I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that there is only 15 feet of water in the entrance to Harwich Harbour at low water ordinary spring tides; and, whether, in view of the great strategic and commercial importance of Harwich Harbour, and of the large sums recently spent in fortifying the entrance, he proposes to spend some portion of the money allotted by the Naval Works Bill for the deepening of harbours, upon the improvement of the entrance to Harwich?

said, according to the. last survey, a vessel when entering Harwich Harbour need not pass over less depth than 17 feet at low water Spring tides. This gives a depth at high water of 28 feet. It is not proposed to allot a portion of the money provided in the Naval Works Bill towards the improvement of Harwich Harbour. The deepening of the harbour has been urged upon me several times by civilians, but not by any naval authorities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has as certained any information from local authorities as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the nature of the repairs proposed for the Barracks at Bradford Moor; and, if so, whether the Estimate are based upon such information?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there is am objection on the part of the War Office to state, under Estimate T, the specific sum which is being expended during the current financial year upon the reparation of Bradford Moor Barracks; whether that amount includes the sum total of the repairs and alterations that are required; and, whether the repairs, when completed, will render the barracks in a thoroughly available state to be occupied by Her Majesty's troops?

In reply to my hon. Friend, and also to the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Bradford, I have to say that the local military authorities furnished the information on which the estimate for the repairs to Bradford Barracks was framed. The actual expenditure during 1895–6 has been, under Sub-head Q £244, and under Sub-head T£881. Further sums will be expended in 1896–7, estimated at £479 for repairs and painting and £618 for drainage. These services will complete the necessary work; but the barracks are now available for occupation by troops.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is a general demand for an international, or at least for an Imperial, postage stamp; whether, in the absence of such a stamp: he will set apart one of the rooms in the new General Post Office, and also a room in each of the more important post offices of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, and other large towns, where the postage stamps of the Colonies of the Empire may be purchased, in order to give facilities to the public to send stamped envelopes or covers for replies; and, whether he is aware that British postage stamps are sold in several Australian post offices?

I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a Question, word for word the same, asked by him as recently as the 22nd August last.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the late Postmaster General asked me to repeat the Question, and apologised for not having given the matter due consideration?

I have read the answer the Postmaster General has given me.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) will he explain why it is that an express letter sent from England to France or Germany on Saturday night is delivered on the Sunday, but that an express letter arriving in London on Sunday morning from the Continent, or from any town in England, Scotland, or Ireland, is not delivered until Monday morning, although telegrams are delivered in London on Sunday mornings; and (2) whether he will give instructions that express letters shall be treated as telegrams in regard to their delivery in London on Sundays?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is that, under the existing regulations, there is no express delivery of letters in London on Sunday. In regard to the second part of his Question, it has hitherto been the practice of the Post Office not to make any change which would involve the extension of Sunday labour.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how long the scale has been in force by which the salaries and allowances of sub-postmasters in Ireland are now fixed; what is the average of the salary and allowances of a sub-postmaster in charge of money order, savings bank, and telegraph office, and whether he has to pay out of that sum for assistance, office rent, and other expenses; what are the office hours in such an office; and is there' any intention to revise the scale of remuneration?

The scale has been in force since July 1886. It is applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom alike. The salary and allowances of a sub-postmaster are generally based upon commissions on the work done. There are more than 10,000 sub-offices (including 6,200 telegraph offices) at which money order and savings bank business is transacted, and it is not practicable to state the average emoluments of the sub-postmasters. As a rule, the sub-postmaster is required to meet all the expenses of his office, but in some cases, where the business is considerable, he is granted special allowances for rent and assistance. In a few cases, indeed, payment by commission is withdrawn, the postmaster is granted a fixed salary and allowances, and an established staff is employed. The office hours are, as a rule, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The office of a sub-postmaster is, of course, generally held by a small shop-keeper who carries on the work with his private business, and the present scale of remuneration is found to be sufficient to induce well qualified persons to seek appointment. It is not, therefore, intended to revise the scale of remuneration.

May I ask whether it is within the option of the employé to be paid by salary or by commission?

I am not sure, but I will obtain the information.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whose directions and authority the queries in the schedules annually delivered by the Inland Revenue officers to farmers, for the purpose of obtaining information as to crops, are drawn up; whether he is aware of the complaints made by the farmers that the queries are excessively minute and difficult to answer, and that they appear to be drawn up by some one with little or no knowledge of farming; why the schedules mentioned vary in form every year, and, whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the forms intended for use this year, and also copies of those used last year?

The schedules are drawn up under the direction of the Board of Agriculture. I am not aware that the schedules are complained of by farmers, and since 1891 the variations have been inconsiderable. I will lay upon the Table the forms asked for by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the scheme for the administration of the Tottenham charities has been sealed; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

The scheme was sealed on the 28th February 1896. There has been some delay at the Queen's Printers, but notice of the sealing of the scheme will be published to-morrow on the doors of the parish churches of Tottenham and Wood Green, and will be advertised twice in the local newspapers, and copies of the scheme will be deposited to-night at the offices of the Vestry Clerks of Tottenham and Wood Green.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether men from the Royal Artillery and other branches of the Service are being invited to join the Egyptian Army?

A certain number of non-commissioned officers are allowed to serve in special appointments in the Egyptian Army, and vacancies are filled from a list of eligible volunteers kept at the War Office. When this list runs low, as recently happened, fresh volunteers are called for.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the advisability of acquiring and then pulling down No. 5, Old Palace Yard, so that its site may be added to the new open space by the Chapter House, and that the view of the south-east end of the Abbey may be further extended?

This point was considered when the late Government decided upon the clearance which has been carried out. It seems to have been thought that, in view of the great cost, it would not be advisable to acquire any property south of 4, Old Palace Yard. There is, however, no doubt that the removal of No. 5 would greatly add to the improvement effected at Poets' Corner. If my hon. Friend can use his influence with the owner of that house— (laughter)—who is, I understand, much interested in London improvements— ["Hear, hear!"]—to induce him to meet the Government with the same generosity as that displayed by the owners of the other houses now removed, I will at once approach my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to finding the necessary ways and means to acquire the property and to add it to the open space now existing. [Laughter and cheers.]

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisabilty of converting a portion of the terrace into a winter garden as an alternative to the proposed suggestion of covering in the space enclosed by the cloisters, whereby both the ventilation and the architecture of the House would be prejudicially affected?

I can only repeat what I have said in answer to previous questions, that the whole matter of providing further smoking-room accommodation is receiving my attention. The suggestion contained in the Question of the hon. Member, as well as the proposal for the covering of the Cloister Court, is one of such magnitude that I should not be prepared to come to a decision hurriedly, or without first ascertaining that the proposal met with general approval. In any case, no such work could be carried out this year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is the fact that the number of recruits who have recently joined the Irish Constabulary is greater than for many years past; and, whether, before authorising this increase of recruiting, he ordered any special inquiry as to the possibility of reducing the present establishment without danger to the public peace?

The recruits who recently joined the constabulary were admitted to fill the normal vacancies occurring in the service, and there has been no increase in recruiting, as supposed. Since January, 1883, there has been a reduction of 2,440 in the authorised strength of the force, and, compared with January, 1895, the existing establishment shows a reduction of 121 men. The Executive Government are perfectly alive to the importance of keeping down the strength of the force consistently with a due regard to public interests.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter from the Very Rev. Canon M'Neece to the Guardians of Magherafelt, in which certain practices relating to the hiring out of pauper children are described; whether he is aware that those practices are illegal under 55 and 56 Vic, c. 42, s. 2, which prohibits the employment of children under 14 except under special circumstances as therein mentioned; and, whether he will instruct the police throughout the north of Ireland to proceed against any person taking children into their employment in contravention of that section.

My attention has been called to the letter of the gentleman referred to, in which he makes general charges as to the practices mentioned, and gives two specific instances, in each of which, however, the boy alleged to have been hired out was hired out by his mother without the knowledge of the Guardians. The Guardians deny the general charges. The 2nd Section of the (Statute referred to in the Question is, by the 15th Section, confined in its operation to municipal boroughs and towns under town commissioners, and is, therefore, inapplicable to Magherafelt, which belongs to neither class.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Water-ford, W. (Mr. J. J. SHEE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the Lord Lieutenant has received a memorial from the fishermen, and also from the other residents of Ardmore, county Water-ford, praying that a grant should be made for the erection of a slip and a small breakwater to protect the boats engaged in the fishing industry there; and (2) whether, considering the recommendation was made by the Royal Commission in 1887 that it is an admirable site for the construction of a breakwater and its importance to the herring fishery, the Lord Lieutenant will decide to accede to the prayer of the petitioners?

