I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, during the Recess, the Government will inquire, with a view to legislation, into the practice of fining and of making deductions from wages, the admitted evils of which were the ground of the introduction of the Truck Bill of the late Government?

I will give the subject careful consideration during the Recess, both with regard to the possibility of legislation, and to the lines upon which legislation is desirable.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory ventilation of the Houses of Parliament, as disclosed in the recent report of Mr. James Keith, C. E., and other publications; and, whether he proposes to take any steps during the Recess to remedy defects in the sanitary arrangements which are calculated to injuriously affect the health of Members of the House, representatives of the Press, officials of the House, and visitors?

My attention has been directed to the subject of the ventilation and sanitation of the Houses of Parliament, and I will further consider it during the Recess. My examination of the question so far leads me to regard with confidence the genera system which is now in operation, and which is supported by the decisions and recommendations of the Select Committees which have so recently investigated the matter. I am not at all prepared to adopt the views of Mr. Keith, whose knowledge of the arrangements appears to be imperfect. In some parts of the building, there is, I think, room for improvement in the ventilation, and this matter shall be carefully looked into.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the evidence of the Select Committee, and especially the evidence of Sir Henry Roscoe——

Order, order! That is a suggestion, and not a question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the temperature in the smoking-room last week was 77 deg.?

That is a matter to which I have alluded in my reply. I may say further, that I have read carefully the Evidence and Report of the Select Committee.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that fishermen cannot use the recently constructed boat-slip at Melvaig, on the western mainland of Ross-shire; who is responsible for the work, and if the engineer of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications) Office, exercised any control over this work; and, whether steps will be taken to provide an efficient boat-slip?

The County Clerk of Ross and Cromarty informs me that he has received no complaints from fishermen that they cannot use the recently constructed beat-slip at Melvaig, and that, as a matter of fact, the fisher men do use it regularly in moderate weather. No complaints have been received by the Secretary for Scotland and his engineer visited the work only last week, and saw fishermen using it. I am assured that the slip as constructed is a serviceable one. The work has been carried out according to an approved plan prepared by an engineer appointed by the County Council, the engineer to the Secretary for Scotland exercising the usual control in seeing that the Contractor carried out the work according to specification.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,—(1) whether he has received representations from any of the Governments of the Australian Colonies, asking that Colonial Government Securities may be included in the list of authorised trustee investments; (2) whether such a change can be made without an Act of Parliament; and, (3) if no Act of Parliament be necessary, whether this House will have the opportunity of discussing the advisability of such a change before it is sanctioned?

The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative, and to the second question in the negative. Consequently, in reply to the third question, the House of Commons would have the opportunity of discussing the advisability of the change in question before it could be sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been directed to the difference between the English and Scotch annual grants for day and evening scholars in Public Elementary Schools, the English grant for day scholars in 1895–6 being 18s. 8½d. per head, while the Scotch grant is 21s. 3d.; the English grant for evening scholars being 16s. per head, while the Scotch grant is 20s.; and, whether he will take steps to redress the disadvantage to English school managers arising from the non-receipt of this large sum of money?

I have inquired about this, and am informed that, besides the intelligence and industry of the Scottish youth, there are two reasons for the higher grant earned in Scottish Day Schools: (1) The 17s. 6d. limit which restricts the amount earned, applies in very few schools in Scotland; (2) Pupils, who in England would be found in secondary schools, are in Scotland earning grants for the study of higher subjects in the elementary schools. As to evening schools, besides their freedom from the restriction of the 17s. 6d. limit, the season is considerably longer, and the time grant earned is thus greater per pupil. Measures for the relief of English managers are, as I have already stated, now under the consideration of the Committee of Council.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether during the Recess Her Majesty's Government will inquire into the whole question of promoting a system of Light Railways on the West Coast of the Highlands of Scotland, and will obtain such local information on the subject as will best bring out the particular claims of the various districts of the country for the development of their natural resources; and whether, in particular, he will undertake to investigate the merits of the proposal to build a Light Railway in the Island of Skye, from Kyleakin by Broadford to Portree and Dunveggan?

The Secretary for Scotland fully recognises the importance of the subject raised in this question, and he purposes to look into the matter and give it his careful attention and consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that, contrary to the usual practice in places where party disturbances are likely to occur, the district inspector, head constable, and chief sergeant at Limavady are all of one religion; and (2) whether, having regard to this fact, he will direct the county inspector to make inquiries at Limavady, with a view to a prosecution of the persons who threw stones and other missiles at Dr. and Mrs. Houston during the recent riot?

With regard to the suggestion in the first paragraph that Limavady is a place where party disturbances are likely to occur, I am informed by the Inspector General of Constabulary that no disturbances, properly so called, have occurred there during recent years, and there appears to be no reason for surmising that such disturbances will occur at Limavady in future. The disturbances that took place on the 22nd July, and to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, arose out of the recent Parliamentary Election for North Derry, and were fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Attorney General in reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous Question of the 19th August. There was no rioting on the occasion, and the police have used their best exertions to obtain evidence on which to proceed against the persons by whom some eggs and two stones were thrown at Dr. Houston and his party. A statement was made to the police that a stone was seen to have been thrown by a particular individual on the occasion, but no legal evidence could be obtained to establish this. The District Inspector applied to the Magistrates at Petty Sessions, on the 13th August, for instructions as to bringing up this case, and stated the nature of the evidence forthcoming; but the Magistrates came to the conclusion that the evidence available was insufficient, and that it would not be advisable to have any prosecution, and further expressed the opinion that the police had done their duty in endeavouring to bring the offenders to justice. There does not appear to be any reason for sending the County Inspector to make inquiries, as the occurrences have already formed the subject of investigation and report by the District Inspector. This officer, I am informed, is a Presbyterian; the head constable and one of the two sergeants are Protestants. The other sergeant and acting sergeant are Roman Catholics, and of the entire police party at Limavady six are Protestants and eight Roman Catholics.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General is aware that by a change of the route of the rural messenger between Feeny and Fincarn Post Office, County Derry, many householders, including a shopkeeper who carries on a considerable business through the Parcels Post, have been greatly inconvenienced; and, whether he will direct that the matter be reconsidered?

The route of the rural postman referred to was altered in order to afford a delivery at several houses formerly un-served, but it was understood that no inconvenience would be occasioned to any residents on the old route. The matter shall be reconsidered in accordance with the hon. Member's request, and the result communicated to him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the increasing importance of the Irish Fisheries, the Government will consider the advisability of establishing a Fishery Board for Ireland, similarly constituted to that of Scotland, and containing some representative element thereon?

I am aware of the importance to Ireland of the fisheries and their development, but I cannot say whether there is any volume of opinion in Ireland in favour of the reconstitution of the present Board of Fisheries in the direction suggested by the question. I shall, of course, be prepared to consider any representations that may be made to me in this respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Board consists only of three inspectors appointed by the Crown?

replied in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, inasmuch as the pressure of telephone business between England and France is confined almost exclusively to the business hours of the day, he can reduce the charge for three minutes conversation between the hours of 5 p.m. and 11 a.m. from eight to four shillings.

As I stated on the 27th ult., in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Canterbury, the charge for the use of the London-Paris telephone is the subject of international agreement and could not be altered without the concurrence of the Government of France. The Postmaster General does not see his way at present to propose any reduction.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) what are at present the regulations for the taking of private employment, as waiters or otherwise, by macers, messengers, housekeepers, and other subordinate officials in the Court of Session, Exchequer, Register House, and other Government Departments in Edinburgh; and, (2) whether the Government intends to make it a rule for the future that no such official shall take any private employment as waiter or otherwise?

By the rules applicable to such subordinate officials, they are not allowed to take private employment during official hours or at any time that would interfere with the proper discharge of their official duties. But they are at liberty to dispose as they please of the time which is not assigned to their public duties. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) whether the consent of the Treasury to the re-organisation of the Sasines Office, Edinburgh, was, by Minute of the Secretary for Scotland of 7th February, 1890, announced to be contingent on the daily attendance at that office being fixed at seven hours; (2) whether this arrangement has been carried into effect; and, if not, whether it is intended to be effected at an early date; (3) whether, although Lord Lee's Commission recommended that there should be only two classes of clerks in the Sasines Office, there are at the present moment ten, or what number of temporary clerks employed on staff work in the said office; (4) whether it is proposed to add to the number of temporary clerks on the occasion of any coming vacancy; and (5) whether the Secretary for Scotland will arrange for the carrying out of the recommendations of Lord Lee's Commission?

The increased scale of salaries granted to the staff in the Sasine Office by the Minute of 7th February 1890, applied to an attendance of seven hours, but the Minute also provided that the seven hours should not be introduced into the office until the proper number for the staff was ascertained. The seven hours has not yet been introduced, as, owing to the consideration of certain proposed changes in the present system of registration and the remarkable increase in the business of the office, it has not been possible to fix the final number of the staff. With reference to the second part of the question, it has been arranged meantime to maintain the staff at a nominal number of 75, and when vacancies occur these are filled by temporary clerks, selected by the Keeper, with salaries of £80, the minimum salary of the Second Division. The whole matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the imperfect and primitive condition of the landing piers in Clare Island and Louisburgh, several persons are drowned every year, and that cattle are frequently lost in the passage from Clare Island to Louisburgh, owing to the same cause; and, if he will press upon the notice of the Congested Districts Board the necessity for building proper piers at those points?

I have no information before me showing whether the statements in the first paragraph are, or are not, accurate; but, the suggestions of the hon. Member will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that Cavan town, at which two railway companies have terminal stations, has no train leaving there at night for the conveyance of the mails; is he aware that, under existing arrangements, the mails are despatched by car to Clones, a distance of 12 miles; and that, in order to meet this arrangement, letters from Arva, Killashandra, and other small outlying towns have to be posted as early as 2 p.m., and in Cavan at 5.30, no other post being available; and what steps will be taken to give a better postal service to this district?

There are no suitable trains at present between Cavan and Clones for the conveyance of the night mails, and the circumstances do not warrant the large additional expenditure which the establishment of suitable trains would involve. The question of establishing a supplementary night mail dispatch from Cavan by railway viâ Mullingar, thus affording a much later hour for posting, is now under consideration.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, Mr. P. A. M' Hugh, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland have given any undertaking to accelerate the train carrying the mails to Bundoran in the afternoon during the coming winter so as to ensure their being in time for the mail car leaving Bundoran for Kinlough and Manorhamilton with the second post?

So far as the Post Office is aware, the Great Northern Railway Company have given no undertaking on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the post office accommodation at Holyhead is inadequate and insufficient for the post office business of that town; whether the medical officer for Holyhead has reported to the Government that the post office premises are unfit for the purposes for which they are used; whether he is aware that a suitable site and premises, either freehold or on lease, are available in the centre of the town for the purpose of post office buildings; and, what steps the Government propose to take to provide suitable and commodious post office premises for the town of Holyhead?

The need for a better post office at Holyhead is admitted, and the postmistress, with whom it rests to provide suitable accommodation, has for some time past been endeavouring to obtain premises. Attention has not been called to the premises referred to as available, but if the owner will make an offer of them it shall be considered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will state whether the Lee-Metford magazine rifle to be issued to the Volunteers next year will have the Mark 1 bolt head or the Mark 2, Penn-Deely Patent, bolt head?

The Rifle to be issued to the Volunteers is not a Lee-Metford magazine rifle, but a Martini-Henry rifle with a Lee-Metford barrel. There is, therefore, no bolt.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, with the view of developing the fishing industry on the western mainland of Ross-shire and the Island of Lewis, the Government will consider the advisability of providing light railways, or road trams, for these parts; whether he is aware that the road between Stornoway and Carloway was constructed with a view to its being utilised for a light railway or tram line; and, whether arrangements will be made to carry out this scheme during the coming winter, so that the work can be done at a time when labour is less costly than during the summer months?

As I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, the Secretary for Scotland proposes to consider the whole subject, but no undertaking can at present be given as to any particular scheme. In the opinion of the Highland Works Engineer, the road now being constructed between Stornoway and Carloway could only be utilised for a light railway or tramway at very great expense.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to a circular recently issued from the office of the Superintendent of the Highland Railway Company, showing the hours of labour for men engaged on night ballasting to be from 6 p.m. to 6.55 a.m., or thirteen hours less five minutes; and whether he can take any steps under the Railways Regulation Act to prevent the Highland Railway Company working their men so many hours?

I have seen the circular referred to by the hon. Member. It would appear to be a direction to the engineer with reference to the movement of a train, and not to the hours of employment for men. However, as I have already told him, if he is in a position to make a representation in writing, complaining of the hours on behalf of the men, inquiry will be made.

asked whether, under the Railways Regulation Act a question asked in the House of Commons, making a suggestion of overwork, was not considered a sufficient representation?

No, Sir, I don't think it is.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to the number of hours per week engine drivers, guards, pointsmen, porters, and other servants of the Highland Railway Company are employed?

Having regard to the fact that there is a distinct provision in the Railways Regulation Act, 1893, under which a Return such as that desired by the hon. Gentleman can be called for by the Board of Trade, I think that, unless the railway servants in question, or the hon. Gentleman on their behalf, make the necessary representation under that Act, I ought not to call on the Railway Company for such a Return. I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that if such a representation is made to me it shall receive my attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has recently received from the Mountmellick Board of Guardians a representation respecting the evil effects upon the sanitary condition of the towns of Portarlington and Mountmellick resulting from the floods in the river basin of the Barrow; and whether, inasmuch as the question of the drainage of the Barrow has been before successive Governments for the last 85 years, and all necessary surveys and levels have been made at the expense of the owners and occupiers of the flooded lands, he will cause the requisite notices to be issued during the autumn with a view to the re-introduction of the Bill of the last Conservative Government?

I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The question of the drainage of the Barrow has formed the subject of inquiry in 1885 and 1886 by two Commissions, who, however, differed in their recommendations. A Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1886 was introduced in Parliament in 1888, and again in the following year, but was withdrawn on each occasion because of the opposition it met with. There was also local opposition on the part of the Queen's County Grand Jury, who were in favour of the recommendations of the Commission of 1885. The difference of cost as between the estimates of the two Commissioners was approximately £200,000, and I am informed that several eminent engineers object to the method for the discharge of flood-water recommended by the Commission of 1886. Having regard to this and to the outlay involved, I am disposed to think that the matter requires some further investigation.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, instead of comparing the relative merits of the two competing schemes, he would take the matter into his own personal consideration on its own merits, and whether he would be good enough to look at the Report of Sir Richard Griffith, which was in the Library of the House, with regard to the drainage of the Barrow in 1810 and 1811—a most perfect Report.

said, he was quite willing to undertake the investigation suggested, but he was not sure that his opinion would be of the same nature as that of competent engineers.

inquired whether, when competent engineers differed, the Government did not propose to do anything.

said he did not exactly say that, but he thought such a fact made it necessary to consider every scheme.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, subject to any modifications, the privilege of allowing the Cyclist Association to have certain races in the Phœnix Park can be restored?

No rules have, of course, been issued limiting the privileges of ordinary cyclists in Phœnix Park. On July 24 last year, Sir J. Hibbert stated that—

''The enormous increase in both races and competitors, accompanied by the attendance of professional bookmakers, had created such a condition of affairs that the Commissioner of Police had called the attention of the Board of Works to the public danger and nuisance thereby constituted, and that the Board had therefore decided not to issue permission for the races this year."

The same objection still holds good.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will take steps to prevent the overcrowding of third-class carriages on the Metropolitan Railway?

There is no provision inflicting a penalty on a railway company for overcrowding. It is very difficult to prevent passengers who are anxious to start on their journey from entering one or other of the many carriages which compose a train. The Board of Trade have no power in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether assistant clerks, posting clerks, and men of a similar grade are receiving the lowest annual increment in the Civil Service, an increment lower than that enjoyed by sorters and porters?

Assistant clerks in the Post Office, like clerks of a similar class in other departments, receive an annual increment of 1s. a week. This is less than the increment allowed to sorters, but not less than that for porters. The hon. Member speaks of "posting clerks," but, as there is no such class in the Post Office, the Postmaster General does not understand what officers are referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if his attention has been called to a statement made before a Bench of Magistrates at Omagh a few days ago by Mr. Ross, Q. C., that the constabulary on the night of 27th July made a series of blunders, and the result was to create a scene of confusion through which many of the inhabitants of Omagh suffered injury; and (2) whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to ascertain whether any foundation exists for these charges?

My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of the proceedings in this case, from which it appears that the learned Gentleman did make use of the statement referred to. Informations were refused by a majority of the Bench of Magistrates, but a minority, including the Resident Magistrate, considered that a primâ facie case had been proved against the defendants, and that they should be returned for trial. As regards the second paragraph, I have called for the depositions taken before the magistrates, and until I have had an opportunity of perusing them and consulting the law officers in the matter, I cannot undertake to say whether further action in the direction indicated is called for or necessary. The matter, however, will receive my careful consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can put the machinery of the Local Public Health Bodies in motion to compel railway companies in London to make better provision for the ventilation of their tunnels?

