without waiting for the evidence.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to introduce legislation sanctioning a loan of £150,000 to the Government of British Columbia, for the purpose of carrying out the policy of Her Majesty's Government of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland; and whether, before doing so, he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of British Columbia, and a copy of the recent Act of the Legislature of that Colony bearing on the same subject?

A Bill is prepared of which I intend to give notice to-day. The Papers to which the hon. Member refers will be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in 1887, the Reverend Father Millard, a Roman Catholic clergyman, was convicted of abetment of bigamy, and sentenced to imprisonment by the Madras High Court, because he had solemnised the marriage of a Roman Catholic convert woman, who had been deserted by her husband, although the said marriage was in strict accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in such cases, which have been in force among the Roman Catholic community in India for over 300 years, and in accordance with which numerous such marriages have been solemnised throughout the country, both before and after the establishment of British rule, and their legality never previously questioned; whether the Secretary of State for India will consider the desirability of directing the Government of India to pass a short Act embodying the original intentions of the Legislature in 1866, by which the legality of all such marriages may be clearly established with retrospective effect, and so that Roman Catholic clergymen in India may no longer run the risk of tine or imprisonment for performing their duty; and whether the Secretary of State for India will cause to be laid upon the Table all Correspondence connected with the above subject?

Father Millard was convicted because he solemnised a marriage between a man and a woman the latter of whom by the law of the land was still the wife of another man. No steps were taken, as they might have been, under the Native Converts Marriage Dissolution Act of 1866, to annul the first marriage before performing the second. The Indian Christian Marriage Law has recently on two occasions been very carefully revised by Acts II. of 1881 and II. of 1892, of the Governor General's Council; and it seems unnecessary to take any further action in the matter. The Secretary of State has no Correspondence on the subject. The case is reported at page 218 of the Madras Law Reports, Volume X.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman is it to be understood that the only reason why this Roman Catholic priest was convicted of the offence of marrying the couple was the fact that necessary precautions had not been taken with regard to the former marriage?

The hon. Member must draw what inferences he pleases from the first part of my answer. I merely state the facts.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed that a man named Bird, representing himself to be a tax gatherer for Brixton, entered the dwelling house, No. 10, Zenoria Street, East Dulwich, and refused to give his name or that of his fellow visitor, and distrained for taxes which he had never asked the landlord for; if the said Bird is as he represented a tax gatherer; and if there is any redress for the illegal distraint?

Mr. Bird is the collector of taxes for the district. The taxes are payable on or before 1st January, and it is the duty of the collector to recover payment of them on the premises assessed. Collectors of taxes are not bound to apply to landlords, and as the tenant of the house in question failed to pay on the repeated demands of the collector, the latter had no alternative but to enforce payment. As to the alleged refusal of Mr. Bird to give his name, Mr. Bird on entering the premises handed his warrant to the tenant, and called attention to his name which was inserted therein. Mr. Bird is appointed by the Local Commissioners, and is not an officer of the Inland Revenue Department. Any complaint as to his conduct should be made to the Local Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any proposals for the abolition of the Kishnaghur State College have been made by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; whether he is aware that, both on the occasion of the foundation of the College and again in 1874–6, large sums of money were subscribed by the Maharajah of Nuddea and other residents in the district for the endowment of the College, and that these sums of money were made over to the Government on the faith that the district would permanently enjoy the advantage of a first-grade State College; and whether the Government of Bengal will be instructed to take no irrevocable step in the matter until it has been submitted to the judgment of the Secretary of State in Council.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Education Commission, the Local Municipality was asked to take over the management of the Kishnaghur College, with a grant in aid; but refused the offer. It is, however, still hoped that the transfer of the College to local management may be effected, and it would be premature to contemplate the abolition of the College. The Government accepted an endowment of Rs. 40,000 raised by public subscription for the support of a B.A. class. In the event of the closing of the class, it would be necessary for the Government to deal with the question of the endowment. The subject is receiving very careful consideration in India; and the Secretary of State sees no reason for issuing any special instructions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Petitions of British shipowners representing about 5,000,000 tons of shipping, and forming a very large proportion of the shipping using the Suez Canal, in which the shipowners strongly protest against the Provisional Regulations and the proposed authorisation of the passage of tank steamers laden with petroleum on the Canal by reason of its climatic and other exceptional conditions, and in view of the fact that the shipowners' protests have been sustained to the fullest in the Report of the eminent petroleum authorities, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, he will instruct the Government Directors on the Board of the Suez Canal to urge as Directors upon the Suez Canal Company, that the whole question shall be re-considered with the technical assistance of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, with the object of securing the protection of navigation in the Suez Canal under Rules so framed that the flags of all nations shall receive equal treatment?

The Report of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood has been placed before the Board of Directors of the Suez Canal Company, and it does not appear to be necessary to address further instructions to the British Directors on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secre- tary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the police rights of Egypt in regard to bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports situate in or along and adjacent to the Suez Canal, are limited to the sale of petroleum?

The nature and extent of the police rights or Egypt is a subject over which Her Majesty's Government has no control, and on which it is unable to express any opinion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the position established by Her Majesty's Government that the Suez Canal Company cannot make Regulations or bye-laws in excess of the powers given under its concession, and the further fact established by Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian Government is free to enact, under its police rights, regulations in relation to petroleum, will he inform the House what course is left to shipowners in the event of a conflict between the Regulations of the Suez Canal Company and the Police Laws of Egypt in the matter of bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports of Egypt situate in, along, and adjacent to the Canal?

The question is a purely hypothetical one, and, in any event, it is not one for Her Majesty's Government to determine.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing, as stated by him, that the Provisional Regulations of the Suez Canal Company claim for the first time to make compulsory what has hitherto been optional, Her Majesty's Government will advise the Suez Canal Company to withhold the Provisional Regulations, pending the decision of the Egyptian Courts as to the matter of the legality or illegality of the Provisional Regulations now submitted for the decision of the International Courts of Egypt?

On Tuesday last I replied to an almost identical question put to me by the hon. Member for North Mayo (Mr. Crilly), and I have nothing to add to the answer which I then gave.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the great inconvenience the inhabitants of the town of Hacketstown and the populous districts surrounding suffer for want of a telegraph office; whether he is aware that Hacketstown has fourteen fairs in the year, and an important weekly market, and that a delivery fee of two shillings is charged for a telegram from the nearest office at Kiltegan, a distance of three miles; and whether, under these circumstances, and as Hacketstown has already good post office accommodation, and as the cost of laying a wire between Kiltegan and Hacketstown cannot be much, he will have telegraph communication established at Hacketstown?

