was disposed to do so. He begged, however, to say that he had not the slightest sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member respecting Scripture readers. On the contrary, he believed that they were generally very good, excellent, and useful men; he had, therefore, no objection to them on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Member. But he believed there was a disposition manifested by certain hon. Members of the House to unnecessarily increase the number of chaplains and paid officials; and, with regard to the present case, he certainly thought that a Presbyterian chaplain, a Church of England clergyman, and a Roman Catholic priest, if they discharged their duties properly, should be quite sufficient to give religious instruction to the prisoners in one gaol. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had stated, a few evening ago, when advocating an increase of Roman Catholic chaplains, that he had on one occasion voted in favour of a Presbyterian chaplain for a gaol in which there were only seven Presbyterian prisoners. Now, he (Mr. A. M'Arthur) could not help regarding that as altogether wrong, and a downright misappropriation of public money. In out-of-the-way places, where there were not ministers of all denominations, there might be some excuse for appointments of the kind; but in localities where there were numerous clergymen and ministers, and comparatively few prisoners, he thought it would not be unreasonable to expect that such ministers should have sufficient Christian zeal and charity to induce them to attend to the religious instruction of prisoners belonging to the Church with which they were connected without any pecuniary reward. He also believed that the adoption of such a policy would have a much better effect upon prisoners and convicts themselves; for when they felt that men were giving them religious instruction and advice in a professional way, and merely because they were paid for doing the work, the effect upon the minds of prisoners was not likely to be so salutary and beneficial as if they felt that ministers belonging to their own Church were, from a sense of duty and out of pure love to them, endeavouring to promote their best interests by giving them religious instruction gratuitously. Such instruction was highly valuable Mr. A. M'Arthur

and necessary; but he again stated that there appeared to be a desire on the part of certain hon. Members to unnecessarily increase the number of chaplains and paid officials. He protested against that as a waste of public money, and he thought hon. Members on both sides of the House should give the subject their careful consideration and attention.

MR. SULLIVAN did not think that the economical mind of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) should be vexed by the expenditure under this Vote. The objection raised to the Vote could not be supported on the broad ground of principle, because the doctrine which would have to be enunciated was that the ministers of religion should have to live upon air. Even Scripture readers and ministers of religion had to pay their butchers and bakers. And if the Government did not pay the ministers of religion, who was to do so? Some one must pay them. The moment the Government put themselves into a position of authority, either with regard to paupers or prisoners, they were bound to pay for their support, their medical treatment, and their religious wants. Upon what doctrine could the hon. Member for Leicester support his argument that the ministers of religion were not to be paid? He was surprised, on this occasion, to find a conjunction of Leicester and Cavan in the objection to this Vote. It seemed to him that if a Presbyterian required the services of a Scripture reader he was entitled to have them. He took the broad view that if a man were put into prison, where reformation and amendment, rather than torture and vengeance, were to be the guiding principles, the influences of religion should be brought to bear upon that man even more strongly than when he was out-of-doors. The more complete and full the influences of religion upon a man were, so would his amendment be the stronger and more sincere.

MR. BIGGAR observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seemed to think that he was attacking religion. He begged to say that that was not the case; he thought it was very desirable that prisoners should have religious teaching, but he thought that all religious teaching should be given by authorized ministers of religion. He did not believe in irresponsible teachers,

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 4; Noes 152 Majority 148.-(Div. List, No. 112.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CALLAN, observing that the sum of £200 was charged as salaries for "female Scripture readers," asked for a definition of the term, and also for information with regard to the item for a

teacher of music to the female convicts.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON could hardly conceive that any explanation of the term "female Scripture reader" could be necessary. With regard to the teacher of music, the object of employing that person was to enable the prisoners to sing in chapel.

MR. PARNELL explained that, although he had spoken against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he had voted for it, because the Government had not accepted what he (Mr. Parnell) considered to be a fair compromise, when he suggested that the salaries of the persons in question should be equalized all

round.

MR. BIGGAR was not disposed to contest one of the items of the Vote. He was of opinion that a woman was quite as competent as a man for the purposes of religious instruction; but it seemed that the sum charged for salary to these female readers-namely, £100 each, was most extravagant; and as he thought that the services of one teacher only were sufficient, he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £100, the amount of the salary of the teacher whose services he considered to be in excess of the requirements of the prison.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £200 for the Salaries of

Female Scripture Readers in Perth Prison be

reduced by £100."—(Mr Biggar.)

MR. SULLIVAN hoped the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would allow the Vote to. pass, and in recommending that, he took the opportunity of expressing the high respect which he entertained for his motives; but he could not help thinking that it was through a misconception that Irish

like the present. He did not believe that the people of Ireland wanted any information as to the duties of female

Scripture readers, whom they knew to be persons ministering to the spiritual wants and necessities of immoral females; and if the prisoners really had the benefit of the services of such functionaries, he could only say that he should be very sorry for the office to be done away with. He repeated his belief in the excellency of the motives of his hon. Friend, but appealed to him not to delay the passing of the Vote by a proposal of-doors. that would be greatly misconceived out

MR. BIGGAR, after the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend, was not disposed to take a Division.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum "That a sum, not exceeding £65,521, be necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, inand 16 Vic. c. 83." cluding certain Allowances under the Act 15

MR. PARNELL thought the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would recollect that the bringing on of these Irish Votes upon that occasion was in violation of a promise given by him shortly before the Whitsuntide Recess. The promise was given in reply to a Question as to the course of Business, made at the commencement of the Sitting, when the hon. Baronet stated that no Irish Votes should be brought on until the second Estimate night after Whitsuntide. [Sir HENRY SELWINthe Treasury shook his head; but that IBBETSON dissented.] The Secretary to

was the distinct recollection of himself,

and of many Irish Members; and, more

over, he noticed that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who took a very strong interest in many of the Irish Votes, was not present. He thought the practice was a most vicious one, to put off the Votes from time to time, in order to suit the convenience of Members; but that was an entirely different thing to putting off the Votes,

and bringing them forward before the time agreed upon. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would state how many of the Irish Votes he proposed to take that evening; because many Irish Members, in consequence of what he contended was the promise of the hon. Baronet not to bring on the Votes until the second Estimate night, were not prepared to discuss them to the extent which they considered to be necessary. He, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Mr. Parnell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON distinctly denied that he had given the promise referred to by the hon. Member, to defer the consideration of the Irish Votes until the second Estimate night after the Whitsuntide Recess. It would be in the recollection of the Committee, who, he believed, would bear him out, that he had never given any such promise. What he had said to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who had, on more than one occasion, asked him to postpone certain Votes in which he took a special interest, was that he would not bring on those Votes until Irish Members were present in sufficient number to discuss them. But he had told the hon. Member for Galway, on that occasion, that he would take the Law Votes for Ireland on the night before the House rose for the Recess, or as soon as possible thereafter. Although he had given no pledge, if hon. Members had been misled by anything he had said, and were willing to go on with the other Classes down upon the Paper, he had no wish to force the Irish Law Votes upon their attention.

MR. CALLAN asked if the promise to postpone the Votes referred to by the hon. Baronet was made in the House or in the course of private conversation? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: In the course of private conversation.] Were the Committee to be told that Irish Members were to be bound by private conversations? The hon. Member for Galway was not the Leader of the Party to which he (Mr. Callan) had the honour to belong. The hon. Baronet, in his reply, had stated something to this

Mr. Parnell

effect, that-"As soon as he had reason to know that Irish Members were present in sufficient numbers, he would endeavour to bring on the Votes in which they were interested." The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was under the same impression as himself (Mr. Callan), that a pledge was given, or implied, that the Irish Votes should not be taken on the first night of the Estimates. He considered it to be absolutely essential that the Vote should be postponed, inasmuch as it was composed of several large items, of which no expla nation whatever was afforded in the Estimates for the information of the Committee.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, with the permission of the Committee, would recall what had really taken place with reference to the Irish Votes. Some hon. Members for Ireland raised the question as to whether the Irish Votes should not be postponed a second time to such time as they could be fairly discussed? And, in answer to that, he had made use of the words just read by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). He had also said that he would take care, as soon as hon. Members could attend, to bring on the Votes for the Queen's College and University in Ireland. Such was the purport of his speech just before the House broke up for the Recess. As he had already stated, he had no wish to force the Vote upon the Committee that evening upon a mere misunderstanding; but he trusted the Committee would allow the other Votes to be taken.

MR. CALLAN said, they might take Votes 24, 27, 28, and 29, as to which no question arose.

MR. PARNELL thought they must except Vote 28, as to which there would be some discussion. These Law charges, also, were a most important Vote, and would take a long time. But the others might be allowed to pass, as the hon. Baronet wished it, and that would meet the convenience of everybody. Of course, when he referred to an understanding, he knew nothing of a private conversation with the hon. Member for Galway.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) said, not a single item in these Law charges had been altered or objected to for many years; but if the hon. Members wished to raise a discussion the Vote could be

would have been saved something which looked like haggling-one hon. Gentleman objecting to one Vote and one to another. He would suggest to the Government that they should not proceed further with the Irish Votes that night, as it was quite clear there had been a misunderstanding. He would move that they should now report Progress, and take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." Rylands.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the Committee would adhere to the original arrangement and take these four Votes before it passed to anything | else, as he hoped to ask them to take certain other Votes with the view of advancing the Business of Supply.

MR. BIGGAR thought the hon. Baronet had exercised a wise discretion in entering into a compromise with certain Members on that side of the House, for there was plenty of opportunity to raise several questions on the Votes just agreed to, and he was disposed to have done so but for the compromise suggested. As to the Bankruptcy Vote, the Attorney General for Ireland must know that the Members for Belfast had a very decided opinion in favour of a Local Bankruptcy Bill, and he was sure they would be disappointed if this Vote should be passed in their absence. He knew, of course, that the present Bill could not pass this Session; but still the hon. Gentlemen who were not now present might feel a satisfaction in being able to speak on the subject.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) said, the matter would be discussed on its merits, and he felt sure neither of those hon. Members would wish the Vote postponed on their

account.

MR. ERRINGTON thought nothing could be fairer than the conduct of the Secretary to the Treasury; but certainly his own impression was shared by many other hon. Members, that no Irish Votes were to be taken that night. He thought that the best thing to be done now was to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands).

MR. J. LOWTHER explained, that the offer of the Secretary to the TreaMr. Rylands

MR. BIGGAR knew that the hon. Members for Belfast did desire a Local Bill; and as there was not the least chance of the Bankruptcy Bill becoming law this Session, he did think that those two hon. Gentlemen would be very pleased to have an opportunity of speaking on this subject.

MR. RAMSAY regretted the waste of time, the more that it had arisen from the extreme courtesy of the hon. Gentleman, and his desire to prevent complaints. He thought they might pass this Vote; because, though they had had half-an-hour's discussion, no one had anything to say against the Vote itself.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, the Vote was one to which no reasonable objection could be made; and he therefore hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the Vote allowed to pass.

MR. RYLANDS asked for leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL said, there was a question of considerable importance involved in this Vote-the question of Local Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland. He was very anxious to discuss it; but he would give way in response to the appeals of his hon. Friends, and so was, practically, giving up his chance of discussing this matter in that Session; for though the Attorney General had a Bill on the Paper, he never got a day for his measures, so that it was not very likely

to come on.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(10.) £1,195, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.