The matter referred to is not one in which the Local Government Board are empowered to intervene.

asked to what authority application should be made.

was not able to give any further information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the boots now served out to troops are machine made; and if these boots, though slightly cheaper in cost in the first instance, are more quickly worn out, and less adapted for marching purposes than the hand-made boots previously served out to the troops?

Owing to the difficulty of obtaining hand-sewn boots fully up to standard in sufficient quantities for the requirements of the Army, it was decided some years ago to restrict the issue of hand-sewn infantry boots to regiments serving abroad. The machine-sewn boot issued at home is somewhat cheaper, but there is no reason to suppose it is less durable. It is, however, unquestionably stiff and heavy, and experiments are being made with the view of introducing a lighter and more flexible boot. The question of the shape of the boot will also be considered.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the material discrepancies betwixt the original and the subsequent count of the votes cast at the recent elections in Southampton and the Haggerston Division of Shoreditch; and if it is practicable to have some system recommended to the presiding officers at elections by which the chance of these material discrepancies (which might in some instances alter the true results of elections) would be obviated?

The Local Government Board have no power to give directions as to the counting of votes in Parliamentary Elections. The responsibility for the accurate counting of the votes must rest with the Returning Officers, and the Local Government Board cannot intervene in the matter.

asked whether it was practicable to have some system introduced whereby discrepancies, which had not only arisen in Haggerston, but in other constituencies, could be avoided?

thought his hon. Friend would see that was a question which required notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to paragraphs 31 to 46, inclusive, of the 4th Report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1894, what steps have been taken by the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations as to the independent surveys of the stocks of Naval stores?

The Admiralty have agreed to the suggestion that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be empowered to cause a special stock-taking to be performed in any case where, from any suspicion of error or other cause, he may consider such a measure desirable. As regards independent stock-taking within the Admiralty, the subject, which relates to several Departments and involves important questions of cost, is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, notwithstanding repeated assurances in the House of Commons that the Treasury are desirous of promoting capable Second Division Clerks to the First Division, direct appointments to the latter division have been made under a recent Class I. Examination to Departments where there were Second Division Clerks who had been recommended for such promotions; and whether he will direct inquiries to be made in all the Departments to ascertain what Second Division Clerks have been so recommended, and investigate the matter?

The Ridley Commission reported that exceptional fitness should be the qualification for promotion to the First Division, and a certificate of such exceptional fitness must, in accordance with the Treasury Minute of August 10th, 1889, be signed by the head of the Department concerned. In all cases where Second Division Clerks have been so recommended, the Treasury has sanctioned the promotion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) whether Ridley Clerks of the Second Division are not in receipt of £100 per annum until their seventh year of service; and (2) whether due consideration was given to the Report of the Royal Commission by the Treasury before issuing the reply just given to the Memorial presented in December last by the Ridley Clerks, praying for a readjustment of their conditions of service?

The clerks in question enter the service at £70 a year, and rise at first by annual increments of £5, thus reaching £100 a year in their seventh year. This scale was recommended by the Ridley Commission. The answer to the second paragraph is, Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that guaranteed and assisted railways in India have been constructed at a less cost than those built by the State; and if the Government will consider the question whether, in the event of future railway construction in Africa, it would be desirable to give a guarantee to such lines of railway as they may deem desirable to develop British territory in Africa and British commerce?

I learn, on inquiry, that, speaking generally, from the results of recent experience, there is no substantial difference in the cost of construction of State railways in India and of those built by guaranteed or assisted companies. As regards questions which will have to be dealt with in my Department of future railway construction in Africa, I can only say that each scheme will be considered on its merits, and settled according to the particular circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a Memorial from the tracing staff, containing objections to a scheme recently offered them, and asking that the date by which applications for the new appointments must be forwarded may be withdrawn; and whether this request has been complied with, and the scheme withdrawn, pending the consideration of the Memorial?

As I stated to my hon. Friend last Friday, the Memorial has been received and is under consideration. The scheme has not been withdrawn.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that an agreement was entered into between Mr. C. M. O'Conor, Mount Druid, Belanagare, Roscommon, and his tenants in the townland of Ballyroddy, Elphin, for the purchase of their holdings two years ago, and that the Commissioners approved of the sale, and sanctioned in the case of one of the tenants an advance of £538; (2) what is the reason of the delay in making the advance; and (3) will he see that this matter shall not be any further prolonged, and the tenants be compelled to pay interest at the rate of five per cent., and deprived of the advantages which would accrue to them under the purchase?

The agreements in question were lodged in December, 1893, and January, 1894. The remaining facts are as stated in the first paragraph. I am informed that the delay was caused by difficulties which arose on the investigation of the vendor's title. I have no doubt the Land Commissioners will do their best to expedite the proceedings, and I will call their attention to the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the sanitary officer to the Castleblayney Union reported some months ago as to the insanitary condition of the houses of certain labourers in the Carrickalee division of that Union; (2) whether Mr. Agnew, Local Government Board Inspector, held an investigation and reported in favour of a scheme of cottages to replace those insanitary hovels; (3) did the Local Government Board of Ireland approve of and adopt Mr. Agnew's Report, and have any cottages been yet erected; and (4) will he have any objection to place Mr. Agnew's Report in this matter upon the Table of the House?

The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. As regards the third paragraph, the Local Government Board recommended the Guardians to make a scheme in accordance with the Inspector's Report, namely, for the erection of twenty-one cottages in five electoral divisions, nine of these cottages to be in the electoral division mentioned in the question; no cottages have yet been built. Various preliminaries laid down by the Acts must first be gone through, and the Guardians some time since informed the Board that delay in this respect had been caused by the illness of some of the members of the Local Committees appointed to select sites for the cottages. The Board are at present in communication with the Guardians on the subject. In reply to the fourth paragraph, it would be contrary to the invariable practice to lay the Inspector's Report on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Daily News of Saturday, to the effect that the Board of Trade is delaying the presentation of the Report of the Committee on Foreign Prison-made Goods; and (2) when such Report may be expected to be presented to the House?

asked whether it was not out of order to ask a question of a Minister founded on a newspaper paragraph without the hon. Member making himself responsible for the accuracy of the statement, except only in the case of foreign affairs?

I think the first part of the question is out of order for the reason suggested, but the hon. Member may ask the question in the second paragraph.

I have not yet received the Report of the Committee on Foreign Prison-made Goods, and there is accordingly no truth in the suggestion that its presentation to this House is being delayed by the Board of Trade. I am unable to answer the second part of the question, but some days ago I gave directions for its presentation in dummy before the House rises, in order that it may be circulated to hon. Members during the Recess.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that a Police Return has been issued, showing that 26 persons (mostly children) have been drowned in the Regent's Canal this year, and 33 others were rescued from drowning by the police; and, whether he will cause immediate steps to be taken to have the banks of the Canal properly protected, especially between the Rosemary Branch and Pritchard's Road Bridges, at Haggerston, where these lamentable accidents chiefly occur?

I am not aware that any Police Return has been issued, but the Commissioner of Police informs me that he has given to a private correspondent particulars of such cases within the knowledge of the police, and that the figures quoted are correctly given. The canal banks are private property, and are not patrolled by the Metropolitan Police. I am not aware that I have any power to enforce the protection desired, but I will communicate with the canal company on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, what has become of the Historical Pictures which were formerly in the Smoking Room of the House of Commons; and whether, if they are still available, he will cause them to be placed in the new Smoking Room?

When the Smoking Room was changed last year the Pictures to which my hon. Friend refers were ordered by my predecessor to be put into store in the building, and there they still remain. They were not considered suitable, on account of their large size and general appearance, for placing on the walls of the Smoking Room; and, from my recollection of them, I am inclined to concur in that view. If, however, my hon. Friend wishes it, I will look at the Pictures during the recess, and consider whether they might be hung in the new Smoking Room.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British and French Governments have come to an agreement regarding the modification of the Extradition Laws between the two countries, so that for the future any person whose extradition is demanded may be examined at his residence without being arrested; and, if so, whether it may be understood that this applies to the case of Dr. Cornelius Herz?

Her Majesty's Government have suggested to the French Government that a Supplementary Convention should be signed in order to give effect to the Extradition Act 1895, and have reason to hope that there will not be any difficulty in coming to an agreement. No Convention has, however, yet been signed.

asked whether, assuming than an agreement was come to, it would apply specifically to the case of Dr. Herz?

I am afraid my hon. Friend has not quite accurately stated the effect of the Extradition Act of last session. According to that Act it is not true that a person whose extradition is demanded may be examined at his own residence without being arrested. The Extradition Act states that when a fugitive criminal has been apprehended the case may be heard by a magistrate elsewhere than at Bow Street.

asked, was it to be understood that the Act of last Session was found to be ineffective and not to apply to the case of Dr. Herz?

That is not exactly the case. That Act cannot come into operation until a Convention has been signed with the French modifying the Extradition Treaty.

What is the need of a Supplementary Act, if the Act itself will apply when the Convention is agreed to?

We require a Convention to secure the modification of the Extradition Treaty at present in operation between them and ourselves.

Has anything been done to bring about an agreement between this and the French Government?

I have stated that we have approached them with that object in view, and we have reason to believe that the arrangement the hon. Member desires may shortly be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what progress has been made with the extension of telephone lines into Flintshire?

A telephone trunk line has been erected from Chester through Flintshire to Llandudno, and this line will, it is hoped, be available for serving some of the towns about its route as soon as the arrangements with the National Telephone Company are developed. But it will rest with that Company to establish the connections within areas provided for in the Agreement.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Somerset, Mr. E. Strachey, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now aware that the West Highland Railway Bill will be opposed at all its further stages; and, in view of his statement that if this Bill proved to be contentious it would not be pressed, do the Government intend to proceed any further this Session with it?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether, seeing that the only opposition to the West Highland Railway Guarantee Bill comes from the Highland Railway Company ["No, no!"], and that the people of the West Highlands and Islands are unanimously in favour of railway extension, and that the Mallaig Railway will shorten the journey between the Island of Lewis and Glasgow by 12 hours, the Government will consider the advisability of pressing the Bill forward through all its stages this Session?

The public statement of objection to this Bill does not correspond with the version given by the hon. Gentleman, and I am unwilling to believe that any hon. Member is actuated in his public conduct by motives which he does not avow to the House. With regard to the question on the Paper, I have to say that it is with profound regret that the Government recognise that the determined opposition which has been exhibited in the past and announced for the future in connection with this Bill, makes it absolutely impossible to pass the Bill during the present Session. The responsibility for the defeat of the measure must rest, and rest entirely and solely, with gentlemen who have initiated and carried out that opposition, and it is on their shoulders alone that the blame for any distress in the Western Highlands consequent on the rejection or deferring of this measure must be placed.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that this Bill proposes a subsidy to the extent of a quarter of a million to one of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the United Kingdom—namely, the North British Railway Company—and whether, in view of the fact that this proposal was first brought forward five years ago, he considers it reasonable to complain of Members regarding this Bill as contentious.

Order, order! That is a matter of opinion entirely.

May I ask whether the directors of this railway company are all prominent supporters of the present Government?

I know nothing about that.

desired to know from the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the answer he had given in reference to the West Highland Railway, whether the Berriew School Bill, which would be opposed as strenuously as the West Highland Railway Bill, would be pressed to a Second Reading? He would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there were three notices on the paper for the rejection of this particular Bill.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask me that to-morrow. A Division has been taken on the other Bill, and there has been a clear manifestation of the opinion of the Members of the House upon it.

Am I to understand that the Bill will not be brought forward until to-morrow? It is in to-day's Paper.

I cannot promise we won't take the Second Reading to-night.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if this Bill was mentioned in the scheme of legislation, when he obtained the whole time of the House?

I cannot remember whether this Bill was mentioned, but it certainly comes under the description of being a Departmental Bill. It would be out of order if I described the circumstances at length, but I may remind the House that it is a Bill simply dealing with a departmental error made by the late Government, which they desired to repair and which this Bill designs to repair.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he did not state that the opposition of one single Member would be sufficient to render a Bill of this kind contentious; and, whether now that three Members signify opposition to it, it does not become a contentious measure?

I do not remember saying that the opposition of one Member would be sufficient to constitute it opposed business; but in any case the opposition has only been declared by Notices on the Paper. We have not yet had an actual Debate upon it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any Report has been or will be issued by the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland; whether the evidence has yet been published in authorised form; and, does the Government intend to propose the re-appointment of the Committee next Session?

said, no Report had been issued, but the volume of evidence up to March, 1895, had been published and presented to Parliament. As regarded the last paragraph, he must remind the hon. Member that this was not a Committee of the House, but a Royal Commission, and had only adjourned until autumn. It was not affected by changes of Government or Parliament.

said, there were various matters he wished to place before the First Lord of the Admiralty for his consideration during the Recess. And, first of all, he should like to know what position the Admiralty and the Navy occupied in the new Council of Defence. Was the Admiralty to go on as before, doing its own business and making its own plans, or was it to be treated as in subordination to the new Council—in short, was there anything now taking place, or in contemplation, in connection with the new Scheme which would interfere with the independence of the Admiralty as hitherto understood. That independence was, perhaps, less now than was commonly believed, for, if he was right, in the official hierarchy the head of the Navy was the War Office. The War Office was the primary official to put in movement all warlike action. If, in addition to that, the First Lord of the Admiralty was to be put under the iron heel of the new Council, then an entirely new set of conditions would arise, and the House and Her Majesty's Government would have to consider the new position that would thus be created for the Navy. Coming more closely to the Navy itself, he was aware it had always been the custom of the Admiralty, and especially the Sea Lords, to treat any criticisms and suggestions with the most profound contempt. He thought the Naval Lords were wrong to take up that position. He thought, indeed, they must have forgotten the teachings of their own department, and the history of their own achievements. They might fairly be reminded that there was not one of the tools they used that had ever been invented by a Naval Lord. The steam they were so proud of, the electricity they so much laud—all came from the outside. The conversion of the wooden ship into the iron ship, and the iron ship into the steel ship—none of these things came from the Admiralty. The only work on tactics that for years was in existence was written by a layman who had never in his life been to sea. Therefore the Admiralty were not justified in rejecting with scorn criticism from the outside, seeing it was to the outside they were indebted for every valuable invention they ever had. It must be remembered that these Naval Lords were sailors for the greater part of their life, locked up in small vessels with few men, and these always the same, and consequently they had a tendency to be narrow-minded and arrogant. With this preface he invited the right hon. Gentleman to give renewed attention to the strategy of the questions raised by the new works now in course of construction. The present Naval Lords, or the First Lord, had quite recently discovered the torpedo. Why, the torpedo was in the year 1805 brought almost to perfection in its essence, but it had never been a success, and he believed never would be a success, except under circumstances of the greatest possible disregard of precautions on the part of the ship attacked. He remembered well Sir Hastings Yelverton telling him that in the old war, somewhere about 1803, when the British fleet were blockading Brest harbour, he was sent, in a fog, to fasten a torpedo to a French vessel inside the harbour, and in the fog he rowed around and fastened it to his own vessel. Already, he believed, the torpedo was beginning to decrease in estimation, its terrors were beginning to be less than they were. Yet this was the moment chosen to make out of it a great scare. If he might venture one word, and one word only, to the captain of a vessel in regard to the torpedo, it would be this—never anchor. The Admiralty had invented a scheme of breakwaters at Dover, Portland, and Gibraltar, and what they said to the captain of a vessel was—do anchor, and we will give you a breakwater which shall keep out those torpedoes. Whether it would not be found, on the contrary, that these breakwaters exposed the vessels of the Navy to other dangers he did not pretend to say. He also invited the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the situation created by the piling on of armour upon our ships. In his opinion this piling on of armour meant the abandonment of the offensive for the defensive, and the throwing away of armament for armour, of the sword in order to take up the shield. Of course it also involved the surrender of a great deal of seaworthiness. With regard to big ships it seemed to him they were misled in the same way, and for the same reason as they were misled by the torpedo. He believed that this exaggeration of the size of ships was altogether a mistake, and he quoted one of the ablest and greatest authorities we have, Professor Laughton, in support of that view:

"On no point," said Professor Laughton, "is the teaching of history more positive than this, that, beyond a certain limit, the force of a ship of war does not increase in proportion to an increase of size; and, again, that within, of course, reasonable limits, two small ships are superior to one large one; and yet again, that in a general action victory depends on superiority of numbers."

When it came to a question of another programme of naval construction, he hoped a greater part would be given to the smaller ship, and a smaller part to those monstrous and costly vessels which by their draught of water were debarred from a considerable proportion of the service which some British ship or the other had to do. One other point he wished to suggest, and that was the question of fuel. Oil fuel was a practical success, not merely on ships but on railways, and he only put it as one of the items to which he trusted the Admiralty would give its earnest attention. The Admiralty were afraid of the coalowners and the Coal Vote, and had never therefore been able to entertain this question of oil fuel, but really the moment had arrived when it should be done. If they could use oil fuel it would double or treble the fuel-carrying capacity, not only on the large ships, but on the torpedo-catchers and torpedo-boats. He must say a word, too, about cordite ammunition. He was appalled on Saturday to hear the Under Secretary of State in the late Administration say that the reason we had not an adequate supply of small-arm ammunition was because some competent persons held that under certain conditions it was "possibly treacherous and unreliable," because in short we could not trust cordite as safe ammunition. Now it was on board ship that unsafe ammunition was the most dangerous and most unsafe. It was on board ship that cordite ammunition was most exposed to the variations of temperature and climate which aggravated its treacherous character. At Ceylon they had a temperature of 100 degrees day and night on the deck of the ship, and what would happen if anything went wrong in the magazine he left the House to imagine. Turning to personnel, he had seen with great apprehension what seemed to him the beginning of a system of saddling responsibility upon the wrong shoulders. He had heard it preached that the person to be held responsible was not always the captain of a ship, but the admiral or somebody else, and he took as an illustration the T. A. signal, according to which the admiral alone was to know what manœuvre was to be performed, and everybody else was to play a game of "follow my leader" without knowing what was in the admiral's mind. He invited the First Lord to return to the old practice of the sea in this respect. A smaller point was the question of leave. A naval officer at home got six weeks' leave, but one serving abroad, when he came home, was entitled only to two weeks per year. Thus, when he came home at the end of three years, he found himself entitled only to such leave as the home man had every year of his time. And that was not all, for though he came home entitled to six weeks' leave he did not get it. He was ordered away constantly in a week or a fortnight. He did not only not get it, but it was not saved up for him. Surely they ought not to refuse those men who were doing the work of the Navy abroad the small modicum of leave which they were entitled to. Again, as regards the question of hospitality, it was a great hardship upon naval officers to be called upon to extend an expensive welcome to officers of foreign nations for national purposes. This official hospitality ought not to be paid for out of their private pockets; they ought to have a table allowance, just as the admiral had. He now came to what was the most pressing matter that arose upon this Vote, and that was the Order in Council issued on 26th July with reference to the supply of extra lieutenants for the Navy. In reply to a question the right hon. Gentleman informed him that there were in the Royal Navy 884 naval lieutenants, but of these there were 153, or 1 in 6, who he submitted were not naval lieutenants at all; they were naval lieutenants who had been allowed to withdraw themselves from the proper Naval Service and were allowed to take up the position of torpedo and gunnery lieutenants. These torpedo and gunnery lieutenants were in fact withdrawn from the work of naval lieutenants. They did not keep the usual watch. When he asked a question on this matter a few days since he received the answer, in carefully-chosen words, that these officers were not exempt from the duty. No, they were not; but he then asked whether they did, in fact, keep watch and he was informed that they did. What he understood by keeping watch was taking watch in turn during the cruise or voyage, and in this sense no torpedo and gunnery lieutenant did keep watch in turns with other lieutenants. True, on an emergency the torpedo and gunnery lieutenant might be called upon to do so, but it was an exceptional thing and, generally speaking, he imagined the keeping watch was mostly limited to taking charge of the deck while the officer in charge went below for half-an-hour or so. The result was these officers lost touch of the work, becoming torpedo and gunnery men, and being no longer naval lieutenants in every sense of the term. To the extent, then, of 153 from 844 the staff of naval lieutenants was reduced, and it was found necessary to adopt some means of bringing up the strength of this class of officers, because a certain number of them were set to do work which might be equally well done, and, indeed, he believed it would be better done, by the Marine Artillery. He invited the Admiralty to make the experiment. He would undertake to say that captains of the Blue Marines would be found perfectly competent to take the position of gunnery lieutenants on board battle ships. Would the Admiralty accept volunteers for the Service? If the First Lord would allow the experiment to be made of putting two or three captains of the Blue Marines on board sea-going battle ships as gunnery lieutenants, on condition of giving up their Army positions, he felt sure they would perform the duty to absolute satisfaction. The First Lord of the Admiralty would agree that for gunnery work naval lieutenants were not required, the work would be done just as well by the Blue Marines, by the Royal Naval Artillery. Again and again the Government had been told, when proposing to enter on some great programme of shipbuilding, that the first thing to be done was to prepare the men. You can make a ship in twenty months, but you cannot prepare a first-class seaman or an officer in that time; and, consequently, whenever you have to make an increase in ships and guns the first thing to be done, in common prudence, should be to increase the number of boys on board the Britannia and the St. Vincent. This had not hitherto been done, or it was only just beginning to be done, while it should have been done years ago. Therefore, in two ways, a scarcity had been produced: first, by taking away a sixth of the naval lieutenants for other than naval purposes and for work that could as well be performed by the Blue Marines—he had referred to gunnery work, but he would include torpedo work with a very little training; and, in the second place, the number of boys on the training ships had not been increased. Face to face with the difficulty that there were not enough naval lieutenants, the question was, how to get them. He submitted that the Admiralty had taken the most unfortunate way of filling up the vacancies. Nobody appreciated more than he did the very fine qualities of mercantile marine officers; they were invaluable, and it would be of the greatest advantage to have those qualities of a somewhat different character to those of naval officers in the Navy. But, first, he asked himself, would the scheme proposed secure the best officers of the Mercantile Marine? It was proposed to take an officer for a short period and then to get rid of him, never, except under special circumstances, giving him promotion to the rank of Commander. This offer would not attract the most valuable men to the Service, because they were offered no career, but only temporary employment; and not the best men of the Mercantile Marine would avail themselves of the offer, but only those who had not found appointments and a career on the great lines. That was one of the vices of the scheme, that it would not secure the kind of Mercantile Marine officers he wished to see on board Her Majesty's ships. As he understood the Order in Council, the Admiralty retained the power of promotion to the rank of Commander of certain Mercantile Marine officers they were about to bring in, but it was only to be applied in cases of gallantry in action. That he could not but regard as a foolish regulation. Obviously many good officers would never get the chance of displaying gallantry in action, though it was to be presumed that every officer would show gallantry if he had the opportunity. Officers of the Navy knew, moreover, that promotion for gallantry had not always been successful, because gallantry in action was not the greatest, but indeed one of the last qualities that should lead to promotion. Then what was going to be done in regard to present naval officers in comparison with Mercantile Marine officers? A boy was now taken to the Britannia at the age of 13, and his father was called upon to provide him with an allowance, an outfit, and to incur heavy expenses. The boy could not be sent to a public school or to college, and he was under various disabilities, which were necessary for his training. He had, himself, two boys under such conditions, and he in no way complained of the conditions. But what he did complain of was that, after a boy had been subjected to these conditions, and at the age of 21 became a sub-lieutenant, then in effect the Admiralty said: "All this was useless; we shall bring in a man who has fulfilled none of these conditions, but is just as good, and we shall call him a lieutenant." That was so under the right hon. Gentleman's new scheme.

Not mine.

said, the right hon. Gentleman would be responsible for the appointments. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any desire to embarrass the present Board of Admiralty—he was only putting forward what seemed to him a cogent argument against the scheme. These appointments would be made over the heads of sub-lieutenants who had been seven or eight years in the Service. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say this was only a temporary arrangement, and promotion to the rank of Commander would be only in certain cases, but it was one of the vices of the scheme that it would inflict a wrong upon sub-lieutenants in the Navy, while it was not calculated to secure the services of the best men in the Mercantile Marine. Then, again, naval lieutenants who had gone through the mill would be at a disadvantage as compared with the men brought in. He was very much afraid that this plan would not work very satisfactorily either for the gentlemen who were to be brought in from the Mercantile Marine or for the Naval officers themselves. There was considerable discontent already existing at the mere prospect of this arrangement, on the part of the Naval officers, and it was more serious to have discontent among Naval officers than among any other body of men in the service. There was a way by which, without bringing in anybody from the outside, they could supply themselves with the extra officers they required. He had never ceased to plead the cause of the warrant officers. It had always seemed to him that, in the interests of good service, they should open the door to quarter-deck rank to these officers. But, in the most foolish and purblind way they had imposed upon themselves the condition that they should never give to warrant officers this promotion except for gallantry in action, which was a mere affair of luck and chance. This hour of emergency, when they wanted lieutenants, gave them an opportunity of re-considering the case of warrant officers, a considerable number of whom were fit to become lieutenants. His belief was that the hundred men required could have been obtained from the ranks of the service; first of all, by promoting to the rank of lieutenant a certain number of sub-lieutenants; and secondly, by promoting to the rank of sub-lieutenant a certain number of the most competent, able, and capable of the warrant officers. It was absolutely useless to think of building ships or bringing forth guns, unless they had previously taken the precaution to have their men in such a state of training that they would be ready for the ships and guns. The men made no show; their training made no show. Big guns and big ships did make a show; and, therefore, whenever any effort had to be made in favour of the Navy, it took the form of big guns and big ships, and the men were left to take care of themselves. He brought forward these important subjects in the confident hope that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would take them into consideration, and that when next year came he might have a better account to give of his administration as translated into Estimates than he had had the advantage of doing in any Estimates hitherto presented.

hoped he was deceived in the impression he gathered that there was a desire on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury to minimise the importance of the communication which had been made to the country with regard to the position of the Lord President of the Council in the Committee of National Defence. Certainly, no announcement gave more satisfaction to those who, like himself, had desired to see the arrangement, for the defence of the Empire put on a proper footing. It was not desirable to subordinate in any administrative way the heads of the two great Departments to any colleague however distinguished; but what they had hoped and believed was that this Committee would ensure the performance of duties which were neither exclusively War Office nor Admiralty duties. The feeling amongst those who had studied the question was that the enormous potentiality of the Empire for defence had never yet been utilised. He had, with others, been labouring to bring about the recognition of this fact, and to obtain a body who would be able to deal with such questions as the contribution of the colonies and the actual distribution as between two Departments of the resources which the great power of this Empire placed at their disposal. He was most anxious to believe that the Government were not in any way going back from the full significance of the statement made with regard to the institution of the Council of Defence. He desired to take this opportunity of reminding the House how great and enormous was this change. He was most anxious that it should not be thought, either in the House or outside, that the House was divided into two sections, one composed of irresponsible and irrational persons of small grievances on Army and Naval matters, and the other of immovable officials who took the opposite view. It was a matter of satisfaction to feel that there had been a response, not only on the part of the present Administration, but on the part of its predecessors in these matters, and it was a matter of congratulation to him and those who worked with him to know that they had not been labouring on the wrong lines, or making proposals that were absolutely unreasonable. With regard to the reply which he received the other day from the First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the entertainments which Naval officers were to provide, he wished to make a suggestion. It would not be desirable, and was not the wish of the Naval officers, that, in all cases where hospitality was given, the cost should be borne by the nation; but he thought, when ships were sent to perform some national function, as they were recently at Kiel, at Portsmouth, and at Havre, where the essence of the service was hospitality, the expense should not be thrown upon the officers, but should be borne by a public grant. In many cases these officers were poor men, and if relief could be given without interfering with the sound sentiment which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, a very great boon would be conferred upon these officers. With regard to the question of recruiting the ranks of the officers of the Navy from the mercantile marine, he was positive that such a step would not have been taken without the concurrence and approval of the Naval officers themselves, but he hoped that this step would be regarded as a temporary and provisional one, justified only by the existence of an emergency, and that no attempt would be made to set it up as a precedent. The system under which we obtained our naval officers had not a commercial basis. They were paid sums which were absurdly small, and the chief consideration for their services was the social prestige which attached to the Navy. The officers' society on board one of Her Majesty's ships was very select, and discontent would very likely be caused by the indiscriminate introduction into that society of men from the Mercantile Marine, even though they were men of the highest class in their profession. The family relations, habits of mind, and subjects of conversation among the officers of the Royal Navy were probably all different from those of the men whom it was proposed to introduce into their society, and if this new scheme were put into operation to any large extent the naval officer would almost inevitably feel that he was not obtaining what he had contracted for when he entered the service. The result might be a serious difficulty in obtaining naval officers from the social ranks from which they now came, and that might lead to the necessity of awarding commissions according to some totally new plan. He trusted, therefore, that the appointments which were to be made from the Mercantile Marine would not be regarded as constituting a precedent, and that they would be made in every case under the supervision of some responsible officer at the Admiralty.

said, that it was his duty to draw the attention of the First Lord to the grievances of a large and important class of his constituents. He referred to the skilled and ordinary labourers employed in the dockyard at Sheerness. The skilled labourers were a very intelligent and highly trained body of men, and were employed as machinists, rivetters and drillers, and in other occupations. They complained that although the rate of wages in the dockyard ranged from 21 to 27 shillings a week, the majority of the skilled labourers were actually receiving less than 24 shillings. That, they considered, was not sufficient remuneration for the kind of work which they had to do. The position of the ordinary labourers had, no doubt, been materially improved of late, the wages having been raised to 19s. a week. But owing to the high prices of commodities in dockyard towns, and the high rate of house rents, ranging, he believed, from 4s. to 6s. a week, it was next to impossible for a labourer to live and bring up his family upon the low weekly wage which he received. Another subject calling for attention was the burning question of pensions, gratuities, and deferred pay. Under the existing system, an establishment man got a pension on reaching 60 years of age, and he believed that the pension was calculated on the basis of one-sixtieth of the man's pay for every year of his service as an establishment man. But this pension was really deferred pay, a weekly sum having been deducted by the Government from the man's wages. If he died before reaching the age of 60, his widow and children got nothing, although there had been this weekly deduction from his earnings. The hired man also complained. A man might work as a hired labourer for 15 or 20 years and then be put on the establishment, but his service during those previous years was not taken into account in calculating his pension. Then a hired man was entitled to a bonus on his reaching the pension age, but if he came on to the establishment he lost that right. He was glad to know that the First Lord had agreed to meet the dockyard Members to discuss these and other questions, and he trusted that in the interval before that meeting took place, the right hon. Gentleman would give careful consideration to the subjects to which he had drawn attention, and might arrange some plan for the improvement of the lot of these meritorious and hard-working men.