The question of an extension to Hacketstown was under consideration in 1883, and renewed inquiries on the subject have only recently been made. It does not appear, however, that there is any prospect of a telegraph office at that place being remunerative, and the Department is, therefore, not in a position to make the extension, except under guarantee. The amount of the guarantee required could be ascertained, and communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of giving more favourable consideration to the case of the boatmen, who are termed by him as the "first line of defence of Her Majesty's Revenue"; whether he is aware that the boatmen desired the abolition of classification on condition that their yearly increment of £1 be raised to £2 10s.; whether that will be conceded them now, or will they be placed on the same footing as boy clerks as regards increment; and is he aware that, before the decision to abolish the two classes, a boatman could rise to the maximum of £80 in seventeen years, whereas under the present régime it will take twenty-five years?

The Customs' boatmen, as well as all other branches of the Service, deserve and receive every consideration. The Board of Customs are carrying out the provisions of the Treasury Minute with strict impartiality. With regard to the remainder of the hon. Member's question, certain recommendations have just been received from the Board of Customs, which there has not yet been time to consider.

I beg to ask the Attorney General will he explain on what grounds he has sanctioned a scheme for the sale of Emmanuel Hospital, Westminster, although the Charity Commissioners had refused their sanction and the London County Council had also declared against the sale; and will Parliament have any opportunity of pronouncing a judgment upon this proposal to destroy an ancient building and to build over an open site in a crowded quarter of the Metropolis?

After most carefully considering the whole of the evidence brought before me and given at the local inquiry, and personally inspecting Emmanuel Hospital, I came to the conclusion that in the interests of the Charity it was not possible to continue to hold the existing building. As the law at present stands Parliament will not have any opportunity of pronouncing a judgment upon the proposal, but I must not be understood to assent to the criticism on the proposal conveyed in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question. I should also like to mention that the whole matter is again under the consideration of Mr. Justice Chitty, before whom the proper parties were represented, and he has reserved his judgment.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Scotch Universities' Commissioners have yet presented to Her Majesty their Report relating to the subject of Theological Tests in the Scotch Universities, which it is understood was settled by them some time ago; and, if so, when that Report will be printed and circulated?

The Commissioners have not yet presented their Report on this subject to Her Majesty, and it is understood that the terms have not yet been finally settled by them.

May I ask the First Lord whether, if it is presented within the next fortnight or so, he will have it printed and distributed at once?

I am not sure that it will not have to be laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper?

It is, as I understand, a Report to be presented to Her Majesty.

Then I will inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what are the most recent reports of the condition of John Honihan, of Derry, Donoughmore, County Cork, at present undergoing imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison, who was recently seriously injured; and whether, in view of the mitigating circumstances attending his conviction, an early release will be recommended?

The General Prisons Board for Ireland report that the convict referred to sustained a compound fracture of the bones of his left leg. The surgeon of the Prison states that the case is making satisfactory progress. The Lord Lieutenant has already had the conviction of this man before him on Memorial. His Excellency found that there were no mitigating circumstances in the case, and decided that the law must take its course.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will move to discharge Order No. 24, Public Elementary Schools Bill, to-day in view of the opposition to that measure; and without expressing any personal opinion as to the exemption of schools from rating I would ask him whether the restrictions on the use of schools for meetings contained in the Bill are not greater than those which now exist, so that the Bill must be strongly opposed on this side of the House?

Of course I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill in answer to a question; but I may express my dissent from the view of the hon. Gentleman that the second part of the Bill will not confer a great advantage upon those who desire to hold meetings in schools. With regard to the Bill generally, I am afraid that it is now impossible to find time to pass it, as opposition has been promised from many quarters, and not alone from the other side of the House. In these circumstances, although with very great reluctance indeed, I am forced to come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to press it through during the remainder of the present Session.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) intended to be here, and I know that it would have been his object to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and to ask his consideration of the propriety of doing at this stage of public business that which has often been done in former Parliaments and former Sessions—namely, to take on the Saturday the last stage of the Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bill could then be finished on Saturday next. I have looked carefully through this long list of Bills upon the Paper, and, with one or two exceptions which I will immediately name, I believe every one of these Bills could be disposed of either to-day, Friday, or Saturday. We all know that when a Bill is not opposed, and when there has been no Amendment requiring the Report stage, the consent of the House is very readily given to the Third Reading. I believe, with the exception of No. 23, which is a Money Bill (the Mauritius Loan Guarantee), about which there will be no difficulty, and which requires all the stages to be taken, that all the Bills upon this Paper could be disposed of by Saturday next; and this would, of course, relieve hon. Members, and allow them practically to go where they are much more wanted than they will be here. That applies equally to both sides. The right hon. Gentleman has very fairly said that he will take off the Paper No. 24 (the Public Elementary Schools Bill), and I imagine that for the same reason he will be willing to take off No. 9 (Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill). I have never read the Bill, but the mere title of it shows that it is an Ecclesiastical Bill, and is, therefore, not an easy Bill to pass at any time, but especially now. There is also the East India Officers Bill; and the expression of opinion made on the other side of the House yesterday ought, I think, to convince the right hon. Gentleman that that Bill ought not to be proceeded with at present. If these three Bills disappear from the Government list, I can see nothing upon that list that might not be entirely disposed of in the present week. I am aware that a Saturday Sitting involves a certain amount of inconvenience; but according to my calculations of the list, there would, in addition to the Appropriation Bill, be only one Bill that would have to be taken on Saturday, and it is unopposed. As to the Indian Budget, an arrangement might be made whereby it could be taken next week if that were considered desirable. I venture to suggest these things to the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. Of course, it is not necessary for him to give notice until to-morrow of the Saturday Sitting, but he might consider the propriety of it between now and to-morrow.

Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware, with regard to Order No. 9 (Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill), that the opposition is not entirely confined to this side of the House?

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be right to postpone the discussion of the Indian Budget to a period when, according to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, all the Members of the House, or very nearly all of them, would have gone to their constituencies?

In reply to my hon. Friend, no doubt, if the Indian Budget were taken next week, my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would have to address a very empty House, but I do not think that that is peculiar to this Session; for my recollection of previous Debates on Indian Budgets is that, however eloquent the speaker addressing the House may be, the audience, though select in point of quality, is very small in point of quantity. With regard to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should have a Saturday Sitting, I should certainly have no objection to that course if anything could be gained by it, but I should be unwilling to take it if nothing is to be gained by it, because it compels Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House and a sufficient number of Members to be here to make a quorum. Now the House must sit next week, as there must be Business from the Lords; and it is impossible that we can adjourn until the early part of next week. I therefore do not think that anything will be gained by having a Saturday Sitting. I do not mean that this must necessarily be a final answer, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it unsatisfactory I shall be prepared to give him a final answer to-morrow.