The memorial referred to in the first paragraph has been received. The second paragraph presumably refers to the Report dated January, 1888, of the Royal Commission on Public Works, which deals with piers and harbours in Ireland, but I have been unable to find in it any recommendation of the nature indicated. I have no information before me beyond the statements contained in the memorial to indicate that the scheme alluded to in the Question has any claim to Government assistance.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he could state to the House what is the lowest age at which half-time children are employed in the Poor Law schools; what is the nature of the work on which such children are employed; and whether it can be described as useful as means to a domestic training?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the half-time children in the Poor Law schools are ever employed eight, nine, and ten hours at manual labour; and whether any reports have been received from inspectors as to the capacity of the children to derive any benefit from instruction after so many hours spent at manual labour.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what is the educational standard laid down and what is the standard observed with regard to half-timers in Poor Law schools?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether any Reports have been received by him on the subject of the children in the Poor Law schools being worked as half-timers under the statutory age; and, if so, from what sources such Reports have come; and, whether he will lay any such i Reports upon the Table?

I am unable to state the lowest age at which half-time children are employed in Poor Law schools, but children under the age of 11 should not be exempted from school attendance for industrial work; and the attention of the Guardians would be directed to any case, in which the Local Government Board were informed that this was done. There is in a large number of workhouses industrial instruction. It is of various kinds, according to the circumstances. Employment of the boys is in industrial work, under a baker, tailor, shoemaker, or carpenter, on gardening, farming, and domestic work; the girls in needlework, domestic and laundry work, cooking, etc. The work is generally to be regarded as useful to the children.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Report of the Committee on Metropolitan Poor Law Schools will be laid on the Table of the House?

I am under the impression that it has quite recently been laid on the Table, and that it is almost printed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether there are any regular brick and stone layers employed by the Board of Works at Kingstown Harbour; are the walls on the East Pier being built by stonecutters; and, will he order that regular tradesmen be employed, and that the scale of wages usually paid by employers be paid to them by the Board of Works?

I understand that there is constant employment on Kingstown Harbour works for masons, not for bricklayers. The masonry wall, which is the only wall in course of construction on the East Pier, is being built by masons. Skilled artisans are employed on all work requiring skilled labour, and they are paid at the various rates usually paid for similar employment in the locality.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a sub-post-office will be established in Mill Street, Ennis.

It has been decided to re-open a sub-post office in Jail Street, Ennis. Inquiries are now being made as to a suitable candidate.

Do I understand you to say that there is not to be a new post office, but that the old one is to be re-opened.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that, in the parish of Combs, Suffolk, the poor rates formerly averaged 2s. 6d. in the pound, whereas since 1894 they have risen to 3s. 8d. in the pound; and this, together with a Highway Rate of 1s. 8d. and a Parish Council Rate of 3d., makes in all a total rate of 5s. 7d. in the pound; whether he is further aware that during the first year of the Parish Council there were no ratepayers on the Council, and that on the new Council only one councillor pays rates; and whether he can take steps to protect the ratepayers from such large expenditure.

I have communicated with the Overseers of the Parish of Combs and with the Guardians of the Stow Union on the subject of the Question of my hon. Friend. The Overseers state that the total rates levied in 1895 amounted to us. 7d. in the pound, but they are unable to verify the statement in the Question as to the average poor rate formerly, as the years on which the average is based are not given. The rates for 1895, I am informed, include a School Board rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound, and it is stated that there has been a gradual increase in the rates during the last three years, which has been partly caused by a considerable reduction in the assessment of agricultural land, and that there has been an increase in the out-relief of the Union. I am informed that during the first year of the Parish Council none of the Members were directly assessed to the Poor Rate, but that the only direct ratepayer who was nominated at the recent election was elected. I cannot render any assistance as suggested in the Question. The Members of the Local Authorities are elected by the Parochial electors.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that at some of the Military stations in Ireland the troops are largely rationed on foreign meat; whether the contracts entered into with victuallers in Ireland contain any conditions limiting the proportion of foreign meat; and, whether these conditions equally apply to all Irish garrisons?

I have already more than once stated that a certain proportion of foreign meat is supplied at a few stations in Ireland, but not in excess of the proportion laid down in the contracts, which are the same for all stations both in Ireland and in Great Britain. I may repeat that the Question of the supply of meat to the troops is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State.

Can you say what are the relative proportions of foreign and home grown meat at present supplied?

No, Sir; it is impossible to answer that Question, because you cannot distinguish between what is home grown and what is foreign; but the contractor is obliged to supply in certain proportions fresh and frozen meat.

Can you say what penalties attach to the breaking of those conditions of the contract, and whether they have ever been enforced?

There is no penalty; but if the contract was broken it would be terminated at once.

May I ask whether, in the opinion of the War Office, it is impossible to distinguish between foreign and home grown meat?

I may say, in relation to dead meat, if it is in a good condition, no one can tell whether it is produced here or abroad.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the proposed defence works at Leenan Head, Lough Swilly, will be begun; have the proposed works been contracted for; if so, who is the contractor; what is the amount of the contract; if provision will be inserted in the contract that the materials for the construction of the works will, as far as possible, be obtained in the surrounding districts, so as to give much needed employment to the people in this congested district; and if the terms of the Resolution with regard to the payment of fair wages in Government contracts has been complied with, with respect to the contracts for extending the forts at Inch Island, Nedds Point, Dunree Head, and the new forts at Leenan Head?

The contract for the works at Leenan Head has recently been made with Messrs. McCrea and McFarland, and the works should commence very shortly. It is not usual to divulge the amount of a contract. No provision has been made as to the employment of local materials; but the bulk of the construction will be in concrete, which will certainly be made from the stone of the district. The terms of the Resolution as to fair wages have been inserted in the contracts referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Local Government Board of Ireland have a representative on the Blackrock and Kingstown Main Drainage Board; (2) if they have, was he informed by the Main Drainage Board of their determination to deviate from the lines laid down in the Act of Parliament under which the Main Drainage Board was constituted; (3) did he communicate the information to the Local Government Board of Ireland; and (4) whether the Local Government Board gave their sanction in this case to the violation of the Act of Parliament?

The Act of 1893 constituting this Drainage Board, gave the Local Government Board power to nominate a member of the Drainage Board, though the member so nominated is independent and cannot be regarded as a representative of the Local Government Board. This gentleman acted in accord with the other members of the Drainage Board in sanctioning deviations which were made on the advice of counsel. The reply to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if the statement is true that Mr. John Ross, Q.C., has been or is about to be appointed to the Judicial Bench in Ireland; and (2) will Mr. Ross take over from the hands of Judge Boyd such land court business as that Judge has been performing for Mr. Justice Monroe; and, if so, will steps be taken to bring to trial Patrick M 'Quaide, of Gola, County Monaghan, who has been for almost two months confined in Dundalk Gaol without being arraigned, the man's alleged offence being a simple trespass upon his evicted farm?

It is a fact that Mr. Ross has been appointed to be Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland in the room of Mr. Monroe, who has resigned. I am not in a position to reply to the first part of the second paragraph; but as regards the man M'Quaide, I have already explained to the hon. Member that the Executive Government cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of the Receiver Judge, who committed him for contempt, or take any steps as suggested in the question. The man's discharge from prison lies very much in his own hands, and if he instructs a solicitor to appear before the Judge and express regret for his action, and also promises not to repeat the offence, the Judge, there is little doubt, would, as in other similar cases, be inclined to favourably entertain an application for his discharge from prison.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is considered that the appointment of another Judge is absolutely necessary. The Irish Bench is well manned?

That has been fully considered, and there is no doubt that in this case it is necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether postal orders issued in the United Kingdom are payable in Constantinople, Malta, and Gibraltar, but not in Australia, Canada, or other great colonies; whether postal orders issued in India, the Straits Settlements, and Newfoundland are payable in this country, while postal orders issued in this country are not payable in India, the Straits Settlements, Newfoundland, Canada, South Africa, or India; and whether, in pursuance of an intimation previously given, he will consider the advisability of establishing a uniform exchange of postal orders between the Mother Country and her Colonies and dependencies?

The position was fully explained in answer to a Question asked by the hon. Member on the 21st of July, 1893, and as lately as the 27th of last month he was informed that the subject was engaging the Postmaster General's attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the claim of the English contractors for the Piræus Larissa Railway against the Greek Government, who, having first made default in payment of the instalments due to the contractors for work done on the railway, then arbitrarily cancelled the contract, notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained a loan of £3,595,000 for the express purpose of making the railway, which conduct on the part of the Greek Government has occasioned to the contractors serious losses, for which they have not been able to obtain any redress; and, whether Her Majesty's advisers will take such steps as may be required to enforce the claims of the contractors?

Unofficial representations have on several occasions been made to the Greek Government in connection with the claim of the English contractors for the Piræus-Larissa Railway. These representations have not been successful, the Greek Government maintaining that the contractors have failed to fulfil their engagements, and that they must be left to their legal remedies. The contractors have been informed of this decision, and told that the matter is not one which in its present state admits of official diplomatic intervention. They, however, maintain that they have already exhausted the legal remedies open to them, and that there has been a clear denial of public justice which would warrant such intervention. They are preparing a statement to this effect, which, when received, will be duly considered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Stamboul, the Orient, the Moniteur Oriental, the Sabach, and the Ikdaru newspapers, published in Constantinople, have alleged the existence of grave irregularities among the officials of the British Consulate at Constantinople; whether they have received any, and, if so, what, information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople relative to these charges, and whether they have taken any, and, if so, what, steps in regard to the matter; and, whether they will make inquiry into the subject?

None of the newspapers referred to have reached the Foreign Office with the exception of copies of the Moniteur Oriental of the 19th and 20th inst., in which allusion is made to the case of Guerillot v. The Building Society. We are not acquainted with the details of that case, but inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when the list of shareholders of the British South African Company on the 31st December 1895, will be placed in the Library?

I have agreed, at the instance of the Chartered Company, to a slight modification of what was proposed in reference to their list of shareholders. They will furnish very shortly a list of the shareholders as it stood on July 6th last, when they made a fresh issue of capital, and a little later another list of the shareholders as it will stand on the 31st instant, the last day of the Company's financial year. They represent to me that these two lists can be furnished rather sooner than a list for December 31st last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the arrest, in the town of Boyle, on Monday 17th February last, of Mr. Patrick M'Manamy, a shop assistant, for inability to pay law costs incurred by him in an action in which he was unsuccessful for arrears of salary; (2) whether it is legal to keep the man, who has no visible means, in confinement, under the Debtors' Act, for non-payment of law costs; and (3) whether under the circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant; for Ireland will direct Mr. M'Manamy's release from Tullamore Prison?

My attention had not previously been drawn to the arrest of this man, but I now learn he was arrested on. the date mentioned, under an Attachment Order issued by the Queen's Bench Division for non-payment of a debt incurred by him in an action for wages. Whether, or not, he is unable to pay it is not for me to say. The case has been tried before a jury, and it is no part of my duty to express an opinion as to the legality of the man's imprisonment. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the pay of Naval officers as interpreters in the Fleet is reduced this year from £600 to £500; and what is the annual grant in the Army for such services?

I perceive that in the Navy Estimates £100 less is taken for interpreters this year than last year. Any further information should be obtained from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. As regards the Army, rates are fixed by the Royal Warrant for officers acting as interpreters; but no sum is taken in the Estimates for the service, except in time of war. There is a charge of £1,500 for civilian interpreters, principally expended in Egypt,

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any notification was made by Lord Cromer favourable to an advance of Egyptian or British troops to Dongola prior to the order for the present expedition into the Soudan?

The expedition was decided upon by Her Majesty's Government in consultation with the military authorities in England, after previous communications with Lord Cromer and the military authorities in Egypt, who had expressed the opinion that a forward movement against the Dervishes should be made. More than one alternative was discussed; but it would be contrary to practice and to convenience to make public the views of various advisers of the Government upon any particular proposal.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the military authorities recommended the forward movement, or that Lord Cromer recommended it before the expedition was decided on?

I may repeat what I said in my answer, which I think was quite clear that the military authorities, both in England and Egypt, were in favour of the forward movement.

Yes, but was Lord Cromer?

I have already answered in regard to Lord Cromer. [Opposition cries of "No, no!" and Ministerial cheers.]

I did not quite understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that Lord Cromer also approved the forward movement?

I must have made myself singularly unintelligible; and, if so, I beg pardon. What I said was that it was entirely contrary both to practice and convenience to make public to the House the views of any individual advisers of Her Majesty's Government. [Cheers.]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers what inference will be drawn from his answer? ["Hear, hear!"]

The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to draw whatever inference he pleases. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.]

The real question is, whether "who" in the answer refers to Lord Cromer or not. ["Hear, hear!"]

The words I used were these:—

"The expedition was decided upon by Her Majesty's Government in consultation with the military authorities in England, after previous communication with Lord Cromer and the military authorities in Egypt, who had expressed the opinion [Cries of 'Who?']—that a forward movement against the Dervishes should be made."

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that Mr. Gordon, of Derry, who has been already three times convicted and fined for refusing to have one of his children vaccinated, is again being prosecuted for the same offence; and (2) whether he will see that regard is paid to the unanimous recommendation of the Vaccination Commission in this and similar cases?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. These prosecutions are instituted by the Board of Guardians of the Derry Union in discharge of the duty imposed upon them by the Compulsory Vaccination Acts, and as no change was made in the law to carry out the recommendations of the Vaccination Committee, I have neither the power nor the right to interfere with public bodies, such as this, in the legitimate discharge of their statutory duties.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why, having regard to the fact that officers of the Crown whose salaries are provided for out of the Imperial funds are empowered to send telegrams on Government service without payment, answers to these telegrams, which are frequently imperatively demanded, should be charged for, and, whether arrangements will be made to send free of expense replies by telegram to official communications when these are specifically demanded?

A responsible officer of the Crown at the headquarters of a Government Department may, if the circumstances justify it, send a telegram on official business to a member of the public as a reply paid telegram; and the Postmaster General, in whose opinion I concur, thinks this is as far as he can allow the privilege to extend.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the Fourth Schedule of the 18th Section of the Irish Education Act, 1892, lays upon the Commissioners of National Education the imperative duty of distributing the whole sum voted by Parliament as a fee grant among the teachers; and, whether the Commissioners have, nevertheless, returned in each year an unexpended balance to the Treasury?

The interpretation of the law on this point is primarily a question for the Education Board to decide, not the Treasury. The Education Board have returned unexpended balances each year, as follows:—1892–3, £582; 1893–4, £3,035; 1894–5, £867.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that meetings having been lately held in Malta, protesting against an Order in Council on the subject of the celebration of mixed marriages, the Governor has proclaimed as an unlawful assembly the meeting of three or more persons, and that this step has created considerable discontent in the, island; and, whether the Governor acted in this matter with the knowledge or under the advice of Her Majesty's Government?

I am aware that meetings have been held in Malta protesting against the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the subject of the celebration in Malta of mixed marriages, but I have not heard that the Governor has issued any proclamation on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to four fatal accidents to railway servants which have recently occurred at Nine Elms goods station; and, whether he will institute an Inquiry into the causes of these accidents, and as to how far they are due to excessive hours of working and the insufficiency of space and lighting in the sheds?

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the accidents to men named Pitcher, Taylor, Middleditch and Few respectively. Inquests have been held in each case, and I deprecate as a rule the duplication of inquiries. Where, however, serious accidents follow each other closely at a particular place there is a primâ facie case for investigation and I will therefore order an Inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any decision has yet been come to as to the extension of the telegraph to Lusk, county of Dublin?

The extension has been authorised, and will be carried out as soon as possible?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Porte has protested against the Nile Expedition; and, whether any notice was given to Turkey of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advance upon Dongola?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether communications have been received from the Turkish Government in any way opposing the Dongola expedition?

No, Sir; no protest has been received from the Porte. The Sultan has made inquiries as to the nature and objects of the military operations against the Dervishes and explanations have been given. No previous notice was given to the Turkish Government of the intended advance, nothing having been done or being contemplated that is beyond the competence of the Khedive, as recognised in the Firmans, or that requires special authority from the Sultan.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that the Khedive has power to start an Expedition of this kind without making any representation on the matter to the Porte first?

I do not think that is a question which can be said to arise out of that which I have answered. [Ministerial cheers.]

Is the Sultan of Turkey not the Sovereign both of Egypt and the Soudan?

The hon. Gentleman is as well aware of these facts as I am myself, and I do not see why he should ask me for information he already possesses. [Laughter]

I will put down my Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will grant a Return of Evictions, Sales for Recovery of Land Revenue, and other matters regarding the Madras Land Revenue Administration in the form in which notice has been given.

I have not at present the information asked for by the hon. Baronet, but if he wishes it, I will write to the Government of Madras and request them to furnish it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the control of the general reserve fund of Egypt is governed by a Khedivial decree, dated 21st July 1888; whether this decree empowers the Egyptian Government to apply the money belonging to the fund—à des dépenses extra-ordinaires engagées conformément é àl'avis préalable de la Commission de la Delte; whether large sums have been advanced out of the fund without the unanimous consent of the Commissioners; and, if so, what are the dates and circumstances of such precedents?

(1) The General Reserve Fund was established, and its objects defined by, the Khedive's decree of the 12th of July 1888. (2) Yes. (3) Lord Cromer, in his report, recently laid, stated that, out of the general reserve fund, a sum of about £El,327,000 is pledged as advances on account of railways and other works of public utility. (4) We have no information as to the voting upon the decisions which have hitherto been taken by the Commissioners in regard to expenditure from the reserve fund, but it has never hitherto been suggested that a vote of the majority would not be sufficient. In the general financial work of the Commission numerous precedents exist for decisions by the vote of the majority, and this is the recognised and ordinary method of procedure.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, (1) whether, before making any International engagement on the subject of reopening the Indian Mints and keeping them open for free coinage of silver, he will give the House and country the opportunity of considering the proposals and their effect; and, (2) whether he can obtain information through any of the Government Departments as to what is the amount of silver now lying idle in the Treasuries of the United States, and of France and Germany respectively?

I should be unwilling to pledge the Government on the subject mentioned in the Question. It will be remembered that the principal alteration in our system which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to an International agreement had reference to the opening of the Indian Mints. Now the Indian Mints were closed without the consent of Parliament, and I do not know why Parliament should be consulted if the Mints were again opened. With regard to the second paragraph, I have no official information at my disposal which would enable me to give with any feeling of security the Question put to me by my hon. Friend. But so far as I can make out, there are at present in the Treasury of the United States 96 millions sterling of silver, against which there are notes in circulation for the whole amount less eight millions. That is to say, there are 88 millions of silver notes against 96 millions of silver in the Treasury. In Germany there are no returns issued of which I am able to avail myself. As to France, on March 19 last there were 50 millions of silver in the Bank of France, but notes were issued against the whole of this amount.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question as to whether, before entering into any engagement, the Government will give the House and the country an opportunity of considering the proposal?

I thought I had indicated to my hon. Friend that I did not propose to give any pledge on the subject. As far as my experience goes, the House of Commons always finds some opportunity for discussing any matter of interest. But I should not like to pledge the Government to bring the question before the House before they arrived at a decision.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether there is any grave objection to altering the order of Business of the House, so that on each day on which the House meets at Three o'clock the ballot for Notices of Motion (if any) shall be taken at ten minutes past Three o'clock and Questions immediately thereafter, and that Private Business shall be taken on each such day immediately after Questions.

I do not think that the present method of carrying on the discussion of private Bills is altogether satisfactory. It upsets the general arrangements of the House, and sometimes makes it impossible to say when public business will begin, however important it may be. But I have ready no solution of the difficulty, which has pressed upon the present as well as on the late Government. Whether the difficulty might be met by discussing Private Business after twelve—[cheers and laughter]—I do not know, but I sometimes think so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will move, or give facilities for moving, for a Committee on the Current Wage Clause in Government contracts, having regard to the count-out on 24th March; and, if so, when?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in accordance with the general feeling expressed in the House of Tuesday evening, will move for the Committee then asked for, and whether the reference to the Committee will be identical with the terms of the Resolution agreed to on Tuesday?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government, considering the strong feeling in the country on the question of the Current Wage Clause in Government contracts, will, with a view to allay such feeling, move as early as possible for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of the administration of the Fair Wages Resolution of February 1891.

The Government will appoint the Committee to deal with this question, as I have more than once assured the House. The terms of reference will substantially be the same as those of the Motion of Tuesday; but I do not pledge myself to a phrase or a word.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the list of names of persons selected to serve on the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws, which appeared in The Times of the 25th instant, is correct; whether the names of the three Commissioners to represent Ireland were selected with the consent of any representatives of any organised Irish interest; and, if so, whether he has any objection to name the persons who, as representatives of Irish public opinion, sanctioned their selection; whether he can name the persons on whose recommendation The O'Conor Don, who carried the Irish Sunday Closing Hill through this House, was placed on the Royal Commission as a neutral; and, whether he is aware that the licensed trade organisation of Dublin have by resolution protested against the selection of The O'Conor Don as a neutral; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the composition of this Commission, either by changing the alleged Irish selections or by adding others.

There are inaccuracies in the list which appears to have got into The Times. It is impossible for me to enter into a discussion as to the sources of information which the Government have or may avail themselves of in dealing with this difficult question. The hon. Gentleman will understand that when a Commission dealing with such an important question is appointed, and when it is limited to a reasonable compass, it is almost impossible that there should not be gentlemen and even interests thinking that they are not adequately represented on the Commission. We have done our very best to represent all classes, and I trust that when the names are announced they will meet with general satisfaction.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it unfair that The O'Conor Don, who had taken such strong action in the House against an important trade interest in Ireland, should be appointed to the Commission, seeing that the representation of Ireland then included two opponents and only one supporter of the trade?

I am afraid that I cannot discuss any name on the Commission now, or even admit that any particular name is going to be submitted to the Queen.

As the right hon. Gentleman says that the report in The Times is inaccurate, is he in a position to give to the House an accurate list of the Commissioners and the terms of reference-

Not as yet; but I hope to be able to do so before Easter.

asked the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the first Order on the, Paper, the Naval Works Bill, taking some time, he would move to report progress upon it at a convenient hour, so that Members generally might have an opportunity for hearing the statement of the Vice-President of the Council on the Education Bill.

I am aware that Members on both sides of the House are very anxious to hear the statement of my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council, but at the same time it is absolutely necessary to get through the stage of the Naval Works Bill —the Bill has been too long delayed already—and I shall have to ask the House, if they will, to endeavour to get through the Committee stage this evening. I have no reason to believe that the discussion is likely to be prolonged to an hour which would make it generally inconvenient for my right hon. Friend to make his statement.

asked whether it was intended that the first business to-morrow would be the Civil Service Estimates?

What I propose is to put down a few uncontroversial Army Votes, not very many, and as soon as they are finished I will immediately move to report progress, and take the Vote on Account. In any case, I am pledged to take the Vote on Account at seven o'clock.

, who had an Amendment on the. Paper having very much the same object, said, it seemed to him that this subsection proposed to take the realised surplus of this year, put it into a box, and then to give an unlimited authority to the Treasury to dispose of it as it pleased in making these works. He conceived that it was quite exceptional and irregular to give such unlimited authority; and that the proper way was to give authority to expend a sum "not exceeding" a specified amount. The three main objections to the subsection, therefore, were, first of all, the authority to expend the money was unlimited. It expended a large sum of money—£6,000,000 or £7,000,000—of which £8,000,000 were already taken, perhaps more. The sum was more than was required for the purpose of the Act, which only contemplated the expenditure, under this Bill, of £2,750,000; and, finally, this sub-section assumed to pass a future Act of Parliament.

regretted extremely any attempt to do away with the present system of reducing the debt. It seemed to him that there was a great danger in making a change in what he thought was a fundamental principle of their finance. When there was to be a large expenditure on the Navy he believed that the public would not grudge it. One or two enthusiastic persons had written to The Times stating that they were willing to go on paying a larger income-tax if necessary to secure an efficient Navy. He was a great believer in this enthusiasm, but he thought that the real way to show it was by our paying now the cost of this expenditure. If the country wanted these ships—and he agreed in the large addition to the Navy—surely the best proof of their earnestness was that they should now pay for them, and not make the reduction of the debt the means of paying.

thought that the line of argument which had been pursued was scarcely in harmony with the general feeling of the public or of the majority of the House. No doubt it would be a great pity if the reduction of the debt was interfered with; but would it be desirable to increase taxation rather than apply the realised surplus to the formation of permanent works primarily designed for the security of the Empire? Again, to apply the unforeseen surplus temporarily to those works and to re-borrow our Treasury Bonds, would be to repeat what Mr. Pitt had attempted to maintain the Sinking Fund while he increased the debt. That would be financial purism of the highest degree. They recognised that the Government had made out an ample case for the institution of these works for the security of the Empire. We had a large realised surplus in hand, and it could not be applied to a more legitimate purpose than the one suggested.

thought that no one would be less inclined to diminish the ordinary methods of reducing the Debt than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if his right hon. Friend and himself had believed that what hon. Gentlemen had indicated would be the result, he thought that he might say they would not have been parties to any proposal of the kind. But the question which was presented to his right hon. Friend and himself was whether they should pay off the debt in present circumstances and borrow again the same amount the next day—whether they should go into the. money market with a large surplus which would be realised this year, or whether the simpler and more businesslike proposal was to set aside this surplus instead of borrowing it, instead of paying off the debt with one hand and raising it by annuities with the other. The difficulty of purchasing Consols also operated with his right hon. Friend and himself. The hon. Member for North Islington said that the Government ought to proceed by taxation rather than by borrowing; but he asked the Committee to remember that they were so far within the sums with which they had to deal, and were acting upon a policy which was initiated by the late Government, and endorsed by the House—namely, for these works the Government should proceed by borrowing and not by taxation. The Government were not now starting afresh; they had before them £8,000,000 or more sanctioned by the House to be borrowed by an Act of last year. The amount was not sanctioned, but the works were sanctioned costing about that amount. This was a general defence with regard to proceeding by loans instead of by taxation for these works. As to the arguments of the right hon. Member for the University of London relating to Sub-section c, he said that the Committee must distinguish between two sums—£2,750,000 to be authorised by this Bill, and any further amount which might remain over. The objections of the hon. Member for King's Lynn applied to the latter. The hon. Gentleman was too sanguine in the figures he quoted. He was informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum which would remain over would not amount to millions; indeed, they would scarcely be counted by hundreds of thousands; the sum would be less than a quarter of a million. Therefore, the figures in question were not large. The Government were not asking the House to anticipate any great expenditure.

said, that the effect of the clause, as he read it, would be to interfere with, the redemption of the permanent debt to which the money proposed to be dealt with would be applied under the old law. The Government were proposing to stop the reduction of the permanent debt in order to avoid incurring a temporary debt. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that it would be absurd to apply this money to the reduction of the permanent debt on the one hand, and on the other to borrow an equivalent sum. That would, no doubt, be true if the two debts could be thought to have the same character, but as they could not, the absurdity disappeared.

feared that the credit of the country would be seriously damaged if it should be thought abroad that we could not make an arrangement of this kind without tampering with the arrangements for the reduction of the debt.

denied that the course which the Government proposed to take would weaken our credit in the estimation of foreign nations. He drew a very broad distinction between the old Sinking Fund and the Sinking Fund in- cluded in the annual fixed charge for debt, and the latter would be maintained intact. A sum of £7,250,000, being more than had ever been specifically allotted in a year to the payment of debt, would be devoted to that purpose this year. The old Sinking Fund consisted of casual and spasmodic receipts from surplus revenue beyond the expenditure of the year. There had not been before in their time so large a surplus as the probable surplus of the present year, although it would not approach the amount which some hon. Members anticipated. A surplus, as the Committee were aware, might be applied to the reduction of the debt 12 months after the end of the financial year in which it had accrued. If the surplus to which the 4th Clause of the Bill referred were not applied as there proposed, it would remain for a year in the Treasury balances. The Government, if they were debarred from using it, would have to borrow, and 12 months hence when, to judge from present appearances, the Consol market might be even higher than it was now, the surplus would have to be applied to the redemption of Consols at a price higher perhaps than 110. It was not to the interest of the country that they should buy largely Consols at 110. It was, he thought, fairer to their successors that the reduction of the permanent debt should be stopped to this extent, than that they should be charged with a large sum for the payment of these permanent works, some of which, at any rate, ought to have been constructed before. He protested strongly against the suggestion that by this process the Government were doing anything whatever to weaken the credit of the country in the eyes of the world.

said, that the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made between the old Sinking Fund—which was the realised surplus—and the new Sinking Fund was a sound one. There was no one, he thought in that House who had more persistently maintained the duty of reducing the debt than he had himself. He had fulfilled that duty even in very difficult circumstances, when, by disregarding it, he might have avoided many burdens on the revenue of the year. The realised surplus was really what might be called an unexpected windfall, and there had rarely accrued such a large sum as fell this year into the Exchequer under the realised surplus of the year. Of course the regular funds for the redemption of the debt were the annuities in connection with the new Sinking Fund, and these, happily, would amount to some £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. Then there came in this unexpected windfall of several millions. Whilst he thought that the point which had been taken by the right hon. Member for Bodmin was a perfectly true one, the question was whether in what might, he hoped, be called exceptional circumstances, an exceptional surplus should be treated in this manner. He himself was prepared to consent to it, really in the interest of the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, hear!"] They must, however, take care they did not make the country impatient with the amount which was set aside in any particular year or in any particular generation for the redemption of the debt, for if in any particular year they made that sum too large they might be endangering the permanent provision for the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, hear!"] He certainly hoped that no Government would ever consent to dealing with and diminishing the Permanent Fund in the form of annuities for the redemption of the debt. That Permanent Fund was really for this country what other countries had in the shape of a war chest. It was a fund by which they could raise in an emergency, without adding to the taxation, great sums of money for the necessities of war, and therefore he hoped there was nothing in this proposal which would tend to endanger that provision. He should also hope that in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances nothing would induce the Government to divert even the old Sinking Fund from the purpose to which it was by Statute applied. It was necessary, in this Bill, to get Parliamentary authority for the dealing with the old Sinking Fund this year, and this year only. It left that general principle and the application of the old Sinking Fund, as well as the other Sinking Fund intact in the future. If the old Sinking Fund of another year was to be dealt with, Parliamentary authority must be obtained for that purpose, and because there were exceptional circumstances in this year, and they were dealing with an exceptional surplus that had accrued, he had not felt it his duty to object to the provisions of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

suspected that many Members of the Committee thought that by this process they were saving the country a deal of taxation. But what would be the effect of this process even if carried out to the extent of £6,000,000 of money? Instead of applying it to the redemption of the Permanent Debt, they were going to prevent the creation of terminable annuities. If they applied it to the redemption of the Debt they would extinguish an annual charge of £175,000; if they applied it to the matter of terminable annuities it would be £225,000. The whole saving, therefore, embodied in this process was something like £50,000 or £60,000 a year, and it was for the purpose of that they were going through a process that would impress the popular mind with the idea that they were granting £6,000,000 of money and applying it to an emergent necessity, whereas they were diverting it from one form of debt to prevent the creation of another form.

hoped the right hon. Member for London University would not be induced to withdraw the Amendment. His objection to Clause 4 was that he did not think the proposal to increase the Navy was treating the people in a straightforward manner. If the Government wanted the people to pay several millions more for the Navy this year let them have the courage to do it by the imposition of a tax at once instead of endeavouring to do it by a side wind, for the people in the end would have to bear extra taxation to pay for it. They were dealing with this surplus in a light and airy fashion, but he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could tell them the amount of the surplus, and give them some explanation on the subject?

No.

said, it seemed to him an extraordinary thing they should be asked to deal with a surplus as to which they had no definite information.

observed that the contention of the right hon. Member for the London University that the proposal of the Government was likely to affect the financial credit of this country was disproved by the fact that since the proposals were made Consols had risen, and were now higher than ever they had been before, and this notwithstanding the fact that the surplus was not going to be invested in Consols. There had, indeed, been a continual rise in the price of the Stocks since the proposal was made.

observed that the hon. Member for Peckham had exaggerated what he had said, which was that he was sorry that the Government could not meet this exceptional expenditure without interfering with the Sinking Fund. He was obliged to the hon. Member for East Clare for his support, but after the discussion that had taken place he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

then put the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill, and ruled that the "Ayes" had it.

claimed that, "The Noes have it."

requested those who challenged his decision to rise in their places, whereupon several Irish and Radical Members stood up. The Chairman counted them and said; The Noes are 20; so the Ayes have it. [Laughter.]

, on a point of order, said that, in a case in which the Chairman required the supporters of an Amendment to stand up and be counted, the Standing Order required that the names of the Members should be taken down. He knew that many more than twenty Members supported his Amendment; some of these were at the Bar, and some outside the door and in the Division Lobby, whither they had gone in anticipation of a Division.

said he had carried out the rule of the House, Standing Order 215, which was as follows:—

"After the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand-glass upon the Table, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, if in his opinion the Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, may take the vote of the House, or Committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he, thereupon, as he may think fit, either declares the determination of the House or Committee, or names-Tellers for a Division. In case there is no Division, the Speaker or Chairman declares to the House, or the Committee, the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names are thereupon taken down in the House and printed with the List of Divisions."

said, the names of the twenty Members that had been taken down did not at all represent the support his Motion would have received.

The rule requires that the names shall be taken down forthwith. They were not taken down. ["They were."]

I beg your pardon, Sir; the names of the hon. Members who stood up were taken down forthwith by the Clerks at the Table, and will appear in the Votes to-morrow morning.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him wanting in courtesy if he did not Debate at that stage the question of the works at Pembroke. He would only say he hoped the Committee would not diminish the amount intended for Gibraltar, for it was all needed. He also hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, but would content himself with raising the whole question of Pembroke Docks at a later stage.

The date given in the Schedule is supposed to be the shortest time within which the work can be completed. As much labour and expenditure as possible shall be put into it each year, for the Government attach as much importance to it as my hon. and gallant Friend. A survey is now in progress, and if that shows that the work can be done in four or five years instead of in ten, the money will be forthcoming to push on the works.

said he was glad to hear that; but they had had assurances before from Governments.

I have grave doubts whether the hon. Member would be in order in moving this Amendment. If he will look at the Schedule he will see the heading of the column in which his Amendment occurs is ''Expected date of completion." If he were successful in his Amendment it would not compel the works to be completed in the shorter period. The column is really inserted in the Schedule by way of giving general information, and the hon. Member's Amendment, if carried, could have no enactive force.

asked for an assurance from the Government that the work was to be carried on by free labour. Sir Edward Watkin, in the Debate of 1883, had declared that the Dover works ought to be completed in four years.

said that free labour and not convict labour would be employed on the work.

entered his protest against the construction of a new harbour at Dover. If it was to be assumed that our command of the sea was to be in jeopardy owing to our fleet being employed away from home or beaten in the Channel, they could not attempt to embark a military force at Dover under these circumstances at all. His belief was that the true strategical position for such a harbour was much further westward, and he was not sure whether it was not Berehaven.

said, he would quote an opinion which would have some weight with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Duke of Wellington — [cheers] — the greatest soldier of his age, in reply to a question put to him before the Royal Commission of 1843, said, in reference to a harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs, that he thought a harbour at Dover was ''not only desirable, but absolutely necessary.'' He would quote now a naval authority, Sir Alexander Milnes, a First Sea Lord, who said:—

"I look upon Dover as a central point connected with operations of a warlike nature anywhere on our own or the adjoining coast."

was glad to hear the suggestion in favour of Berehaven. For his part, however, as he had more than once stated, he was opposed to this expenditure altogether because he considered it unnecessary, but if it was to be undertaken, he contended that some of the money should be spent for the benefit of the Irish people. The hon. Member who represented the Admiralty (Mr. Macartney), and who was himself an Irish Member, would not deny that there was a strong feeling in Ireland, from Belfast to Cork, and from east to west, that the country was not fairly treated in this matter. If a certain amount was allowed to be spent, say a million or two, in the west of Ireland, it would no doubt be a satisfaction to the people, and they would feel that they were getting some value for the taxes they paid. And it must be borne in mind that Ireland paid more than her fair proportion——

I must ask the hon. Member to limit himself to the question before the Committee, which is, whether £150,000 would be spent upon Dover.

had not the slightest desire to travel outside the ruling, but he would ask the First Lord to explain how it was that Ireland was absolutely ignored.

The hon. Member is doing exactly what I have told him he was out of order in doing. I hope he won't compel me to put the Standing Order in force.

said, that in order to keep himself in order he would move to omit Dover and insert Berehaven.

That is unnecessary, because the Amendment is that Dover be left out.

regretted that the scheme for a large expenditure at Dover was not referred either to a Select Committee or a Committee of Experts for consideration, in view of the great difference of opinion of naval officers on the subject. There was only one matter which reconciled him to this expenditure. That was the explanation attached to the Bill, that the estimate for Dover Harbour was subject to revision when the necessary preliminary works had been completed and plans prepared, and that the survey was being actively pushed forward. He did not think the money spent in making this preliminary examination would be wasted, and when they had the Report of the survey, and saw the plans, they would be able to say whether they would go on further with the work or not. He should not be at all surprised, looking at the nature and extent of the work contemplated at Dover, the amount of dredging, the exposure of the breakwater that must be erected there, and the immense depth of water that must be attained if their ironclads were to make any use of the harbour, if the expenditure, instead of being £2,000,000, went up to seven, eight, or even ten millions. He should not vote against the proposal this time, but he hoped the money would be spent in making a thorough examination, so as to enable the plans to be carefully prepared.

said, he would remind the Committee that practically this matter was settled in the minds of the immense majority of Members of the House of Commons last year. Dover was looked upon as one of the most important works in the Bill of last year, and they were now giving effect to that policy—a policy absolutely indispensable to the security of the country. If they were to wait for absolute unanimity with regard to the defences of the country, the work would continually lag behind, as it had lagged behind in the past, and they would never get forward at all. He should say that if there was one point upon which Naval opinion was, not absolutely, but nearly, unanimous, it would be that the works at Dover should be pushed forward with all possible speed. He trusted the great majority of the Committee would be in favour of that policy. The hon. Member for Clare seemed to be entirely unaware of how they proceeded in these matters. They did not sit down and say how much money should be allocated to England, to Ireland, or to Scotland, but it was expert professional advice which they followed, and it was upon strategic grounds alone that the allocation of this money was decided. They were acting in this matter upon professional advice, and that professional advice they believed to be entirely sound.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give the Committee the Naval authorities who had advised that Dover was a more suitable place for a harbour than some of the magnificent sites upon the west coast of Ireland, whose natural advantages were at least equal to those offered by Dover. He was not disposed to be at all unreasonable in this matter, but what he wanted was for some one connected with the Admiralty to give a statement that there was a desire that Ireland should have a share of this money.

Order, order! That is a question which, as I have pointed out twice or three times, does not arise upon this Amendment.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

rose to move in page 4, line 17, to leave out the word ''Dover,'' in order to insert the word "Berehaven." The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that the spending of this money was the result of Naval advice, but it was a most extraordinary thing that although Ireland possessed some of the finest natural advantages for harbours and naval works of this kind nothing was ever done for Ireland in that direction. He appealed to the Secretary of the Admiralty, himself a representative for an Irish constituency, to get up in his place and say that this matter would receive the attention of the Government, and that there would be some equalising of matters by giving Ireland some share of this expenditure.

assured the hon. Gentleman that in the future, as in the past, any advantage or disadvantage of places in Ireland from a strategic point of view would he fully considered by the Admiralty in reference to naval works.

asked whether the desirability of constructing a naval dock on the west coast of Ireland had been under consideration or not?

I cannot say it has been under consideration.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at the present time steps were being taken to re-start the shipping industry in the city of Derry. Some permanent works were necessary—

said this did not arise out of the Amendment.

said he had the gravest doubt as to the wisdom of the course which the Government were pursuing. He was not going to attempt to put his opinion against the opinion of those experts who had guided the Admiralty in this matter, but he was bound to say, from what he knew of Dover and of harbour making, that the amount put down here for the making of such a harbour as would suit their heavy ironclads was, he thought, altogether insufficient.

said, that if hon. Members considered that, of this expenditure of £22,000,000, Ireland's share, according to taxation, would be over £1,000,000, and that they were only getting a few thousand pounds, they would see the reasonableness of their demand that Ireland should receive her due share of the money.

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— Schedule, page 4, line 20, column 5, to leave out "£300,000," and to insert "£200,000," said that looking over the Bill he saw that no provision was made for providing or improving any yard to the north of the Land's End. He therefore placed this Amendment on the Paper, not on local grounds, but because he believed that the money under this Bill should be spent in the interests of the nation, and not of particular localities, and he considered it all important, on strategic and departmental grounds, that provision should be made for developing dock accommodation north of the Land's End, and he had to look for the sources whence funds could be provided for initiating such a policy. He was happy to say, however, that funds had been otherwise provided than by the clause in which he proposed to make that provision, and under those circumstances it would be unnecessary for him to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, especially as he did not desire to take away funds proposed to be spent in other yards.

proposed, in page 4, line 22, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "and Pembroke Dock for the construction of a jetty and dry dock." The hon. Member explained that the object of his Amendment was to secure the allocation of £150,000 for the purpose of necessary works at Pembroke Dock. This Bill proposed to apply more than £14,000,000 sterling in the whole for the construction of naval works in the various dockyards of the United Kingdom, and in other parts of the Empire. Pembroke Dockyard was one of the most important of them all, and he had the authority of the Secretary for India, who was once at the head of the Admiralty, for saying that it was the most modern dockyard in England, and the best laid out. It possessed the finest harbour in the United Kingdom, and he believed that the money proposed to be devoted to naval works could not be better expended anywhere than at Pembroke; and yet, of the vast sum of £14,000,000, to which the Bill under consideration related, not a shilling was to be spent at Pembroke Dock. It was true that the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that the required amount might possibly be provided for in Estimates for future years; but this was work of a permanent character to which this Bill related, and yet the Government proposed to spend £300,000 on dredging, much of which must necessarily be work of ephemeral effect. If Pembroke were omitted from this Bill, it would be in an inferior position to the other dockyards. Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham were to be placed in a better position than before, but absolutely nothing was to be done for Pembroke. The consequence of pursuing a policy of this kind in the case of Pembroke would be to make it more and more inferior to the other dockyards. This practically meant, as the Secretary for India stated last year, the extinction of Pembroke. He had the noble Lord's authority for saying that, of the four great naval dockyards in the country, only three could build ships of the largest dimensions, and of these Pembroke was one; and yet, while improvements were, in the interests of economy and efficiency, required at Pembroke, and while large and permanent additions were being made to the Navy, nothing was being done for the improvement of Pembroke. What was required in that dockyard was a large dry dock, a jetty, and a powerful pair of shear legs. It was true that the jetty and shear legs might be constructed for £100,000; they might even be constructed for less, but a dry dock was required for the purpose of fitting and finishing vessels which have now to be taken to Devonport to be completed, and the whole work could not be done for less than £150,000. This was just 1 per cent. of the amount applied to naval works by the present Bill. Their demand, he thought, was the most reasonable that had ever been put forward in connection with any Measure. At Pembroke only one part of the work required in connection with the construction of a ship could now be performed, namely, the commencement, which included all work up to the launching of the vessel. All the necessary work up to the launch could be done at the dockyard, but when the vessel was launched, she could not be brought alongside, but had to be towed to a point three-quarters of a mile out of the precincts of the yard, to a jetty called Hobbs' Point. The vessel there had to be moored and re-moored at every turn of the tide, which rose and fell a considerable distance. Fitters of ironwork, carpenters, and other artificers had necessarily to put in a great deal of work and material to advance the interior fitting of the ship before it left Pembroke. Those workmen, and the material they used, had to be ferried back and forward from the yard over the intervening distance to Hobbs' Point in launches and boats, and if a man forgot a tool or some necessary material, or if the need of either suddenly arose, he had to be taken back in a launch or boat to the yard to get it. Heavy boilers and other machinery had to be brought in lighters and landed on the dockyard ground, and then they were re-embarked on the lighters and taken to Hobbs' Point and re-landed. All this loss of time and money, and the transfer of machinery, would be saved if a jetty were constructed at Hobbs' Point. It had been calculated that the saving in money and in time would amount to £10,000 for the work to be done on one vessel only of the largest size. The jetty would also, if constructed, be very useful for coaling purposes for Her Majesty's ships. In time of war the resources of the three great dockyards in the south of England would be strained to the uttermost, while those of Pembroke could be concentrated upon shipbuilding. The vessels, moreover, could be completed there, and the risks incidental to towage and convoy to Devonport in time of war would be avoided. The dockyard would be then able to undertake the repair of every vessel that came to the harbour. On every point he had mentioned he could quote the authority of the Secretary for India, who went into the case thoroughly ten years ago. He had received a deputation upon the subject, and had expressed his concurrence in the necessity for the works, and he stated that he had always considered that Pembroke had a primary claim for the additional expenditure that would be required. His opinion was supported by that of other prominent naval authorities in the House. The hon. Member for Kirkdale had stated that all naval authorities agreed that, for the purpose of construction, finishing and repairing of vessels Pembroke Dock was of the highest importance, and while condemning emphatically the policy of the Government which concentrated all their efforts on Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham, he drew attention to the importance of Pembroke as a most important strategical point as a protection for the commerce of the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Bristol Channel. The hon. Member for Belfast had supported the policy of treating Pembroke Dock fairly. The hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex had urged the strategic importance of Pembroke Dock, and had stated that naval opinion was agreed on the duty of the Government with regard to Pembroke. The power, he said, was with the Government of the day, who ought not to shrink from what they knew to be right. The Board of Admiralty only last year investigated the question on the spot, and announced that they intended to build a jetty at Pembroke Dock and do away with the present inconvenient and expensive arrangements of Hobbs' Point. The hon. Member for King's Lynn gave his voice and his vote on the same side. It might be urged that this amount would be provided for in the Estimates for next year, but what guarantee had they that the House of Commons would sanction it? The House and the country were in a hot fit now about naval expenditure; in a year's time the reaction might come, a cold fit might supervene, with results that would be disastrous to Pembroke Dock. He for one thought that we were spending a great deal too much upon our naval works, but the Government had the power to carry the expenditure of this money, and it was the business of the country to see that it was properly allocated. He hoped hon. Members who had voted not merely for the insertion of the amount in the Estimate for a future year, for that was promised last year, but who had voted for the insertion of a specific amount to be expended on Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill last year, would be consistent with the vote they then gave, and do justice to Pembroke. They voted for a grant to Pembroke when the House only proposed to spend eight and a half millions on naval works; now it proposed to spend fourteen millions on the same object; and to leave Pembroke Dock absolutely out in the cold, so far as the provisions of the Bill were concerned, would be, he thought, a piece of injustice which no one could extenuate. He therefore hoped the Government would act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the line they had taken when in opposition, and that they would not utterly neglect or leave to the mercy of Parliament in a future year this dockyard, situated in the finest harbour on this island, with adequate protection from torpedo attacks, and with unlimited possibilities of usefulness for the purpose of offence and defence in time of war.

hoped that when the hon. Member opposite had heard the explanation of the Government he would not think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. The hon. Member, he thought, was under some misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government, and as to what would be attained by the proposals of the Admiralty. The hon. Member said that the Government were placing Pembroke in an inferior position by not including it in the Naval Works Bill. He protested against the idea that works carried out under Vote 10 of the Estimates in the ordinary way were supposed to be less important than works carried out under the Naval Works Bill. The Admiralty would have come to Parliament at once with a proposal for the construction of the jetty had it not been that after the present Government took office grave doubts were raised as to the expediency of the Scheme which had been discussed in that House. It would have been foolish for the Admiralty to go forward with a scheme intended to benefit Pembroke when these doubts had been expressed about its expediency. But a Committee was appointed to consider the Scheme, and it had reported, and the Admiralty were now in a position to say that the construction of the jetty was possible and would benefit Pembroke. They were not, however, in a position to include an Estimate for the purpose in the Naval Works Bill, for they could not say what the construction of the jetty would cost. They had, however, taken in Vote 10 of the Estimates for the coming financial year a sum of money for improvements at Pembroke Dockyard, and they would spend it on the commencement of this work, and his right hon. Friend would be prepared, when they came to Parliament next year with a Bill to continue the present one, to include in it provision for the completion of the jetty. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs desired that it should be no longer necessary to take ships away from Pembroke as soon as they were launched, and that it should be possible to complete them at Pembroke as they were completed at other places. This jetty, he thought, would supply what the hon. Member wanted. He was advised that if the jetty was constructed, it would be possible to bring ships alongside, and, practically to complete them at Pembroke, at any rate, to complete them up to the point which was reached by contractors

regretted that a more satisfactory reply had not been given. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty, last year deliberately moved the inclusion of Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill. The hon. Member had not replied to his argument that that course was the right course to have taken then. Still more was it the right course to pursue now. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty had at one time grave doubts as to the expediency of constructing the jetty, but the present Secretary of State for India had gone into the question before, and had come to the conclusion that it was expedient.

said, that information was put before the present Board of Admiralty, which was not in the possession of his right hon. Friend and the late Board of Admiralty. It was that information which gave rise to the doubt which was not a spontaneous growth in the minds of the Members of the present Board.

said that, as the doubt had been removed, it would appear that the Admiralty had listened to some cock-and-bull story. The Admiralty ought to censure the parties who supplied the information that caused the doubt. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. Member to this point, that in time of war, unless vessels could be actually completed at Pembroke, they would have to be conveyed round to Devonport to be finished.

explained that he had said that the jetty at Pembroke would render the completion of vessels possible. They would be completed there with the exception of certain small fittings.

asked, whether the ships would be ready to take part in an engagement? Vessels, if they left Pembroke unable to take part in a naval engagement, would be useless, for they would not be in a position to defend themselves. The hon. Member protested against his statement that Pembroke was placed in an inferior position by not being included in the Naval Works Bill. He had made that statement, not upon his own authority, but upon the authority of the Secretary of State for India, who said last year—

"Nobody could deny that Pembroke was placed in a very inferior position as compared with other dockyards. Under this Bill (the Bill providing only for an expenditure of eight and a half millions), Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham would be in a better position than before, while Pembroke remained where it was."

said, he had every sympathy with the claims put forward on behalf of Pembroke. The place was one of great importance, and in the past it had been too much neglected. But he did not see how they were to get more than had been promised by the Civil Lord. While the hon. Gentleman was speaking the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs was engaged in conversation with the hon. Member for Northampton, and therefore he missed the very cream of that statement. The Admiralty had said they recognised the extreme importance of putting Pembroke in such a position that ships could be completed for sea there, and under such circumstances he did not think hon. Members would do their cause much good by pressing the matter to a Division.

denied that there had been any breach of faith. The Admiralty proposed to carry out exactly what was suggested last year. A jetty was then proposed, and now one upon an enlarged plan was to be constructed. The work could not be put into the Bill now, because they could not increase the total amount, but they would meet the wishes of the Opposition last year, including the hon. gentleman himself, by putting it in the Bill after this financial year was ended. It was inevitable, for the sake of the other items which were at present in the Bill, that this one must be brought in.

said, the Admiralty had accepted the principle that Pembroke should be made a finishing yard, and they proposed to place a jetty there as the first step. That being the case, after all the House had heard he appealed to them whether he had not every reason to be satisfied.

agreed that the First Lord of the Admiralty had made a very substantial concession to Pembroke, but still what he promised fell short of the demand made last year by the present Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord's first point was that it ought not to be left to the Estimates for the year to make provision for a permanent jetty. The right hon. Gentleman had made a fair answer. He had said he was prepared to go as far as possible in the current year's expenditure, but next year he would include it in the naval works. On that point the answer was satisfactory. But, with regard to the second point of the noble Lord, he could not accept the reply given as a complete one. Last year, the noble Lord said:—

"At Pembroke only one part of the work required in connection with the construction of a ship could he performed- namely, the commencement, which included all work up to the launching. There were two other stages, the advancement and the final completion."

said, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India treated Pembroke as a finishing yard. Ships could be finished almost to the last stage.

was sorry if he appeared to be too expressively persistent, but he was simply making the demand which the noble Lord made last year. The right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. The noble Lord's demand was not confined to converting Pembroke into a building yard, for he said:—

"It seemed to him essential, therefore, that Pembroke should be included in the Bill. It had the finest harbour, he supposed, in the United Kingdom, and that being so, surely it was advisable that the naval dockyard there should be so constituted that in time of war it would be in a position to undertake the repair of every vessel that had to come into the harbour."

We divided on the jetty.

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The noble Lord said Pembroke had the finest harbour in the United Kingdom, and it ought to be in a position to repair every vessel that came there. They were, therefore, making the identical demand that the noble Lord made.

said, that last year they divided on the sum of £60,000 for a jetty. Now the Government proposed to spend £99,000. Pembroke would be included in any large proposals, but beyond that they could not go at present.

said, they were asking for one per cent. only for this great and important dockyard, and the right hon. Gentleman said they should not fasten on any particular part of the Vote, but what had the Member for Kirkdale said? That for the purpose of construction, finishing and repairing, Pembroke was of the highest importance. One would have thought that where they were going to spend 14 millions they would have done everything possible for Pembroke. They were making a modest and reasonable demand, and unless the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to granting the small amount they demanded he should go to a Division.

said, he had simply quoted the words used by the noble Lord (Hamilton):—

"That the naval dockyard"—Pembroke— "should be so constituted that in time of war it would be capable of undertaking the repair of every vessel that came into the harbour."

proposed, in page 4, line 21, col. 5, to reduce the sum of =£500,000 allotted to the extension of Keyham Harbour by £100,000. Last year the House had voted a large sum for the extension of Devonport Dock, and now they were asked to vote a million and a quarter in addition to the sum obtained last year. Out of the 14 millions asked for these purposes, it was proposed to spend about nine millions in the south of England.

said, he had already ruled that if a Motion was made to diminish the sum allotted to a particular work the Debate must be confined to that sum in respect of that work.

said, he did not think this extension was required, or that the south of England was the proper place for shipbuilding or repairing. It was far away from the sources from which raw material came, from iron and coal, and they had not in that part of England that class of skilled labour which they ought to have ready at hand for any emergency. It was all very well in the olden days to build ships in the south, when ships were built of oak, because there was plenty of timber in the south, but nowadays no merchant ships were built in the south of England but in the north, and the ships for our navy ought therefore, to be built in the north. If that were done several ships could be repaired at the same time, because the skilled men who were employed on merchant shipbuilding could be turned on to the work.

said, the Amendment was in line 21, column 5 to omit £500,000, in order to insert £400,000. The question was that £500,000 stand part of the Bill.

asked if he would be in order in endeavouring to show that Haulbowline was entitled to a certain share of this expenditure, as it was more sheltered from attack?

ruled that this would not be in order.

asked if it would be in order to move that the word Keyham be omitted in order to insert the word Haulbowline?

No, we have now reached the figure £500,000.

supported the Amendment. Keyham harbour was a most indefensible harbour, there were not sufficient batteries there to safeguard ships which might be lying outside waiting their turn to get into dock. It would be necessary, therefore, if the harbour were extended to improve the defences of the harbour. It was very inconvenient to have all our dockyards on the south of England, which necessitated an enormous amount of money for the cost of the carriage of raw material from the north.

Where would you put your dockyard?

said the Chairman did not allow him to state that. With regard to labour, it had been pointed out that in time of peace all repairs could be carried out in the Government dockyards, but what would be the case in the time of war? In time of war the Government would find themselves unable to procure the services of skilled shipwrights. If the Government established their dockyards in more convenient places near the centres of mercantile shipbuilding, they would at all times be able to rely upon obtaining the services of as many skilled operatives as they might require. They were also entitled to complain that England was always chosen as the place in which dockyard accommodation was provided. This was a united Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and Scotchmen and Irishmen had a right to complain that the Government always selected England as the place in which dockyard accommodation was to be provided. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken no notice of the objection that had been raised that our dockyards were not conveniently situated either as regarded materials or labour. If in time of war a ship was injured off the north of Ireland where was she to go to for repairs? He hoped that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would go to a Division, and if he did so he should certainly support him in order to mark his sense of the injustice of spending all this money upon the dockyards in England.

said he would do his best to try and answer the various points that had been raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in connection with this subject. Both those hon. Members appeared to have fallen into the mistake of supposing that our dockyards were used only for ship building, whereas, in fact, they were also used for repairing. Both hon. Members had also asserted that the Government system was not a cheap one, because the dockyards were so far removed from the raw material that was required for effective repairs. But the fact was that the Government were now not only building but were executing repairs in the dockyards far more cheaply than they could get the work done by contract in the North. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had raised the point whether in time of war the Government would be able to get a sufficient quantity of skilled labour for the dockyartds. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government found no difficulty in obtaining any amount of skilled labour that they required. If they could not take the dockyards to the skilled labour they could always bring the skilled labour to the dockyards. It must not be forgotten that Keyham Harbour was well defended, not only on the sea face, but also on the land side, which would be a most important fact in the time of war. As the best of the alternatives before them, the Government had chosen to carry out the plans that had met with the approval of the House of Commons.

hoped that the House would fully appreciate the reason of the objection which they had raised to this expenditure. In their opinion the dockyards should be placed as near to the centre of mercantile shipbuilding as possible, where skilled labour might be obtained in a few hours. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that hands could be obtained from the Tyne or the Clyde, but no wages that the Government could offer would induce men to remove from the place where they had carried on their employment all their lives. The objection which they were now making had been raised repeatedly by hon. Members who were now on the Government side of the House when they were in Opposition. He objected to the money being spent entirely upon Portsmouth and other English dockyards.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now resuming the Debate that was concluded some time ago. I hope that he will not continue to repeat the arguments that have already been used.

said that he was merely illustrating the position that he and other hon. Gentlemen near him had taken up in reference to this subject.

said he wished to call the attention of the Civil Lord to two points. First, in replying to the argument based upon the expense of conveying material to Keyham, the hon. Gentleman said that the Admiralty were able to get their work done cheaper at Keyham than in the North. He wished to point out that work done by private enterprise was quite a different thing to work done in Government dockyards, and if there were a Government dockyard in the North, where iron and steel were produced, the work could be done still cheaper than at Keyham. Then the Civil Lord said that there was no difficulty about getting skilled labour at Keyham. He did not question that at all, so far as ordinary employment was concerned. Of course, where there was a Government dockyard giving continuous employment there was no difficulty whatever in getting plenty of skilled labour. The contention was that in case of emergency, when it was necessary to repair ships disabled in action, an enormous number of additional hands would be required, and at Keyham there were no surplus hands to fall back upon. They would have to be brought from the North. There would not only be the expense of bringing men from the North, but he doubted whether the men would be prevailed upon to leave their employment there for a limited time. If there was a dockyard in the North ships could be built and repaired at a great deal less cost than at Keyham, and there would always be plenty of surplus hands to fall back upon in case of emergency.

contended that the building could be done 20 or 30 per cent. cheaper in the North than in the South. At present, if a large number of ships came in for repair, not only would more skilled labour than was obtainable be required, but also a large amount of machinery.