referring to the Order in Council providing for the introduction of 100 officers of the Mercantile Marine into the Royal Navy, asked how the appointments to the ranks of lieutenant and sub-lieutenant were to be divided. The Order in Council contained nothing to indicate how many officers were to be appointed to each of these ranks. He regretted that when the Admiralty determined to introduce these mercantile officers into the Navy they did not decide to confine their selection to the class of Royal Naval Reserve officers, a large percentage of whom had merits which would recommend them strongly to the officers of the Royal Navy. On the reserve lists there were 270 lieutenants, 400 sub-lieutenants, and over 300 midshipmen, and many of these had served 12 months on commissioned ships and held certificates in gunnery and torpedo practice. He feared that the scheme propounded by the Admiralty would prove to be a failure, for it was not viewed with favour either in the Navy or in the Mercantile Marine. Naval officers would have legitimate ground for complaint if they found that the men introduced were men of inferior calibre, for that might lower the status of the naval officer. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out that it was unreasonable to suppose that the best men in the Mercantile Marine would respond to the invitation of the Government, because a permanent career was not offered to them. The ablest men would not give up permanent positions good pay, and satisfactory prospects to accept temporary service in the Royal Navy under the conditions proposed. The probability, therefore, was that the invitation would only be responded to by inferior men who had not the qualifications required for the highest positions in the Mercantile Marine. Even supposing the Admiralty were in a position to offer such attractive terms as would induce men to come into the Navy, it would be almost a breach of faith with the shipowners who have so thoroughly co-operated in making the Naval Reserve a success. It was very evident that some scheme was necessary to meet this dearth of lieutenants. He did not think the Admiralty could be exonerated from blame for this state of things. They had been warned time after time that it must happen. There was one source upon which they might draw which they had altogether ignored, namely, the warrant officers. The warrant officer joined the service at the age of 14 or 15, and if it was an essential condition that officers should be trained up from their youth in the service, that condition was certainly fulfilled in the case of the warrant officer. More than that, he was accustomed to naval discipline, and was accustomed, not only to obey himself, but to enforce obedience. He was told that the knowledge of navigation possessed by the Mercantile Marine officer outweighed the other qualifications of the warrant officer, but since 1889 warrant officers had been instructed in navigation, and were frequently appointed for navigation duties to gunboats and surveying ships, and he was sure that they would readily submit themselves to any examination that might be necessary. It was said that there was a general feeling amongst Naval officers against the admission of warrant officers to commissioned rank. He did not admit that that was so. He had received a letter from a Naval officer of some distinction who was at present in command of a first-class battleship, in which he declared that it was a monstrous shame that warrant officers, born and bred to the trade, should be ignored, and that if five or 10 lieutenants' commissions could be offered annually to warrant officers, it would remove a grievance that was growing more rapidly among the rank and file of the Navy than many people dreamed of. "It is absurd to say," the letter went on, "that we Naval officers should not welcome them as well as we should welcome Naval Reserve men." That was the opinion of a Naval officer, and he was sure he expressed the opinion of very many others. He knew that some Naval officers in the House, like the gallant Admiral opposite, could not bear the idea of the warrant officer getting the opportunity of advancing himself, but he thought they were very much behind the age, and he would prefer the opinion of an officer who was now serving to that of the gallant Admiral, who had been out of the service so many years. The Navy was the only Crown service in which the men could not rise to the highest position. And what was the result? It was to be seen in the returns of the number of men who quitted the Navy at the expiry of their first term. As many as 33 per cent. did so, and declined to re-engage. That was very disadvantageous to England but very advantageous to other nations. When it was suggested that a naval training school should be established in the United States, the Secretary to the Admiralty said that it was altogether unnecessary, because they had a continuous flow of splendid men who had left the British Navy. An opportunity was now at hand to remove this anomaly. The First Lord in the previous Conservative Administration promised to give some attention to the desires of the warrant officers. During the term of office of the late Government the House was assured over and over again that the question was receiving every consideration, and the present First Lord the other day, in answer to a question as to whether the Committee that was appointed to deal with the question had reported, said that the question was still under consideration. He hoped that the claims of the warrant officers would be attended to before the question was finally settled. If the Admiralty could only see their way to opening the commissioned ranks to a few warrant officers, it would be of the highest advantage to the Navy, would pacify the vanity, if he might so call it, of the lower deck, would prevent men from quitting the service at the end of their first term, and diminish the evils which arose from that cause.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during the Recess, he would consider the case of two classes of men serving in the Navy. He referred, in the first place, to the coastguardsmen, from whom much more was demanded than formerly. When he first joined the service there was hardly a man among them who understood the semaphore, but now they were required to be trained signalmen, and when afloat had to do duty in any part of the ship to which they might be appointed. Under these circumstances, he thought the conditions under which they joined the coastguard might with advantage be reconsidered. The coastguardsmen only asked to be put on the same footing as their comrades afloat. They asked for the additional 2d. a day given to seamen on re-engagement, and that their pensions should be calculated on the same scale. He pointed out that any petty officer on joining the Coastguard had to forfeit his rating, and was thus placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with those who remained afloat. He hoped this matter would receive consideration during the coming Recess. The other class to whom he wished to call attention was the Royal Naval Reserve. It was a well known fact that the number of British seamen serving in ocean going vessels had decreased, therefore that source of supply for the Naval Reserve was inadequate. He might point out that they had a large number of men serving in deep sea fishing boats and trawlers who would form the very best material for the Naval Reserve, but at present the inducements held out were insufficient as they could only serve as second class men. He thought the Admiralty should give this matter their consideration, and allow these hardy fishermen to become eligible for the first class Reserve. When serving with the Coastguard he had experience with these men. Seven hundred of them drilled annually at a battery under his command, and a better class of men could not be found. When the battery was inspected he never heard a word, other than of approbation, as regarded the efficiency of the men; and as to their conduct he would only point out one fact—that during the five years he had to do with the battery, there was never one single instance of a man who was at drill being pulled up before a magistrate. Considering that they were nearly all serving away from their wives and families, he thought it was a clear proof that their conduct was all that it should be. He did not intend to follow hon. Members into their criticism on the question of officers. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to the gunnery lieutenants, and suggested that captains of the Royal Marine Artillery were well qualified to perform their duties. The gunnery lieutenant was not only a skilled artillerist but he also had to be efficient to discharge his duty in every part of the ship, and to take command at any time if necessary. He thought it would be a retrograde step to put it in the power of any one to say that the executive officers of the Navy did not understand their own guns. The hon. Member for Devonport referred to the promotion of warrant officers. He should be as glad as anyone to see them promoted to commission rank, but there were difficulties in the way, particularly in the matter of age; the average age at which a warrant was obtained was 27. Suppose a warrant officer obtained a lieutenant's commission at 29, he would be 6 years behind a lieutenant promoted from the sub-lieutenants' list. He did not think the proposal would benefit the warrant officers, most of whom were married men and would find themselves worse off as commissioned officers than at present.

said, the most serious objections taken against the promotion of the warrant officers was that it would cost money. He believed it would be the reverse, that if the demands of the warrant officers were granted, money would be saved to the country. He did not think sufficient stress had been laid on the figures with regard to the number of men who did not rejoin at the end of their first ten years' service. The return made in June last for the three years 1889–90–91 showed of the number of seamen who left, 33 per cent. in 1889, 32 per cent. in 1890, and 33 per cent. again in 1891 did not rejoin. That was one-third left after the first ten years service. To make an ordinary seaman cost the country £300. If he joined at 18 he did not become an able seaman until he was 21. It was obvious that if at 28 he rejoined for a second ten years, the latter term was more valuable to the nation. If they could do something to make men join for the second term, there would be a considerable saving to the nation on each man. There was a demand not only from the warrant officers but from others that a career should be opened up to them in some way or other. After 30 the warrant officer found a brick wall across his career, and he must go on to 50 when he became a chief warrant officer. He thought something should be done, by reserving positions for these men, to quicken promotion all the way down. This matter had been repeatedly brought before the late Government, and on the 18th of March last the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty gave them reason to believe that the matter was approaching consummation, and although he would pledge himself, he certainly spoke in a way that made them believe that the Board of Admiralty had decided to adopt this plan. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would be able to say that matters were left by the late Government in a condition sufficiently far advanced for him to express an opinion on the matter, and, in effect, to give them what they wanted. In regard to dockyard matters, it was within his knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman's previous administration at the Admiralty was remembered with gratitude by Government employés in Her Majesty's Dockyard. He was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman promise that he would personally consider the objections sent up from the dockyard before the Estimates were prepared. He suggested that a minimum wage of 19s. a week was not enough for ordinary labourers in places where they could not hire a single room for less than 3s. 6d. The question of classification was an important one; the men disliked the system by which some men who did exactly the same kind of work received a higher rate of pay than others simply because they were in a different class, the reason being that they feared favouritism. There was the question of the shipwrights also, who as artisans objected on trades union grounds to being put to the ordinary work of seamen, such as cooking, and washing down the decks when on board ships.

desired to emphasise what had been said about that class of labourers who were confined in a small space while on board ship, and received an extra allowance of 1d. on account of the nature of the work. They desired that allowance to be increased to 1½d., which did not seem to be unreasonable. In regard to warrant officers, a good many Members had overlooked the fact that, although there might be difficulties in the way of promotion for these men, they were left to suppose that their case was being considered, and that their demands would be complied with so far as the Admiralty could do so. That impression had been given at a very recent interview, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to add his own assurances on the subject.

I think the House will see that I have got my work cut out for me during the Recess, because there are so many topics connected with the Navy for which my anxious consideration has been asked. Hon. Members have spoken of various branches of the Service and various classes of men, and I can assure the House that I, with my colleagues at the Board of Admiralty, will give these matters our continued attention, with the greatest anxiety to do right by the Navy. Fortunately I am aided in my efforts by the presence on the Board of a number of Naval officers of great experience and ability. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn was not just to the Lords of the Admiralty. Those who have known the officers who in succession have filled these responsible posts, must know their great authority and experience, and the affection that is felt towards many of these. I may say, great men by Naval officers. I need only mention the names of Sir Geoffrey Hornby, Sir Alexander Milne, and Sir George Tryon, to remind the House that these are not the class of men who have only served on out-of-the-way stations, not such men as the hon. Member described.

said, he had not intended to convey that meaning.

I do not call such men as the Commander-in-Chief of a squadron, with some 30 vessels, many officers, and many thousands of men under him, narrow-minded men. ["Hear, hear!"] There are many persons who think that the whole administration of the Navy ought to be confided to professional men such as these, and believe them more competent than simple civilians to perform all the duties which we now share with them. That may be going too far, but to ignore or minimise the value of such professional assistance is most unfair. ["Hear, hear!"] And when my hon. Friend thinks that we have only taken counsel with Naval Lords, I can assure him that we are in constant touch with other naval officers of all schools. In the Naval Intelligence Department we have admirable officers who bring us in touch with all that goes on abroad, and, besides that, there is a general practice that, whenever an Admiral comes back from a foreign command, he sees the First Lord, and is cross-examined by him with regard to his command, the officers under him, the ships and their crews, and so on; and, therefore, we are not cut off, as it were, and restricted to consultation with two or three elderly men, but we have every opportunity of ascertaining what the views of the Navy really are. Those are the remarks which I think it is my duty to make in regard to the men with whom I am associated and upon whose judgment I must and I shall rely during the time that I hold my present office. ["Hear, hear!"] Then my hon. Friend spoke, as it was perfectly natural that he should speak, with reference to the new arrangements as regards responsibility for the Army and Navy. The main idea, as I understand, is that those matters which concern both the Army and the Navy together shall be considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, with the President of the Council at its head. But there is no idea whatever either that the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty should be "put under the heel" or under the authority of any other person or body of persons. If the Committee of the Cabinet were of opinion that any Estimates for the Navy were inadequate, I might protest that I was right, but accept more. On the other hand, if they were to decide that less should be done, then I should have to consider my position and responsibility. That is what I say about the personal position of the First Lord. The Board of Admiralty is as responsible under the new arrangement as it was before. But there are a number of subjects, as it has been pointed out both in this House and outside, where both the Army and the Navy touch, where there are joint operations that may have to be performed, or where a joint distribution of duties should be fixed. For instance, take the cases of Ascension and St. Helena. It may be a question how much the War Office ought to do and how much the Admiralty ought to do. Again, there might arise a question in regard to defence of the ports as to how much the Army should do and how much the Navy should do. Such questions might well be referred to the Joint Committee, presided over by an independent person—a Minister not connected with either Department. Since the Report of the Hartington Commission, an immense deal has already been done. There has been sitting a Naval and Military Defence Committee, who have studied a vast variety of these questions, which, if not studied, might in time lead to friction, particularly in case of war. A good deal of ground has been covered go far as professional opinion is concerned. Upon that Committee, under the presidency of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for War, sat the First Naval Lord, the Adjutant General, the Admiral Superintendent of Reserves, the head of the Naval Intelligence Department, the Director of Military Intelligence, the Inspector General of Fortifications, the Director of Naval Ordnance, and the Director of Artillery, and great work has already been done. That work will now receive Cabinet sanction by being brought before the Committee of the Cabinet. The Committee now submit their recommendations, and many of them have already been carried out. The Cabinet examination and Cabinet sanction which will be given in future will offer to successive Governments records of the decisions arrived at, which is another object of the new arrangement. I am not sorry that my hon. Friend has asked the question with regard to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War and of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because I am glad to have the opportunity of stating that our respective responsibilities are not diminished by one iota. [Cheers.] It is now 20 years since I was at the Admiralty, and the extraordinary contrast between then and now is as astonishing as it is gratifying. ["Hear, hear!"] The preparations which have been made, the way in which every contingency has been thought out—all this has been executed with great diligence, and with great scientific knowledge of all the considerations involved. Thus it is the crowning work of what has been done already, rather than anything entirely novel, that we are now undertaking; and I do not think that any departmental responsibility will be lessened thereby. For my part, I may say that I am desirous that the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Secretary of State for War should be absolutely retained and kept unimpaired. I now come to the strategy of my hon. Friend, and he must excuse me from following him into any detail. My hon. Friend does not, I think, sufficiently realise—or has, perhaps, forgotten—the enormous development of torpedoes on the coast of France. There is no reason why that should not be mentioned. My hon. Friend speaks of the year 1805; but that situation has entirely changed. He has forgotten the immense development of the torpedo system in France; there are now countless nests of torpedo-boats all along the French coasts; and against these torpedoes preparations must be made, different from those which were formerly needed. Nor had such boats the extraordinary speed which they now have. I do not, however, stop to argue the question further with my hon. Friend. I believe that, costly as are the preparations, they must be incurred; and great would be the responsibility if every precaution were not taken. Then my hon. Friend spoke of the size of ships, and held that we ought not to build such immense vessels as the Majestic and Magnificent, and ships of their class. I am not defending the past programme of the Admiralty; in a new programme it will be proper for me to defend what I myself propose. But I think my hon. Friend gave a wrong impression in the idea that Captain Mahan agreed with Professor Laughton that a number of small ships would be able to contend with larger ships, and that, therefore, the construction of the larger vessels ought to be abandoned. I do not read that Captain Mahan argued that way. On the contrary, in America they are continuing to build large ships, with the support of Captain Mahan. One vessel, for instance is being built of 11,400 tons and 11,000 horse-power, and there are others building nearly as large. Captain Mahan has done a great deal in the way of leading public opinion in this country in the right direction with regard to naval warfare; and we are under great obligations to him for the admirable book which he has written. ["Hear, hear!"] Then my hon. Friend spoke of cordite, and quoted a phrase of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am not, however, informed that cordite is of a dangerous character on board ships, or that there is danger of explosion with it, though this is of course a matter which must be taken into careful consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] Certainly, if there is one subject upon which the whole anxiety on the part of the Admiralty ought to be centred, it is the question of ammunition generally, and particularly cordite powder; and we ought to spare no pains and investigations to insure that we are on the right tack. [Cheers.]

May I be excused for saying that I cannot recollect anything that I have said that would justify the danger apprehended, either on Saturday or on any other occasion.

As to the personnel of the Navy, I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member as to the uselessness of all the efforts the Admiralty are making respecting guns and ships if the officers and men are inferior in any degree to those who have gone before them. ["Hear, hear!"] I am bound to say, however, that, in my opinion, the present system of training officers and men is a great success. That training is, no doubt, extremely costly. but I think that the result attained by it has warranted the expenditure that has been incurred upon it. Of course, the question with regard to leave, which is an extremely delicate one, is one well worthy of consideration, and it will have my best attention. ["Hear, hear!"] I come next to the question of the new Order in Council, respecting the employment in the Navy of lieutenants entered from the mercantile marine. That Order is not the work of the present Board of Admiralty, but I may say that, having looked into the case as it was discussed by the late Board and their naval advisers, with the greatest anxiety and with the greatest wish to do justice to all parties, I consider that it is clear there was no alternative for the course they took. ["Hear, hear!"] The plan has been attacked from several quarters in this House, and I must say that I regret that the vigour with which some hon. Members in this House have assailed it, should have supplied arguments for dissatisfaction where dissatisfaction did not previously exist. ["Hear, hear!"] It has been said that there was general dissatisfaction on the matter in question, but I have taken means to inquire into the subject at gatherings when great numbers of officers have been assembled together, in order to ascertain what their views with regard to the Order were, and I have been assured that there were no signs of dissatisfaction expressed by those officers on the question. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter was, perhaps, misunderstood in some cases when the order was first made, but I now understand that no prejudice exists in the minds of the officers against the scheme, they knowing how their interests have been safeguarded. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that the plan would not succeed, and that we should not get the best men, inasmuch as the best men would not come forward. The answer to that objection is, that already applications have been received from 51 officers belonging to the best lines, whose record is unimpeachable, and the majority of whom have actually served for more than a year on board men-of-war. I am certain that if we can secure 100 good men who can perform the duties which will be required of them, we shall have done something at all events to meet the present emergency in a satisfactory manner. ["Hear, hear!"] The scheme is only a temporary one, and it is so regarded by every officer who is connected with the Admiralty. My hon. Friend thinks that a difficulty may arise as to the term of service of the sub-lieutenants. Of course, that matter was considered by the Naval Lords, but the term of service of sub-lieutenants has already been reduced to a minimum, and the Admiralty are not prepared further to reduce the number of years which sub-lieutenants have to serve before undertaking the highly responsible position of lieutenants. ["Hear, hear!"] In making appointments, the Admiralty consider that the members of the Royal Naval Reserve have preferential claims over those who have not been connected with the Navy. They have some knowledge of the Navy, and the Navy has some knowledge of them. The introduction of a considerable number of warrant officers into the executive branch of the Navy would clearly interfere with the promotion of sub-lieutenants and lieutenants, which the latter have a right to expect. Officers in the Navy have a just respect for the warrant officers, but if considerable promotion were to take place from their ranks into the ranks of commissioned officers, much difficulty might arise, and I am satisfied that if such a step could have been taken safely, it would have been taken long ago. The hon. Member asked at what stage the late Government left the question of the position of warrant officers. That is a question on which I am not sure that I ought not to speak with reserve. When the late Government left, their responsibility ceased and ours began, and I am not certain what is the departmental practice with regard to a question of this sort, and as to whether I can properly say to what point our predecessors have carried the matter. At least I should not care to say it without their sanction, and would rather they made the statement themselves. May I say here, I much regret that the exigencies of health or holidays have prevented our predecessors from being here to defend their own Estimates and their own Order in Council? The late Financial Secretary (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) was here on Saturday, and I should have been glad, as he would have been glad himself, if he had been here to-day to defend the Estimates and the Order in Council. However, I am not prepared to say to what point this matter has been brought by our predecessors. Unfortunately, it has not been brought to the point of being communicated to the public or the service, and therefore the responsibility for whatever is done must rest on the present Board. I know that a Committee has inquired into this matter, and its Report is either completed or is on the point of completion, and it will be for the present Board to deal with this extremely difficult question; and it is a difficult question apart from its present emergency, because when hon. Members opposite advocate the promotion of warrant officers they advocate it not as a temporary expedient, but as, in their judgment, of permanent interest to the service. One point of Gentlemen opposite is that they believe that if more chances of promotion were open to warrant officers it would diminish the large number of men who leave the service at the end of 10 years. One hon. Member said these were 30 per cent. I would point out that 10 years' service in the Navy is a considerable time, and I am not sure but that the Navy compares favourably with the Army in length of service performed and the number of men who remain long in it. But I am entirely in favour of doing everything to encourage men to engage for a second period of service. I agree with the hon. Member entirely that I would rather train a man at the expense of £300 for 20 years than for 10 years, and apart entirely from the question of money I should like to see as many seasoned and older men in a ship as possible, giving a tone to the ship's company. Most captains like to have men who have served a good many years in their ships. Therefore, every inducement is thrown out to warrant officers, compatible with the interests of the service, and whatever more can be done it will be a pleasure to me to be able to do, but I do not wish to raise any hopes. The information I have received differs from that given to the House by certain hon. Members. I am told that, while warrant officers are extremely anxious for certain of the points mentioned, there is not that general desire for promotion and admission to the ward-room which has been suggested. That may or may not be so. It is extremely difficult to arrive at what is the real opinion of a body of men on such a subject. Lately I am told the general body of warrant officers have begun to see the difficulties themselves, though, like every other body of men, they would like to see their prospects improved. I hope I have now said enough to show that the experiment made by the new Order in Council, unpopular as it may be among certain classes, was absolutely necessary, and that of several courses, all of which presented difficulties, the late Board and their advisers considered that they chose the least difficult. I have dealt at some length with the point because it has formed the chief subject of discussion this afternoon amongst those who have criticised the Estimates. Comparatively few other points were raised. At Sheerness, Portsmouth, and Devonport there are demands for additional pay. Those matters will have to be considered, but I tremble to think of the immense ground that would have to be covered in considering all these grievances. I can only conclude by saying that our best efforts will be devoted to the solution of these difficult questions. Many differences of opinion exist, not only between civilians and Naval men, but among Naval men themselves, which illustrate the difficulty of the problems with which we have to deal, but to the solution of which we shall devote our best energies. [Cheers.]