I wish to say a single word in reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and from my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt). To-morrow, I hope, we shall have some further information on the subject of the Bills that are to be proceeded with. On the question of the Saturday Sitting, undoubtedly we thought that for the sake of the greater security of expediting Public Business it might be wise; but if the right hon. Gentleman sees his way quite clearly without it, it is not our duty to endeavour to force it upon him or upon the House. I do hope that when we have further information about the Bills we shall likewise have further information on the subject of the day of the Dissolu- tion. The arrangements of everyone, or of those who intend, or who have youth and vigour sufficient, to submit themselves anew to the constituencies, are to a considerable extent dependent upon a knowledge of the day; and it undoubtedly would be a matter of very great and real convenience, with a view to fixing a number of necessary arrangements, if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some further light upon that subject to-morrow. I am quite in the hope that he will do so. I believe that he has had some information conveyed to him to-day on the part of the London trades with respect to a question which was raised here a few days ago as to the day of polling, and if he has had that information I have no doubt it will receive from the right hon. Gentleman his best attention. I am certainly in the hope that to-morrow we shall be put in a tolerably clear position as to the expectations of the Government for the final winding up of the Business and the discharge of the necessary preliminaries before the Dissolution takes place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that Order No. 9 will not be taken this evening?

It will not be taken this evening.

I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether official notice has been issued by the Post Office Authorities with regard to the acceptance of polling cards with the name of the voter only written on them at the halfpenny rate?

Official notice has been issued.

I understand it would be more convenient that the Bill should be recommitted.

If there are any Amendments to be made in the body of the Bill, shall we have to take the body of the Bill first, or the new clauses first and the body of the Bill afterwards?

The Bill being re-committed, generally the procedure will be the same as ordinarily in Committee. We shall have to go through the clauses as they stand before taking the new clauses.

I think the most convenient way will be for me to move the rejection of this clause in order to refer to the statement made yesterday by the Chief Secretary. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and upon the Debate which then took place my right hon. Friend suggested that he saw a Way of meeting the difficulty that the hon. Member for West Belfast felt in agreeing to this clause. The proposal he made to the Committee was to the effect that, the hon. Member for West Belfast having suggested that the Christian Brothers were prepared to accept a form of Conscience Clause, he was on his part ready to make a recommendation to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to reconsider the rule which prevents the Christian Brothers becoming a portion of the national system of education in Ireland. When that statement was made by my right hon. Friend I felt constrained to say that I could not give my consent to it, and that I must, on behalf of myself and my friends, hold myself and them perfectly free as to any future action we may feel compelled to take upon this suggested alteration of the rule of the National Board. That action had been commented upon in a way that I think is somewhat unfair both to myself and to my hon. Friends. It has been suggested in some important quarters in the Press that we who were present here yesterday had adopted an attitude that differed more or less materially from the attitude adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), on the First and Second Reading of the Bill. That I entirely contest. The view which was expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) appears to me to be precisely that expressed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone on the First and Second Reading of this Bill. I venture to remind the Committee of the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He said, speaking on the First Reading—

"The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, although this system of national education was a mixed system, yet by the consent alike of Protestant and of Catholic it was rapidly becoming denominational. I challenge the fact itself, and I challenge the description of the fact";

and then he went on to say—

"I am agreeably surprised that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have taken a little bit of everybody's advice, and the only persons left out in the cold are the Christian Brothers. The answer to that is, let them do as the monastery schools do and the convents do, and they will come under the national grant at once; but so long as they insist upon a Catholic atmosphere in the schools, they cannot expect the rules of the National Board upon which this system is founded to be broken down to suit them."

Then, upon the Second Reading of the measure, my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone alluded to this peculiar aspect of the case, and drew attention to some evidence given by the Director of the Christian Brothers' Schools before the Commission of 1867, not only with regard to the general character of Catholic denominational education, but also with regard to the character of the emblems. Then he went on to say—

"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 Church 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 East Tyrone (Mr. Reynolds) said he objected to touch the question of denominational teaching; but that if it were touched at all, it should be dealt with as a new principle, and not by introducing the thin end of the wedge. It seems to me that his remarks were founded on the same principle as those of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and I would say that I and my hon. Friends draw a very strong distinction between denominational teaching and the system of mixed education. I admit absolutely and frankly that the principle of mixed education in Ireland has been very seriously invaded not only by Members of the Roman Catholic Church, but by members of the Episcopalian and other Churches. The principle that now exists in Ireland is that of mixed and unmixed education, but denominational teaching is excluded from all the schools under the Board. A member of the Board stated before a Royal Commission in 1870 that the intention of the founders of the system was to prevent any of the children going to schools under the Board from being subjected to any religious teaching to which their parents could object, and he went on to state that that principle was carried into effect by positive and absolute rules. Now, the right hon. Gentleman yesterday said he was willing to recommend to or to lay before the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland a fresh form of Conscience Clause. I have since communicated with many gentlemen who would be in a position to form an opinion on this subject, and I have asked them to let me have their views with regard to it. They have done so; and their view is that any alteration of the Conscience Clause which exists at the present time is objectionable, and would be a departure from the principle of this Bill. That being so, it is impossible for me to assent to the proposition of my right hon. Friend. I had no opportunity yesterday, nor shall I have to-day, of taking the opinion of the House upon the question, so I simply state that the proposal is one which, so far as I can ascertain, is objectionable to those who are best fitted to speak with authority on the subject of education in that portion of Ireland which I represent. I wish to point out that the form in which the right hon. Gentleman made the proposal—I refer to the report of it in the Times—has led intelligent and competent authorities to entertain a dislike to it. I would here again refer to the evidence given by the member of the Education Board in Ireland before the Commission in 1870. When asked—

"Are the emblems in the schools such as would be objectionable to Protestants?"

his reply was "Yes, I think so." Now, having regard to the various objections which the Christian Brothers have had to coming under the system of the National Education Board in Ireland, it may be imagined that the proposal made yesterday by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) went further than it really did. I will read what the Pall Mall Gazette says upon the subject—

"The schools of the Christian Brothers, Mr. Jackson agrees, shall participate in the additional grants now to be made. Some form of Conscience Clause is to be introduced, but the Catholic emblems are not to be removed, nor of course is Catholic religious instruction during hours not devoted to secular teaching to be interfered with."

It goes on to say—

"And thus it remains true to say that every glass of whisky drunk during the Belfast Convention will contribute something to the maintenance of Catholic emblems in the schools of the Christian Brothers."

Now, I do not think that the words of my hon. Friend bear that meaning; but if the interpretation given to them by such an important organ—at all events, in Radical circles—as the Pall Mall Gazette is a true one, and they mean something very different from what my right hon. Friend intended, it can be understood that I and my hon. Friends are anxious to have a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the real extent of the offer he made yesterday, and which was accepted by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). This is a matter of very great importance, upon which I and my hon. Friends have the strongest possible opinions, and I trust, therefore, it will not be considered that I have unduly taken up the time of the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, is a large shareholder in the Pall Mall Gazette, has certainly advertised that paper uncommonly well in the House of Commons. The leading article he has quoted appears, to a certain extent, to express triumph over some of the Ulster Members. As for the statement that

"Every glass of whisky drunk during the Belfast Convention will contribute something to the maintenance of Catholic emblems in the schools of the Christian Brothers,"

no doubt it is true in a sense, as it would also be true that every glass drunk would help to maintain other schools in Ireland, or that every glass drunk at a meeting held for the overthrow of the British Government would tend to the support of the British Army and Navy. Now, what is the present position of affairs in the towns of Ireland? The boys of the schools are getting no help whatever from the State, simply because the Christian Brothers only receive assistance from the Science and Art Department, which is very small and inconsiderable. I cannot understand why Protestants in the North of Ireland should care so much about the education of Catholics in other parts of Ireland. I would point out that the Conscience Clause suggested by the Chief Secretary will thoroughly protect all Protestants. It appears to me that the hon. Member for South Antrim has referred to the article in the Pall Mall Gazette merely in order to show that his Party are not beaten. But we do not consider his Party at all; we only want to get a share of taxation for the education of boys in Ireland. We believed that the result of the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be that the Christian Brothers would get a fair share of the fee grant, and it was upon that understanding that we withdrew our opposition to the Bill. On the whole, I think it is a fair and straightforward arrangement, and the article read by the hon. Member ought not to interfere with it.

The hon. Member for South Antrim made a speech with the object of getting a declaration from the Chief Secretary, and the discussion ought to be confined to that.

The question at issue yesterday was whether schools should be included in the Bill unless they were declared by the State to be inefficient. I withdrew my Amendment and agreed to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for South Antrim, on no better plea than some racy and humorous remarks in an article in an evening newspaper, invites the House to reopen the question. I trust that the House will be satisfied with the full Debate which has taken place with regard to it, and not agree to go over the same ground again. Had the schools of the Christian Brothers been excluded from the Bill, it must have proved abortive in the towns and cities of Ireland, as it could never have been carried into effect. As to the form of the Conscience Clause, I would point out that that which is enforced in the primary schools is one which was devised by the Board itself, and that it has never received the sanction of Parliament. It is one also that has been constantly objected to, and twenty years ago it was condemned by a Royal Commission consisting equally of Protestants and Catholics. I challenged hon. Members yesterday to say in what respect the Conscience Clause under which the schools of the Christian Brothers work differs from the Conscience Clause enforced in the primary schools of England and Scotland. There was no answer. It is substantially the same. We desire not only that the Christian Brothers' schools, but that the schools of the Church Education Society and other Protestant voluntary schools in Ireland should benefit by the Bill. There was no suggestion to override the rules of the National Board, or that any schools should be brought under the Bill unless they complied with those rules. The suggestion made yesterday was that it should be referred to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider a revision of their rules, so that they may be better applied to the primary system of education in Ireland. The posi- tion taken up by the hon. Member for South Antrim was that the Commissioners should not be allowed to consider the revision of their own rules. But surely you would have established a new state of things. Under the Bill as it stood you would have had neither free nor compulsory education. The parents could not have been fined if they sent their children to the Christian Brothers' schools, and the managers of those schools could not be compelled to receive them without payment. Therefore, I say that the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Antrim is not entitled to serious consideration.

The hon. Member who has just sat down states that the Conscience Clause is an absolute security. I agree with him, and, therefore, I ask what is the necessity for the clause relating to the religious objection of parents to send their children to a school? If the Conscience Clause is an absolute protection, why is anything more required? The insertion of this provision is an admission of the principle that it is not a protection, and opens the door to the argument that there must be a Board School in every English parish, and the effect of them in Ireland may be to do away with compulsory education.

The hon. Member for South Antrim has quoted a newspaper article, but anyone who heard the statement I made yesterday must know that it could not be interpreted as it has been interpreted in that article. The question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was as to the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Act of 1878, which he said the Christian Brothers preferred to the clause in the rules and regulations of the Education Board. The question I was asked was whether I would consent to refer to the National Education Commissioners whether that clause might be substituted in the rules and regulations of the Commissioners in place of the clause which now exists. I tried to clearly express my opinion, and I believe my actual words were, "I decline to make any recommendation to the Education Commissioners." I still hold that opinion, and I say that the proposal made to me was one that I could not reasonably resist. I shall not discuss the question as to whether or in what respect the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 differs from the Conscience Clause in the rules and regulations of the Commissioners, because I do not desire to express any opinion upon the relative merits of these two clauses. The simple question was that certain schools in Ireland which objected to the Conscience Clause in the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners were willing, and in fact were working under the clause which has been prepared by Parliament, and embodied in the Act of 1878. I thought, and think still, that the proposal was not in itself unreasonable, and I certainly did assent to the question being referred to the National Education Commissioners to say whether they were able to accept that clause in lieu of that included in the rules and regulations. And, as was stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), of course no grants will be made to either the Christian Brothers' Schools or to the Church Educational Schools, or to any of the other schools, without conforming to the rules and regulations of the Education Commissioners. I must say that I consider the interpretation which has been given one entirely unwarranted by anything I said, and I hope, after this expression of opinion, my hon. Friend will feel that there is no justification for the construction which has been put upon it.

I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim in reference to this concession, which I quite understand my right hon. Friend gave, with the object, perhaps, among others, of ensuring that this valuable measure should not be lost. While joining in the protest, I fully recognise that, and I am sure the House will agree with the wish that the Bill which will undoubtedly confer great benefits on Ireland should pass. My right hon. Friend will fully understand the position in which we are placed. We are the only Members present representing the Ulster constituencies, and those constituencies feel deeply on this question. From the first, one of the points they have insisted on is the one now in question. I have received this resolution from the Free Education Committee—

"The Committee desire to express their unshaken adherence to the Conscience Clause as at present enforced in National Schools."

Thus I am only performing my duty in saying we regret that the right hon. Gentleman has in any way relaxed that rule. As I understand, my right hon. Friend has spoken of referring one matter only to the Commissioners for consideration—namely, the question of substituting the Conscience Clause in the Intermediate Act for the Conscience Clause at present enforced in the national schools. I did not hear anything further in his speech. He said that he was only going to refer that matter to them, and thus he cannot be misunderstood as pressing on the Board a course of action. While I think the explanation of my right hon. Friend has fully disproved the unfortunate construction which certain newspapers have placed upon his statement, my right hon. Friend will recognise that my hon. Friend and I are only representing the views of the Protestant community of Ireland in saying that we do object to any relaxation of the rules. We cannot, however, push that objection to the length of in any way stopping a measure which will, I have no doubt, not only confer great benefits upon Ireland, but also great credit on the right hon. Gentleman.

I am afraid that I am partly responsible for the inconvenience to which my hon. Friend, or, rather, the other Representatives from Ulster, have been placed by not being able to be present here at the discussion of a measure in which they take great interest. My hon. Friends will recognise that the course of Business during the present week has been difficult to manage so as to suit the convenience of everybody, and that really the Government bad no choice but to take the Bill on the day we did take it. I had less reluctance in coming to that arrangement, as I am convinced that in reality no question has been raised either yesterday or today which can legitimately arouse the susceptibilities of any section of the Protestant population of Ireland. What my right hon. Friend has done is to promise that the National Board of Education should consider two alternatives to the Conscience Clause. I do not wish, of course, to express an opinion upon this clause, but I think I may say that no one has contended that the Conscience Clause embodied by the Act of 1878—a Conscience Clause accepted by all the sections of Irish opinion at that time, and it never has been criticised, so far as I know, by any body of Irish opinion since—nobody will, I think, pretend to contend that that Conscience Clause is less stringent in its character or less capable of affording adequate protection to all children, to whatever denomination they may belong, in Ulster or any other part of Ireland. The suggestion has been made that my right hon. Friend went much further than that—that he proceeded not merely to suggest the consideration of two alternatives to the Conscience Clause, but that he also desired to have the other rules and regulations of the Board of Education overhauled with a view to modifying the present system by which education is regulated in Ireland; and suggestions have been made that my right hon. Friend desired either directly or indirectly to open vexed and most controversial questions. That is not a legitimate conclusion to anything my right hon. Friend said; it does not express either the views or intentions of the Government, and that being so, I hope my two hon. Friends, who are the only Representatives of Ulster present, will feel that we have not in any way attempted to carry into this Bill any question to which particular objection can be taken by any section of Protestant opinion in Ulster or any other part of Ireland.

I only wish to add my deliberate opinion that any arrangement which may be made which does not result in the admission of the voluntary schools will render this Act, so far as compulsion is concerned, a dead letter.

I admit that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury has done good, to my mind, and while recognising that my right hon. Friend has made a statement which it would be disrespectful not to accept, I regret myself that any relaxation was made.

In reference to this clause I would point out that if no school suitable for the education of children exist in a neighbourhood, it is only necessary to make representations to the Education Department, and a School Board district can be formed. It seems to me these words are really unnecessary. If you say that no employer shall compel a child to attend a school to which the parent objects, the meaning is that an employer can compel a child to attend school if the parent does not object. That, however, is not the case. An employer cannot, either under the Factory Act or under this Bill, compel a child to attend school. I consider the words are unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.

The words proposed to be left out were yesterday suggested from the opposite side of the House, and they met with very general support. I do not myself apprehend the disastrous consequences which my hon. Friend assumes. I submit to the Committee that the Amendment should not be accepted.

Yesterday I opposed the insertion of these words, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that neither the Government nor the Front Opposition Bench knew exactly what the positions of the employers and half-timers were under the Factory Act and under this Bill. My advice was not taken, and I discovered almost immediately after the decision that the view I took that Irish employers were guilty of no action peculiar to themselves was perfectly correct. They have done precisely what is being done in England, and in Scotland, at the present moment, and has been done for some years—that is, they make it a condition of the employment of children as half-timers that they shall go to a particular school. That is all that has been done in Ulster, and that is what is going on at the present moment in England. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) put a question to the Vice President of the Council for Education (Sir William Hart Dyke) to the following effect:—

"Whether he is aware that in the town and district of Rochdale, when children are taken from a Board School for employment as half-timers, it is frequently the practice of their employers to insist that the children should be taken from the school preferred by the parents and sent to some other school selected by the employer, and most commonly of a denominational character; and whether parents who send their children into employment as half-timers thereby lose the right to the free choice of a school; and, if not, whether he can take any means to prevent the inaction of this right in Rochdale and the neighbourhood?"

The Vice President replied—

"So far as I am aware, no complaint of the kind suggested has reached the Department, and I do not know of any practice in the matter calling for interference. It is obvious that a parent's right to select a school cannot be affected by the fact that a child attends as a half-timer, but it may be the case that a school is sometimes maintained in connection with a factory in which a child is at work, and the child is expected to attend that school as a matter of convenience."

What the Vice President said with regard to England is precisely the operation of the law in Ireland. Nor are there any means in Ireland more than in England which can deprive the parent of the right to select a school for the education of his child. What happens is this—that in Ireland, as in England, the employer says: "If your child is to be employed in my factory or mill as a half-timer, then I make it a condition of employment that he or she should go to a certain school"; and this is not only for the convenience of the child, but also for the benefit of its education. It is convenient that the children who are half-timers in a particular factory should go to the half-time school, where every arrangement is made for their convenience and for the benefit of their education. What did the Committee do yesterday? While permitting in England a system which enables the employers to make it a condition of employment that the child should go to a particular school, you decided to penalise the Irish employer if he should observe that procedure. I think the Committee were in a great hurry, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is taking a very light view of the effect of the clause. Either it has no effect, and so is absolutely unnecessary, or else it will have some effect upon the employer in Ulster and in other parts of Ireland and does make this a condition of the employment of half-timers. If that is so, it is an unjust interference with the conditions an employer ought to be able to impose, and the words, therefore, ought not to be introduced into the clause. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

