To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state at what date the signal station at Ballylynch, Baltimore, was erected; and whether the consent of the landlord was obtained before its erection. (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) This signal station was erected in September, 1891, on a site obtained on a yearly tenancy from Mr. Cornelius Regan, who, in making his offer to let the ground, stated that he was the ''lawful tenant with all legal rights." It does not appear that the landlord was asked to consent to the erection of the signal station.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of the total staff attached to the Local Government Board for Ireland in the year 1896, and the amount of the salaries and emoluments; also the total number for the year 1904, and the amount of the salaries and emoluments; also the amount of the salaries and emoluments of the Poor Law and rural district (or public health) officers for the same periods. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The numbers and emoluments of the staff of the Local Government Board in the years 1896 and 1904 are shown in the Estimates for these years. To ascertain the emoluments of Poor Law and other local officers in the same periods it would be necessary to obtain the information from local authorities. Very considerable difficulty would now be experienced in obtaining such information, with accuracy, for the year 1896, and as it does not appear to me that any useful public purpose would be served by endeavouring to procure it, I am unable to impose the labour on the officers of local authorities.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Poor Law officers of Ireland are placed under different regulations by the Local Government Board at the present time than what obtained prior to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898; and whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board have in their published Reports paid tribute to the efficiency of the administration of the Local Government Acts by the local bodies of Ireland, he will see his way to recommend the withdrawal of the late Orders of the Local Government Board, so far as concerns these bodies which have protested against them. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The general regulations under which union officers now serve are the same as those in force prior to the passing of the Act of 1898. The fundamental changes introduced by that Act necessitated an entirely different code of instructions in respect to financial administration, for example, union rating has been substituted for electoral-division rating and the guardians no longer collect their own rates, but are financed by county councils. It has already been stated that it is not proposed to withdraw the Orders recently issued.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any disqualification in the case of a Poor Law officer from being appointed to the position of Local Government auditor or inspector; and if he will give the number of Poor Law officers (non-professional) who have been promoted to those positions since 1838 (if any). (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. The occupations, prior to their appointment of persons holding the position of inspector or auditor since the year 1838, are not officially recorded, and it would not now be practicable to procure this information. A Return is in preparation, however, which will give the information in respect to inspectors and auditors appointed since March 31st, 1899, and this Return will shortly be laid on the Table.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further information respecting the working of the regulations against dealing by gambling in options and futures in Germany, Canada, and other countries; whether the Government intend to send representatives to the congresses about to be held at Liège and Rome; and whether they will initiate a discussion on this subject with a view to prevent International conspiracies of bulls and bears to operate markets. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Some information has been received from time to time on this subject, but the Government do not propose to take the step indicated in the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Hoard of Trade whether the Committee recently appointed to consider as to tonnage measurement will direct its attention to suitable deductions from gross measurement in the case of fishing boats as compared with trading vessels; and whether evidence from fishermen and boat builders will be invited. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Under the terms of reference the Committee appointed to inquire into the operation of Sections 78 and 87 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, can direct its attention to suitable deductions from gross measurement of fishing vessels so far as the allowance for propelling power is concerned, and can invite fishermen and boat builders to give evidence should they think it advisable to do so.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the table in the new Statistical Abstract for the British Empire, which purports to show the area and population of each part of the Empire, is incomplete, since it includes in its totals particulars of none of the African Protectorates, except that attached to the Gold Coast Colony, and since no mention is made, either in text or footnote, of Rhodesia, or of the Protectorates of British East Africa, Zanzibar, Uganda, British Central Africa, Somaliland, Northern Nigeria, and Southern Nigeria, or of British North Borneo and Sarawak; and whether, in future numbers of the Abstract, he will include in this or a supplemental table particulars, so far as ascertainable, of these territories. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The official statistics relating to the population and area of the Protectorates were too imperfect to admit of inclusion in the first number of the Abstract. There is a note on page 7 with regard to the treatment of protectorate trade. How far the desired particulars can be included in future numbers of the Abstract must depend on the information available at the time of preparation.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the expenditure for professors and teachers of special subjects in connection with model schools has ceased, he will explain why the Treasury still insist on receiving £2,000 out of the pupils' fees. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that, of expenditure of £1,443 incurred for professors and teachers of special subjects in 1873–4, £300 is still paid for special teachers, and £300 more is paid in the consolidated salaries of existing model school teachers. The arrangement as to the £2,000 was part of a bargain made in 1875 which was entirely favourable to the teachers.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any, and if so which, local authorities have issued notices exempting from the prohibitions and restrictions of the Act (39 and 40 Vic., c. 79, s. 9) the employment of children above the age of eight years for the necessary operation of husbandry and the ingathering of crops for a period not exceeding six weeks, exclusive of the time during which the school is closed for the holidays; and whether any, and if so which, local authorities for any district have by by-law under the Act (62 and 63 Vic., c. 13, s. 1) for any parish within their district fixed thirteen years as the minimum age for exemption from school attendance in the case of children to be employed in agriculture, providing that in such parish such children over eleven and under thirteen years of age who have passed the standard fixed for partial exemption from school attendance by the by-laws of the local authority shall not be required to attend school more than 250 times in any year. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have been advised that the result of Section 4 of the, Education Act of 1880 was to confine the operation of Section 9 of the Act of 1876 to children who do not come within the operation of the by-laws. So far as I am aware, no Orders have been issued under the section since 1880. Thirty-five counties have adopted the agricultural by-law under Section 1 of the Act of 1899 for the whole, or practically the whole, of their area. It is also in force in many parts of the eleven counties for which new by-laws have not yet been approved since the Act of 1902 came into operation. The by-law has also been adopted by a few urban authorities.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state how many of the 1,506 young

To ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Vaccination Fees will be presented to Parliament; and when a revision of the fees in question will come into force. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I propose to present the Report at once. The subject to which it refers is receiving my attention, but I cannot say when a new Order will be issued. I may however, observe that effect could not be given to some of the recommendations contained in it without legislation.

