prepared to pay dearly for it. Let the Government be consistent, and deal with Ireland as it did with England-let them face the subject of denominational education, and leave its teaching to the natural leaders of the people. MR. WHALLEY called upon the House to take note that the advocates of a denominational system, who described the National Schools as denominational, were mainly anxious now for the increase of the salaries of those teachers respecting some of whom it had been avowed in that House that they were not allowed to live in contact with Protestants. The discussion plainly indicated that the conspiracy of priestcraft, which in the O'Keeffe case asserted the supremacy of the Pope in the administration of the law, was doing the same in education, and that this Vote of £500,000 was being used to promote disaffection and disloyalty. MR. PARNELL complained that the Vote was brought forward at a period of the Session when not more than onefifth of the Irish Members were able to attend. It had been stated that the results of the system of Irish education had not been very satisfactory, though it had been established 44 years ago. He did not believe that the system could be estimated by a comparison of the number of children that passed in reading and writing, nor the number that attended school. As to the feeling of the people of England or Scotland, who had a system of education of which they approved, had one been forced upon them of which they did not approve they would protest against the principle just as much as Irish Members protested to-day. The representatives of the ratepayers in Ireland should not be called upon to levy a tax for an object of which they did not approve, and he felt certain that the Poor Law Guardians would not raise the tax; and, in conclusion, he insisted that if England wanted to force a system of education on Ireland to which the people objected, England should pay it herself. SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN reminded hon. Members that the question before the Committee was not as to the merits of denominationalism. He should be prepared to support that principle when it was presented to the House. The question had reference to the changes proposed to be made in the interests of national teachers, whose condition all parties concurred in deeming deplorable. For his own part, he was ready to acknowledge the deep obligations which the country owed to those who introduced that system which, in the past, had effected so much for the educational improvement of the Irish people, and incidentally improved their material interests, by enabling them successfully to compete for public employment. The important question then under consideration was whether the teachers were to receive increased salaries? and with regard to that point he regretted that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to do more in that direction than he proposed to do. He did not think it was likely that the Boards of Guardians would meet the Government in regard to the contribution of £60,000; and if they did not, what would be the position of the teachers in Ireland? MR. M'LAREN said, he thought the Government would have done better if they had proposed a small compulsory tax on land, such as was levied in Scotland; but he saw no objection to this rate being collected, like many others, with the poor rate, which was the law in Scotland. Substantially, the proposal was fair and reasonable; because in Ireland out of every £100 paid for education £14 only was raised by local contributions, and £86 was paid out of the taxation of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, out of every £100 paid to teachers, £73 was derived from local rates, and in England £63 per cent was paid from local sources. MR. MELDON said there were still many important points for discussion. He moved that the Chairman should report Progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Mr. Meldon.) SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. There was no objection to the amount of the Vote, and he suggested that the hon. Member might on the Report take exception to any principle on which it was based. SIR ANDREW LUSK hoped that now the House was in Committee it MR. WHITWELL said, there were other points affecting the system of education in Ireland. might be allowed to go on with the Votes. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question again proposed. MR. MELDON moved to reduce the Vote by £2,350 for Post Office orders for the salaries of teachers. The item was a very objectionable one, the Post Office making a profit at the expense of national education. There should be some other method devised of paying the salaries. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum," not exceeding £486,318, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."-(Mr. Meldon.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, though this item appeared to swell the cost of education, it was only a matter of account. The Post Office charged for the service it rendered to any other Department. Even if this ought to be altered, it would be inconvenient to do it now, and the only result would be that the teachers would be mulcted in the cost of the Post Office orders. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Committee to sit again upon Monday. HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICA- THIRD READING. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.) MR. DODDS said, the Bill proposed to make a great change, which ought not to be made unless it were accompanied by other changes. On that ground, he and others were determined to resist the further progress of the Bill; but as there was not time to discuss it now, he moved that the debate be adjourned. MR. HAYTER seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." MR. MELDON withdrew his oppo--(Mr. Dodds.) sition for the present, but gave Notice that he would bring the matter forward next year. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question again proposed. MR. WARD moved the reduction of the Vote by £30,114-the cost of the Model Schools, which the Royal Commissioners had pronounced to be a failure. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £458,554, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."-(Mr. Ward.) SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, the subject might be very usefully discussed on a separate Motion, for there was a difference of opinion upon it, and in the North of Ireland Model Schools were regarded as efficient; but it would be inconvenient to dispose of so large a matter on this Vote. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, the only object of the Bill was to simplify registration in boroughs. It cut both ways; it gave no advantage to either political Party; and, as the House had already expressed an opinion in its favour, he should endeavour to pass it. MR. ONSLOW said, he hoped the progress of the Bill would not be resisted. There had been a division on a previous stage, in which it was carried by a large majority. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 27; Noes 87: Majority 60. Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time." MR. DILLWYN, remarking that they met on Saturday to forward Government Business, moved the adjournment of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Dillwyn.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, remarking that the Government had supported the Bill, advised the hon. Gentleman in charge of it, to consent to the adjournment of the debate. MR. MONK suggested the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of making a small Amendment, which would get rid of further opposition. MR. DILLWYN said, he would withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MR. BATES. MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. MR. BATES formally moved, without comment, in terms of the Notice he had on the Paper, for a Select Committee "to inquire into certain charges made by Mr. Plimsoll, Member for Derby, against Mr. Bates, Member for Plymouth." Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to Question again proposed, "That the inquire into certain charges made by Mr. Plim Bill be now read the third time." Debate adjourned till Monday. INFANTICIDE BILL.-[BILL 43.] (Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.) THIRD READING. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Charley.) MR. VANCE moved the adjournment of the debate. MR. CHARLEY said, he was quite ready to meet the hon. Member in the Lobby. He suggested, however, whether these repeated Motions for Adjournment were fair fighting. The effect would be to make the Bill too late for the other House. The hon. Member was not acting fairly. MR. VANCE desired to say, in reply to the charge of unfairness, that he had wished to oppose the Bill at an earlier stage, the passing of which was secured by stealth. [ Order, order!"] MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member had used an expression which was not in Order. MR. VANCE: As that decision had been given, he would say that a former stage of this Bill was obtained inadvertently, so as to evade the opposition which he was in his place to offer; and therefore, the hon. and learned Member had no right to complain of opposition at this stage. MR. ONSLOW said, he fully intended to oppose the Bill in its previous stage, but by a process which he as a new Member, did not understand he was precluded from doing so. He opposed the Bill now, disapproving of its principle, and he hoped it would not pass this Session. Motion agreed to. Debate adjourned till Tuesday next. soll, Member for Derby, against Mr. Bates, Member for Plymouth."-(Mr. Bates.) SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I should not wish to set myself in any way against the opinion of the House if it appears that the general opinion is that this Committee ought to be granted; but I hope there is no harm in making a few observations, so that we may see really where we are going. In the first place, I should say that the terms of the Motion are very vague indeed for a Motion of this kind. There are "certain charges" made against the hon. Member for Plymouth. I think we ought to have a more detailed statement of what the Committee is to do before we decide upon appointing it. It has been said by the Prime Minister, and quite correctly, that every man is the guardian of his own honour; and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Plymouth thinks it necessary for the protection of his honour that this Committee should be granted. At the same time, before we accede to his request, the House should consider whether he is taking the very best course for securing the object he has in view. As I understand, the case stands thus:-The hon. Member opposite was charged by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) with-to put it shortly-not making proper provision for the safety of the lives of those whom he sent out to sea in his ships. The hon. Member for Plymouth has already twice had an opportunity in this House of defending himself against the charge. The Prime Minister on one occasion moved that the House report Progress on an important Bill-the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill-at an early hour in order to give the hon. Member the opportunity, and the hon. Member entered upon a full defence before this matter of this sort. I really think the hon. Member will best consult his own interest by leaving this matter where it is. No one could get up in this House and dispute the statement he made yesterday. I cannot conceive that any hon. Member would come forward and make such a detailed statement without having ample warrant for all he stated; and if we grant the Committee asked for by the hon. Member, it is clearly implying that we do not believe him; but I do believe him, and I do not think that the House should waste its time for the purpose of seeing how that matter stands. Therefore, to raise discussion, and hear how we stand in the matter, I shall venture to move, as an Amendment "That this House deems it unnecessary at present to occupy itself with a special inquiry into the matters in dispute between the honourMember for Plymouth." able Member for Derby and the honourable MR. E. J. REED seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the House. Why are we to have a Com- | influential Members spending time on a mittee to inquire into the charges made by the hon. Member for Derby against the hon. Member opposite and not to have one to make inquiries into the charges made against hon. Members sitting on this side of the House? ["Name!"] I cannot name them because the hon. Member for Derby did not name them; but he alluded to Members sitting on this side of the House. The only Committee which we are asked for now is to inquire into the charges made against the hon. Member opposite, who has fully and, to my mind, amply defended himself already from these charges. Well, Sir, we must look to what took place in this matter. I really was most surprised at what took place in this House yesterday. Upon the debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill the hon. Member opposite got up, and made what appeared to be a full and convincing refutation of the charges which had been brought against him. More than that, he stated most distinctly and openly in the House that