No doubt the Committee were in a hurry at half-past five, but at the hour at which these words were adopted they were not in a hurry. The question was debated at leisure by the hon. Member and others, and the Committee, after hearing all that was said on both sides by Gentlemen who were under no obligation to consult their sentiments, divided upon the question, and in the Division 106 Members of all parties voted for the insertion of the words, and ten Members voted against it. Of the ten Members, we have learned that four got into the wrong Lobby. Therefore, it really was a Division of 110 against six. That having been the state of opinion in the House of Commons, after the simple question had been clearly explained, it argues hardihood on the part of the hon. Gentleman to raise the question again to-day. The abstract reasoning of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) has little to do with the case. The hon. Member is a fine example of the Englishman who knows more about Ireland than the men who have lived there all their life. He considers his abstract reasoning is superior to their knowledge of the actual conditions of life; but I submit that knowledge of the actual conditions of life is more important than the abstract reasoning of the hon. Member for Stockport. I endorse what I said yesterday, upon the authority of a gentleman who was formerly President of the National Teachers' Association, and upon the authority of a gentleman responsibly connected with education, that in many parts of Ulster the employers do compel Catholic children in their employment on pain of dismissal to go to a school taught by Protestant teachers, although there is a Catholic school taught by a teacher available. I call that an outrage on fair play; I call it an unjustifiable assault on conscience; I call it tyranny. The hon. Member yesterday challenged me to give particulars. I did not wish to give the names, nor will I now. But since yesterday I have had telegrams assuring me upon the authority of well-known gentlemen that there is an important firm in Belfast which deducts school fees from the wages of children who attend the Catholic school. If a child, Catholic or Protestant, attends the Protestant school there is no deduction of school fees; and further, the firm pays the Protestant teacher £30 per year, and the Catholic teacher nothing. That is the sort of thing going on. I do not refer to Belfast employers. The words I proposed embrace employers all over Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic; and if I were a Magistrate, and a Catholic employer were brought before me for compelling a Protestant child to go to a Catholic school or deducting school fees from it because it went to a Protestant school, nobody would be more ready than I would to inflict a penalty. All I ask for is fair play and no allowance of tyranny by any man, whether Catholic or Protestant. I hope hon. Members will not delay the House much longer on a subject which provoked, I think, the most overwhelming Division I have known in my time.

I move to leave out the word "wilfully," in line 21. If the word remained in it would be necessary to prove that the employer wilfully employed a child which was under age. If the word were omitted no employer would then take in his employ a child under age.

I beg to move, in line 7, to insert the word "and" after "metropolis."

According to the first provision of the Schedule, the grant is to be applied in augmenting by twenty per cent. the existing rate of salaries of class teachers and of salaries of assistant teachers, and by three shillings and sixpence the capitation grant to schools receiving such grants and not having teachers paid by class salaries. Now, this augmented capitation grant is the amount to be paid chiefly to convent school teachers in order to render their treatment equivalent to that which the ordinary national teachers receive by the addition of twenty per cent. to their salaries. I am sensible that it would be very difficult to urge a case for a larger grant to the convent schools out of this particular sum of £210,000 a year; but I desire to most seriously represent to the right hon. Gentleman the unequal position of the convent schools of Ireland in comparison with the national schools. By the most conclusive test, that of inspection and examination, these convent schools are acknowledged to be the most efficient schools in Ireland. I lately cited some figures from the last annual Report of the Commissioners, which showed that the percentage of results in the convent infant schools was three per cent. better than that of the national schools, and that in the higher class the percentages were correspondingly better, until in the highest classes the percentage was sixteen per cent. better than in the other schools. The teachers in the convent schools are not classified, and they are therefore paid by a capitation grant which is for ordinary merit ten shillings per head per annum, and for special merit twelve shillings, the result being that their salaries are forty-five per cent. lower than the corresponding salaries paid to the national school teachers for work that is not so good. Now, Sir, by this Schedule you increase by twenty per cent. the existing rate of class salaries of teachers and of the salaries of assistant teachers, and you give an increase of the capitation grant, which I admit is slightly larger than that given by salaries. How does the case now stand? As I have said, the existing capitation giant for the convent schools is forty-five per cent. less than the present salaries of the national teachers, and therefore, in order to put the teachers in the convent schools on an equal footing with those in the national schools, you have first to increase the existing grant by forty-five per cent. and then to increase that by twenty per cent. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that I have put the case fairly and accurately as to facts, and I trust he will take care, although this matter may in his judgment be outside the purview of the Bill, that it does not escape the attention of the Education Board.

I should like to say a word on behalf of the national teachers in Ireland. We who support them, not as against the Sisters or Brothers, but as the servants of the people, are placed in an invidious position by the arguments of the hon. Member. The hon. Member ought to recognise that the convent schools have the choice of children. For the most part their scholars are children belonging to the superior class of artisans and shopkeepers, and their attendance at school is regular; whereas the national schools have difficulties of climate, of poverty, and of the distances of the homes of the children from school. They are also handicapped in the matter of having to be trained and to have some experience before they get their certificates. These difficulties have been recognised by the hon. Member in the past. I have heard him in this House descant upon the work of these national teachers, and compare them favourably with any body of teachers in the British Empire. But to-day he takes up the cause of the Sisters against them. I feel on somewhat delicate ground in referring to these Sisters; but let me say at once that I respect both them and their work. These Sisters, however, are simply acting teachers. They go through no course of training, but as teachers they have splendid opportunities for earning handsome grants. Then they live in communities; they do not live in the world. But the teachers belonging to the national schools live in the world, and encounter pecuniary difficulties unknown to the Sisters; and until the Sisters are placed on an equality with the national teachers as regards certificates and some other matters, I am not prepared to agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast on the question of their pay, although I am told by the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. Timothy Healy) that my seat has been provided for, and that I shall not again have the opportunity of standing up for the national teachers in this House. If, however, this House does not afford me that opportunity, there are other means one can utilise; and I shall, whenever this matter is debated, take up my stand on behalf of the national teachers, and if comparisons have to be instituted I shall undertake to prove that the services of these teachers deserve more than the recognition accorded them in this Schedule I deprecate the tone which has been imported into this Debate by the hon. Member for West Belfast. We hoped to have passed this Bill without any burning question being raised with regard to Sisters or lay teachers, with regard to monks or national male teachers. I would almost say it is unworthy of the hon. Member to raise these distinctions, and to thereby excite a considerable amount of ill-feeling in Ireland.