complained that Greenwich pensioners to the number of 500 or 600 were not included in the £16,000 voted in connection with the Greenwich aged pension scheme, men in every way as qualified as those who were included. He hoped that the matter would be considered when the next Estimates were being prepared.

pointed out that there was a suspicion of favouritism in the way in which those who were given pensions were selected. It would be better to have a rota and give every man his pension in turn.

said, there seemed to be an impression among those who thought themselves entitled to pensions that the pensions were given as a matter of right. This was not so. The number of pensions was limited to the amount devoted to the Pension Fund. The greatest possible consideration was given to the selection of candidates for the pensions, and from his own personal knowledge he could assure the hon. Member for Devonport and the public that there was not the slightest foundation—he was sure the hon. Member did not impute it—for the suggestion of favouritism or unfair selection. He would consider whether it would be possible to adopt a rota.

said, the bulk, if not all, of those who had been excluded from the Greenwich Pension Scheme entered the Navy before 1878, and, therefore, ought to have been included in it.

said that, a Committee appointed last Session to consider the whole question had taken a great deal of evidence, and before long would present its Report.

said, he wished to ask one or two questions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The first was as to the pension fund of the Irish national teachers. The position of these teachers had been considerably improved in recent years, but they still had many grievances to bring before the Government. The teachers did not quite know the position of the Pension Fund, and they desired to obtain information. They complained that the capitation grants for Irish pupils were under the mark they ought to stand at, and were considerably below the grants to English pupils. The discrepancy was so great that there did not appear to be any reasonable or satisfactory explanation of it, and they would be glad to hear any explanation the Chief Secretary might have to give. With regard to the retiring allowance, called a gratuity, they complained that, if a teacher died just before he became entitled to it, his family did not receive the benefit of it as they would have done if he had chanced to live a little longer. They further asked for an extension of the time for the repayment of a grant for the building of a teacher's residence. The present period was about 35 years; and they claimed that, considering how very moderate their salaries were, the period should be nearly, if not quite, doubled. With regard to the books used in the National Schools, he should like to know how they were compiled, how they were edited, and who was responsible for them. They might very well contain more information that would be useful to those who were to be employed in the handicrafts and agriculture of Ireland. At any rate, it was desirable that Members of the House should be enabled to form an opinion as to the character of these books, and therefore, copies of them ought to be placed in the Library for examination. These books were sold to scholars, and it was urged that they ought to be supplied gratuitously—certainly to the poorer scholars.

said, that in the opinion of some persons the books used in the National Schools were barren reading, and contained a large amount of half digested, unpicturesque information, conveyed in the dreariest and most pedantic manner possible; and they compared very unfavourably with the books used in other schools. He desired to bring before the House the subject of free education in Ireland. The Free Education Act was passed in 1892, and should have come into operation in 1894; but in a great portion of Ireland it was practically a dead letter; and that was not a creditable condition of things. What steps was the Chief Secretary going to take during the Recess to make it operative? Something must be done speedily if the Act was not to remain a transparent absurdity. A return showed that, out of 118 places, only 29 had had school attendance committees formed; in 36, attendance officers were not appointed; and in 18, no proper arrangements had been made as to funds; so that in three-fourths of these places the Act was really not in operation. Mr. John Morley recognised the failure of the Act, and directed the attention of the Commissioners of National Education to the fact, making suggestions for their consideration. He pointed out that the comparative failure of the Act was due to the refusal of the Local Authorities to put it into operation so long as certain classes of schools—those of the Christian Brothers—are excluded from State assistance. That was in February last, and the deadlock still continued. A great deal of correspondence had passed between the Irish Office and the Commissioners of National Education; both parties seemed to have come close together. Mr. Morley laid down four conditions—namely, that schools receiving grants should be for primary education, that they should be for scholars between three and 15, that they should be open to inspection and examination, and that they should accept the conscience clause. To the astonishment and dismay of many people in Ireland, Mr. Morley, in the same letter, suggested that a smaller capitation grant should be given to those who, for conscientious reasons, were at present unable to accept State aid. That suggestion was unwise and unfair, and he hoped it would not be renewed. At any rate it upset the negotiations, and it created a strong feeling on the part of the Commissioners, who absolutely rejected it, and prepared a reasonable alternative. He trusted the Irish Office would settle this vexed question, and give fair and equitable treatment to schools which had rendered such great service to the cause of primary education, and which enlisted the admiration of all educationists who visited the country. A modus vivendi ought to be found at once. The Christian Brothers would accept the principle of classification upon the basis of examination. Upon terms understood by both sides, they were willing to accept a capitation grant coupled with results-fees, so that there ought to be little difficulty in settling the question. There were 29 places in Ireland, with a population of 1¼ millions, where no school attendance committees had been formed, and it would be practically impossible to work the Free Education Act there, unless the Christian Brothers' schools were included. Large towns like Dublin, Cork and Limerick, had protested against the exclusion of these schools, and refused to put the Act into operation as long as the exclusion was maintained. Of course, it could be made compulsory by Act of Parliament, but that would give rise to strong feeling. In these 29 large centres the bulk of the teaching was done by the Christian Brothers, and the difficulty would be to find accommodation for the children outside the Christian Brothers' schools. The National Board would have to spend enormous sums in many parts in building new schools. He hoped the Chief Secretary would pay attention to the overwhelming body of public opinion in Ireland, rather than to the views of a small section who seemed animated by a dog-in-the-manger spirit in connection with the Christian Brothers. Three months ago, Mr. Morley brought this matter up to a certain point, and it ought to be easy to settle the matter before the end of the year. According to the Report, there were 30 model schools in Ireland, and they cost no less than £28,524, while the total average attendance was only a little over 10,000. This was a serious waste of public money, for, except in a few places, these model schools had not been a success. Where they had been a success, there was no reason why they should not be continued; but where, as in Cork, they were utterly out of touch with the needs of the people the money spent on them ought to be used in a better way for educational purposes. Six years ago, the present First Lord of the Treasury said:—

''I am prepared to admit that the condition of the model schools in many parts of Ireland is not one on which the Educational Authorities hare any reason to congratulate themselves. …. We ought to consider whether this particular portion of the educational machinery commends itself to the affections and sentiments of the population."

Let the Chief Secretary act up to that declaration. Where the schools had failed, they might be closed, and the buildings used for other purposes. Good use for the money could be found in encouraging the establishment of school farms and gardens in connection with the National Schools. From the last Report of the Commissioners it appeared that the total number of these farms was only 44, and of the gardens only 30; and this in a purely agricultural country like Ireland. It would be better for boys in Ireland to learn the rotation of crops and such subjects, than the geography of the Carpathian Mountains. At present a large part of the curriculum in the National Schools was faulty, defective, and most unsatisfactory. He noticed that the special payments to teachers in 50 schools for agricultural teaching amounted to only £832. The whole thing was a farce, and illustrated the manner in which Ireland was governed in absolute ignorance, or, at any rate, with indifference to the wants and needs of the people. He hoped the Chief Secretary would, in his reply, give more than a pious opinion as to the Christian Brothers, the status of the Model Schools, and the condition of agricultural training in the National Schools.

said, that although there were some parts in the wide sphere of Irish Administration in regard to which Nationalist Members came into natural and necessary conflict with the Chief Secretary, there was no reason why there should be any conflict between them on the subject of education. The Chief Secretary was a man who had some practical familiarity with the great question of education; it was a question in which he took a deep interest; and in regard to the great dividing question of denominational or undenominational teaching, the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to the electors in England strongly on the denominational side. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the Nationalist Members started on this question of education in a friendly spirit, and with a certain similarity of principle which ought, perhaps, to yield good results to the country. There were many matters connected with the system of education in Ireland in which it was absolutely necessary, if the country was not to be stunted in its intellectual growth, that some sweeping change should be made. There was a body known as the Commissioners of National Education. It contained some excellent Gentlemen, amongst others the two Archbishops, who were acquainted with educational problems. But it also contained a number of men who had no knowledge of educational problems. Some of the appointments of the late Chief Secretary had made an improvement in the Board, but there was still room for more reform in that direction; and he hoped that, in the event of vacancies occurring, the Chief Secretary would make it his first object to appoint men who knew something about education. Then there was the pressing question of the reading books of the National Schools. Year after year a protest was made in the House against the character of those books. A few books had lately been revised, but even the improved books were very much worse than the average schoolbooks used in England. The gentlemen who drew up the National School books seemed to have had no conception as to what would interest or form the mind of a child. There were extracts from the writings of Dr. Whately, which were of no use whatever to children under 12, and the pieces of poetry were deplorable. It was essential that some attempt should be made to thoroughly deal with this question at once. The late Chief Secretary attempted to deal with it, but he confessed he thought the right hon. Gentleman made the thing rather worse than before. Under the pressure of the right hon. Gentleman the Board allowed other school books to be used in some cases, but they still preserved the system of literal examination by the inspectors in the books of the Board, and in consequence there was not a sufficient independent sale of schoolbooks to make it worth while for a publisher to produce special books for the Irish National Schools. The only gain was that a small number of schools had adopted English books—books which were admirably suited for English schools, and which were slightly better than the books of the National Board, but still, not so good as the books which would be in use under a system of rational administration or a system of free trade in books. The Chief Secretary would recognise that Irish children were not altogether the same as English children; that their tastes were different in their early years, and that books suited to English children were not always suited to Irish children. What he would say, therefore, was that if there were to be books used besides the books of the Board, the inspectors should be instructed that they were not to have literal examinations in the books of the Board, but were to allow free play to other books, so that the demand for such books might be large enough to induce Irish publishers to meet it. He hoped the Chief Secretary would also be able to take a large view of the question of the Christian Brothers. The right hon. Gentleman would probably be told by a small, if noisy, section, that the present system of education in Ireland was undenominational, and that if he allowed the Christian Brothers in under the Board he would destroy that system. But a very slight examination of the system would show that there was no such thing as undenominational education in Ireland. They had there a system of denominational education in which restrictions were only placed on that denomination which taught the importance of symbols or the outward manifestation of religion. That really was what the education difficulty in Ireland came to. There were separate denominational schools which were increasing day after day, while the mixed schools were decreasing. There were separate schools for Protestants of all denominations in which there was the Protestant teaching which Protestants considered necessary. There were separate schools for Catholics, though not in all cases with that separate teaching or outward manifestation of religion which Catholics thought necessary. That really was the grievance under which the Christian Brothers laboured. In looking at this question he, himself, took the view rather of an educational reformer than of a strong enthusiast for any particular form of education. He saw that the Christian Brothers, whatever might be the justice of their demands on religious grounds, were doing the best educational work of any primary teachers in Ireland. They had established in Ireland that which did not exist in England—that which a great body of educational reformers desired to constitute in England—namely, a bridge between the primary and higher systems of education. A large number of boys, drawn from the people and brought up in the Christian Brothers' Schools, passed through the intermediate course, and were enabled to go into a University or join the professions, entirely owing to the work of the Christian Brothers, and the danger was that in the deadlock now existing this valuable bridge between primary and higher education would be destroyed. On that ground he trusted the Chief Secretary would look at the question carefully and sympathetically. Now, what was the grievance? The grievance was that because the Christian Brothers in Ireland had in their schools religious symbols which were allowed to the Christian Brothers in England, they got no grant at all. He had seen in Christian Brothers' Schools in England those very symbols which were the subject of contention in Ireland. The English education inspectors made no objection whatever to the giving of a grant to the schools in which there were these symbols, but the schools in Ireland in which there were the symbols were allowed no grant whatever. In England the grievance was that about one-sixth of the cost of education in voluntary schools was raised by voluntary contributions, but the whole cost of education in the Christian Brothers' schools in Ireland was raised from voluntary sources. He was persuaded the Chief Secretary could not fail to remove the obstacles which weighed so heavily upon the voluntary schools of Ireland, especially when he could do it by a stroke of the pen.

thought it would be better, after the eloquent speeches they had just listened to, that he should confine his remarks to the question of primary or elementary education in Ireland, because, after all, it was amongst the poorer classes of the population that the greatest work was required, and that the greatest amount of good could be effected. No doubt considerable improvements had been made of late years in the system of elementary education, but a great deal yet remained to be done. There was an especial need of technical education in Ireland. It was of vital importance to the rising population, that that branch of education should receive the earnest and practical attention of the Education Board. He knew of many places in Ireland, in which such a thing as technical education was quite unknown. The ordinary school-boy was taught all about mountains in different parts of the world and such like things, which very probably he soon forgot, but as to technical matters, a knowledge of which would be invaluable to him when he was turned out to face the rough ways of the world, he was taught nothing. He endorsed all the remarks made by previous speakers in respect to the treatment of the Christian Brothers. It was, in his opinion, a scandal that something had not been done long since to place the Christian Brothers on a footing of equality with other teaching bodies in Ireland, because it was an admitted fact that the boys taught by the Christian Brothers were by far the best educated boys in Ireland. The Christian Brothers devoted their lives, not alone to the religious education, but also to the secular education of the youth of Ireland, and, after all, if the present framework of Society was to be kept up, the two branches of education must be linked together. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would do all he could to right the injustice under which these learned and pious teachers laboured. He thought too, it would be admitted by most people that the Irish National Teachers as a class were deserving of consideration at the hands of the House of Commons, for they had to discharge the very onerous task of moulding the minds of the young people of Ireland. He did not wish to pose as the champion of any particular class of teachers. The consideration of all such matters should be approached in the broadest and most liberal spirit, but there was much to be said before the question of the treatment of Irish National School teachers was disposed of. Some years ago there was a rule that in order to encourage the efficiency of the teachers, a good service allowance should be granted every five years; at the end of every five years an increase of £9 per annum was made to a teacher's salary, by way of a good service premium. That rule was abolished by the Education Board, without any adequate reason being assigned, and, now, if a teacher attained the age of 65 years, at which period he was retired, he found himself in the same position, as regarded salary, in which he started. It was unfair, to say the least, that some effort should not be made to keep up the standard of professional ability. Something, too, ought to be done to improve the position of the principal assistant teachers. They were an important body of officials, and yet advancement for them was reduced to a practical nullity. It was true that by the favour of managers, here and there, a few received promotion, but if there were several in one school, as there frequently were in a school in a large town, they could expect little advancement. The rule in regard to monitors operated unfairly. For instance no monitor could be appointed to a school in the year, unless the fact that a vacancy existed was notified before the 1st of July. He should like to say a word or two on the question of results. They had instituted in Ireland a system of intermediate education. No doubt for a country possessing the riches and great professional advancement which were open to the people of England, the system of intermediate education was not only necessary but highly essential. He was sorry to say that in Ireland the circumstances were different. Ireland was a poor country, with very few of the higher-class promotions open to boys. In Ireland they had instituted a system of intermediate education, and held out to boys certain rewards for the acquirement of the higher sciences and educational knowledge. At the same time, by not having provided technical education for the poorer classes in the elementary schools, they deprived them of any such reward. They thus drew the class distinction of two-pence half-penny looking down upon two-pence. They gave one class of the community rewards for learning high-class subjects, which were often of very little use to them, and they expected the pupils of a lower class, going to the elementary schools, to work whilst having no reward held out to them as an inducement to their educational progress. The system of Irish intermediate education, faulty though it might be, should to some extent be applied to elementary education. Under the present result system, pertaining to elementary education, the stupid boy and the clever boy were placed on the same level, and the boy who passed with the highest number of marks received no more recognition than the boy who just managed to scramble through. The principle of intermediate education of rewarding the clever boy should be applied to elementary education, so that an incentive might be given to these poor children to go on with their studies and furnish the ground-work on which the sounder principles of education could afterwards be applied.

supported the views put forward by the hon. Members for North-East Cork and Derry City, and expressed the hope that before the next Session of Parliament opened the Chief Secretary would settle the question of the Christian Brothers. Whether he could see his way to solve the other problems which had been raised in relation to Irish education, the right hon. Gentlemen, belonging to the Party he did, would have little difficulty in settling the comparatively narrow question of doing justice to the Christian Brothers' schools. In a letter written by Mr. John Morley on May 13, 1895, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland proposed a settlement by way of capitation grant similar to that which prevailed in relation to denominational schools in England. In the letter the following paragraph occured:—

"The amount of the capitation grant should be so fixed on this plan that these schools (the Christian Brothers'), in consideration of the fewer restrictions imposed upon them, would receive a smaller sum in aid voted by Parliament, and administered by the Board, than they would if they subjected themselves to all the standing rules and regulations of the Board."