the charges brought against him by the hon. Member for Derby were "cruel, unwarrantable, untruthful, and unjust." When I heard that I, of course, thought that the hon. Member for Derby would be bound to substantiate his charges. But what happened? The moment the hon. Member for Plymouth sat down the hon. Member for Derby got up, and made a speech about load lines and deck cargoes, and other matters connected with merchant shipping, and did not say one word to refute the statement made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, but, at the conclusion of his remarks on the Bill, took up his hat and walked out of the House. As far as this House is concerned, the vindication of the hon. Member for Plymouth is ample; and until I have some more informationand I make these remarks for the purpose of eliciting information from those who are responsible for the management of this House and its Business-I do not see what better we shall be, in having a Committee to inquire into charges from which this House believes the hon. Member has most amply vindicated himself. I think we have got into some trouble and inconvenience already through having Committees to inquire into personal matters this Session. I do not want to see half-a-dozen end of the Question, in order to add the words Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there is no doubt that the proceeding which we are now asked to take is of an exceptional character; but the circumstances are very exceptional. There may have been cases-no doubt there have been cases-in which imputations have been thrown out in this House by one hon. Member against the character of another. But these cases have been met and dealt with at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth has twice, as the hon. Member for Carlisle has truly stated, emphatically and in detail, and in a manner which commanded the sympathy and impressed the judgment of the House, distinctly denied-and not only denied, but has given proof in support of his denial of these charges. And, Sir, so far as the opinion of the House is concerned-that is to say, the opinion, as I believe, of every individual Member of this House-my hon. Friend has been perfectly cleared, and is even the more entitled to our respect in consequence of the manly and dignified manner in which, I may say, he has made out his case in this matter. Under circumstances which might have justified expressions of great heat and anger, my hon. Friend has preserved his calmness, not because he has not acutely felt what has been said, but because he has felt that he was superior to the charges which have been made. But let us consider, for a moment, in what position my hon. Friend stands with regard to the House as a whole. Now, the House, as a whole, has not pronounced-nor has it been called upon to pronounce-one sentence upon this matter. The hon. Member for Derby has, in his place in the House, advanced, in the most unmistakable manner, a gross and most severe charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle says he also insinuated charges against other persons. It is true that he insinuated that he was able to make charges against other persons, but he did not do so. As the hon. Baronet himself says, he did not name them; and therefore it is impossible for anyone to take those charges to himself. There may or may not have been persons whom he would have proceeded to name; but as he did not do so, they are perfectly out of the question. But my hon. Friend has been singled out. A charge has been made; he has denied the charge-once in the absence of the hon. Member for Derby, and again, more emphatically, and in stronger language, in his presence. In what position are we? The hon. Member for Derby has neither withdrawn the charge nor offered to substantiate it. Can the House leave the matter in the position where it now stands ? Two courses only, I think, are open to us; and if my hon. Friend should press for either one or the other to be pursued, I think that, with a just feeling of wounded honour, he has a right to do So. If the House is not satisfied, we may have an inquiry, and set my hon. Friend right by a vote of the House itself, in respect of the matter with which he has been so charged; or, if the House thought fit, we might, by a vote, at once declare that the House considers that those charges are disproved, and that my hon. Friend stands entirely clear in the matter. The Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle does not reach to that point, and if it were passed it would still be open to anyone who chose to say outof-doors-"A charge was made; it was not retracted; it was never inquired into; and we have only the ipse dixit of one Member against the ipse dixit of another.” I think, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend has shown himself not more than reasonably jealous of his own honour in making this demand; and most assuredly, if he feels bound to make it, I think the House, which is justly jealous of the honour of all its Members, ought, as a matter of Parliamentary justice and feeling, to grant the demand. I am exceedingly sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not present to-day; but I am expressing his own very strong feelings in what I say, and I hope that the House will have no hesitation in agreeing to this Motion. MR. E. J. REED: It seems to me to be a very unfortunate thing that we should be discussing the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into charges which are not before the House in any specific terms. I was present in the House when the language complained of by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates) was used by the hon. Member for Derby. It was to the effect that it was his intention to put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade as to whether the hon. Member for Plymouth was the owner of certain ships. He turned to this side of the House and said it was his intention to put certain questions, or bring out certain things, reflecting on Members on this side also. There were certain sounds made in the House at the time, and the hon. Member for Derby, having already been considerably excited, became considerably more so; and then indulged in language which was, no doubt, highly improper, and no doubt conveyed a most undeserved reflection upon the hon. Member for Plymouth and upon other Members of this House whose names were not given. Since then the hon. Member for Derby has appeared in this House and has apologized for the employment of those expressions. ["No, no!"] Well, I am only speaking in the same sense as the Prime Minister spoke after the hon. Member's apology had been delivered; and I say I am at a loss to under |