I think, Sir, my action in this House has shown whether or not I respect the national teachers. I am not against them, as the hon. Member seems to imply. I shall be happy to assist them to obtain further benefits, and I do not admit that any argument I have advanced in the interest of other schools prejudices in any degree the provision as to national teachers. The course of progress on this Bill has shown where the friends of the national teachers are. I think I may claim that by my exertions yesterday I saved this Bill; and I think I have shown for many years that I am one of the foremost, and perhaps one of the most judicious, friends of the national teachers in this House.

No doubt the examination of the convent schools shows a satisfactory state of things; but it must be borne in mind, in justice to the other schools with which a comparison has been made, that the convent schools have the advantage of more regular and continuous attendance on the part of their scholars. That unquestionably makes a great deal of difference with regard to the results. It should also be recollected that the convent schools may come under the classification if they like, and claim all the advantages given to the national schools. I think the tendency ought to be in that direction. As far as I understand, the hon. Member for West Belfast does not propose to move any Amendment, because he admits that, as regards this money with which we are now dealing, we have given as fair a proportion to the convent schools as to the others.

The Amendment I now have to propose relates to that part of the Schedule which fixes the length of service entitling an assis- tant teacher to a bonus. It is proposed that no assistant teacher of less than seven years' service shall be entitled to any bonus. Sir, this is not a question of service; it is a question of sharp necessity and mere subsistence. The assistant teacher in Ireland, although he may by hard study have passed his examination and reached the highest class, only receives the salary of the third class, and his whole average income is not more than £1 a week; while the female teacher in the same position only receives sixteen shillings a week. The right hon. Gentleman may think that these low salaries will have the effect of inducing them to become principals, but I would point out that there must always be a large number of assistant teachers in Ireland. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of not insisting upon this seven years' service as the qualification of the bonus of £9 to each male and £7 10s. to each female, because the effect of that will be to shut out from its benefits a large number of teachers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept my Amendment, because it involves a sum so trifling in comparison to the satisfaction which it would give to this humble but important body of public servants.

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. In addition to this bonus of £9 to each male teacher and £7 10s. to each female teacher, there is the additional salary of twenty per cent. to be paid under the first paragraph of this Schedule, and therefore the total increase is £16 10s. to the male teacher, and about £12 10s. to the female teacher. It is not necessary I should again go over the ground, and I do not think it is desirable to stereotype or encourage teachers to remain as assistant teachers. I think we should make such a difference between the salaries of the principal teachers and the assistant teachers as will induce the latter to do their best to qualify themselves as principals. I would point out that the addition we propose to make to the salary of the assistant teachers is considerable, considering their number. When I received a deputation of assistant teachers some time ago in Dublin they pressed upon me strongly that there should be some improvement made in their salaries. Well, I went carefully into the matter, and I came to the conclusion that some increase should be given them; but, as I have said, I do not want to remove any inducement that might urge them to qualify themselves as principal teachers, and we think seven years is not an unreasonable period to entitle them to receive the bonus, bearing in mind that these assistant teachers when they enter the service are young men. But I am really very anxious to give satisfaction to this class of teachers, and therefore I will agree to five years instead of seven. I think the hon. Member will consider that a reasonable concession.

I recognise the reasonableness of the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to agree to it.

If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way, having fixed five years for the present assistant teachers, to reduce the time to three years for future assistant teachers, I think it would be of great advantage. A large number of men and women are now being trained yearly, and as they come into the market the difficulty of assistant teachers becoming principals is naturally increased.

There are three thousand assistant teachers in Ireland, and only 176 of that number have reached the first class. These men and women suffer in a very peculiar sense in the matter of pay, and I will therefore propose that a bonus of £18 be given to each male assistant teacher and a bonus of £15 to each female assistant teacher of five years' standing in any class higher than the second class. Considering the small sum that would be required to make this concession, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make it.

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The concession I have made will benefit all those in the first class, and I think, too, that it will be found on examination that assistant teachers in the first class are only a short time before they become principals. It will be complicating matters very much to separate the different classes. The cost would not be great; but, at the same time, I think there is not sufficient justification for it, and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.

I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are cases in which the limit of the capitation grant to ten shillings will work great hardships. Although, generally speaking, the capitation grant should be sufficient to compensate for the loss of the school fees, yet there are cases when, owing to the good attendance at the school and the rate of fee paid, the teacher will lose money, even allowing for the increase of his salary under this Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that a large number of teachers will suffer injury, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should allow school managers the option of receiving the capitation grant in lieu of school fees.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care that education should be really free over the whole of the country, and that there should be no collection of fees.

I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman might make some concession in this matter.

I recognise that the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) does not press this very strongly; but, on looking at this matter, there are two considerations which ought to be borne in mind. But first let me say that I have had a careful examination made, and I think it would be very difficult to prove that, in any case, the teachers would absolutely lose. It has been asserted that such is the fact, on the assumption, which I think is a very large assumption, that all the children who attend school pay. But in this Bill the payment would be given on the average attendance, and thus, so far as the teacher is concerned, there would be no bad debts. At present it cannot be doubted that all the children do not pay, and allowances are very properly made in some cases. Under the Bill the teachers will get paid for every time a child attends. There is another consideration also by which the teachers will benefit, and that is from the increased average attendance at school. I am confident that the passing of this Bill, and application of compulsion and the freeing of the schools from fees, will increase the number of children in the schools, and that will materially tend to benefit the teachers. Taking all these considerations into account, it may be stated with great confidence that not only will no teacher suffer, but all the teachers will largely gain.

This is a new clause, which relates to matter which we have not before discussed, and I think it requires very careful revision. The original proposal was that the Local Authorities should appoint the School Attendance Committees; but according to this clause one-half are to be appointed by the Local Authorities and the other half by the Education Commissioners. I think it is desirable that one-half of the Committees should be persons connected with the management of schools, and having some experience and taking some interest in the matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is desirable.

In the same line occur the words "where practicable." There are plenty of school managers in Ireland, and I think it is desirable that these words should be omitted, so that there may be no excuse for leaving them out.

These words were put in because we were a little uncertain whether in some districts there might be so many persons available. For instance, suppose in some district where a Committee of ten was formed it was impossible to find five persons available as school managers, what would happen? I think the words do no harm, and they might be useful in preventing a deadlock under circumstances to which I have referred. They may afford some protection in the case of small districts.

Suppose, then, you say "where such persons are in the district."

"Where such persons are available."

Yes, that will meet the point.

These patrons and trustees who are mentioned in this sub-section may be people who do not live in the district or even in the country. There is no security that they would attend to the work of the Committee, and I would suggest, instead of the words used, the words "managers of schools in the place."

The patrons, as a rule, are energetic in their attention to the details of educational subjects, and many of them take a great interest in the management of schools. Much the same can be said of trustees. I have no doubt where a patron or trustee did not interest himself largely in the question of education he would not care to take part in the work of the School Attendance Committee. But I cannot conceive any legitimate reason why a patron, who is interested in the subject and attends to the management of a school on his estate, should be deprived of the right to sit on the Committee.

These words were put in because it was felt that in restricting the Committee to school managers there might be too severe a limitation. I would point out, however, that if the words were struck out it would not prevent such persons being appointed.

Suppose we leave out trustees.

Very well. Then the Amendment will read "managers or patrons of schools in that place."

With respect to the remainder of this sub-section, I have an objection which I think the right hon. Gentleman will share. It is proposed that the Local Authority shall make rules and regulations such as are left to no other Local Body in Ireland. I think there ought to be a Schedule which should state what number of the Committee forms a quorum, and what is the length of the term of office. It is obvious that Parliament could not properly delegate questions of this kind to a Local Authority. It would certainly be much more convenient to settle the matter now.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman desires to have those matters settled by Parliament.

That is what I want.

Probably a better course would be that the Local Authority "shall make regulations subject to the Commissioners of Education," and the term for which they are appointed and the number to form a quorum can be stated in the Schedule.

What term does the right hon. Gentleman propose?

Three years.

For both classes of Commissioners?

Yes.

In Sub-section 2 it is provided that the Local Authority may divide a place into districts. I think that is a very undesirable power to entrust solely to a Local Authority, and it might be used in a very im- proper way. I would suggest that it should be exercised under the supervision of the Education Commissioners after public inquiry.

The third sub-section provides that the Committees may appoint officers and remove them, and fix their remuneration with the consent of the Local Authorities. It would be undesirable to make the School Attendance Committees too entirely dependent on the Local Authorities, and it would not do to trouble the Local Authorities too much with details. It is reasonable that the Local Authorities who raise the money should have to do with the salaries, but I think the Committees might be trusted to appoint and remove teachers without supervision.

As the section now stands, I should like to move some words which will give protection to the feelings of the different religious denominations. I think it is very necessary that some provision of this kind should be inserted. I do this in the interests of the Protestant minority in the South as well as of the Catholic minority in the North.

I think we might have left this question to the School Attendance Committee. Of course I have no objection to the appointment of either Catholics or Protestants, but I feel some doubt about the advisability of specifying it in the Act. Is it desirable in this one instance to raise the question of denominationalism? If we left this matter to the Committees they would in all probability make the appointments as the hon. Member desires; but I feel that there is some difficulty in introducing the words into an Act of Parliament.

I shall be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will introduce words to the effect that the Committees shall have regard to the numbers of the religious denominations in the place.

The Committees would certainly have regard to the numbers of the religious denominations, but I think it is most undesirable to introduce this question in the Bill. The religious element is now introduced for the first time, and I do not believe it will tend in the slightest degree either to facilitate the proceedings of the Committees or to assist them with regard to the appointments. I hope the hon. Member will not press the question, because on grounds of public policy it would be inexpedient to introduce matter of this kind into the Bill.

I would point out that there is a difference between the North and South of Ireland in this matter. The Catholics in the South will have a majority on the Committee in almost every case; but it is quite the other way in Belfast, where the representation of the Catholics among the school attendance officers would be the same as that among the public officials—none at all. I think there should be in the clause some indication of the intention of Parliament.

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, as I think it would lead to mischief rather than anything else.

People who are entitled to speak assure me that some such provision is necessary, and I think Parliament should in some mode suggest that the denomination should be considered. I cannot forget the case of Belfast, where the Town Council has not appointed a Roman Catholic official for years, and the Local Authority is to appoint half the School Attendance Committee, and there is great danger that there will not be a single Roman Catholic officer. I cannot say that I feel sufficient confidence in the Committee to leave it to them. I really feel grave and serious apprehension as to the working of the Act in Belfast and other places, particularly in the North of Ireland. If penalties are secured against Roman Catholic children by Protestant officers, who also look after the Protestant children, a feeling would be generated which would not conduce to the smooth working of the Act.

These officers cannot take any action without the authority of the School Attendance Committee. If the hon. Gentleman's argument is worth anything, we must go back on the Bill, and introduce directions that the Committee shall be appointed on the basis of religious belief, and nothing else.

We can trust the Commissioners to act fairly with respect to the School Attendance Committee.

Then why not trust the Committee to do their duty also?

There may be a fair representation of the minority on the Committee, but they may be out-voted on the question of the appointment of the officers, and no action can be taken by the Department to prevent the minority being out-voted in the matter. I think some indication of the intention of Parliament should be given.

I do not apprehend any difficulty in the country districts under this head, but in Belfast I think there might be. There the Local Authority appoints half the Committee, and the Catholics would have little representation on it. Perhaps the Attorney General will consider the matter with a view to its alteration in another place.

I will consider it, but I feel that it is a matter of great difficulty.

I cannot consent to withdraw the Amendment, as a principle is concerned, but I cannot hope to carry it.

The Commissioners have power to carry out any duty which the Local Authority fail to perform, and I think it desirable that they should have the same power with regard to the School Attendance Committee. I, therefore, propose to insert after "Local Authority," in line 17, the words "or School Attendance Committee."

This would be a serious matter, and would greatly embarrass the working of the Act. If the Committee were wholly appointed by the Local Authority there might be some ground for the provision, but half the Committee is to be appointed by the Commissioners. The quorum may be fixed, and no doubt is, so that the Commissioners' nominees will always be sufficiently numerous to form a quorum, and so you have security that nothing prejudicial shall be done. I think, on the whole, the wiser course would be to leave the School Attendance Committee a free hand within the limits of the Bill.

I think my hon. Friend will see that the appointment of half the Committee by the Education Commissioners does alter considerably the necessity for the control originally in the Bill. He will see that half the Committee is appointed by the Commissioners, and that half the Members must be present to form a quorum; so that if half the members appointed by the Local Authority absent themselves, the members appointed by the Commissioners would be a quorum. I think we may take it that the Committee would discharge its duties properly; and having provided for the failure in duty on the part of the Local Authority, I think we have sufficient control of the Committee.

If my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the clause as it stands, I do not wish to press the Amendment; but I think there should be some provision for a case which I hope may not arise.