This would include the removal of religious emblems, which the Christian Brothers could not see their way to consent to. He would urge the right hon. gentleman not to approach the consideration of the question on these lines, but if he was going to settle it he ought to do so in such a way as would satisfy public opinion in Ireland. For the right hon. Gentleman, or any man responsible for the government of Ireland, while recognising the value of the work done by the Christian Brothers and agreeing that their schools should receive aid from the State, to place the invidious distinction of giving them less aid than was given to other schools would not achieve those good results which would accrue from a more generous settlement of the question. ["Hear, hear!"] Every one who had gone into the schools of the Christian Brothers had admitted that there was not a body of teachers in the whole world who had so successfully solved the great problem in education of securing the devoted attachment of their pupils and the most extraordinary discipline without punishment of any kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The Christian Brothers had suffered a very cruel injustice from the State by being, as it were, outlawed and denied all recognition of the good work they were doing with the greatest unselfishness and most self-sacrificing patience. They had done enormous work both for Ireland and the Empire by rearing up tens of thousands of men who had made the best of citizens. ["Hear, hear!"] In point of teaching and the knowledge they imparted of the ordinary subjects taught in elementary schools their educational establishments would bear comparison with any others in the world. Nothing had created greater irritation in Ireland than the delay of the late Government in settling this question. The present Government, however, were confronted with none of the difficulties which the late Government had to face, and the Chief Secretary would do a good stroke for Ireland and his own Government in that country if he distinctly settled so much of the Irish educational problem before Parliament met again. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that the hon. and learned Member for Derry City had truly said that it was in the power of the Chief Secretary to make this alteration by a stroke of the pen, because under the Charter of the National Board no recourse to Parliament was necessary in order to secure the changes demanded. Whatever might be the wisdom of making any or all of these changes, he certainly should be glad if some arrangement could be arrived at. It could not be denied that they were matters of very great importance and they might, if carried to the extreme length some hon. Members desired to carry them, constitute a reversal of the deliberate policy of the educational establishments in Ireland which had been in existence for 60 years under the sanction of Parliament. They had had a pledge from the late Chief Secretary, Mr. Morley, to the effect that no decision would be arrived at without Parliament having a full opportunity of canvassing and discussing the arrangement, and he should be glad if they could receive some assurance in the same direction from the right hon. Gentleman. Though he did not propose to go into the merits of the question, he would point out that the matter was not quite so urgent in one respect, as it would appear to be from what had been said by some of the hon. Members opposite, because, although it was perfectly true that the Christian Brothers had declared that it was not their intention to allow a Compulsory Education Act to come into operation unless they were met in a particular way, it was not the fact, as some hon. Members had led them to suppose——

That is not true. It is not the Christian Brothers, but the people of these cities themselves, who have placed themselves in opposition to the Act.

remarked, that in Cork there had been an opposition which was, no doubt, based upon the fact that the Christian Brothers had a conscientious objection to accept the terms offered to the elementary schools under the National Board, and would only come under a scheme of compulsory education if these terms were conceded. The rules of the Department did not exclude to the extent suggested, for there were nearly half a million children in Roman Catholic schools where the teachers had found it compatible with their religious views to administer education in compliance with the rules of the Education Board.

asked if the hon. Member could say where these schools were?

said, he had in his hand the last Report which gave the schools exclusively Roman Catholic and exclusively Protestant, but he believed the number in the exclusively Roman Catholic schools was 460,000. He would not, however, commit himself to the figures, he only wished to point out that there was no paralysis of education in the schools. Whether or not it was expedient to make the extension, it was possible to carry on education in accordance with the rules of the National Board. The matter would have to be discussed, too, from the point of view of Roman Catholic teachers in elementary schools, who had, as hon. Members knew, rather strong views as to the advisability of admitting the Cristian Brothers into competition, they not having conformed to all the previous requirements of the Department; and the proposal had been made, he did not know on what authority, that the Christian Brothers should satisfy all the requirements that certificated teachers have to satisfy. But what he now wanted to ask was some sort of pledge, in view of the fact that the question was by no means so simple and so small as some hon. Members opposite, in rather too sanguine frame of mind supposed, that no such promise as that suggested by the hon. Member for Derry City should be given, but that the change, great or small, should be submitted to the House before it became operative.

said, much of the contention of the hon. Member would be a splendid answer to the Church party in England who were asking for increased grants. In England the friends of voluntary schools were not satisfied with a purely secular education. It was absurd to say as an argument there was no paralysis of education. No, there was not of secular education, but that was not the kind of education the people of Ireland wanted and were determined to have. On this line they practically were at one with the Church party in England. It was a much greater hardship to the poor man than to the rich man to be deprived of this religious education for his children. The rich man could send his children where he pleased, but the poor man must take the education the State gave him, and it was a poor argument to him to say there was no paralysis of education if his children were brought up as Anarchists, with such results as France presented.

asked, was it the hon. Member's contention that the children did not in Ireland get religious education?

said, certainly not in National schools. His recollection of the system was that in Catholic schools there was, at the close of the afternoon school, when the Protestants had gone, some half an hour's examination in the Catechism, but this was entirely optional on the part of the teacher, and it must not be supposed that that was what he understood as religious teaching. His view was that education should be given in a religious spirit, treating of secular subjects in some kind of religious spirit, the distinction would be appreciated though it was difficult to lay down a definition. In reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast, it was to be observed that Parliament had already decided in a sense hostile to his views. When a Bill was brought in by the noble Lord the late Member for North Tyrone (Lord Frederick Hamilton) to prevent this thing being done without the authority of Parliament, the late Lord Randolph Churchill opposed it, and the House by an enormous majority rejected the Bill—the majority including the late Lord Randolph Churchill, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Gorst) and a large section of the Conservative Party. On the general question he supposed the Chief Secretary must be allowed to have consultation with the Irish officials. Comment had been made of an unfavourable nature upon governing a country on this basis. An English Minister had not to go here and there to gather opinions, he had to make up his mind. A Foreign Secretary would not say he must go to Mekong or Madagascar before he could reply upon a matter touching these localities, he would have to decide the question on his knowledge when in office. It was no answer for the Member to say he had not made up his mind. When a man had been eight or nine years in Parliament he was supposed to have a fair knowledge of public questions, and practically might deal off-hand with a question in which his office was concerned. At the same time he could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman took a more moderate view of his own competency. But this question of the Christian Brothers was one that had been solved in England, because practically the Christian Brothers—he would not say in every detail—only desired what voluntary schools in England had had granted to them. Consider the absurdity of the rule. You may have a picture of a crucifix in a National School and get a grant from the National Board, but if the crucifix were in relief the school would be disabled from getting a grant! You may have a picture of the Mother of our Lord, but not a statue of the Mother of our Lord! On a miserable point of this kind the Compulsory Education Act had been stopped for three years, while Nationalist Members had been endeavouring to bring about a solution of the difficulty. The Chief Secretary should get up and make a speech on religious education, just as he would on the hustings at Leeds, speaking in favour of assistance to voluntary schools. Let him imagine they were Members of the Established Church whose votes he had to win, and let him deliver the same kind of speech he would deliver to a congregation of parsons on religious education. It was not enough to say he would go to Ireland and study the question. No doubt he would seek information upon details, but he was quite capable of settling the question. It was due to the Christian Brothers, as a body, to say that the spirit of the education given in their schools was entirely free from intolerance of all kinds, it was entirely free from religious ascerbity, entirely free from controversial spirit; it was given in a spirit of charity, brotherhood and toleration. They gave a practical education, not limited to grammar and spelling and subjects that occupied the time of children to no useful purpose; the Christian Brothers devoted themselves to questions affecting the life and work of the people; and supported only by the pence of the poor had competed successfully with the State-aided schools. He desired to refer to some of the grievances from which the National school teachers suffered. The first of these was felt, not so much by the teachers themselves as by their widows and families. There was a Treasury rule that if a teacher died when he was on the point of retirement, the allowance to which he would otherwise be entitled was not paid to his widow and children. He had seen the rule departed from, when the applicant was a Tory, or was supported by a Tory Member of Parliament, but when similar cases were brought forward by Nationalists, the Treasury always said they were debarred by Statute from granting these allowances. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the point he would find that there was a substantial and standing grievance. He desired to raise another question of detail. There was a considerable feeling among the general body of National school teachers that there was some inequality on the question of the percentage for passes. They said that the Resident Commission had become much more stringent upon this point, and from the letters he had received during the past few months, he was inclined to think there must be something in the matter. The teachers also complained that the payments for the results examination were inordinately delayed. This was properly due to the fact that Parliament had not voted the money, but the delay was severely felt by teachers of small means, and the Treasury would do well to see that there was always sufficient money in hand to provide for the payments being regularly made. The hon. Member proceeded to say that there need be no jealousy between the National teachers and the Christian Brothers. They should be able to work cordially hand in hand and in some large towns he believed there would be a generous competition, in which the Clergy would be the stimulating parties, between the National schools and the Christian Brothers. He would say to the Nonconformists of England that the same reason which induced them to insist on secular education—namely, the fear that if the State gave religious education it would be of a Church character and would practically amount to the proselytism of Nonconformist children—induced the Catholics of Ireland to insist on religious education. They were both against proselytism, but took different means of preventing it. Accordingly, he hoped there would in this matter be no jealousy between any class of persons, seeing that what they were all anxious for was that decent Christians should be brought up in the faith of their fathers; and that should be done without giving any sect or body an opportunity of bringing undue influence to bear upon youth.

said, he did not intend to take up the time of the House by any lengthened observations, but he wished to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from hon. Members below the Gangway. He did not wish to detract from the weight of the arguments that had been advanced by those hon. Members by a recapitulation of them. He rose merely to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, to settle before the next Session of Parliament this vexed question of the Christian Brothers' schools. He wished, as an Irish Protestant with considerable opportunities of forming a judgment, to bear his testimony to the vast benefits which had been conferred on the Irish youth by the system of education adopted by the Christian Brothers. ["Hear, hear!"] This desire to have the Christian Brothers included was not confined merely to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He hoped there was no difficulty in the way of the Chief Secretary of conferring on the Christian Brothers the full benefits of the Act of 1892—an Act passed by Lord Salisbury's Administration. As an hon. Member below the Gangway had said, this could be done by a stroke of the pen on the part of the Chief Secretary. One of the rules of the Board was that certain religious emblems should not be admitted to these schools. He believed that this was the whole difficulty that had been supposed to stand in the way of the Christian Brothers in sharing in the benefits of the Act. It was quite evident that the circumstances of the time in which these rules were made, were quite different from the present. They were not immutable; these rules were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and there was a power of altering them according to the exigencies of the day. They were made about 60 years ago, when quite a different state of feeling existed and when the idea was dominant to promote secular education as much as possible. The necessity for such restrictions as were then imposed had now ceased, and he would appeal to the Chief Secretary to take into account the great benefits which the Christian Brothers' schools had conferred upon Ireland and to declare that they should no longer be precluded from securing the pecuniary aid which Parliament had conceded for the promotion of Irish education. It was for the sole purpose of paying his tribute to these schools, and of expressing his anxious desire that this question should be settled in the direction indicated by the hon. Members below the Gangway, that he had now obtruded on the patience of the House. [Cheers.]

The major part of this Debate has been concerned with the question of the Christian Brothers' schools. I propose dealing with that question before I sit down, but meantime I wish to refer to a few minor points of considerable importance which have arisen in the course of the discussion. The hon. Member for West Donegal asked me some questions, of which he was good enough to give me warning. First of all, he desires to know what the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund is at the present moment. I regret to say that the position of that fund is very unsatisfactory. I will offer to the House a very brief account of its history and the present condition of the fund. Until 1880 the Irish National school teacher had no pension, but in 1879 an Act was passed creating a pension fund. It consisted of a sum of £1,300,000, taken from Irish Church property and annual deductions from the teachers' salaries—an inquiry to be made every five years. The inquiry made in 1885 resulted, in the opinion of the Actuary, in showing a surplus of £196,000. In 1890 the Report of the Actuary showed a large deficiency. The Report then made was submitted by the Treasury to a committee of Actuaries, and the Report made showed that the position of the fund was more serious than was suspected in 1890. So that at the present time I am afraid that if all the claims on the fund were satisfied it is doubtful if any of the fund, which was apportioned from the Irish Church fund, would remain over for the benefit of other teachers who might come on the fund. This is a very serious state of things and one that it is necessary to deal with. The whole scheme of pensions will have to be subjected to examination, and legislation will be necessary; and while the vested interests of existing teachers and pensioners ought not to be interfered with, care must be taken to prevent the creation of any further vested interests. ["Hear, hear!"] I now pass to the second point touched upon by the hon. Member. He asked me about the amount for Irish pupils, urging that it should be advanced to at least 6s., the grant for England amounting to 10s. There appears to be a misconception here. It is impossible to compare the capitation grant handed over to Irish schools with the fee grant in England. The capitation grant in Ireland is the residue of a grant on which other claims have to be satisfied before the capitation grant itself can be distributed. The way in which the Irish grant is distributed is set forth in the fourth schedule of the Irish Education Act of 1892, and it is not until the claims there laid down have been satisfied that it would be possible to distribute the residue as a eapitation grant. I believe that the claims there made upon the fund absorb something like one-half of it, and that only the other half remains for capitation grant. In order, therefore, to form a fair comparison between England and Ireland we must consider not merely the half grant which is distributed by way of capitation, but the whole of the grant, half of which is employed in satisfying these higher claims. The Vote of the present year, which has to bear a certain proportion to the English free grant, amounts to some £224,000, and though the average attendance in Irish schools has not yet been ascertained, the probability is that, if you were to divide the total grant by the number of children in average attendance, you would find that the total grant per head in Ireland was something very nearly approaching 9s., as against 10s. distributed in England. I think that it is not altogether a satisfactory arrangement which makes the amount of the grant of Ireland depend not upon the circumstances of Ireland; but, sooner or later, probably the whole subject will have to be reconsidered. With regard to the gratuities paid to the retiring teachers, I would point out that the gratuities paid to teachers in Ireland are of two kinds; under the old system they were gratuities for long service; under the new system they are merely sick gratuities, and no gratuities for long service are paid, only pensions. Under the old system, if the teacher died before the payment of the retiring gratuity no payment was made to his or her representatives, but under the new system the gratuity is to be paid to the family if the teacher dies after the Education Department has given its sanction to the payment, although it may be before the payment has obtained the further sanction of the Treasury. I am at present in communication with the Treasury on the question as to whether those teachers who are entitled to a gratuity under the old system should not be placed in a corresponding position—["hear hear!"]—in other words, whether the gratuity should not be paid after it has received the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, although it may not yet have received the sanction of the Treasury.

Do not they say that it requires a statute?

I am not sure that they make that assertion, but I rather hope that I shall be able to secure for teachers under the old system terms similar to those under the new, ["Hear, hear!"] The limit of 35 years in regard to the repayment of the grants for teachers' residences is fixed by statute, but, as a matter of fact, the Commissioners of Education in Ireland make the terms for the teachers very much more easy than it would appear from the question as it was put by the hon. Member for West Donegal. They make special provision in their annual estimates to relieve the managers of schools to the extent of one-half of the rent-charge, and the amount for this provision in 1894–95 was £3,740, which was payable by the Commissioners on behalf of the managers to the Board of Works. The managers are thus only called upon to pay £2 10s. per cent. per annum instead of 5 per cent., and that payment, together with the contribution of the Commissioners, discharges both the interest and the principal in 35 years. The rule regarding the use of books in Irish national schools is that the books specified are not compulsory, and therefore the books disused by the National Board need not be used in the national schools. The rule laid down is given in an edition of the rules and regulations of the Commissioners, published in June, 1890, and I can hardly think that it was introduced during the administration of the late Government. I think that it would be advantageous that the national schools should be as free as possible in this matter, provided always that the books received the sanction of the Education Commissioners. I will Inquire whether the financial difficulties which have been suggested really exist, to what extent, and how far they can be remedied. The arrangements made by the Commissioners are such that at the present time the pupils are supplied with books at something like half-price; but the question whether poor children should not be supplied with books free of any charge at all is really, to some extent, one of funds. I find that a sum of something over £30,000 would enable all children in the national schools of Ireland to receive their books free of charge, and the expense would be under that if the poorer children alone were given this privilege. But, at the same time, I may remind the House that it is rather difficult to distinguish between the children who can and cannot afford to purchase school books, and that any arrangement of that kind would have the inevitable result of placing upon the Commissioners a charge probably not very much less than the maximum, say, of £33,000.

