think that is very much a matter for the have everything at his fingers ends so as House to deal with itself. to be able to explain every single item. Original Question put, and agreed to. MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford) said that with reference to the question. raised by the hon. Member for Clare as to the desirability of publishing all the Irish debates together, he would like to inform the hon. Gentleman that the volumes were supplied to the Irish Members of Parliament. He did not think it would entail very much additional expense if some more copies were published. He asked the hon. Gentleman to inquire whether that could be done. MR. WHITLEY said the hon. Gentleman had very frankly met the chief points raised, and that being so it might seem a little ungracious on his part if he were to press the Amendment. He moved in the interests of economy, and he had elicited the general opinion that the House would support the hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to bring about economies in various directions in connection with the Printing and Stationery Department. The hon. Gentleman was responsible to the Treasury, and he ought to back up the chief of the Printing and Stationery Department in resisting unreasonable demands from the different Departments. He asked leave to withdraw the Amend ment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MR. LABOUCHERE said he understood this Vote included the cost of the fiscal inquiry. What amount was devoted to that purpose ? MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH said he was unable to state exactly how much should be apportioned for the cost of the inquiry. He would make inquiry in regard to that. MR. LABOUCHERE said the Committee ought to know now, because they might object to it. The House never agreed to the fiscal inquiry. A mass of statistics had been published which might, or might not, be useful, but surely they ought to know approximately what the cost of the inquiry had been. The Minister in charge of the Vote should VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] CLASS III. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses." *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) said the foot-note explanatory of this item was in the following terms "The excess arises in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the arrest and extradition of Whitaker Wright, and the case of the convict Lynchehaun. He should like a little more information as to the details of this expenditure which he quite approved. He wished to know the exact amount incurred in respect of Whitaker Wright's extradition, because £2,000, merely in respect of his arrest and extradition, was in itself somewhat a large sum. He hoped, however, it was not the whole amount that the Government was going to contribute towards the costs in this matter. The state of affairs in relation to the winding up of companies and the frauds in connection with many of them had been such that it was absolutely deterrent to any private prosecutor to enter upon proceedings and so to add to losses already incurred. This remark applied to the liquidation of too many companies, and the result was, on the one hand, impunity for the offender and absolute waste, as the report of the liquidator of companies showed, of many millions of money, in a manner most detrimental to the true trade interests of the country. It was in the end advantageous to trade that occurrences of this kind should not take place without prosecution. In the debate on the Address the AttorneyGeneral had made a statement not only of the facts from his point of view and also of the law, for which everyone must have the greatest respect, even when, like himself, they ventured to differ from it, but he answered what he supposed to have been some reflections upon his own honour and 2 G matter. impartiality in the treatment of this to propriety, because nearly all pertinent Questions in this House were said to be contrary to propriety. His Question was *THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote is not for the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. It is limited strictly to the expenses of extradition and the hon. Member must confine himself to that. *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said he accepted that ruling at once. He only wished to say that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to his own conduct was almost unnecessary, and everyone assented to it without a single reservation. He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would feel that, justice having been vindicated, there was some reason for the course that was taken, and that there was a moral and a legal obligation on the State to do more towards payment of the costs of the prosecution than was implied in this Estimate. This was justified by the result of the trial, which he and others had anticipated, and their action had thus been justified. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs) thanked his hon. friend for his frankand friendly words. The total cost of the proceedings for the extradition of Lynchehaun was £1,014, and there was a further claim which was estimated at £300. In the case of Whitaker Wright the total cost was £1,150. Extradition proceedings in America, as his hon. friend was aware, were for various reasons expensive. The amount in this Estimate did not represent what the Government had undertaken to pay in connection with the Whitaker Wright prosecution. These costs would be put on the law charges, which would be brought before the House in the ordinary way. MR. SWIFT MACNEILL said he ought to move to reduce the Vote by £1,147, the whole of the costs incurred in the Whitaker Wright extradition. The ground of his objection was that Whitaker Wright ought not to have been allowed to escape from this country after the decision of three Judges. He himself thought that Whitaker Wright was likely to escape, and on 11th March he asked a Question-of course, contrary "I beg to ask the Home Secretary what are any, steps, if being taken by the authorities to prevent any attempt to escape from criminal justice by Mr. Whitaker Wright.” And the Home Secretary replied— "The hon. Member has given me no notice of that Question; he had better put it on the Paper." Before he had time to put it on the Paper Whitaker Wright escaped, and was intended to escape. He believed that if Whitaker Wright had been a poor man it would not have been necessary to spend £1,100 to secure his extradition; he would have been instantly arrested. He maintained that the circumstances under which Whitaker Wright was allowed to escape looked as if there was one law for the poor and another for the rich. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100. Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900, be granted for the said Service." (Mr. Swift Mac Neill). MR. LABOUCHERE said that Whitaker Wright having escaped, it was desirable that the extradition should take place, and that he should be brought back here for trial. What he complained of was that the man was allowed to escape from the country at all. The Law Courts had undoubtedly held that Whitaker Wright had committed a very grave offence for which he ought to be punished, and he ought, therefore, to have been kept under some sort of police surveillance until the Attorney-General issued his warrant for the arrest. Under the circumstances he would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend. MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple) thought that the Attorney-General ought to reply. It seemed to him that one of two two courses ought to be taken-either that the AttorneyGeneral should acknowledge that he had committed a mistake in this matter, or that there should be an Appropriation-inaid for this amount out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's salary. submitted that the expenses were properly incurred. SIR ROBERT FINLAY said he would not be in order in going into the matter beyond the statement he had made the other day in the debate on the Address. The Government took every step in their power, and the extradition proceedings were successful. He had heard no suggestion that there was any remissness on the part of the Home Office, or of any one connected with the administration of justice in connection with the escape of Whitaker Wright; and he felt sure that the hon. and learned Member was not serious in suggesting that the Home Office had connived at his escape. He Noes, 214. (Division List No. 16). MR. SWIFT MACNEILL said he would not go so far as to say that the Home Office connived at Whitaker Wright's escape, but they neglected their duty. He still held to the opinion that if Whitaker Wright had not been a highly placed gentleman he would not have been allowed to escape. Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes, 126; AYES. Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Pirie, Duncan V. Ainsworth, John Stirling Allen, Charles P. Ashton, Thomas Gair Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Boland, John Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Crean, Eugene Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Duncan, J. Hastings Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Gilhooly, James Goddard, Daniel Ford Griffith, Ellis J. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Kearley, Hudson E. Kilbride, Denis Lambert, George Power, Patrick Joseph Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Runciman, Walter Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Slack, John Bamford Leigh, Sir Joseph Lloyd-George, David MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) NOES. Anson, Sir Wlliam Reynell Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Baird, John George Alexander Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leed Blundell, Colonel Henry Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Coates, Edward Feetham Greville, Hon. Ronald Houston, Robert Paterson Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton King, Sir Henry Seymour Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Laurie, Lieut.-General Dickson, Charles Scott Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Law, Andrew Bonar, (Glasgow) Manners, Lord Cecil O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Pilkington, Colonel Richard Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Webb, Colonel William George Wyndham, Rt Hon. George Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. CLASS IV. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £29,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland." MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.) said that as regarded the inspection of national schools in Ireland, he was glad to find that the evening school system which was recently introduced was progressing favourably. The inspectors of the Board were almost unanimous in speaking in praise of the work that was being done. There was, however, one point which he wished to mention; which was of importance not only to every Irishman but also to every educationalist. That was the introduction of the Irish language, which was one of the greatest educational influences in the work of the evening schools. In spector after inspector referred to the great local interest in education which was aroused by the introduction of the teaching of the Irish language; whereas in districts where it was not taught there was a lack of interest. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to encourage such an awakening of educational development among the people in Ireland. He was, however, sorry and surprised to find that the National Board had recently issued a circular in reference to the teaching of the Irish language in national schools. It pointed out that schools which had not reached a certain standard of efficiency would not be allowed to teach the Irish language as an extra. The Irish language was not mentioned specially, but it was the only language that could be referred to. He did not contend that extras should be taught in all subjects where the school was not up to a certain standard of efficiency; but the teaching of the Irish language had the greatest effect in raising the standard of a school and increasing its efficiency. If the circular were allowed to continue, 50 per cent. of the national schools would be excluded from teaching the Irish language. The circular also stated that no fees for languages could be given for any pupils in , 1903-4 standard than the Irish Scarcely any language was taught in the national schools except language; and, therefore, it would have been more direct if the Commissioners of National Education had referred to the Irish language alone. There were in Ireland 400,000 pupils enrolled in the first three standards; and if the circular were insisted on they would all be excluded from learning the Irish language. What was the use of teaching a native language ? unless it were taught from the beginning He hoped that the Chief Secretary would that the teaching of the Irish see language, which had done so much for educational life in Ireland, would not be hampered by the National Board. With reference to the salaries of teachers, he asked the Chief Secretary a few days ago how many assistant teachers had been promoted from the third grade to the second grade, and the answer was three. He was aware that the Commissioners had certain authority to promote men who were doing good work and pay accordingly; but in two years only three teachers had been so promoted. The Commissioners had not availed of their power in this direction, and there was no indication that they proposed to avail of it. them At present national teachers in Ireland had very little prospect of promotion. He would ask the Chief Secretary to look carefully into the matter, believing, as he did, that the greatest injury was done to the cause of education in Ireland by the wretchedly inadequate system of payment there in force. In any other country in the world men who had the important work of training the youth were paid well, and it was only in Ireland that such He would also ask the a mean and niggardly system of payment was adopted. Chief Secretary to obtain the withdrawal of the circular issued by the National Board, who appeared to be striving with all their might to prevent the Irish language. being taught in the schools. *MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.) advocated the development of the musical capacities of the Irish children, as was being done in the English schools. It was unfortunate that no proper attempt had been made to issue, for school purposes, a collection of Irish folk songs, together with the music for them. If that were done he was sure that the musical culture of the |