The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-07-17 00:00:00

SCIENCE AND ART EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Mr. Sullivan called attention to the unsatisfactory condi-
tion of Science and Art Education in Ireland, especially as
applied to manufactures and industry and the diffusion of
technical instruction among the working classes. South
Kensington, he maintained had done and could do nothing
for Ireland, and the remedy he recommended was the estab-
lishment in Dublin of a National Institution of Science and Art,
combined with a comprehensive museum, but under manage-
ment calculated to command the confidence of the classes
interested. This, Mr. Sulivan asserted, was no more than the
last Conservative Government had promised in 1868, by the
mouth of Mr. Hunt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. But
the influence of the local institutions, with the Royal Dublin
Society at their head, had induced the Government to
appoint a Royal Commission, whose conclusions Mr. Sullivan
vehemently attacked, remarking, however, that though they
fell far short 'of the necessities of the case and the promise of
the Government, they had never yet been carried out.
Sir A. Guinness seconded the motion, but dissented
altogether from Mr. Sullivan's strictures on the Royal Com-
mission.

Lord Eslington expressed a hope that the Government
would see its way to granting the request, and Mr. D. Davies
also supported the motiqp, remarking that as a large
employer of labour he had always found his Irish labourers
would have been fit for better things than the work they
were engaged on if they had been better educated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that much re-
mained to be done in the diffusion of art education, but
strongly deprecated breaking up the central system of art
schools and museums. A great deal, however, might be done
in the way of developing local schools, and it was likewise
most desirable that collections should be placed In various
parts of the country. For this purpose the assistance of the
Imperial Treasury might well be invoked. Without making
any precise pledge as to details, he promised that Mr.
Sullivan's motion should be seriously considered by the
Government, and it would not be for want of diligent ex-
amination or liberal intentions if some step were not taken
in this direction.

Mr. Vance expressed his satisfaction with.the Ministerial
statement, but Mr. R. Smyth did not share in this sanguine
view. Mr. Henry eulogised the naturally artistic turn of
the Irish people; after which Mr. Sullivan withdrew his
motion.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY.

On this there followed a short discussion on the expediency
of recommending the publication of the Annual Return of
Crime and Punishment in the Navy, which was mooted by
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Hunt opposed the motion on the ground
that it would injure the discipline. Mr. Shaw Lefevre sup-
ported the motion, at which Mr. A. Egerton expressed
great astonishment, seeing that the Board of Ad-
miralty, with which Mr. Shaw Lefevre was con-
nected during its five years of office, had not
published these returns. This retort was warmly cheered,
which caused Mr. Shaw Lefevre to protest with some excite-
ment that the question had neTer been raised in his time.
After some conversation, the motion was negatived by 101
to 63.

Some other business having been disposed of, the House
adjourned at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CUMULATIVE VOTE) BILL.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 14. Mr. Heygate moved
the second readhag of this Bill, which proposed to enact
that at any election for an alderman any person entitled to
vote should be entitled to a number of votes equal to
the number of aldermen to be elected, and might
give all such votes to one person or distribute them as he
thought fit. The hon. gentleman said the question was
not a party one, the measure was supported by hon.
members on both sides of the House, and was a
subject that must sooner or later compel legislation to
remedy the grievanc:i complained of. The Municipal Cor-
porations Act had proved most beneficial in amending the
law in relation to the election of councilmen, but it had
altogether failed in-the case of the elections of aldermen, as
the latter did not afford a fair representation of the com-
munity, and were often chosen for political reasons, to this
exclusion of the best men so far as local matters were con-
cerned. The Bill did not in any way apply to the City of
London.

Mr. Dodds, in moving the rejection of the measure, said
his experience was diametrically opposed to that of Mr.
Heygate's view, that aldermen were in many cases elected
solely for their political opinions, and quoted the case of his
own borough, Middlesborough, where in a thoroughly
Liberal constituency five out of the eight aldermen were
Conservatives. He believed that the Bill if passed would be
a failure, and he objected to be pitchforked on to the alder-
manic bench by the cumulative vote instead of being elected
in the ordinary fair and honest manner. The Bill would set
aside the system of representation of majorities, which
worked generally well, and therefore he opposed it.
Mr. T. H. Hill seconded the amendment.
After a discussion, in which several other hon. members
took part,
Sir H. Selw;n-Ibbetson said that he quite agreed that it
was desirable to eliminate politics from municipal matters,
but urged that the House required more information before
it passed a bill of this kind, for there was no certainty that
it would meet effectively the evils complained of. In the
absence of that information which he believed was so neces-
sary, he trusted that the amendment would be withdrawn
and the previous question carried.

Mr Heygats said he had no wish ta hurry on legislation
on the matter, especially at this period of the session. He
therefore agreed to the suggestion of the Government.
Mr. Dodd's amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion though the hon. gentleman expressed his willingness to
withdraw it.

Mr. Cross said he thought Mr. Heygate had done good ser-
vice in the way he had treated this question, because the
attention of all the municipalities in the country would be
called to it through the discussion that had taken place.
The right hon. gentleman then moved the previous question.
The previous.question was then argreed to.
ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION BILL.

Sir C. Dilke moved the second reading of this Bill, the ob-
ject of which, he said, was to facilitate the letting of "poor"
lands to cottagers and labourers instead of their being let as
at present to single tenants en bloc.

Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson believed that the object the hon
baronet had in view was a good one, and it was not from any
opposition to the system of allotments that he had objected
to the measure, but because he thought it would be practically
Inoperative. The powers asked for by the Bill were virtually
in existence already under the Poor Allotment Acts of 1832
and 1873. He admitted, however, that those Acts were •in-
workable, but the question was under the consideration of
the Government, and was not yet ripe for legislation.
Mr. J. Barclay supported the Bill
Sir R. Knightly moved the previous question, which, on
a division, was carried by 161 nainst 116. The motion that
the be read a second time was therefore not put.
WASTE LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. Macarthy moved the second reading of this Bill, and
explained that its object was to utilise the waste lands in Ire-
land. At the present moment about twenty millions of acres
of land were lying uncultivated in the same state in which
they were centuries ago, notwithstanding the progress of
scientific agriculture. This Bill would provide for the re-
clamation. of 4,500,000 acres.
Sir M. 'Hicks-Beach -said the Government were not in-
different to the question, but great progress had been made
in the reclamation of land in Ireland of late years since the
attention of capitalists had been directed to it, and special
legislation of this kind was not necessary. The Government
had certainly no intention of lending their sanction to a
scheme which involved the purchase by the State of the
waste lands of Ireland.

After some observations from Sir J. E. Wilmot, the debate
on the motion of Sir J. McKenna was adjourned.

-
- -
The other orders were disposed of, and the House ad-
jolumed.