To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the complete wrecking of a City office caused by the fall of overhead cables, during a recent fire; and it he, will take the steps necessary to secure the public from the danger incidental to the use of collections of cables insufficiently secured. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The overhead cables referred to could not have been Post Office cables because the Post Office has none in the City. Wherever such cables are used by the Post Office care is taken, as far as possible, to secure the public from danger.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Postmaster-General stated on May 17th, 1895), that the maximum of telegraphists before 1881 was £160 a year but was now £190, he will state the number of operators in the London central office who are in receipt of £160 per annum and the number of years the senior man has been in receipt of this salary; and whether, as the official witnesses before the Bradford Committee stated the salary was now £160 per annum, the Postmaster-General will state the reasons which led the Department to reduce the maximum salary of £190 per annum being paid in 1895 to £160 now being paid, without hope of increase. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My predecessor stated on May 17th, 1895), that the maximum of the class of senior telegraphists had been raised since 1881 from £160 to £190. The maximum of this class, now called the class of overseers and senior telegraphists, still remains at the same figure. Since 1895 the first and second classes of telegraphists have been amalgamated, but, the maximum—£160 a year—remains unchanged. There are 326 officers at present in receipt of a salary of £160. The senior of these has been at his maximum since July, 1892 He has no practical knowledge of telegraphy, and is not qualified for promotion.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will consult with the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland regarding the utilisation of peat bogs in Ireland; whether he has had any recent Report from the Department, on the subject; whether he will consider the advisability of giving a special grant to enable the Department to test the efficacy of scientific methods already successfully being worked in Germany and also by private companies. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) For the past two years the Department have been experimenting with German and other machinery for the more economical production of peat fuel. Articles on the subject appeared in the Department's Quarterly Journal, March, 1904. The conclusion drawn from the Department's operations in the year 1904 on the bog leased by them at Inny, county West-meath, is that the failure which has heretofore attended the efforts of private individuals and others to develop the two chief branches of the industry in Ireland, viz., peat fuel and peat moss litter, may be attributed to the defective and, in many instances, to the mistaken methods employed. A number of residents in the district have now arranged to take over the Department's experimental peat works at Inny, and to carry on the manufacture of peat fuel on a commercial scale on the lines indicated by the experiment. The Department propose continuing their operations this year at Castleconnell, county Limerick, where experiments in the manufacture of peat moss litter as well as of peat fuel by improved machinery will be undertaken.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can say what was the date of the last sitting of the Land Commission Court (Assistant Commissioners) in Mill-street, county Cork; and whether, in view of the number of applications for fixing fair rents, an early sitting of the Land Commission will be arranged for in this district. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Between February and June, 1904. A list which will contain a considerable number of further cases from Millstreet district is being prepared, and will be taken up as soon as the present list containing cases from a portion of county Kerry is completed, but no definite date can yet be arranged for its commencement.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Manual and Practical Instruction Committee recommended that science teaching should be made compulsory as soon as possible in all the primary schools; and, if so, whether, seeing that the teaching of elementary experimental science is not progressing owing to the diminution of the necessary funds, and that technical instruction in Ireland is impeded from the want of money for the erection of suitable buildings as schools, he will endeavour to meet those claims. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Manual and Practical Instruction Commission recommended that elementary science instruction (including object-lessons) should be introduced generally into national schools, and should be made compulsory as soon as teachers could be trained to give the instruction. A special grant was made by the Treasury in 1900, to be continued for a period of five years, terminating on March 31st, 1905, for the purpose of organising elementary science teaching, and for the training of teachers in the subject. With the aid of this grant the Commissioners of National Education were enabled to appoint a head organiser of elementary science and several sub-organisers, and to make grants of science apparatus to national schools in which there were teachers qualified to give the instruction. The Treasury have consented to continue the grants for the head organiser, Mr. Heller, and for two of his assistants, Miss Maguire and Mr. Ingold, permanently, and they have also consented to continue the grants for science apparatus. Arrangements have been made in all the training colleges for the instruction of King's scholars in elementary science. In addition to the 2,397 teachers trained in elementary science at the several training colleges, 3,774 teachers have been trained at the classes conducted by Mr. Heller and his assistants in Elementary Science, Part I., and 500 of these latter have also attended courses of instruction in Elementary Science, Part II. Instruction in elementary science and object-lessons is progressing in the schools, and there is no reason to anticipate that it will diminish in the future. As regards funds for the erection of technical schools, the work of technical instruction, as defined in The Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, is, in most of the urban districts in Ireland, carried on at present in temporary buildings. The Department permit a portion of the funds allocated to schemes of technical instruction in urban districts to be applied to the repayment of loans for building purposes; but in the majority of cases the amount of the funds available is insufficient to admit of this being done.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, since under the new rules model schools have been deprived of their special privileges, and that no ordinary national school sends any fees to the office, he will consider the advisability of entirely allocating the pupils' fees in each model school to the teachers. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The matter will receive consideration.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to a case heard at Lisnaskea Petty Sessions on December 31st last, where children were ordered to be sent to the Monaghan Female Industrial School; and, if so, whether he will explain why these children were sent to the school instead of the parents being prosecuted for their neglect. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The children were committed to an industrial school on the ground that they had been found wandering without proper guardianship. The parents of the children were at the time undergoing imprisonment.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland when the works at Poulduff Pier, in county Wexford, will be commenced. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The working plans and specification for the reconstruction of the Poulduff Pier by the Department and the county council have been completed by the Department's engineer, and are being submitted to the county authorities for final approval, on receipt of which, steps will be at once taken to start the works.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he can state what were the charges preferred against Constable M'Garry, of Musgrave Street Barracks, Belfast; on what date were the charges made against him; on what date was he sent to a lunatic asylum; and what was the date he was told that he had been pensioned off; what was the date of his discharge from the asylum, and what was the nature of M'Garry's discharge from the force. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) In August last, grave allegations of immoral Conduct were made against Constable Thomas M'Garry of the Belfast Police Force. Whilst inquiries were being made into those allegations the constable became insane, and was removed on September 1st, 1904, from the Mater Infirmorum Hospital to the lunatic asylum, the doctor certifying he was insane. He was subsequently pronounced unfit for further service in the Royal Irish Constabulary in consequence of having been confined in a lunatic asylum, and was discharged from the force on November 30th, 1904, on pension commencing on December 1st, 1904. He was discharged from the asylum on December 12th, 1904, and on December 15th he was personally informed by the district inspector of his discharge on pension. The constable was discharged on account of insanity.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will grant the Return standing on the Paper to-day relating to the Irish Provident Assurance Company. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Irish Government has no information on this matter, and no means at its disposal of obtaining it. The Return referred to was as follows: Irish Provident Assurance Company,—Return showing the capital stock and insured risks of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, with the amount repaid to policy holders in respect of claims not matured; the proportion of capital to insurances effected; and the names of trustees, if any, for (a) shareholders, and (b) policy houlders in this Company.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the city authorities of New York have practically agreed to levy a tax on land values on the area within their jurisdiction; whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a similar measure respecting the City of London; and whether they will give facilities and assistance to pass a Taxation of Land Values Bill during this session. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) As His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce the legislation which is suggested by the hon. Member, it seems hardly worth while to inquire into the system of land tenure which under wholly different conditions may be adopted in other countries.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the International Judicial Congress, which sat last year in Egypt on the question of gambling in futures and options in the bourses of that country, has described the practice by a majority of the seventeen countries represented as a cause of evil to that country; and whether, in view of this finding, the Government will endeavour to arrange an International Congress with the object of preventing combinations to fictitiously raise the prices of raw material, foodstuffs, minerals, and shares, for the benefit of a number of operators, as opposed to the interests of manufacturers, consumers, and bona fide speculators. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) No opinion has been expressed on this subject by either the Plenary Commission or Sub-Commission on Judicial Reforms in Egypt, but it is still under consideration. A circular has recently been addressed to the Powers inviting them to instruct their representatives at Cairo to continue to study the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval authorities are aware that, in the official illustrated pamphlet "How to Join the Royal Navy," that can be obtained from the Secretary to the Admiralty, a recruiting officer, or at any post office, in which the career of a sailor is sketched, there is no mention of the fact that boys and youths under eighteen are liable for trivial offences triable summarily under the provisions of the King's Naval Regulations to twenty-four strokes of the birch, and to twelve strokes of a cane; and whether steps will be taken to rectify this omission in the pamphlet.

The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is Yes; to the second part, No.

I will take care to supplement that this afternoon.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to alter the incidence of the present grant to the Volunteer force; and, if so, whether such alteration will be extended to the Imperial Yeomanry.

It is not possible to make any change in the incidence of the grant to Volunteers during the coming year, but I consider it most important that changes should be made in the directions which I have already indicated as soon as possible. The changes should allow of larger grants being paid in respect of efficient Volunteers and smaller grants in the case of those who are unable to comply with the full requirements.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the contractors have recently delivered at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, two 4·7 guns which are entirely out of truth, and also that several 12-pounder 18 cwt. guns are under plan sizes; and, if so, will he say whether the specifications for guns given out to private firms are the same as that for the Government Departments; and, if so, who is responsible for passing these guns, in view of the standard adopted by the inspectors in the Government workshops.

The two 4·7 guns which presumably are referred to are guns which have been issued for armaments some time and have recently been returned to Woolwich for repair. They were found to be slightly bent. Some 12-pounder guns have been delivered for inspection below plan size and are being lapped out before proof. There is nothing exceptional in this. Guns made by private firms and the Government factories are subjected to the same tests and passed to the same specifications by the Chief Inspector, Woolwich.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members.

The date given me by the printer is the 16th, but I hope that it may be possible to anticipate that date.

That will be within ten days of the end of the financial year. Have they ever been so late before?

I have said I am trying to accelerate them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Army Council now approve of the changes in the Army adumbrated by him last year.

The policy of the Army Council is that which I explained to the House last year, subject to the modifications which it has been necessary to introduce in view of the special circumstances of the coming year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say on how many occasions within the past six months it has been necessary to call out the military in the Transvaal as a matter of emergency in support of the civil power; what the nature of the emergency in each case was; and, if not, whether he will ask for a detailed report from Lord Milner.

I am informed that on no occasion has it been necessary to call out the military for such a purpose within the last six months.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement in the South African News of February 4th to the effect that at the monthly meeting of the Johannesburg Trades and Labour Council a number of complaints were made regarding the employment in Johannesburg of Chinese coolies in trades hitherto solely followed by white mechanics, and to the statement that the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners complained that Chinese coolies were making and fixing sashes and frames in Terreira township; and whether he will make inquiries of Lord Milner as to these alleged breaches of the Ordinance.

I have seen the newspaper statement referred to. I will make inquiry, but the statement implies that attention was to be called to the alleged breach in the ordinary way. It must be remembered that there were a certain number of Chinese in the Transvaal before the passing of the Asiatic Labour Ordinance and that to these the restrictions in that Ordinance do not apply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry out the scheme of education for children on tea estates and other estates in Ceylon, which had his approval in September last.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave on the 28th† ultimo to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total acreage acquired for land settlement in South Africa, the number of settlers, the cost of the land, and amount of advances to settlers.

I expect to have the latest information in a few days, which I shall be happy to furnish to the hon. Member in reply to an unstarred Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Chinese Government have expressed their adhesion to the Tibetan Treaty; what is the amount of indemnity finally settled; and during what period is it to be paid.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for West Denbighshire yesterday,‡ the Chinese Government have appointed a Plenipotentiary to negotiate with the Government of India on the subject of their adhesion to the treaty. The amount of the indemnity is Rs. 25 lakhs, and is, I understand, payable, under Article VI. of the treaty, in annual instalments of one lakh, commencing on January 1st, 1906.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the insecurity to the life and property of British subjects in the Upper Congo, he will consider the advisability of taking

† See (4) Debates, exli., 1474.

‡ See page 406.

steps to appoint Consuls with jurisdiction powers at Leopoldville, Stanley Falls, and elsewhere.

The information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government does not appear to justify the description given by the hon. Member in the first paragraph of his Question, but it is proposed to appoint two additional Vice-Consuls to reside at Leopoldville and Stanleyville.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state who, in addition to himself, are the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; which, if any, of the Commissioners are in the habit of taking part in the proceedings of the Commissioners in relation to the Post Office Savings Bank Fund; by whom and on how many occasions has any part been taken in such proceedings during the tenure of office by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and were the Commissioners, collectively or separately, consulted as to the policy of suppressing the balance-sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank, and the intended omission of the deficiency from the finance accounts.

The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are: The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the Paymaster-General, the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I am aware, the Commissioners have not been summoned to meet since the establishment in 1861 of the Post Office Savings Bank. The business of the office is conducted by the Controller-General, with whom I am in frequent communication.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what is the deficiency in the income account of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended December 31st, 1904; whether, having regard to the view expressed by himself to the House on March 15th, 1904, that for several years to come there will be a deficiency in the income account and the view that the taxpayer should not constantly be required to make good a deficiency in the income account, he proposes to submit measures to make the Post Office Savings Bank self-supporting; and, if so, will he state the nature of those measures.

The deficiency in the income account for the year ended December 31st, 1904, is estimated to be £113,785. I presume that the last part of the Question is intended to suggest legislation for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest allowed to depositors. If so, the hon. Member will find my reasons for not taking that course fully stated in my speech in March † last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all the depositors in the Savings Bank came for their money the bank would be unable to pay them without making a call on the taxpayers?

That has absolutely no reference to the Question on the Paper.

Yes, but the question is what steps will be taken to make the bank self-supporting?

That refers to the income account and not to the capital account of the bank.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that officers of Excise employed in warehouses and distilleries are allowed extra remuneration when performing duty for an absent colleague; that these officers are not employed in single stations, as many as ten or twelve being sometimes employed

† See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1164.

in the same building; and whether, as these circumstances are closely analogous to those prevailing in collectors' offices, and inconvenience is caused in these offices when any of the staff are absent without a substitute, he will reconsider his former decision, and allow clerks in collectors' offices extra remuneration for extra duty performed under such circumstances.

The position of clerks in collectors' offices bears only a very qualified analogy with the position of officers employed in warehouses and distilleries. Their position, on the other hand, is absolutely parallel with that of clerks in all other public offices, and to grant them the concession asked for would involve its extension to the whole Civil Service, which I consider neither desirable nor practicable.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many fatal and how many non-fatal accidents have occurred up to the present time through persons coming in contact with the live rail on electric railways; and whether the Board of Trade is taking any steps for the prevention of such accidents.

On the Lancashire and Yorkshire and North Eastern Railways nine fatal and twenty-two non-fatal accidents have occurred through contact with the electrically charged rail, including eight fatal and eight non-fatal accidents to trespassers, and one fatal and eleven non-fatal accidents to railway servants. No accidents from contact with the rail in question have been reported to the Board of Trade on any of the other lines which have recently been equipped for the use of electrical power in place of steam, and no such fatal accident has, it is believed, occurred on any of the tube railways. The number of non-fatal accidents of this description on tube railways, some of which have been opened now for a considerable period, cannot be given, as no separate record of such accidents has been kept, but the number, if any, must be very small. Recommendations as to the steps to be taken to prevent the occurrence of accidents of this character have been made from time to time to the railway companies and have been adopted by them; and the matter is one that receives unremitting consideration from the inspecting officers of the Department in the execution of their duties.

Has there been any refusal on the part of any railway company to comply with any suggestion made by the Board of Trade.

No, Sir, I do not think so.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that three female telegraphists, who have been appointed at Bath Post Office for several years, have received orders that they are to be compulsorily removed to other towns, and given the choice of Exeter and Birmingham; if so, will he say whether they were informed at the time of their appointment at Bath that they were to be sent away from their homes at short notice; and whether he will investigate the circumstances of the case and consider the advisability of retaining the young women at the offices at which they were appointed.

The exigencies of the service at Bath, where there is much night duty to be done, render it necessary to substitute three men sorting clerks and telegraphists for three women. I have accordingly decided to transfer from Bath the three junior female officers. The present state of the work at Bath could not be anticipated at the time of the appointment of these young ladies; but this circumstance should not, in my opinion, stand in the way of their removal from an office where their services are not required to one where they can be made useful. Reasonable removal expenses will be paid, and ample time will be allowed.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state his intentions with reference to the claim that the maximum salary of telegraphists should be increased; and whether, in view of the fact that the wages paid in English able companies and in the State Telegraph Services of France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany are in excess of those paid to postal telegraphists in England, and that the Bradford Committee recommended considerable increases, he is prepared to raise the salaries of this staff to the level of that paid for similar work elsewhere.

I am not prepared to admit the validity of the arguments embodied in the hon. Member's Question; and I have no intention of raising the maximum pay of the general body of telegraphists in London, viz., £160 a year. But I hope to make some improvement in the pay of the cable-room staff of the Central Telegraph Office, which forms a separate establishment.

Having regard to the promise made to these men why is not good faith kept with them? Are they to be treated in the same way as the hon. Member for King's Lynn?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee to consider the practicability of a standard form of accounts being prescribed for local authorities, which he announced his attention of appointing at the end of last session, has been appointed; whether it has taken any evidence on the subject; and will he say whether the Local Government Board's system of audit has recently been imposed upon the Corporation of Cheltenham as a condition of the Board's sanction of a loan to pay the accumulated deficits on the electric lighting undertaking.

Owing to the illness and subsequent resignation of the Officer of my Department chiefly concerned with forms of accounts I have had to defer the appointment of the Committee. The vacancy has now been filled and I will proceed with the appointment of the Committee as soon as possible. With regard to the Cheltenham case, the town council have applied for a Provisional Order which will give them power to borrow to pay off an accumulated deficit of some £18,000 in respect of their electric lighting undertaking. With a view to preventing the recurrence of an irregularity such as that of the deficit in question, it appeared to be desirable that the accounts of the town council should be made subject to the same system of audit as those of county councils and other local authorities. The town council, who had themselves included in a Bill which they prepared in 1900 a provision for making their accounts subject to this system of audit, accepted the arrangement. They desired, however, that provision should be made for giving them power to incur certain expenditure similar to the power conferred by Parliament on the Plymouth Corporation last year, and I propose to give effect to their wishes in this respect.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet considered the expediency of issuing to parochial medical officers, sanitary inspectors, and inspectors of poor, leaflets containing the opinions of the Committee on Physical Deterioration relative to ventilation and the bringing up of young children, with a view to the dissemination of information on these subjects.

I have given consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion, but I have not at present seen my way to adopt it.

; Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me the same Answer a year ago?

Yes; and I gave the same reason. The adoption of such steps must be dependent on the advice I receive from my officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the objection felt by local education authorities to the rules laid down by the Board of Education that the minimum fee for scholars attending secondary schools under Part II of the Act of 1902 shall be £3 per annum, and that the number of free scholarships at such schools shall not exceed 25 per cent. of the total number of scholars; whether he has taken into consideration the effect of these regulations in debarring from the benefits of higher education a considerable number of the children of the industrial classes; and, if so, whether the Board of Education will, at an early date, respond to the wish of many education authorities that the minimum fee should be reduced, and the number of free scholarships tenable at secondary schools should be increased.

This matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Board. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a letter which has been despatched to the president of the Association of Education Committees on the subject. Briefly, the Board will not insist as a condition of grant upon the observance of any general rule as regards the amount of fee or the number of free places. Each case will be considered on its merits.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board has determined to declare any local education authority, or authorities, in default under the Local Authority (Default) Act, 1904; if so, which these authorities, if any, are, and the circumstances which have, in the opinion of the Board of Education, rendered the application of the Default Act necessary; and whether he will lay Papers containing the correspondence between the Board of Education and such local authority or authorities, if any, now in default which has led the Board to the decision to apply the Default Act.

The Board of Education are in communication with more than one local education authority in respect of matters which might call for the application of the Local Authority (Default.) Act, 1904. These communications are still proceeding.

Has the Default Act not yet been applied in respect of any authority?

Not yet.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London County Council has decided to accept Irish as a modern language at its examinations for clerkships; and whether, in issuing the new Code, he will specify that Irish may be included amongst the subjects for elementary day and evening schools.

No alteration of the regulations of the Board appears to be necessary. There is nothing in the existing regulations which prevents Irish being taught in any day or evening school where the Board are satisfied that it is a suitable subject of instruction.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether the whole of the twenty-nine feus offered as sites for fishermen's dwellings at the Battery Park, Stornoway, have now been allocated, and what progress has been made with the construction of the houses.

According to the latest information only twenty feus have been allocated. The contractor has informed the Congested Districts Board that, with favourable weather, he hopes to finish the twenty houses contracted for by the end of April.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work at the Shader Landing Place, Lewis, Ross-shire.

The Congested Districts Board on June 4th, 1901, offered a grant of £270 to the County Council of Ross to aid in the execution of the work in question. On the 13th ultimo the county clerk asked that the offer of the grant should be kept open until May 15th next, and the Board have consented.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that Dr. Chalmers, the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow, states that the epidemic of sore throat at the Belvedere Hospital in that city last summer was due to teat eruption in the stock at the farm from which the milk supply was obtained, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will secure the periodical inspection of stock kept for the supply of milk to public dairies.

Under No. 14 of the Local Government Board Draft Regulations for regulating the duties of sanitary inspectors, which are in force over almost all Scotland, those officers are bound to visit dairies, cowsheds, and milkshops at least once in every three months. Legislation on this subject, therefore, appears to be unnecessary.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board will consider the expediency of making loans to fishermen in congested districts for the purchase of boats and gear.

The question of making loans to fishermen has engaged the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, but he can come to no decision on the matter pending the Report of the Committee of Inquiry recently appointed by his predecessor.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with legal proceedings on the Thompson-Orpen Estate, near Millstreet, county Cork, some members of the Constabulary force (including Sergeant Lee and Constable Cahill) have urged the tenants to pay the old rents and otherwise intervened in matters outside their ordinary duties; and, if so, will the Constabulary authorities take action in this matter.

I am informed that the suggestion in this Question is absolutely devoid of foundation.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that ejectment decrees have been obtained against several tenants on the Thompson-Orpen Estate, near Mill-street, county Cork, for the non-payment of one year's rent, including the hanging gale; and whether, in view of the fact that purchase negotiations were in progress, and in consequence of the terms demanded by the landlords the tenants had served originating notices to fix fair rents, he will consider the advisability of withholding the forces of the Crown for the purpose of the proposed eviction.

The tenants on this estate refused to pay their rents because the landlord would not sell to them at their own terms. Subsequently a party of armed men visited several of the tenants, fired shots, and warned them not to pay. Two arrests have been made in connection with this occurrence, and the accused have been returned for trial at the next Assizes. The landlord has obtained ejectment decrees against ten of the tenants. The Executive are bound in law to afford protection to the sheriff in the execution of the King's Writs.

Is not this a case in which an administrative solution might be found?

We are bound by law to give the protection asked for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by what official and on whose representations it was decided not to execute the warrant issued against H. J. Livingstone, late of Newry and now in Canada; whether, in addition to the Fearon case, he was concerned in the malversation of the funds of the Urban Council of Newry; and whether it is intended to apply for Livingstone's extradition in view of the fact that he absconded.

After the issue of the warrant on Fearon's information, Livingstone absconded, it was believed to Canada. It then became necessary to consider whether extradition should be applied for in case his whereabouts was ascertained, and with that object it was necessary to examine whether there was any evidence available to sustain the general charge made on Fearon's information. No such evidence was available, and accordingly the Inspector-General, acting on the instructions of Government, was advised not to execute the warrant. After Livingstone had absconded it was reported to the district inspector that he had misapplied moneys belonging to the urban council, but the council declined to make any information or give any guarantee for repayment of the expenses of his conveyance from America, if arrested there. In these circumstances, no application was made by the Crown for his extradition. The urban council have now instituted proceedings to recover the amount of the defalcations from Livingstone's sureties as rate collector.

Seeing that the resident magistrate at Newry was satisfied there was a prima facie case, what right had a permanent official in Dublin Castle to reverse in secret a decision arrived at in public?

It was necessary when it was discovered that Livingstone had absconded to ascertain whether there was evidence that could be laid before the Canadian or American Court to justify the application for extradition.

But what right had the Dublin Castle official to reverse the decision of the magistrate?

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered

With due respect, Sir, it has not. I asked by what official, and on whose representations justice was defeated in this case.

The hon. Member must give notice of any further Question.

The right hon. Gentleman has not told me the name of the official who did this.

The Question may be answered though no name was given.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. T. P. Nolan was consulted as a handwriting expert in the course of the charges brought against Sergeant Sullivan, of Mulranny, county Mayo; and, if so, whether he expressed any opinion, as to the authorship of the letters inciting to outrage, and alleged to be written by Sergeant Sullivan.

In answer to this Question I beg to refer to the reply to the similar inquiry addressed to my right hon. friend by the hon. Member for Cork on October 20th, † 1902.

Is it in order for a Minister thus to refer to a reply given three years ago.

Yes.

On a point of order, would it not be better for him not to answer at all than thus to refer to another Question?

That is not a point of order.

† see (4) Debates, cxiii., 211.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that in connection with the sale of the King-Harman Estate some of the direct tenants in the town of Boyle have their purchase agreements completed, he will explain why other tenants who hold directly have been excluded from the sale; whether sub-tenants have been excluded from the sale and no attempt at negotiation with the middleman made by the Estates Commissioners; and whether such negotiation is one of the functions of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the sale of the King-Harman Estate, at Boyle, in the county of Roscommon, the entire of the estate of all descriptions has been sold to the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether he can state the character of the excluded portion, and why it was excluded.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners were duly notified by the tenants of the King-Harman Estate that they agreed to the purchase by the Commissioners on the grounds that the Commissioners would buy up any un-tenanted land, non-residential holdings, or other portions of the estate that might be available for redistribution amongst the tenants; whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any and what steps to secure such lands for the purpose mentioned; and whether several of the occupiers of such lands have expressed their willingness to sell their interests to the Estates Commissioners.

The Commissioners have arranged to purchase the entire of the estate, save the demesne, certain portions of the town of Boyle, the houses in which are occupied by sub-tenants, and certain other portions where the houses are occupied by weekly and monthly tenants at very low rents. The Judical Commissioner has decided that advances cannot be made to middlemen who have wholly sublet their holdings, and in the case of weekly and monthly tenants the Commissioner considers the security for advances inadequate. The tenants' representatives deny that they entered into agreements to purchase their holdings on any such condition as is mentioned, and stated that they did not wish to withdraw from their bargains. Some of the tenants of nonresidential farms have expressed their willingness to sell their holdings to the Estates Commissioners, and negotiations are proceeding.

Have the Commissioners entered into negotiations with middlemen in the town for the sale of their holdings to the occupiers, and are they willing to sell?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Water Commissioners propose to prohibit, after May 1st, the letting of lands within the Mourne catchment area; whether he is aware that before the Commissioners obtained their Bill the parties concerned were led to believe that no local industry would be prejudicially affected; whether he is aware that the operations of the Commissioners have since resulted in the closing of several granite quarries, and that the prohibition of the letting of lands will now injure the sheep-breeding industry, the two chief means of livelihood in the district; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken by the Estates Commissioners or the Department of Agriculture to safeguard the rights of the residents.

I am informed by the secretary to the Water Commissioners that the catchment area of the waterworks comprises but a very small portion of the lands in the district available for sheep grazing, and that the Commissioners when acquiring the lands compensated the parties interested in the grazing. In order to avoid any danger of pollution of the water supply they have also decided to discontinue in future the letting of the lands for grazing. No quarrying has been done on the Commissioners' lands during the past two years, and no persons have the right of quarrying there. Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Estates Commissioners have any jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Armstrong v. the Commissioner of Valuation; and whether, in view of the fact that that decision lays down the principle that in valuing all business houses the volume of business done is to be taken into account, and that that principle has been applied in the revaluation of Belfast to licensed houses only, he proposes to take any action towards suspending that revaluation till the error committed by the Commissioner of Valuation has been rectified.

The revaluation of Belfast has been carried out strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the Valuation Acts, and that this has been correctly done in the case of both licensed and unlicensed houses is confirmed both by the result of the many appeals to the Recorder of Belfast, and by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal. There is no intention of postponing the coming into force of the revaluation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the Report of the Estates Commissioners on the first year's working of the Irish Land Act of 1903 will be published.

An Interim Report of the proceedings of the Commissioners to December 31st, 1904, is in preparation and, it is expected, will be laid on the Table of the House during the present month.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state the total reduction which has taken place in the Royal Irish Constabulary since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, and the proportion of officers which has been included in such reduction.

The total reduction which has taken place in the strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary since the passing of the Act of 1903 is 753 men, including 2 officers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the amount of the average salary and emoluments, including all extras and expenses, of a county inspector, district inspector, sergeant, and ordinary constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary respectively.

The figures are £621; £340; £84 5s.; and £62, respectively.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons for continuing the services of a county inspector and district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Maryborough, Queen's County; how many men are told off as servants to those two officials; and whether he will consider the advisability of retaining only a head constable, sergeant, and four or five constables for the district.

The services of a county and district inspector are retained at Maryborough because it is the most centrally situated town in the county, and because the requirements of the public service necessitate their retention at this station. No members of the Constabulary act as servants to these officers, and it is not proposed to make any reduction in the strength of the force at Maryborough.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large grazing farm held on the eleven-months system is available at Toneymore, parish of Abbeylara, barony of Granard, for purchase for the evicted tenants; and will he direct the attention of the Commissioners to this property with a view to their making an offer for it.

The Commissioners have no knowledge of the farm in question, but will be prepared to consider its purchase in the event of the estate upon which it is situated being brought before them to be dealt with.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state the reasons which influenced the announcement that no further sales of towns in Ireland would be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; whether, in view of the pledges given during the passage of the Act, will the matter be now left an open one for the decision of the Estates Commissioners.

The reasons are that the entire purpose and object of the Land Purchase Code was to deal with the sale and purchase of holdings of land, and that it was never contemplated by Parliament to apply the funds provided by those Acts to the purchase of property in towns. And, further, that in practice it has been found impossible to make advances for the resale of small houses in the occupation of town tenants, as the security is quite inadequate. I am not aware that any pledges of the kind mentioned have been given. The Estates Commissioners can, of course, refer this point for decision in any particular case which may come before them.

inquired if the Commissioners had not made advances for the purchase of town holdings. Who was responsible for altering the intentions of the Commissioners in respect of the working of the Act?

said he was not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member.

Was not the town of Boyle a case in point?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to stop the grant for organising practical science teaching in Irish national schools; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which such decision has been arrived at, in view of the fact that the Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction recommended the teaching of elementary experimental science in Irish primary schools.

A reply to this Question cannot conveniently be given across the floor of the House. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the reply which I am giving at some length to the similar unstarred Question of to-day† in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, and which will be circulated in the morning.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have in their new regulations made a rule that no boy under eight years of age shall be enrolled in a male school; and whether any provision has been made for compensating teachers who will suffer under this rule.

The Commissioners have found that boys under eight years of age have received little or no instruction in schools where there were no mistresses, and especially in schools with only one master. The tender ages of these children necessitate instruction of a special character, and the Commissioners

† See page 562.

are convinced that women are more fitted to impart this instruction than men. The rule has been made solely in the interests of the children, and the necessity for such a rule was strongly pointed out in Mr. Dale's Report on primary education. With respect to the concluding inquiry there is no evidence yet that teachers, generally, will be in any way sufferers under the rule.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will lay upon the Table the observations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on Mr. Dale's Report.

The general purport of the observations of the Commissioners on the Report made by Mr. Dale is embodied in their Annual Report, recently presented to Parliament. It is not proposed to lay on the Table of the House any further official communications from the Commissioners in the mutter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the South Tipperary County Council will be expected to pay rent for and maintain the county Courthouse, over which they are not permitted to exercise any control whatever, and which the sheriff without recognition of their views and obligations allows the use of, amongst others, for a tea and bridge club.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I have already explained that the sheriff, in accordance with a practice of many years standing, has, with the general assent of the community and, I understand, of the majority of the county council and to the inconvenience of no person, permitted a portion of the Courthouse called the Assembly Rooms to be used for social amusements.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the terms of Miss Anderson's temporary appointment as inspector under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and her qualifications for her work; on what date was her recent report on the class in Limerick received by the Department; what steps have the Department taken to satisfy themselves of the fairness of her report; will the Department require the teacher to modify her teaching to suit the views of the inspector in opposition to the views of the purchasers of the goods; and will he say what sources of information do the Department possess, apart from this inspector's reports, as to the condition and progress of the knitting and hosiery industry in Ireland.

Miss Anderson is paid a salary at the rate of £200 per annum and her appointment is renewable every six months. She has been regularly employed by the Department since August, 1900. Her qualifications were stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of February 27th.† Her report on the class in Limerick was received by the Department on January 14th. The Department are satisfied as to the fairness of that report, and will require the teacher to remedy the defects to which attention was called. The Department have many sources of information as to the condition and progress of the hosiery knitting industry in Ireland, including special reports of experts in the trade.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Mr. Thomas Murphy, of Booterstown, county Dublin, through the failure of the postal officials to deliver a letter, addressed in Irish, to a correspondent in Kilronan, Aran, county Galway, and to the fact that, although the letter reached Kilronan on a Tuesday, it was not delivered at the proper address until the following Saturday; and, if so, whether, seeing that Irish is the home language of the Aran Islands, he can state what steps will be taken to insure that such a delay shall not occur again.

† (4) Debates cxli., 1332

I have had inquiry made into the case to which the hon. Member refers. The delay in the delivery of the letter was caused by the fact that, although the officers employed in the Kilronan Post Office can speak Irish, they were unable to decipher the address, which is stated to have been incorrectly written and spelled. I am sorry for the inconvenience occasioned.

Was the postmaster at Kilronan not able to read Irish, as well as speak it?

He was not able to read it, but he took every possible method he could to find out what was meant by the address.

Is it not a fact that the reason why the delay took place was that the postmaster could not read Irish?

No, Sir; it was because the man who wrote the Irish did not, apparently, know how to do it properly.

May I ask who informed the noble Lord that the address was incorrectly written?

Those in whom I have implicit confidence.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the overtime earned by several postmen in the Dublin district on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve is not yet paid; what is the reason for the delay; and whether he will give instructions for its payment forthwith.

The overtime claimed by some of the Dublin postmen for the Christmas and New Year season was so large as to necessitate special inquiry being made before the claims could be sanctioned. Payment was made on the 3rd instant, with the current week's wages, in accordance with instructions which were given on the 28th ultimo.

Has not the money been paid since the Question was put down?

I do not know. Instructions were given for it to be paid on the 28th ultimo, after proper inquiries had been made.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several auxiliaries are employed in the Dublin Post Office at primary sorting for two hours each evening; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of employing the staff engaged as learners on this work; and will he say whether these auxiliaries passed any technical or other examination; what is the salary paid to them; and whether the salaries paid to the learners while waiting for appointment could be augmented by employing them to do this work; and will he explain why two messengers, a paper-keeper, and a boy copyist from the secretary's office are performing overtime at the same class of work.

The employment of some auxiliary sorters at Dublin in the evening is necessary to provide for duties vacated by learners who are being employed as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists. These minor duties cannot be assigned to other learners, as they are not then available. The auxiliaries, who are paid 4½d. an hour, are not required to pass any technical or educational examination before employment; nor is it necessary that they should do so, inasmuch as the work they perform is of a very simple character. The persons drawn from the secretary's office, to whom the hon. Member refers, are employed between 6.0 p.m. and 7.0 p.m., during which period no learners are available.

Are not these learners receiving the magnificent wage or 6s. per week, and will the noble Lord see that they get overtime pay as well as the auxiliaries who receive 15s. weekly.

I could not hear or understand the hon. Member's Question. Perhaps he will put it down.

I did not speak in Irish, anyway.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the discontent amongst the teachers of national schools in Ireland in connection with the present condition of the Teachers' Pension Fund and its administration, he will secure the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the matters complained of.

At the close of the present year the usual quinquennial investigation of the Teachers' Pension Fund will be instituted. Pending the result of that investigation I think that such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests would be premature.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that promotion on the pension establishment has been denied to Irish national teachers for the past five years owing to the abolition of classification and the introduction of grading; and, if so, whether he will make provision in the pension rules to meet the new arrangements.

New rules are about to be enacted to meet the new arrangements referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Abstract of the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund, which was presented in June last, has been printed as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if not, will he have it printed.

The Abstract referred to has not been printed, but in compliance with the hon. Member's desire I will cause it to be done.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has determined at the ensuing general election to ask a mandate from the electorate to oppose any proposal to impose taxation which for purposes other than the raising of revenue tends to raise the price of wheat or flour to the consumer in this country.

I do not think that the contents of my election address are a proper subject for Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

Is it then the policy of the Government that Ministers should alternately advocate and condemn taxation of this character?

again rising, said: Has the right hon Gentleman no Answer to give to my supplementary Question?

I did not even hear it.

May I repeat it, Sir?

It does not arise out of the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman. The Question on the Paper was fully answered.

I beg to submit, Sir, that the Question was not answered.

There seems to be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members as to the difference between an Answer and a satisfactory Answer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of various points of general interest arising upon the Minute for the Training of Teachers in Scotland, whether he will afford an opportunity of discussing the terms of the Minute before it becomes operative.

I cannot promise to give facilities for discussing this question, but an opportunity will arise either on the Scotch Education Bill or on the Estimates before the Minute comes into operation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has arrived at the authoritative decision, on which it was engaged in July, 1903, as to the force which should be maintained for the defence of the United Kingdom; if so, what its numbers and composition should be, and the number of invaders it is calculated to repel.

The Committee of Defence are clearly of opinion that invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or threaten our independence is impossible. The governing consideration which, as it seems to us, ought to determine the number of troops to be maintained depends not so much on considerations affecting home defence as upon the claim which Colonial and, still more, Indian needs may make upon our military resources.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the disappointment of the people of India at the lack of opportunities afforded for the discussion of their affairs in Parliament, he would give an early opportunity for a full debate, on Indian affairs.

A full debate on Indian affairs is a rather large order, as I suppose it would cover the whole question of the external and internal relations of India. I should be very glad for such a debate to take place, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are methods by which private Members can obtain opportunities for such a discussion, but I cannot promise him exceptional opportunities.

asked whether the Prime Minister thought the interests of 300,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in India were satisfied by one discussion at the end of the session on the Indian Budget. Why could not a further opportunity be given to the House?

I am not hostile to a discussion in this House on Indian affairs, but I could not admit it to be axiomatic or self-evident that the interests of 300,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in India would be improved by a debate in this House.

May I ask what the business is for to-morrow?

I propose to ask my right hon. friend to bring in the Scottish Education Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, and after that I shall proceed with the Supplementary Estimates.

If the Education Bill is substantially the same one as last year there is nothing unreasonable in bringing it in under the Ten Minutes Rule, but if it is novel I hope that course will not be adopted.

I think I am justified in saying that it is substantially the same Bill as last session.

continuing his speech of the preceding night, said he desired to bring under the notice of the House a matter which, in his opinion, was one of the most serious that could possibly be raised, and, so far as he was aware, one which had never yet been brought before that Assembly. It had only to be stated in order to evoke from every true-hearted and true-minded person in England a storm of reprobation. They had believed during the last twenty-five years that flogging had been abolished both in the Army and the Navy, and it would be news to many people that to-day it was in active exercise in the Navy, and he would prove before he sat down that the Admiralty had done their very best to conceal that fact. In the early part of that day he put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to important omissions in the invitations to our youth to join the Navy. Those invitations sketched out in bright language prospects of pay and treatment and the joys of a sailor's life, but they failed to make it clear that sailors were subject to the cat-o'-nine-tails, and that the youths and boys of the Royal Navy were liable to have inflicted upon them twenty-four strokes of the birch for trifling offences without being first tried by Court-martial. Clearly the Admiralty did not intend that a man should know what was before him when he was entering the service. He intended to avail himself of that opportunity—the first one he had had—to give to the public through the House of Commons particulars of what was going on every day in the King's ships, and he could tell them that he had in his possession hundreds of documents on which he based his allegations. Did the rules of the House permit, he would have moved a Resolution to the effect that the House regretted that, while the punishment of flogging had been abolished with the best results in His Majesty's Army for twenty-five years, men in the Navy were liable, under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, to receive a flogging consisting of twenty-five strokes of the cat-o'-nine-tails, which was a necessary equipment of every one of His Majesty's ships, while the boys and youths in the Navy under eighteen years of age were also by the naval regulations not merely tried by Court-martial for trivial offences, but were summarily liable to floggings over the bare breech of twenty-four lashes with birches nine ounces in weight and steeped in brine, or to twelve strokes with a cane, such birchings and canings to be inflicted by the ship's police in accordance with naval regulations and in the presence of all the boys on board the ship. He asserted that that sort of thing was going on in the Navy every day and that this flogging was even worse than the flogging which went on in the Chinese compounds of the Colonial Secretary. That might be considered to be a strong observation, but he put a question to the Colonial Secretary on the previous day, and he had the advantage of a clear answer in writing describing what went on in regard to the flogging of refractory Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal mines. That answer was to the following effect—

There are no cat-o'-nine-tails. The maximum of strokes inflicted with a cane, which is the instrument of whipping, would be twenty-four. The whipping would be given in the presence of the governor or deputy-governor of the prison, and the gaoler, and the visiting medical officer, who certifies to the fitness of the prisoner to undergo the punishment. The sentence being by a magistrate cannot be carried oat till the record has been sent to and confirmed by a Judge of the High Court.''

How different to what was going on in the King's Navy! He would like to point out the folly and absurdity of the present state of affairs. The two Gentlemen who now represented the Admiralty in that House were both formerly officers of the King's Army—both distinguished officers, and could it be believed that they were bound to sanction the use of the lash in the Navy when it had been abolished in the Army for over twenty-five years? He must put it still more strongly. On March 11th, 1893, the present Secretary for India, who was then Secretary for War, said on the floor of the House of Commons that a colonel of the Grenadiers, an excellent officer, had been placed on half-pay because there had been the caning of a drummer boy in his regiment, for although he knew nothing about the occurrence at the time, it was considered there must have been an absence of discipline on his part. Yet at sea canings and floggings on board His Majesty's ships could be inflicted for the most trivial causes. With reference to Irish boys in the Navy his attention was directed to their case by a circular issued by the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland asking parents and guardians of Irish boys not to allow the boys to go into the Navy because they were denied the ministrations of their faith. He thought there was an additional reason which might be advanced for not allowing them to enter the Navy, and that was that, while they were denied the spiritual ministrations of their faith, their bodies were subjected to atrocious and abominable outrages. Was that language exaggerated? He thought it would not be suggested that it was. On July 4th last in answer to a question the Secretary to the Admiralty distinctly denied that flogging existed in the Navy, but he minimised the effect of his answer by explaining that it had been suspended, but not abolished. He saw a letter some time ago addressed to Lord Selborne in which the writer asked leave to be permitted to take photographs of boys being flogged, and immediately afterwards placards were placed all round the dockyard threatening with instant dismissal anyone who gave information to strangers. That showed that the Admiralty were of opinion that it would be indecent to expose what was going on, although they did not think it indecent or atrocious to allow it to be done. He recently received an answer from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (the "Terror of Germany") to the effect that there was no flogging at all in the Navy. The present Prime Minister also made a statement to the same effect, but then there was nothing but inaccuracy to be expected from the right hon. Gentleman. When the question was pressed the Civil Lord stated that boys under eighteen years of age were not subjected to the punishment of flogging, but that they might be punished by birching or caning under regulations which prescribed in whose presence such punishment was to be inflicted, together with the maximum number of stripes and the character of the instrument to be used. He had looked up the regulations dealing with this matter, and he had found that the birching was to be confined solely to boys rated as such, and to be inflicted with the birch supplied by the dockyards, that the punishment was to be inflicted over the bare breech, that it was never to exceed twenty-four strokes, and that it was to be inflicted by the ship's police in the presence of the medical officer and others. He had looked up the regulations to see for what kind of offences that punishment could be inflicted and he found them most trivial. He had asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to make some alteration of the horrible regulation compelling boys to witness these floggings, but the hon. Gentleman declined to do so. What had since happened? Only last December there was a Court-martial on board the "Victory." He visited the vessel in that month, and was prevented from going into Nelson's cabin by the mere fact that a Court-martial was being held. But he was present at the close, and saw the prisoner emerge, and he never witnessed such a look of agony and despair on a boy's face as on that occasion. What were the circumstances under which that boy was tried? He had been compelled with a crowd of other boys to be present, on one of the cruisers at the flogging of one of his companions, and he had been so overwhelmed by what he saw that he attacked the officer inflicting the punishment and almost knocked him down. Of course his offence was a very shocking one, but it was possible to sympathise with the feelings of the lad under such circumstances. He, of course, was also put upon his trial and was sentenced to a long term of hard labour, and to receive in addition twenty-four lashes. It was actions such as that which tended to produce rebellion in the Navy. It simply drove men to madness. There was another Court-martial at Devonport to which he would like to draw attention. In that case the boy had committed the very atrocious offence of stealing a few pence and had deserted his ship. For that he was very properly dismissed the Navy, but more was done. The full maximum flogging of twenty-four strokes with the birch was ordered to be inflicted, and he ventured to assert that that was both unconstitutional and illegal, for the lad having been dismissed the service there could have been no right to flog him in addition. There was one special fact which struck him in connection with this matter, and that was that it was the children of the poor who were subjected to these indignities. The naval cadets and midshipmen in the service were not flogged, the flogging was reserved for the sons of the poor who had to pay the piper. He hoped that these facts would become known wherever the English working men had a vote. He had been furnished with a vast amount of information upon the subject, but he was not going to take up the time of the House by communicating it. Amongst his informants was an Anglican clergyman whose tender heart revolted at what he had heard, and who told him that the greatest apprehension prevailed among the parents of the children on board the training ships. Even for not being able to swim birching and caning was inflicted. He pat a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty on that point, and his reply was that it was better to teach a boy to swim by flogging than to allow him to drown without flogging. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that an answer of that kind—a nice, pithy, little, after-dinner society joke—did more to accentuate the feeling against this horrible system than the finest speeches one could make, either before or after dinner. A short time ago an article was published by Mr. Tighe Hopkins, who declared that flogging and anything which tended to degrade the person was shocking, and that there should be complete statistics furnished in regard to it, but he was sorry to say that there were no statistics as to the canings in the Navy. He had asked for them several times, bat he had never been able to get them. He had been told that to obtain them for the last three years would be too expensive. Yes, it would be too expensive in the votes which the Secretary to the Admiralty and his Party would lose if the system were made public. He had, however, obtained a Return—a very poor, meagre, stingy Return—which would meet his purpose to some extent. It was a Return for the year 1901–2, and it stated that in that period there were 238 birchings by summary conviction—by the nod of the captain's head—and only three by Court-martial, while there were something like 12,000 minor offences among the boys, and for those minor offences at least 8,000 canings were inflicted. The Return for last year showed a slight decrease in the figures, there having been 250 birchings and about 8,000 canings. He felt it incumbent upon him to do what he could to put a stop to this. The weight of the birch used upon these poor boys was twice as heavy as that used in civil life, by order of the magistrate and the Judge, for the punishment of boys guilty of the most atrocious crimes and offences. The cane used weighed 2 oz., was 3 feet long, and was laced round with waxed twine like the handle of a cricket bat. When the Fleet under the command of Lord Charles Beresford came into Dublin Bay he pretty well knew what was going on, and he wrote to the people of Ireland through the Freeman's Journal, and pointed out the dark and sinister designs of these ships upon the youths of Ireland, and warned the parents not to let their sons join the Navy. These were the things produced by this system, and not efficiency, and the Government ought to know, having tried it everywhere else and failed, that force was no remedy, and that it had not survived in the Army and could not survive in the Navy. After the various things that had been said upon this subject, which led to parents and guardians being chary of allowing their boys to enlist in the Navy, a most outrageous placard was published by the Admiralty, under the King's Cypher, and sent to every post office in Ireland, to the effect that youths between seventeen and eighteen could now join the Navy without their parents' consent.

explained that that notice was issued without authority, but that when it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty it was at once withdrawn.

said no doubt that might be so, but how many boys were allowed to enlist before this notice came to the knowledge of the Admiralty. The Civil Lord had stated that there was no flogging in the Navy at all. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt to encourage young ambition, went down to the Royal Naval School at Greenwich and told the lads there that, just as it was said of the soldiers of Napoleon that every soldier carried a marshal's baton in his knapsack, so it was true of the Navy to say that everybody who joined it had a chance of a baton. Yes, the birch and the cane. He did not desire to bring this matter to a vote, but he would bring it up again and again, and would appeal to the Press of England to have this matter properly ventilated. The hon. Member also read a letter from a clergyman who had spent many years in the service, describing the manner in which the flogging was conducted, and giving a particular instance when the deck was more like a slaughter-house than anything else, and the victim died a few days afterwards. He said he had other cases of a revolting character with which he would not trouble the House, as he thought he had said enough to stimulate a spirit of inquiry and investigation in every honourable, and true-hearted man. He appealed to hon. Members to put themselves in the place of these defenceless boys, and to allow the strong arm of England to protect them. