had on the Paper the following question, but was not in his place to put it:—"To ask the right hon. Member for North Armagh whether he has asked or intends to ask the Government for facilities for the moving of a resolution of which he has given notice with reference to the terms of the proclamation issued by Lord Kitchener on 7th August."

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order to put such a question to a private Member of the House?

Yes, as it appears to have reference to a resolution which the right hon. Member has set down on the Paper subsequently.

asked the Leader of the House whether he could give him facilities for moving the resolution referred to.

The subject can be raised on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which I hope to put down for Thursday.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what progress has been made in the construction of ambulances of a lighter character than those used at the commencement of the war in South Africa, and if those sent out during last year, as stated by Lord Raglan, have given complete satisfaction,

Experiments are still in progress with an improved ambulance and a special Committee is considering the subject. No reports have been received in regard to the wagons referred to in the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the gross misconduct which led to Thomas Mackie being deprived of his pension consisted in his having, whilst smarting under a sense of what he believed to be an act of injustice involving him in pecuniary loss, sent a postcard to his superior officer with a view to inciting the latter to raise an action for libel against him; whether he is aware that apart from this Mackie's conduct was reported of the highest during the whole of his twenty years service in the Army; and whether, taking these facts into consideration, he will advise that this man's case be reconsidered by the Commissioners.

I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the questions put by the hon. Member on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the application by the authority of the Treasury of surpluses on certain grants for Army services to cover other grants for Army services in the year 1900–1901 includes the allocation of sums derived from the Clothing and other Votes to the purchase of field guns in Germany; and whether sanction will be sought next session for such application.

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to bring on this resolution at a reasonable time?

I cannot give any undertaking as to the conduct of public business.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the "Glatton," the "Gorgon," the "Hecate," the "Cyclops," the "Hotspur," the "Orion," and the "Wyvern," and also the gun vessels "Swift" and "Linnet," are armed with muzzle-loading guns, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to strike these vessels off the effective list.

The "Glatton," "Gorgon," "Hecate," and "Cyclops" are ships of no military value, and will shortly be removed from the effective list of the Navy. The "Hotspur" is in commission and is at present performing useful duties as guardship. The question of removing her from the effective list will be considered at the end of her present commission. The "Orion" is in reserve at Malta, and it has not yet been decided to strike her off the list. The "Wyvern" is to be used as a target ship on the China Station. The "Linnet" and "Swift" have already been removed from the effective list.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the usual leave will be granted to the officers and men who have taken part in the recent Naval Manœuvres, including those engaged in the regular Channel Squadron, as has been the custom in former years on the conclusion of the said manœuvres.

Leave for ships commissioned for manœuvres will be granted as usual. Leave to ships not specially commissioned is entirely dependent on the exigencies of the Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with reference to the return of the new royal yacht to Portsmouth, he can give particulars of her defects and state what the Admiralty propose to do with the yacht.

The Admiralty is not aware of any defects in the royal yacht. It is proposed to use the vessel for the purpose for which she was designed—namely, as a yacht for the use of His Majesty the King. I may add that during her recent voyage to Flushing and back the conduct of the ship was in every way satisfactory.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he can now specify the places for which coaling facilities are to be provided under the Naval Works Bill.

The ports at which coaling facilities are to be provided under the Naval Works Bill are Devonport, Portland, Portsmouth, the Medway, Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong; and, if there are sufficient funds, at Halifax, Bermuda, and Jamaica.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the question between the War Office and the Admiralty as to the transfer of the defence of the coaling stations to the Navy has been decided.

No decision has yet been come to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will issue a statement of money spent under the Naval Works Acts, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1899, bringing the account up to 31st March, 1901 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 80), before taking the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill.

As the accounts of expenditure for the year ending 31st March last will not be finally completed until January next, it is impossible to comply with the hon. Member's request.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in consequence of the recent purchase by the French Government of telegraph cables on the West Coast of Africa, the property of the West Africa Telegraph Company, the lines previously worked by that company will be so deviated as to avoid Bathurst and Accra, with which British possessions these lines are at present in connection.

The purchase by the French Government of the cables referred to by the right hon. Member has not yet been completed, but it has been arranged that the cables which are to be transferred to the French Government will be deviated so as not to touch at Bathurst and Accra. Those places will continue to be telegraphically connected with this country by other lines which are in British hands.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government is aware that, on the afternoon of 23rd June last, a Roman Catholic procession carrying a crucifix and images, with priests in robes exercising the rites and ceremonies of their religion and wearing the habits of their order, passed through the streets of Westminster protected by police, the public traffic being stopped to admit of the procession passing, much disapprobation being openly expressed at the time by those present; and, seeing that the ecclesiastics in this procession were acting in contravention of the statute, 10 Geo. 4, c. 7, s. 26, whether the Chief Commissioner of Police, who is responsible for permitting and protecting processions in the streets of London, will in future be directed to refuse permission and the protection of the police for processions of the kind mentioned.

Is there any truth in the suggestion that these people required protection?

I am informed that the Commissioner of Police gave no permission for the passage of the procession in question through the streets, and that the police simply performed their ordinary duty, their action being limited to the regulation of the traffic and preservation of order.

Why does not the hon. and gallant Member who put the question come down here with a proposal that the law be enforced?

Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to ask such a question of a private Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the system which is in operation in the weaving sheds in Burnley which allows the employers to deduct from the operatives' wages one halfpenny per loom for the purpose of having the machinery oiled, and whether steps will be taken to have the practice abolished.

I have made inquiries and find that the practice described in the question exists and is alleged to give rise to abuses. In any other industry the factory inspectors would be able to deal with such abuses under the Truck Act, 1896, but operatives engaged in cotton weaving were at their own request excluded from the operation of that Act, and the Factory Department is, therefore, powerless to intervene.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the rate for foreign timber is 8s. 6d. per ton, and the rate for native timber is 16s. 10d. per ton, and whether he will cause inquiries to be made and a remedy provided in this case of a preferential rate in favour of the foreigner.

No, Sir, I am not aware that the figures are correct, and I cannot undertake to embark upon a general inquiry. I would point out to the hon. Member that he gives no particulars as to the incidence of the rate, where charged, or for what sort of timber. From a letter he has forwarded to me I gather that the rates are said to be charged between; Cardiff and Birmingham. This information is not, however, sufficiently definite to support a complaint under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act; such a complaint should contain a specific case of alleged undue preference, with full particulars, and should be made by or on behalf of a trader aggrieved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to Members of Parliament standing on to-day's Paper.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is his intention to reduce the number of bathrooms at present in the House for the convenience of Members; and, if so, whether, before reducing the number of rooms, he will inquire whether, because of the increased number of Members who use those bathrooms during the session, and the difficulty often experienced by Members to get the use of a room, an increased number of bathrooms is required; and whether he will provide more rooms.

The Report of the House of Commons' Accommodation Committee recommended that the existing four bathrooms should be removed in order to provide the corridor to the additional smoking rooms; and, in lieu thereof, it was proposed to place three new bathrooms immediately adjoining the present dressing rooms. If, however, it is possible to increase the number of such rooms, I shall be most happy to consider it.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Walsall School Board, at its meeting in July, granted a number of complete and partial exemptions, and whether the Education Department propose to hold any inquiry or to take any steps to prevent this body from breaking its own bye-laws.

The Board of Education have addressed a letter of inquiry to the Walsall School Board on the subject.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under paragraph 8, page 9, of the Revised Instructions applicable to the Education Code of 1901, it is intended to withdraw from responsible certificated teachers in infant schools the right to administer, where necessary, personal chastisement, even of the lightest and most trivial character.

The Board of Education intends to lay down the principles that punishments which excite the emotion of terror in a child should not be employed; that in an infant school no punishment should be permitted which causes bodily pain; and that in schools for older children corporal punishment should be discouraged as an ordinary expedient in boys' schools, and altogether in girls' schools. The application of these principles is left to the discretion of the managers and teachers.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under the new arrangements for not marking the school registers in country districts in the case of inclement weather, the Board of Education will rigidly insist upon the condition set forth in Article 83 of the Education Code for 1901 to the effect that the school must have been open not less than 400 times; or whether the Board of Education will issue a Minute adding a new exception to Article 83 of the Code, so as to render the new regulation of Appendix II., page 37, of the Revised Instructions, of greater practical utility to the country schools.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and, consequently, to the second in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Post Office at Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, has recently been made an R.S.O. office; whether the department will take into consideration the advisability of restoring it to its former position; and, if not, can he say whether the officials have been instructed to demand that the words R.S.O. shall be added to the address of all telegrams received in the town.

The substitution of a sub-post office for the former head office at Wotton-under-Edge was decided upon for administrative reasons, and, as the change does not involve any curtailment of the existing postal facilities for the public, the Postmaster General is not prepared to alter the decision. It is not necessary to add the letters R.S.O. to the address of telegrams, as "Wotton-under-Edge" is a sufficient address for telegrams for that place.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can give the reasons why in the case of Samuel Wolffe, late of 152, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow (whose estate was sequestrated in 1899), the Procurator Fiscal, after having ordered a prosecution in respect of offences under the Debtors (Scotland) Act, 1880, and issued a warrant for the arrest of the debtor, caused the withdrawal of such warrant and the abandonment of the proceedings without communicating with the general body of creditors, and on what grounds he refuses to comply with the wishes of certain creditors who, on learning of the abandonment of the prosecution, communicated to him their desire that the same might be proceeded with.

The charge against the bankrupt was originally preferred by the trustee in the sequestration who represents the general body of creditors, and a warrant was issued for apprehension. Subsequently, and after further inquiries, the trustee communicated to Crown counsel the desire of himself and the principal creditors, as expressed both by letter and by a motion to that effect carried at a meeting of creditors, that the charge should be withdrawn. A pre-cognition was taken and Crown counsel came to be of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction at all probable. In these circumstances Crown counsel in November. 1900, ordered the abandonment of the prosecution. That decision was communicated to the accused, and it would not be in accordance with practice now to reinstitute criminal proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Eglington, who, after serving six years in the Army and a further period of six years as postman in the service of the Post Office, has become a burden on the ratepayers of the Kenmare Union, county Kerry, in consequence of ill-health as certified by the medical officer, and is in receipt of 3s. per week outdoor relief; and whether he will consider the grant of some pension to this man who has given the best period of his life to the service of the Government to prevent his thus becoming a charge on the ratepayers.

I have no information on the first paragraph. The question of the grant of a pension in respect of service in the Army or Post Office does not rest with the Irish Government. I shall bring the question of the hon. Member under the notice of each of these Departments.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with reference to the forestalling of Banagher Great Fair, he will consider the effect of such forestalling on the attendance of foreign or outside buyers, who find themselves disappointed upon arriving on the legal day of the fair in securing the class of horses they came to purchase; and whether, as such buyers are often the principal purchasers of the more valuable animals, he will take steps in the interest of farmers and breeders of horses to prevent the destruction of the legal fair by the practice mentioned.

promised to see what steps could be taken in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the whole circumstances and not confine himself to one particular case?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a public meeting was to have been held at Dromod, county Monaghan, on the 3rd instant, and that a local sergeant of police, named Sullivan, went through the neighbourhood cautioning the people against attending the meeting, and if he can state by what authority Sergeant Sullivan acted in this case.

The police had reason to believe that it was intended to hold a meeting on the 4th, not 3rd instant, in close proximity to a certain holding at Dromod, and that if held at this place it would lead to a breach of the peace and would be an unlawful assembly. The promoters were accordingly warned that the meeting would not be permitted in the immediate vicinity of the holding in question. A meeting was held elsewhere, however, without interference.

Who instructed the sergeant to take this action?

That would be done on general instructions. It was done on the authority of the Government, and I accept full responsibility for it.

May any policeman warn any person he likes?

Order, order! That is a general question.

It is a very pertinent one, though.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Return of Agrarian Outrages during the quarter ended 30th June, 1901, the number of offences classed as incendiary fires, twenty, and as intimidation, twenty-three, is correctly stated; and if so, whether, in view of the nature of the evidence given at the recent summer assizes in Ireland in regard to incendiary fires, inquiries will be made as to how these figures are arrived at.

Twenty-three threatening letters were reported during the quarter, and one case of intimidation (Donegal) other than by threatening letter. The number of incendiary fires reported was twenty. The reference to the evidence given at the recent assizes is not understood, but I may observe that in the majority of cases in which claims for compensation for malicious burnings are heard on appeal at assizes the offences are not of an agrarian character.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that it has transpired at the assizes that a large proportion of the cases were malicious only on the part of the persons claiming the compensation?

There have been cases of that kind, and there have been cases where malice has not been proved, but the discrepancy referred to by the hon. Member is not accounted for by what I have stated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the constabulary to go more minutely into these Returns?

I think they do inquire very closely already.

asked as to the case of a man named Murphy, prosecuted by the Crown in connection with his evidence as to the burning of a cowshed.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now asking as to a case which is not on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the agent to the Earl of Clanricarde, who is High Sheriff for the county of Cavan, on 1st July, without notice, broke open the door of the room in the courthouse which has been used by the finance committee of the County Council for its meetings, and by the secretary of the County Council for his private office, removed the papers therein, and put a lock of his own on it; and on same date took possession of a room which the Cavan Urban Council has used as an office and for its meetings since 1854; did the late secretary of the Cavan Grand Jury always use the room in which the finance committee transacted its business as a private office; and as neither of those rooms was required for the use of the judges or bar in discharge of their duties, do the Government intend to take any notice of this gentleman's conduct or make any change in the law, so that county councils in Ireland shall have full control over the courthouses which have been built and maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, except when required at assizes or quarter sessions.

The High Sheriff for the County of Cavan, who is the agent of Lord Clanricarde, desired to make the most convenient arrangements in the courthouse for the accommodation of the bar, the sub-sheriff, the county council, their secretary and his clerks, as well as for the finance committee, and, when and where possible, for the urban district council. He had the legal right to make these arrangements, which in themselves appear reasonable and proper. It is not true that he broke open the door of the room used by the finance committee or removed any papers, but it is true that he put a new lock on the door, as he designed the room for another purpose, offering the secretary a room in exchange. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the details of the re-arrangements, which are too complicated to give in answer to a question. I have already replied to the queries contained in the concluding part of the question.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that it is in the power of sheriffs of Irish counties to enter these courthouses and upset the arrangements of the local authorities?

Order, order! That is a matter of argument.

Has the sheriff a right to go in and—

Order, order! That is the very question I have just ruled out of order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at Tobercurry Petty Sessions Court, county Sligo, on Thursday last, from which it appears that a Mr. Perdue had been boycotted for taking a farm under the eleven months system; that the Protestant clergyman had been boycotted because he had been seen speaking to Mr. Perdue; that a Roman Catholic youth had been boycotted and assaulted because he worked for this Protestant clergyman; and that his mother had been boycotted, an attempt made to assault her in the chapel with a stick, and that subsequently the form of a coffin had been placed on her door; and whether the Government are taking steps to prevent a recurrence of such a state of things, either at Achonry or elsewhere?

The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph, except that Mr. Perdue did not take a farm on the eleven months system, but purchased a farm under the Land Purchase Acts, which the tenants in the locality considered should have been divided amongst themselves. The prosecution referred to was instituted by the Government. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no available authority to compel the receiver of tolls at Kinvara Harbour to take such measures as will facilitate the entrance of vessels; and, seeing that the payment of tolls is levied for that purpose, he will institute inquiry as to the manner in which a remedy can be provided.

I have nothing to add to my previous reply except that I will give the matter my personal attention during the recess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing how much of the 30 millions of money voted for the purchase of land in Ireland under the Purchase Act of 1891 was allocated to each of the counties in Ireland, and how much of those various sums has been expended, and how much is yet available.

A Return, showing the capital value of the share of each county in the cash and contingent portions of the Guarantee Fund under the Act of 1891, will be laid on the Table in the course of the present week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Public Works will take steps to prevent any further excavations at Tara Hill.

The Board have no power to prevent excavations carried on with the consent of the owner, inasmuch as the guardianship of the mounds has not been vested in the Board. The fact that the mounds are scheduled to the Ancient Monuments Act does not vest the guardianship in the Board, or entitle it to interfere with any action taken by the owner.

Under the local Government Act, have the county council any control over these places? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps with a view to securing the preservation of this historic property?

It would be better if steps were taken by private individuals.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why Mr. William J. Walters, late teacher of the Diamond National School, Crumlin District, Register No. 8,310, has not received a retiring gratuity.

Mr. Walters is not entitled to a retiring gratuity under the Pension Rules. He resigned his school on the 28th February, 1894, in consequence of a dispute with the school committee. If he intended to apply for a gratuity on the ground of ill-health he should have done so within one year from the date of resignation. This he failed to do. In 1897 and 1898 applications on his behalf were received from two clergymen, but they were informed that Mr. Walters could not be granted a retiring gratuity. Under Pension Rule 2 (1) of 1898 the Superintendent of the Pensions Office may extend the time within which notice of a claim for a gratuity under Rule 28 of the Superseded Pension Rides may be given, provided the Commissioners notify that there was reasonable excuse for the omission to make the application within one year, but no excuse has been given for the teacher's omission to comply with the rules in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state upon what principle the Lord Lieutenant proceeds in the annual appointments of assistant revising barristers; whether he is aware that of the thirty-one gentlemen appointed to those offices last year twenty-five were Unionists, and that the proportion has been about the same ever since the present Government came into office; and whether he will give an assurance that in the appointments to be made for this and subsequent years the selections will be made equally from both political parties.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The Lord Lieutenant proceeds upon the principle of selecting the men best qualified by knowledge and experience to discharge the duties of the post, and not on account of their political opinions. As far as my knowledge goes the figures given by the hon. Member in the question are entirely erroneous. The undertaking asked for cannot be given.

In what respect are the figures entirely erroneous?

As far as my memory serves me they are entirely erroneous in that they minimise the number of Nationalists appointed.

Do many Nationalists apply for the appointments?

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Americans have recently decided on preparing a series of soil maps for the whole of the United States, and whether this example will be followed in Ireland, which is an agricultural country.

The hon. Member has called my attention to the proceedings in America; the drift survey in Ireland is being carried out with due despatch.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question.

The Geological Survey is only a drift survey; a soil survey is something quite different.

I will repeat the question on Friday.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the rights of the Crown to the foreshore of Bantry Bay, between Mr. Murphy's deal-yard and the old pier, have been assigned to the trustees of the Bantry estate.

Assuming that the foreshore referred to forms part of that lying immediately to the west of the New Quay, Bantry Creek, the answer is, Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will in the future see that no inspector or representative of the Post Office be sent to a district to investigate any case where the friends of the inspector reside or are interested, as was the case at Inniskeen, county Monaghan, where an inspector named Lockington took part in the transferring of a post office to his brother from a man who held the position for twenty-six years at Inniskeen.

The Postmaster General cannot give any such undertaking. The action taken by Mr. Lockington is not accurately described in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

Is it not accurate to say that the inspector dismissed the postmaster and put his brother into the job?

He did not dismiss the postmaster or put his brother into the place.

Is it not the fact that Lockington conducted the inquiry as the result of which the postmaster was dismissed, and that Lockington's brother got the place?

I have stated that Lockington conducted the inquiry. The postmaster was dismissed by the Postmaster General in consequence of what transpired at the inquiry, and at a trial which occurred in the locality. I should add that the post office has not been given to Lockington's brother, but to the occupant of a house which is owned by him, and this fact was stated by Lockington in his report to the Postmaster General when he submitted this and other houses as suitable for post-office purposes. The appointment has been filled temporarily and not permanently.

Can the hon. Gentleman state how it came to the lot of this inspector to get Fitzpatrick dismissed after he had occupied the office so many years without complaint?

That is not the question on the Paper.

I will put it down then.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters arriving by the English mail at Downpatrick at 10.32 a.m. are not delivered in the neighbouring villages of Ardglass and Killough till 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. respectively, and that letters for the English mail leaving Downpatrick at 3.0 p.m. must be posted in Killough and Ardglass at 7.0 and 8.0 a.m. respectively: and, seeing that arrangements could be made with the County Down Railway whereby the delivery of the letters referred to could be made at Killough and Ardglass at least four hours earlier, and the time of posting for the English mail at least six hours later than at present, whether he will consider the advisability of these improvements being carried out; whether he will consider if the remuneration of 5s. a week to the messenger delivering letters at Ardglass twice daily could be increased; and whether, in accordance with the requests made by the inhabitants of the district, he will take steps to have letter-boxes placed in High Street, Ardglass, and at Coney Island, midway between Ardglass and Killough.

The facts as regards the postal arrangements at Ardglass and Killough are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The substitution of a day mail service by train for the present day mail service by car would, however, be objected to by many of the persons concerned. Moreover, the cost of the existing service is so high that the Postmaster General would not feel justified in sanctioning any further expenditure on the post. The Postmaster General will cause further inquiry to be made as to the duties of the messenger at Ardglass, and will communicate with the hon. Member. The circumstances do not justify the establishment of letterboxes in High Street, Ardglass, or at Coney Island.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that a warrant has been issued to Mr. John Reed, inspector of poor, at the instance of the local authority in Kilmarnock Union, for the removal to the Ballycastle Union, county Antrim, of Mary M'Auley, otherwise Kennedy, with eight children, from the parish of Kilmarnock; will he state the circumstances of this case; have any rules been made under Section 7 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act of 1898, regulating appeals to the Scotch Local Government Board in such matters; and, seeing that the Ballycastle guardians wish to oppose the removal, will he ensure that no step shall be taken towards their actual deportation to Ireland until the fullest opportunities have been afforded the guardians for investigation in Scotland.

I learn from the Local Government Board for Scotland that they are informed that the pauper in question has resided in Scotland for about six years, and that during that time she has been frequently chargeable, in different parishes, as a pauper. She has not acquired a settlement in Scotland, and the conditions have not been complied with which would entitle either the pauper or the Irish board of guardians to appeal against the removal. The Local Government Board have framed rules under Section 7 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898.

May I ask on what ground the Scottish authorities sent this woman to Ballycastle? There was no more reason for sending her there than to Ballyshannon.

The Scotch Local Government Board have no duty in regard to place of removal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that notices of amendment to the Second Reading of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill have been given from both sides of the House, it is his intention to give special facilities for proceeding with the Bill during the present session; and, if so, whether he will arrange that the Second Reading shall be moved at a time when its provisions can be adequately discussed.

In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that if this Bill is to be made the text in any quarter of the House for a general discussion on Church matters and matters ecclesiastical, it is evident that it is quite impossible to go on with it this session. I confess I had hoped that, as members of the Church of England and all shades of ecclesiastical opinion in the diocese desire the passing of the Bill, it might really be allowed to go through without discussion. But I have no control over that, and if it appears that the opportunity is to be taken, as technically it can be taken, for the wider discussion my hon. friend desires, of course it would be quite impossible to hope to pass the Bill into law in the course of this session.

I should like to ask whether the First Lord is aware that notice has been given from both sides of the House of motions for the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading?

My opinion, which I give for what it is worth, is that the only obstacle to the passing of the Bill is this desire to discuss general ecclesiastical questions on this Bill. I cannot help thinking that if that stumbling-block were removed from its path the passing of the Bill would be assured.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can promise any special facilities for proceeding with the Church Discipline Bill either this or next session.

My hon. friend will recognise that it is quite impossible for me to give any pledge on this subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Elementary School Teachers Bill.

As I stated the other day in answer to a question put to me from another quarter of the House, there does appear to be a desire to discuss this Bill which, if it exists, as I fear it does, will make it impossible for us to make further progress with the Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general agreement on both sides of the House as to the desirableness of securing this reform at as early a date as possible?

I think there is a large body of opinion on both sides of the House of the kind the hon. Gentleman refers to; but nevertheless I believe there is a volume of opinion in the House which would never allow so large a change to come into operation without some opportunity for discussion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only two notices on the Paper, one in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the other in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University? Are these the notices which make him believe that it is impossible to pass the Bill?

It is not the notices which make it impossible to proceed with the Bill. It is the indications that these notices afford and other symptoms that have come to my knowledge that make me fear that further progress with the Bill this session is impossible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make any arrangement of the business for next week?

No, Sir; not yet.

Will the Appropriation Bill be the first business on Thursday?

It is the first important business, but there may be some small matters before it.

I suppose the Naval Works Bill will be taken to-morrow?

Yes; that is my hope.

said he wished to move as an Amendment the addition of the words "provided always that the style and title of the Defender of the Faith shall no longer be used, and is hereby relinquished." He said one of his objects in moving this Amendment was to release His Majesty the King from the false and absurd position in which he had been placed by the action of Parliament. Not only Roman Catholics, but members of the various denominations of Protestants, objected to the King being obliged to assume a title which had reference, if it referred to anything at all, to only one branch of the Protestant religion. He did not intend to go at any length into the history of this title, "Defender of the Faith," but he would refer as briefly as possible to the circumstances under which this title was first adopted by the Kings of England. At the time of Luther, Henry VIII. wrote a book denouncing Lutheran heresies, and sent a specially engrossed copy of the book to Pope Leo X. He found in an account of that transaction that on the last page of the book presented to Pope Leo there were two lines written in Latin, to the following effect, "Henry, King of England, sends to Leo X. this work, as a pledge of his fidelity and friendship." This work was accompanied by a letter which conclusively proves that the faith of which King Henry VIII. became the defender was the ancient Catholic faith, and had nothing to do with the Protestant Church. These were the words—

"Not satisfied with this proof (this referring, it was to be presumed, to the statement of friendship earlier in the letter) of our zeal for the Catholic faith and our devotion to the Apostolic See, we resolved to show by our written words what we thought of Luther and his detestable books, thus to make it clear that we would be ever ready to defend and protect as well with the pen as with the sword the Holy Roman Church."

Upon the receipt of that flattering letter Pope Leo X. issued a Bull in these terms—

"Leo, servant of the servants" of the Lord, to his most dear son, Henry, King of England, Defender of the Faith; all health and happiness."

Then the Bull goes on to say—

"Sitting in this Holy See, and having with mature deliberation considered the business with our brethren, we do with their unanimous counsel and consent grant unto your Majesty, your heirs and successors, the title of 'Defender of the Faith,' and we do by these presents confirm it unto you, commanding all the Faithful to give your Majesty this title."

There could therefore be no doubt in the mind of any person who examined the historical records referring to those times that the origin of the title "Defender of the Faith" had reference to the Catholic faith and no other. He did not think he need dwell at length on historical matters, but there was, he would remind hon. Members, a fresco in the parliamentary buildings which set forth in a very interesting manner King Henry VIII. and his six wives, one after the other. He did not propose to debate on the matrimonial enterprise of His Majesty, but he did wish to recall the fact that when the Pope refused to approve of the King taking a fresh wife while he had a wife living, Henry VIII. threw off his allegiance to the See of Rome, and Leo X. thereupon withdrew the title of "Defender of the Faith," which he conferred on the King for his defence of the Church which subsequently he denounced, reviled, despoiled and plundered in every possible way. No doubt Henry got the English Parliament to confer on him the title of "Defender of the Faith," and there was thus created the curious state of affairs that whereas the Pope had originally given the title and withdrawn it, the Parliament of England re-created it and re-gave it to the Sovereign, calling him "Defender of the Faith," which he was at the moment engaged in destroying with all his might and main. The next step in the curious history of this title was taken in the reign of Philip and Mary, when the Act conferring the title on the King of England was repealed, and subsequently, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, there being some doubt as to the validity of the Act passed in Mary's reign, the same Act was again repealed. He could not, therefore, understand how it could be argued that the title was now held by Act of Parliament, seeing that the Act conferring it on Henry VIII. had been twice repealed, and no legislative step had since been taken to reimpose it on the King of England. He submitted with great respect that it was unfair to the present King to ask him to assume a title which had its origin in the times when England belonged to the Catholic faith—a title which was conferred by the Pope—and at the same time to insist by another Act of Parliament that he should denounce as "idolatrous and superstitious" the very religion for the defence of which this title was conferred upon his distinguished but much-married ancestor Henry VIII. In his accession oath the King was compelled to declare that "the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any of the saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass as now used in the Church of Rome, are idolatrous and superstitious practices," and it was an absurd and unworthy position in which to place the King when they asked him to assume this title of Defender of the Faith, and in the same breath denounce the doctrines of that faith as idolatrous and superstitious. Of course he had no personal knowledge of His Majesty's views, but the chances were a hundred to one, in his opinion, that if the King himself were consulted he would be glad if Parliament relieved him of this absurd title, and from making the unpleasant declaration in which he singled out one religion for special denunciation. It was not merely from the Catholic point of view he raised this question. He would appeal to the Nonconformists of the country to say whether, in this matter, they would make a stand in the interests of the creed they professed. If the title had no reference to the Catholic faith, it had reference to the Protestant Church as established by law, and why should that Church be singled out from all other Protestant sects for that distinction? It was an absurd and obsolete title, carrying no honour whatever. The history of it as connected with Henry VIII. was a history of shame and dishonour of which he doubted whether any Englishman was proud at the present time. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and to express a hope that it would be supported by gentlemen of varying religious persuasions on both sides of the House.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has introduced us not merely into the realms of history, but of theology, and he has contrived not only to deal with history and theology, but to drag in the Royal declaration, which seems to me to be in no sense germane to the discussion now before the Committee. I am not going to deal with the theological topics which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will only say, as a mere matter of historical relevance, that I do not think anyone would be more surprised than Henry VIII., if he could be consulted, to learn that at any period of his life he ceased to profess the Catholic religion. He was no doubt wrong from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he believed to the end of his life that the faith he professed was the Catholic faith, and that the particular form of faith which he denounced was a perversion of it, and not its fulfilment. Everyone, I suppose, will admit in regard to this, as in regard to many matters which we have inherited from generations long gone by, that probably if the whole thing had to be done again it might be done better or it might be done worse, but that at all events it would not be done in exactly the same way. I am not at all concerned to say that if the House, for the first time in our long parliamentary history, set itself to work to frame a proper adequate style and title for our Sovereign they would use the precise formula which our ancestors have handed down to us. If that is the argument of the hon. Gentleman or any Member of the House, it is a very thin and shallow argument, and not likely to carry weight inside or outside these walls. We belong to an historic monarchy, and the fact that it is an historic monarchy ought to oblige us—and I am sure inclines us—to treat with deference and respect any part of the historical traditions with which it is surrounded, unless it can be shown that any direct evil or offence arises out of this continuity of tradition. The title of "Defender of the Faith" has been borne by every single British Sovereign since Henry VIII, including Queen Mary. No doubt she rejected it, but it was resumed by her successor, and from the time of Elizabeth down to the present day the sovereigns of this country have been styled "Defender of the Faith." It would be perfect folly for us to set to work on a priori principles to remodel an ancient title of this kind, that injures neither he who bears it nor the people over whom he rules. Under these circumstances it seems to me it would be the height of folly if we, with no circumstances requiring it, unprovoked by any change in the position of the country or the opinion of its inhabitants, were to suddenly take in hand the task of remodelling the ancient, historic title of our kings.

pointed out that this was not the first proposal to interfere with an old and historic title, for a change in it was made in 1876, when Mr. Disraeli, against the opposition of the Liberal party, conferred on Her late Majesty the title of Empress of India. It was not merely the Irish Members who then resisted, but it was Mr. Lowe, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and other Liberal leaders who objected to any interference, either by legislation or by proclamation, with the ancient title of the sovereigns of this country. It certainly was not fitting that a sovereign should style himself defender of a faith he was required to declare indolatrous and superstitious. The Leader of the House had stated that Henry VIII. believed himself to be a Catholic down to the day of his death. He agreed with him, and he found support for that view in a copy of a letter still extant, in which that monarch bequeathed money for Masses for the repose of his soul. It was clear that Leo X. conferred the title in recognition of work done by Henry VIII. in refuting the heresies of Luther, and he ventured to think that its retention under present circumstances could not afford satisfaction to the members of any religious creed in this country.

said he intended to vote in favour of the Amendment. It was impossible to define the faith of which the King was the defender, and it was, therefore, an unmeaning title. Even if the Church of England were united in faith and doctrine it still would not be the faith of the people. Nonconformists and Roman Catholics being largely in the majority, and both objecting to the title. It was time it fell out of use, and he should vote against it unless some better reason than antiquity could be given for it.

said he had some philosophic doubt in regard to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had defended the title on historic grounds, and upon no other, and thereby emphatically admitted the Catholic case. Look at the wretched condition of the Protestants and the magnificent position which the Catholics occupied in regard to this question. The Protestants were always reviling Rome and denouncing Roman jurisdiction, so that, from the Catholic point of view, there was no greater proof of the power of Popery than the persistence in the adoption of this title. It was idle to say that the title rested on statute, because when Cardinal Pole came over to this country Queen Mary repealed the Act of Henry VIII., and as soon as Elizabeth came to the throne she also repealed the same statute. It was said that the Pope could not derogate from his own grant, and that, having once granted the title to the King, there was no power in the Pontiff to withdraw what was really a complimentary title. It was some satisfaction to him as a Catholic to reflect that, so far as the statute was concerned, the King had no legal title whatever to the title of "Defender of the Faith," that it was a usurpation, and that he held it in the teeth of the statute, and solely by reason that it had been conferred upon him as a compliment by the Roman Pontiff. It was very satisfactory to Catholics that, although the King was not defender of the faith, or the eldest son of the Church, he held the title of defender of the faith by a Papal brief. He never could make out why it was that William III., who was to protect us all from brass money and wooden shoes, was regarded as a sound Protestant. He had always doubted King William III.'s soundness, and looked upon him as a Jesuit in disguise, because King William III. himself had been in certain relations with the Pope. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed to be loyal Protestants, were absolutely obliged, three hundred years after their great and glorious Reformation, which was to redeem the country from all sin and sorrow, to go into the lobby practically to uphold and support a gift from Rome to this country. He would vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend purely as a matter of convenience to relieve His Majesty from what he believed was an embarrassment to him every time he had to write down the title, while at the same time he heartily rejoiced that the Protestants of this country were now compelled to uphold the ancient jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

did not think that the First Lord had given any substantial reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He said the title had been borne by sovereigns of this country since the days of Henry VIII., but that was not exactly the fact, for there were issued in 1849 coins now known as "Godless florins," on which the title of "Defender of the Faith" was not borne.

That was when you had an Irish Roman Catholic, Richard Lalor Sheil, as Master of the Mint.

said that, whatever the reason, the title was undoubtedly dropped at that time, and although every effort was subsequently made to call all the florins in, there were some in the possession of private individuals who highly prized them. He did not believe that the King himself, as a common-sense man, would wish to continue to hold the title. It was just as absurd as the practice which formerly prevailed of calling sovereigns of this realm "Kings of France." Think of the position of the hon. Member for South Belfast. Was he staunch or true in his Protestantism in defending the retention of this title which was conferred by the Pope?

I rise to order, Sir. Is it in order to suggest that the hon. Member for South Belfast is not staunch or true in his Protestantism?

said he was not aware that he had trodden on the corns of any of them. He had been listening in the vain hope that the hon. Member for South Belfast would stand up and declare his views on the subject. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him where King Henry VIII. was. The hon. Member for Belfast was not consistent in voting against this Amendment, for he found that a gentleman who posed as an authority on religions matters had written a letter to the Standard, in which he said—

"Of what faith is His Majesty the Defender? During the Investiture with the ring the Archbishop is directed to say, 'Receive this Ring, the Ensign of Kingly Dignity, and of defence of the Catholic Faith.'"

The objection of the Irish Catholic Members to this title was that these words, used in this connection, added to the insult contained in the Royal Declaration that Catholics were idolatrous and superstitious. He hoped hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who were Nonconformists would follow the example of the hon. Member for Camborne and vote for the Amendment. To give such a title to the King conveyed a false impression, just as when the King of England was called the King of France. The Government had already announced that they would not proceed with the Royal Declaration Bill, which modified the Coronation Oath, and which had passed through the House of Lords.

The hon. Member will not be entitled to discuss the provisions of that Bill.

said he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, but he might say that he, for one, preferred the naked brutality of the present King's Declaration to the watered-down Declaration the Bill proposed to adopt.

said that this was a Bill to which many of them strongly objected. It was an unbroken practice of the House that the third reading of a Bill should not be taken on the same day as that on which it had passed in Committee, except by general agreement of the House.

I will not press the Third Reading to-day.

said it seemed to him to be a very extraordinary thing that a cable which was to connect Australia with Canada, and which would not come within 3,000 miles of England, should have to be built with funds provided out of the Imperial resources. If the cable was to benefit Canada and Australia so much, it ought to be built by money provided by the colonies. The working expenses were to paid for in the ratio of five-eighteenths by this country, and the remainder by the colonies, and he could not see any reason why the same ratio should have been adopted in defraying the cost of building the cable. In fact, that was a view that had been taken by the Colonial Secretary himself when the matter was first under discussion, as could be seen by his despatches to the Governor General of Canada and the Governors of the Australian colonies. That was a monstrous divergence from the traditional policy of the country, and if the country had to bear a part of the expense, it was logical that a portion of it should also be borne by the colonies.

said he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It was perfectly true that the original proposal of His Majesty's Government was merely to subsidise the cable, and not themselves to take any part in its construction or management, but it was also a part of that proposal that His Majesty's Government should not share in the profits of the cable. That arrangement was not satisfactory to the colonies, and, in deference to their views, His Majesty's Government agreed to a plan which found greater favour with the colonies, and which was that this country should take part in the construction of the cable with the colonies, should be joint owners with them, and should be jointly represented on the board of control. Nothing would be gained by the adoption of the hon. Member's Amendment. He understood the object of the hon. Member was to limit the liability and the ultimate loss which might fall on this country. The hon. Member need not be really anxious about that matter, nor would he secure anything more by his Amendment than was secured under the present agreement. In order that the capital for the construction of the cable might be obtained to the best advantage, His Majesty's Government agreed with the colonies that they should raise the whole of the money, and lend it to the cable board. He would ask the Committee to support His Majesty's Government in the action they had taken in that respect. The agreement with the different colonial Governments was that they should not only pay thirteen-eighteenths of any loss in the working of the cable, over and above the revenue, but that they should bear thirteen-eighteenths of all the charges in connection with the raising of the money and the construction of the cable, as well as with its maintenance and repair. It was quite true therefore that in the first instance the liability for the £2,000,000 rested with this country, because the Treasury had undertaken to raise the whole of the money, and would give their guarantee to those from whom it was borrowed. But the colonial Governments had accepted their full share as to thirteen-eighteenths of that liability, and he did not think that anyone would suggest that the colonial Governments would be either unable or unwilling to discharge an obligation freely entered into by themselves for an object which they considered of great importance. He hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment.

said he could not understand why in regard to the whole matter the Government should have changed their mind since 1899. Two years was not very long in which to reverse a whole policy of that kind. The policy which was laid down in 1899 was that the Government considered that the responsibility for the construction and working of the cable should be home by the colonial Governments. That position had now been abandoned. The matter had been under consideration for six years, and at the time the Committee took evidence the general understanding was that the colonies were to find the capital for the construction of the cable and to maintain it in proper order. The correspondence showed that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Colonial Secretary to abandon that position, and now the whole responsibility, in the first instance at any rate, would fall on the mother country, and the Treasury was dragged by the Colonial Office into that hazardous undertaking. It was acknowledged that the cable was to be primarily constructed for the benefit of Canada and Australia, and that only a very indirect share of the advantage would accrue to this country. He did not follow the figures of his hon. friend with regard to five-eighteenths. He would propose that the Treasury should find £1,000,000, and that the liability for the other £1,000,000 should devolve on the colonies. If the colonies were anxious to have increased cable facilities they ought to pay a half or third of the expense of raising the capital. There was absolutely no mention of the colonies in the clause, and undoubtedly responsibility in the first instance rested with the Treasury. Were the talismanic words "Imperial unity" responsible for the change in the policy of the Government? Could the colonies themselves raise the money in open market at three per cent.?

Yes.

Then they ought to be responsible for raising at least £1,000,000 of the capital required. It should be remembered that the Eastern Company was laying a cable from the Cape to Australia, and he had it on very good authority that it was extremely doubtful whether three cables would ever pay. If the Pacific cable did not pay the Treasury would be liable for five-eighteenths of the loss, besides the advance in the first instance. He thought that the capital should be raised on the joint guarantee of the colonies and the mother country.

said that as an Irish Member he could not understand why it was proposed to raise a loan of £2,000,000 for the cable. That was not the proper way to carry out an enterprise of this nature. The majority of hon. Members appeared to have a disposition to leave everything of a financial character to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The result was that the House of Commons hardly exercised any jurisdiction at all over money matters. There was a great principle at stake in the matter, and that was that Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen were about to inaugurate a new principle, which in his opinion was most dangerous. What had the colonies done for England, Ireland, and Scotland? They paid hardly anything towards the defences of the Empire, and now they wanted those three countries, already overtaxed and overburdened, to finance their commercial undertakings. That was a new principle which required a great deal of consideration from hon. Members. The water companies of London and the railway companies of Ireland were in exactly the same position towards public utility, and it was a novel and extraordinary proposition that money was to be available for colonial purposes of that kind when it was not available for home purposes. He had taken the trouble to read the correspondence, and he found that the policy which had been laid down originally had been absolutely reversed. The fact was that hon. Members did not know where they were with Ministers at the present time. He held very strongly that the Bill was a departure from a principle which had hitherto been observed in the House. The House was entering on a commercial undertaking and sanctioning the expenditure of money in order to convenience the colonies in a manner which would not be undertaken with reference to any home enterprise, and he hoped that a strong minority of the Committee would protest against that principle unless it were also extended to the inhabitants of the three kingdoms.

said the object of the colonies was that these lines should be run at a loss in order that they might have cheap cable rates. They naturally objected to a subsidy of £20,000. The home Government was to get a share of the profits, but as a matter of fact there would be no profits to share, and it would therefore be more profitable to the colonies for the home Government to undertake the whole expenditure of the line, which would be run at a loss. The position of the Secretary to the Treasury was entirely inconsistent with the understanding come to in the earlier stages of these negotiations. The hon. Gentleman had said there was not likely to to be any profit for the first few years, and there might be a loss. This cable was to be built with money borrowed from the public, which would have to be repaid, together with the cost of upkeep of the cable from the rates.

When I said there might be a loss, I meant that there might be a loss on the working after allowing for the sinking fund.

said in that case his observations would not apply so strongly, but what he wished to point out was that the result would be very likely worse than the hon. Gentleman anticipated, because under this Bill the British Treasury lost all control as to fixing the rates. The object of the cable was to get reduced rates—to get them reduced to a very low figure indeed—and the rates were to be fixed by the board, and the colonies being in a majority on the board the tendency to cut down the rates would be very great, and there would be a great loss, and the Treasury would lose all control; yet the burden of this expenditure was to be put on the taxpayers of this country. The declaration contained in the letter written by Lord Selborne to the Great Eastern Telegraph Company two years ago contained the most revolutionary statement of principle ever laid before the House. It amounted to a solemn declaration that the Colonial Secretary saw no difference between competition by a private firm and competition by the State. What would vested interests have to say if such a principle were introduced throughout the country? In paragraph 23 of the letter of the Colonial Office to the companies, of the 10th July, 1899, there is this statement:—

"Mr. Chamberlain is unable to see why, so long as the project is conducted on commercial principles, fair competition by the State should give rise to a claim for compensation, which would not be suggested for a moment if the competitor were a private person or company, however wealthy or influential."

That was what the Treasury now admitted they had no intention of doing. The hon. Gentleman anticipated that for some years there would be a loss. When had anybody ever heard of a great public company spending £2,000,000 for the purpose of having a loss on administration? That was not the principle of a commercial people. The whole idea of this being conducted as a commercial enterprise was a sham. He admitted that there was some incongruity in the Irish representatives posing as the champions of private interests, but it was not so much because he objected to the principle that he raised his voice against the Bill, as because of the curious way in which it had been introduced. Millions of money ought not to be spent on a thing of this kind for the Australian colonies when there were dozens of things infinitely more deserving of the money being spent on them. He supported the Amendment because it tended to lessen to some extent the responsibilities which the Government proposed to impose upon the taxpayers.

also supported the Amendment. He thought they were entitled to have some limit placed upon the expenditure, especially as to that portion which would fall upon Ireland. He believed in time of peace no such project as this would ever have been put forward. There had been many projects started to bring the colonies into communication with this country, and the hon. Member for Canterbury, who had done so much for postal reform, was naturally as anxious to effect telegraphic reform. If this scheme was for the benefit of this country, he would give it his support, but his experience had been such as to make him view with suspicion any proposal put forward in this way. If the hon. Member for Canterbury said it was really to the interest of the public, he would be willing to consider it in a reasonable way, because at present, owing to the high cable rates, they could get more news from France than from the colonies. He thought it would be better if the rates were not reduced.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.

bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He pointed out that the hon. Member for East Mayo had shown that the result would be a considerable loss—£2,000,000 for a cable, when, according to the report of the Cable Committee, £1,500,000 would be amply sufficient for the purpose; and he thought that five-eighteenths of that amount was quite enough for this country to be responsible for. He quite agreed that there should be competition with the Great Eastern Telegraph Company, and that they should not have a monopoly, but there was nothing in the Bill to safeguard them in getting the competition they wanted. If cables could be got at a penny per word, it would be a very good thing, but he could not see why the representatives of Ireland should be asked to vote money for this cable. They were told that this cable was to touch all British territory, but in time of war, if Britain lost command of the sea, this cable would be of no possible advantage, because the enemy's ships would fish it up and stop the communication. He would join his friends in opposing the measure at every stage until they had some pledge from the Government that if there was to be competition with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company it would be genuine competition, and that it would not be mismanaged in the way the Post Office mismanaged the competition with the telephone companies. He believed the cable would be managed in such a way that for the first few years it would involve a loss, and the result would be that a syndicate of speculators would come in to take it off the hands of the Government at a very low price, and thus acquire the property the taxpayers were now asked to pay for.