Would it not be a test if the children were barefooted?

I understand that in Scotland it might be, but in Ireland, perhaps, it may be different. I am quite ready to communicate with those in charge as to the supply of the school books to the library of the House. The difficulty in regard to education in agriculture in the Irish national schools is to some extent a legal one. The Irish Education Acts of 1892 and 1893 provide for the compulsory acquisition of sites for schools or residences but not for gardens or areas, and it would be probably very difficult even for the most competent teacher to teach agriculture unless a garden or area for agricultural operations adjoins the school-house. I may refer the House to the annual Report of the Commissioners for 1894, in which this question is dealt with, and in which it is suggested that it is desirable that the Acts of 1892 and 1893 should not be confined to the sites, so that a statutory area of land might be provided for this purpose. If I have, in the course of the coming Session, to introduce a Bill amending the Act of 1892, I trust that one of the provisions of that Bill may be a provision dealing with this very necessity. ["Hear, hear!"] I think that that ok hausts most of the questions which were raised in the course of the discussion, apart from the important subject of the Christian Brothers' schools. The hon. Member for North Cork pointed out that at the present time the compulsory education provided by the Act of 1892 was a dead letter, and he gave certain figures in connection with his statement which I am not able to follow altogether, though I think they were not very far from being accurate. According to the Reports of 1895 the number of schools where the Act was in operation was 43 out of 118, and of those where the Act was not in operation 75. It may be interesting to the House to know that causes which have been assigned for the non-enforcement of the Act are the exclusion of the Christian Brothers from the benefits of the Act and the want of funds available to pay the expenses of the Attendance Committee. This latter cause is responsible for the failure of the Act in 36 localities. It will appear that, though the exclusion of the Christian Brothers' schools from the operation of the Act has been a most important cause of the failure of the Act, so far the principal difficulty has been the want of funds in connection with the administration of the Act. It will be clear to the House that, if the intentions of Parliament cannot be carried out, it will be necessary to deal in some manner or other with the difficulties which have arisen. The hon. Member for North Cork and others seemed to think that it would be possible for me to decide this question during the Recess, and another hon. Member suggested that I could settle the question with a stroke of the pen. While I approach this subject with the most earnest desire to include the schools in the National system of education, I consider that I am bound by the pledge given by my predecessor—that, if rules which had the effect of bringing the Christian Brothers within the system should receive the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, this House should have an opportunity of expressing its views before they were finally incorporated within the rules of the National Education Board. In my judgment, I am not merely bound by the pledge of my predecessor, but I think that it would be undesirable that so important an issue as this should be decided without the House having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. But I do trust that during the Recess the Irish Government will be able to come to an arrangement on this subject. I trust that when Parliament meets again we shall be able to announce that we have successfully grappled with the question, and that what the hon. Member for North Cork has suggested as a modus vivendi has been arrived at. At all events, no effort on my part will be spared to bring about that extremely desirable result. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth suggested that I ought not to have taken office without having come to a decision on this matter.

I hardly said that.

Well, very nearly; but I am by no means willing to press him on the subject. Other hon. Members were, however, more conciliatory. The hon. Member for North Cork merely urged upon me that I should ascertain what the Christian Brothers were prepared to accept or what the National Board of Education were prepared to recommend. I shall endeavour to do so. I believe that a solution is possible, and I shall do my very utmost to bring such a solution to a satisfactory result. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that this matter had not been brought under the attention of the authorities at the War Office, but he would make inquiries with regard to it, and, if possible, give the hon. and learned Member the information that he asked for to-morrow.

said, he desired to make a notification to the Government that next Session he should draw the attention of the House to one of the grossest and most impudent jobs ever perpetrated. Sir E. Colville Nepean, who had been the Director of Contracts to the War Office, having been offered a lucrative appointment as Manager of a Company in the City, made application to the Treasury for leave to retire on a pension, although he was only 55 years of age, and had only put in 38 years' service, and he would not have been entitled to his pension until 1896. The Treasury authorities came to the conclusion that they had no power to grant him a pension, but on his representing to them that if he chose to remain in the service he would be entitled to a pension of £950 in 1896, he induced them, by what influence he did not know, to grant him a deferred annuity to that amount. Within two years after his retirement, the Company of which Sir E. Colville Nepean had become a Director, went into liquidation, and in 1893 this ex-Director of Contracts went to the Treasury and said to the Treasury, "Give me my pension." The Treasury replied:—

"We cannot. We have no statutory authority to pay you a pension. You are not 60 years of age. You have not served 40 years. There is nothing in the Superannuation Act to enable us to do it." "Oh, but," he said, "you have already booked me for a deferred annuity of £950. Now I propose to make a bargain with you. If you will give me a present annuity of the reduced amount of £670, I will take it instead of a deferred annuity of £950."

And again the Treasury, without any authority, gave this ex-Director of Contracts to the War Office a pension of £670, when, legally he was not entitled to a single penny. Therefore, this gentleman, because he was on friendly terms with the authorities of the War Office and of the Treasury, had induced those authorities to enter into a scandalous job. His case was a remarkable contrast to that of a poor school teacher in Ireland, whose personal representatives had been refused a small gratuity which he had earned. In the present case, because an officer in a high position had been in touch with the authorities of the War Office and with those of the Treasury, he had succeeded in inducing them to concur in granting him a pension to which he had no statutory right. He should not move to reduce the amount of the Vote on that occasion, but he warned the Government that he should raise the question again next Session.

said, that he was extremely surprised at the tone that the hon. Gentleman had adopted in regard to this matter, and he scarcely thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of the circumstances under which Sir E. Colville Nepean had retired from the service, or else he would hardly have used such an expression as a "scandalous job" in connection with the granting of a pension to the gentleman on his retirement. At the time of his retirement there were some gentlemen who had been in the service for some 30 or 40 years, and who were enjoying salaries which were very much larger than they ought to have been paid for the class of work they had to perform. Sir Evan Nepean, an eminent public servant, had served for 38½ years before he applied to retire. He had given services almost equal to the maximum, and the Treasury took this line—that if a permanent public saving would be created by the retirement of Sir Evan Nepean, if it enabled his successor to be appointed at a salary of £1,200 instead £1,500, the saving would be such that the Treasury would be justified in admitting him to the same privileges as other officers in the department. A saving had been made, and Sir E. Nepean, after 38½ years' service, had now retired on a pension of £950 a year. Had he served a year and-a-half longer he would have been entitled to £1,000 a year. He rose to defend this because he believed the arrangement made was satisfactory to the public. It was true that the Public Accounts Committee had condemned it, and the hon. Member, as Chairman of the Committee, was well within his rights in calling attention to their conclusion. If he had believed it to be "a scandalous job" he would not have risen to defend it. On the contrary, he believed it was done by all concerned with the best regard for what was due to the public service and to an eminent public servant.

asked whether, when £950 deferred pension was awarded to Sir E. Nepean, it was not on the express condition that under no circumstances should it be payable until he attained the age of 60?

said, he was aware that that was said at the time, but it was purely commutation value—£950 a year at the age of 60, or £730 at the age of 57.

as Financial Secretary when the retirement was applied for, said Sir Evan Nepean's retirement was unfortunate for Sir Evan himself, and a much-regretted loss to the public service, and he believed the terms on which the commutation was made effected a good bargain for the public.

said he regretted he was under the necessity of objecting to the date inserted in the Bill with special reference to the continuance of the Arms Act (Ireland). So far as that one Act was concerned, the word December ought to be changed and August or May substituted. In 1874, when the Rules of the House were different from what they are now, Mr. Butt, on the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair, moved a Resolution to the effect that it was inexpedient, when an important Act had been passed for a limited period, especially if it conferred extraordinary powers on the Executive, to include it in a general Bill, instead of introducing a special Bill which would afford the House an opportunity of considering the propriety of its discontinuance or modification. If the Bill passed as it stood the Acts included would remain in force through the whole of next Session and until the 31st of December. Thus the Irish people would be deprived of the right to carry arms for the present year and the whole of next year. All the Conservative constitutional authorities, from Mr. Disraeli and Sir Stafford Northcote down to the hon. Member for South Tyrone [Laughter], had been against the practice. They objected to the renewal of the Coercion Act for Ireland and the Arms Act in 1873, when a Liberal Government was in office. When objection was being taken to the renewal of the Acts in 1874, Sir Stafford Northcote, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had determined that these Acts should not on any future occasion be put into the ordinary omnibus Continuance Bill, but, if it was desired to renew them, they should be dealt with separately. There was a distinct pledge that Acts of this kind should not be included in an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Mr. Henley, Member for Oxfordshire, who was regarded by the Tory party as a great constitutional authority, and a man with more common sense than anyone else in these islands, said it was a grave question whether the Continuance Bill did not extend to an inconvenient length through continuing many Acts which had better be left out. Sir Eardley Wilmot, another Conservative, deprecated the unconstitutional policy pursued by the Government, condemned it as indefensible, and apparently voted with Mr. Butt. When the Bill got into Committee Mr. Disraeli declared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed the views of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government did not desire to carry this practice of continuing important laws further than it had been carried, but rather to restrict it. He further said it was not the intention of the Government to propose the continuance of these Acts again, and, therefore, if only the House believed the Government spoke with good faith, there was every intention to meet the opposing Members fairly. Having been reminded that he had come in with a large majority and recommended to use, it gently, Mr. Disraeli said:—

"Notwithstanding our spanking majority. I would prefer to use it with good humour; and I hope upon reflection the Irish Members will feel that they have carried that style of Parliamentary manœuvring far enough"

[Ironical laughter.] The Conservative Government of that date were compelled by the resistance of the Irish Members to drop the system of including a coercive Bill for Ireland in an omnibus Bill. In consequence they passed the Peace Preservation Act of 1875, in which the Arms Act was included; and in defending that, the then Attorney General for Ireland, Dr. Bull, put the ground of its continuance on disturbance in the North of Ireland. That was the only place in Ireland where the Act had not been enforced. Immediately after the passing of the Act the great riots took place in Belfast, when hundreds of men were shooting at each other. The history of this Act showed conclusively that its object was of an oppressive character. In 1875 it was passed for six years. In 1881 it was renewed for five years in an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In 1886 its renewal was resisted by the Irish Members, and it expired in 1892. The Conservative Government then included the measure in an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, that being their first departure from the practice of Mr. Disraeli in 1874. The expiry in 1893 took place at a time when Parliament was about to be dissolved, and when Members were looking after their constituencies. But the Nationalist Members found a good substitute in the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who on September 18, 1893, said:—

"He objected to the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, a measure of coercion which was unnecessary to the Government in carrying out their policy, especially as they had dispensed with the Criminal Law Procedure Act."

What I did put to the Chief Secretary was this—that inasmuch as the Government was boasting of governing Ireland without exceptional legislation, they had no right to renew the Arms Act, that being exceptional legislation.

Does the hon. Member suggest that I have not read his words verbatim from Hansard? There are no trimmings or filigree work about that statement of his at all. [Laughter.] He hoped the hon. Member, however, was not ashamed of his opinions. The Irish Party then thought that as the Liberal Government were endeavouring to press forward a large measure to give to the Irish people the right to make their own laws in their own way, they were entitled to have from the Irish Party some consideration in regard to minor measures which they thought to be necessary for the Government of Ireland. He did not then, nor did he now, follow the Irish Party in that argument, but for the sake of solidarity, one must go with one's party—[Ministerial laughter]—and so no protest was made at that time against the continuance of the Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who laughed had very often to go with their Party whether they liked it or not, and they considered their conduct, instead of blameworthy, all the more heroic, on that account. [Laughter.] He was far from saying that the Government would not be able to make out some case, owing to the shortness of the Session, for the present continuance of the Bill if it were renewed for a brief period, on the ground that they had not time to consider the matter. But it must be clear to everybody that the Irish Party could not allow the continued appearance of the Bill in the schedule of Bills that were to be passed as a matter of course. As an illustration of the way the thing worked he would mention that on a Saturday night, about 12 o'clock, in the town of Cavan, a party of the Royal Irish Constabulary first entered the licensed premises of Mr. Terence Fitzpatrick, Main Street, and searched his house from top to bottom, his garden and out-offices, without any result, and then went direct to the residence of Mr. Mulligan, Main Street—[Ministerial laughter]—and knocked up him and his family out of bed. [Ministerial laughter and cries of "Order, Disraeli!" from the Irish Benches.]

Make that person over there keep order. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"]

said the hon. Member for the Altrincham division of Cheshire bore an historic name——

Yes, and that is all. He has no brains. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"]

And there was nothing for the right hon. Gentleman to laugh at in the spectacle of a family being knocked up out of bed at two o'clock in the morning. If the hon. Member were knocked out of bed at that hour—he was sure he would be found at home like Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Mulligan—but the hon. Member would not like his family to be disturbed in this way in a vain search for arms, because there were no arms. He would advise the hon. Member for Altrincham to study the speeches of his illustrious relative on the Arms Act, and especially the speech of Mr. Disraeli, delivered in Buckinghamshire, at the General Election of 1874, in which he depicted an Irishman going for a midnight walk, when the hand of a policeman was laid on him, and he was trotted off to prison, his house visited, and the beds of his family ripped open. But the hon. Member perhaps could console himself with the thought that when Mr. Disraeli came into office in 1874, the first thing he did was to renew the Act of the Liberal Government of which he had complained only six months before. It was time for this policy to come to an end. In an agricultural country like Ireland, to deny the farmer the use of a fowling-piece to kill vermin on his farm was to deprive him almost of a necessary of life, A man wanted a gun to shoot crows or rabbits on his farm; he applied to the Resident Magistrate for a licence—for the ordinary magistrates were not allowed to interfere in this matter; and the Resident Magistrate having a grudge against him, because he attended a meeting of the Land League, or refused to sign a petition against Home Rule, refused him the licence, like the case of the farmer with 300 acres in the county of Limerick which had recently been brought before the House. The Chief Secretary in reference to that case read off an answer to the effect that he could not dive into the mysterious recesses of the Resident Magistrate's mind, and that was all the satisfaction the men got. Had the Act, on the other hand, prevented outrages and murders? The Government's own Coercion Act of 1887 proved that, in their opinion, it had not. Could anyone say that the wrongdoer, the evil-minded man, the murderer—had been prevented from getting either pistols or guns by reason of the existence of this Act? Nothing of the kind. The Act had only been used to worry and annoy Members of the Nationalist Party, against whom the Administration had a grudge. The Government did not put it in force against riotous people, or against those who ought to be controlled—namely, emergency men and gamekeepers. If the records were examined for the last seven years, it would be found that 30 or 40 outrages had been committed by emergency men, without even a wet finger, as they said in Ireland, being laid upon the offenders by the officers of the law. Persons of the bailiff class were very ready in the use of pistols; water bailiffs were free in the use of firearms. The Government tolerated such user or misuser of arms without condemnation, but attempted to enforce the Act against what he called the more respectable body of the farmers of the country. He submitted that the course he was taking was a reasonable one. If the Motion he should conclude with were rejected, he would have to divide against that portion of the Schedule which renewed the Act itself. He trusted, however, that they would hear from the Government some statement to the effect that even if they insisted that in certain counties in Ireland the Act should be enforced, there should be some system of appeal from the Resident Magistrate to the County Court Judge. He moved to omit the word "December" and insert "August."

Although the present Amendment has for its effect merely an alteration in the date, the hon. and learned Member has taken the opportunity of raising upon it the general question of policy, and therefore I rise at once to reply to him. I may, in the first place, say that the inclusion of this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was approved of by my predecessor on June 17th, and therefore it is really the Bill of the late Government we are defending, and not merely our own Bill. Moreover, I may call attention to the fact that it is open to the Lord Lieutenant at any time to withdraw the operation of the Arms Act, either from the whole of Ireland, or from particular counties, or from parts of counties in Ireland. The power of withdrawing the operation of the Act was never at any time exercised by the Government while Mr. Morley was Chief Secretary. The other day, when I urged, in defence of the course of action adopted by me, that I was merely continuing the policy of my predecessor, the hon. and learned Member objected to having Mr. Morley thrust down his throat, as he expressed it; but I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have to address the vindication of our policy, not merely to him and to the hon. Members who sit near him, but to the whole House—["Hear, hear!"]—and I think the House generally will see the extreme significance of the fact that Mr. Morley felt himself compelled, in the interest of good Government, to continue the Act, although undoubtedly, had he obeyed the private behests of the hon. and learned Member and his friends, he would either have suspended the Act by proclamation or allowed it to drop altogether. The hon. and learned Member raised no objection to this Act in 1893. Again, in 1894 no protest was uttered either by him or any of his colleagues on that Bench. ["Hear, hear!"] It is true, as the hon. and learned Member says, that my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone, in 1893, proved an excellent substitute, but I think we have a right to ask why it was that this excellent substitute was not supported by the hon. and learned Member? [Cheers.] When my hon. Friend got up at that time he urged in defence of his action what he desired to impress upon the House, which was that if the Irish Government were able to dispense with the Crimes Act, they ought also to be able to dispense with the Arms Act. ["Hear, hear!"]. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that at all events my hon. Friend would not deny the plain statement in "Hansard," but when he came to read these words the Committee will agree with me that the contention of my hon. Friend was absolutely substantiated. What were the words? The hon. Member for South Tyrone, said—

"He objected to the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act as a measure of coercion unnecessary for the Government carrying out their policy, especially as they had dispensed with the Criminal Law and Procedure Act."

[Cheers.] Nothing could be plainer than that. It was clear that my hon. Friend, in objecting to the Peace Preservation Act, was merely urging upon the Government their inconsistency in dispensing with the Crimes Act whilst at the same time they retained on the Statute-book a measure of exceptional legislation of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"]. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not read the reply of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland given to my hon. Friend. Mr. Morley said upon that occasion:—

"My only answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Peace Preservation Act has been in force for many years. I do not regard the Act as a measure of coercion, but essentially as a measure of police regulation."

[Cheers.] I pass from 1893 to 1894. Again the hon. Member and his Friends sat silent on those Benches when the Act was renewed. [Cheers.] He says the Government of that day urged upon him that they were entitled to some consideration in minor matters which they considered necessary for the good government of the country. The hon. and learned Member tells us he did not altogether approve of that sentiment, but felt bound to have some regard for solidarity in his Party. [Laughter.]

In my own Party.

It is the privilege which the hon. and learned Member claims for himself that he denies my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone. After all, I do not think the hon. Member has any reason to complain of my hon. Friend. What does it come to? He said my hon. Friend then spoke and is now silent. Yes, but the hon. Member was then silent and now speaks. [Cheers.] The hon. and learned member then proceeded to deal with what he calls the raid for arms at Cavan, and he stated that this raiding took place at midnight. I can only say I have no information of the kind, and I believe it to be impossible. At all events, if it was done it was illegal under the Peace Preservation Act, because the first clause of that Act requires that all searches should take place between sunrise and sunset. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot help thinking that upon this occasion the hon. and learned Member has been misinformed. If the search took place under this Act and really was carried out at midnight, the police were clearly guilty of illegal action.

I read the extract from the Freeman's Journal. [Laughter].

I presume the Freeman's Journal, like the hon. Member, was probably misinformed. ["Hear, hear!"]. What happened? A box containing arms arrived at Cavan Railway Station merely described as hardware, addressed to an individual who declares that he never got the arms at all. On opening the box the nature of the consignment—consisting of rifles—became detected by a porter, the knowledge became public property, and the police would have been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, if they had not done their very best to trace the arms and ascertain what became of them, and I am informed that the search was carried out, but I conceive not at midnight as the hon. Member says.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information on this point?

No, Sir, naturally not, because I never expected that the point would be raised.

It is raised in the newspapers.

It is raised in the Freeman's Journal, but I am not responsible for the Freeman's Journal. [Laughter and cheers.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to give me information beforehand that the search was alleged to have been carried out at midnight, I should have been glad to have made inquiries. In the meantime I am sceptical on the subject. I am told that no objection was made by the person who inhabited the house to the search being carried out. The hon. Member went on to tell the Committee that the habitual use of firearms in Ulster led to fearful loss of life. Is that an argument against the Bill? Instead of being so, it seems to me a strong argument in favour of the Bill. [Cheers.] Let me tell the real reasons why the Bill is required. In the first place, there is a certain class of crime in Ireland which does not occur at all, or is so rare in this country as to be practically a negligible quantity—namely, the crime of moonlighting. In view of the frequency of crimes of that class it is eminently desirable that persons of a bad reputation should not find it easy to procure arms. That is one of the great reasons for retaining this Act, as Mr. Morley said, as a measure of police regulation, and the other is the reason indicated by the hon. and learned Member himself—namely, that in Ireland you have in times of political and sectarian excitement encounters between large crowds of partisans. These crowds, even as it is, are armed with sticks and stones, and if there were no restrictions as to the use of firearms, and if these people whom the police have now to keep apart were provided with firearms, it is clear there would be a great danger of a repetition of those scenes of which, unfortunately, we have had conspicuous instance in the streets of Belfast. [Cheers.] These are the principal reasons why this Act is still necessary. There is no evidence to show that the Act bears hardly on those who really require firearms. I will tell the Committee the number of licences granted during the year from August, 1894, to July, 1895. The number was 5,639, and the number refused was only 362. No persons are prevented from having a licence unless there are serious reasons for it. I mention these figures to show that there is no real hardship in maintaining this Act, and I think, with my predecessor, that its continuance is merely a matter of police precaution.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman tried to convey that the search for arms at Cavan could not have occurred after midnight, because such a thing would have been illegal—in other words, that the police in Ireland always acted legally. [Cheers.] It was a remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman should have been in a position to give partial details of this incident, and should not have been in a position to give information on the very point which was made the subject of complaint in the public Press—namely, the hour of night and the illegality of the search, and of the method in which it was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman confessed that he was wholly without information on those points. They read telegrams of atrocities in Armenia on the authority of newspapers, and really, when Members of Parliament were sneered at for producing newspaper reports, he would ask what other sources of information could they have with regard to matters occurring in distant places? Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest what newspaper in Ireland they might rely upon? [Laughter.] Until he placed at their disposal official sources of information, he must excuse them for relying on what were called the ordinary channels of information. Mr. Morley's administration of this Act had been referred to, but there was this, at any rate, to be said about Mr. Morley's administration—that there were no complaints of night searches under it, and that his Government were hardly warm in office when this case arose in Cavan. And it was one thing to have an Act administered by one Government, and another and quite different thing to have the same Act administered by another Government. For instance, the Coercion Act was in force under Mr. Morley's administration, but he did not use the Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman's taunts about inconsistencies did not trouble him at all. He might say with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that it was not he who had altered, it was only circumstances. The taunt of inconsistency, therefore, might safely be remitted to Birmingham. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary had dealt with the case in County Cavan, entirely leaving out of the scope of his reply the Constitutional view presented, namely, the question of the renewal of the Act, what was contrary to the Bill of Rights, the right of the subject to bear arms, and of its renewal in this form year after year, without giving Parliament the opportunity of considering it except in the Schedule of a Bill. For the purposes of that argument he had quoted Mr. Butt, a Constitutional authority, Mr. Disraeli, and Sir Stafford Northcote. He did not cite them to strengthen his argument about the incident in County Cavan or the defence of his consistency. The Constitutional question the right hon. Gentleman had left out of sight, but it was one that would have to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had met the argument about the use to which the Act had been put in a very remarkable manner. In the North of Ireland it was never enforced. He would venture to say there was not an Orangeman in Belfast not in the possession of firearms; but the Act was enforced in the South of Ireland in the manner to which he had referred. The right hon. Gentleman said there were only 362 cases of refusals to grant licences throughout the country, but the Committee would be in a better position to judge of the breadth and effect of those refusals if they were told in how many counties in Ireland the Act was in force. Off-hand he could not say how many counties were proclaimed; but, if they were few, these refusals might be a very irritating number. On the other hand, 5,639 licences were granted; but to whom were they granted? If to emergency men, bailiffs, and mercenaries of the landlord class, that would be no answer to what he had said. His argument was that the Government had not been able to put down moonlighting and other outrages by the Arms Act, because they had been obliged to pass a Coercion Act in addition. It was unreasonable that the class upon whom alone the Act should press heavily, should be the respectable tenant-farmer class, and that they should be subjected to this irritation because of a small number of evil-doers. Nor had the right hon. Gentleman in any way vindicated the discretion of his resident magistrates. It was a monstrous thing that a resident magistrate without check on his discretion should be allowed to say to a decent farmer having 300 or 400 acres of land—a man with a stake in the country—"you shall not be allowed to bear arms." It was hardly likely that a man of this class would go about at night, with blackened face, firing into his neighbours' dwellings. The right hon. Gentleman was afraid to give the reasons that operated in the minds of resident magistrates. He had replied effectively on some points from a purely debating standpoint, but this was a matter to be considered from a constitutional standpoint. This Government had pledged itself to equal laws for England and Ireland, it had been allowed under the special circumstances of the Session the renewal of certain Acts, but Irish Members were entitled to a reply as to their policy on these measures of a restrictive character.

Even supposing the hon. Member's view of the Arms Act were accepted, the Amendment would not be appropriate, since it would apply to all the expiring laws included in the Bill. His object would be served by a Division on the inclusion of the Arms Act in the schedule. As to the hon. Gentleman's constitutional argument, I certainly do not think that this Act, sanctioned in several Parliaments, under Governments drawn from both parties, can be called a violent violation of the liberty of the subject. I do not touch on the Irish aspect of the case; that has been sufficiently dealt with by my right hon. Friend near me. But I am quite ready to agree with the hon. Member that if Parliament had plenty of time to deal with the measures contained in this schedule, if all speeches were brief, if no unnecessary speeches were made, I am decidedly of opinion that there are some Acts which we continue year by year which might very properly be made perpetual or dealt with separately by Parliament. I go a step further, and say that among the Bills which under such circumstances I should like to see dealt with in that way would be this very Arms Act. But that is not the question before the House. The question is whether we shall or shall not continue for the ordinary term an Act which has been considered necessary not merely by the Party now in power or the present Government, but by a Party and by an Administration which on almost every aspect of the Irish question differed fundamentally from the Party now in office. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press this particular Amendment to a division, but that, if he desires to take the opinion of this House, he will do it by an Amendment to the schedule by which this Bill, and this Bill alone, may be excepted from the general provisions of the Act.

said, he had no objection to take the course suggested. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say that, if this Parliament was unable to deal with these questions; if all the speeches were not brief, and if there was obstruction, so far as the Irish Members were concerned, there was a very simple way of getting rid of the difficulty by sending them back to their own Parliament.

then moved to omit the Arms Act from the schedule of the Bill.

supported the Amendment. The subject, he said, had been very fully dealt with by the hon. Member for North Louth, and he only desired to raise one point. It had been the practice of resident magistrates to grant licences to carry arms to emergency men without inquiring into their character. Now, it was notorious that the Irish Government afforded ample and superabundant protection to these emergency men by the police whenever it was thought necessary. He protested that these men, who by the very nature of their calling were reckless and quarrelsome, fond of a row, and sometimes subject to considerable provocation, should, as a matter of course, be allowed to carry arms, when respectable, honest men in their neighbourhood were denied the right. The Chief Secretary had given as a reason for this Act that crimes were committed in Ireland by means of firearms, and he referred to the moonlighting outrages. For the last two or three years since the Coercion Act had been dropped crimes of that class had almost totally disappeared. But, he would ask, were no crimes of violence committed in this country by the use of firearms? It was a matter of notoriety that firearms were as frequently used with deadly effect in this country against the police, and, if even-handed justice were done as between the two countries, was there not equally as much justification for applying the Arms Act in England as there was in Ireland? The Chief Secretary had given figures to show that the number of unsuccessful applications for licences was comparatively small. The reason why the number was not larger was that Irishmen holding Nationalist opinions refrained from applying, knowing that they would be subjected to the indignity of a refusal. He had himself never obtained the right to carry arms. Rather than run the risk of a refusal he had abstained from applying for a licence, and hundreds of thousands of Nationalists had been influenced by the same motive. Was there anybody in that House having any knowledge of Ireland who really believed that the Arms Act had the effect of preventing crime? If a man intended to commit a moonlight outrage or any other kind of crime, he procured the necessary arms somehow. The men who applied for licences were not those who were likely to transgress the law. The Act, which was not honestly administered, was simply a cause of irritation and an insult to Ireland.

said, this Bill was brought in by the Government in consequence of a pledge given by his predecessor. It was merely a question as to a certain Order in Council; the present Scheme was submitted in the usual way, but it was not laid before both Houses of Parliament owing to a mistake made in the Educational Department. Attention was called to the matter several times in the House on the Vote on Account, and the Vice-President said the point had been submitted to the Law Officers as to whether there were any means of bringing the Scheme before Parliament. He (the then Vice-President) said that if there were any reasonable means, even by Act of Parliament, by which the Scheme could be brought before Parliament, he should be very glad to adopt those means. At the accession of the present Government it was referred to the President of the Council to say how that could be carried out. The Law Officers were consulted, and the advice they gave was that there were no means, except by Act of Parliament, by which this Order in Council could be rescinded. It was in fulfilment of that pledge that the present Government thought they should bring in this Bill to carry out continuity of Regulation. The only provision in the Bill was to rescind the Order in Council, and in moving the Second Reading he hoped that hon. Members opposite would not oppose it, as it was to carry out a pledge given by their predecessors.

thought it was highly inexpedient that the Bill should pass, owing to the circumstances under which the Scheme was passed. The endowment which the Bill proposed to deal with was an ancient one, and had been used for the last 80 years or so purely for the purposes of an elementary school. When originally started it was perhaps a very great improvement on most of the elementary schools of that time, but it had now become utterly inadequate for its purpose. There were only two rooms, one for boys the other for girls, and when the average attendance was exceeded in either, the overcrowding was very considerable. There were no class rooms, and the condition of the offices was scandalous. There was no playground, and the water supply was derived from a pump close to the churchyard, if not upon the ground which formed part of the churchyard originally, and was condemned some time ago by the Medical Officer of Health. The trustees for many years had been conscious that something must be done, but they did not take any steps for some years, because they anticipated the endowment being dealt with under the jurisdiction given to the Charity Commissioners by the Endowed Schools Acts. Upon the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, the Scheme now in question was framed for the Endowment by the Joint Intermediate Education Committee of the county unanimously. He proceeded to show that the Scheme was in accordance with the settled policy of the Joint Committee, which was to secure secondary education of a type suitable for children destined for country pursuits in schools in immediate proximity to their homes.

asked the Speaker whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the merits of the whole question of intermediate education.

The hon. Member must confine himself to the merits of the question before the House.

said, that the Charity Commissioners objected to the method by which the Joint Committee had originally proposed to carry out their object in the case (among other endowments) of Berriew, but they pointed out that there were other means of effecting the object in view—[Cries of "Order, order!"]—namely, by making a grant by way of scholarships and the establishment of an upper department in schools of the locality.

rising to order, desired to ask whether the hon. Member was in order in referring to the Schemes?

I have read the proposals of the Bill, and I cannot say that it is out of order for the hon. Member to refer to the Schemes; but I hope he will not do so in more detail than is necessary.

said, that he would not. Their proposals were, first, that the endowment should be kept for the purposes of the school, not used for scholarships elsewhere, and, further, that an additional grant of £73 a year should be made to the school out of the General County Fund, in order to ensure adequate teaching. These proposals were laid before the Trustees of the Berriew School, at a meeting convened for the purpose. They were most carefully explained to the Trustees of the school, including the Vicar of the parish, and now he would come to what was the whole gist of the matter. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] Under the Scheme, religious instruction of an undenominational character, and only by members of the teaching staff, was to be given in the school. As the Joint Committee understood and entered on their minutes, this was agreed to by the Trustees, and thereupon they forwarded their proposals to the Charity Commissioners, with a view to a Scheme based upon theirs being drafted in the usual way. The Commissioners then raised the question whether this endowment was a Church endowment within Section 19 of The Endowed Schools Act. After long consideration they ultimately decided it was not, and the Scheme went on. During the year 1893, the draft was sent to the Trustees for their consideration twice, and each time they made some observations upon it; but made no attempt to alter the religious instruction clause.

It appears to me that the hon. Member is now discussing the history and not the merits of the Scheme.

said he was shewing that the Scheme was approved by the Trustees. It was also approved unanimously by the Joint Education Committee and the County Council, in fact by all concerned, and was only objected to at the last moment by the Vicar. He was proceeding to say that he regretted that the Vice-President had suggested a doubt as to the bonâ fides of the Petitioners when——

interposing, said: I stated nothing about the bonâ fides of the Commissioners. What I said was, that that was not in issue at the present time. [Cheers.]

proceeded to remark, that it had been ascertained that many signatures to the petitions which had been presented had been obtained on misrepresentations as to the result of the Scheme, and that it was upon those misrepresentations being cleared up that the signatures had been withdrawn. Upon the merits of the case therefore he was justified in taking the course he had done. The Scheme was one which concerned the inhabitants of the parish in question, and this was the only opportunity he should have of protesting against it.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down did not appear to realise the effect of the course he was taking. Whatever might be the merits or the demerits of the Scheme in question, he had already stated to the House that it was not the intention of the Government to take opposed business during the present Session, and therefore if hon. Members went to a Division against the Bill the Government would drop the measure.

said, that he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. It was highly inconvenient for the Government to bring in a Bill to rescind an Order in Council which precluded the matter from being discussed upon its merits.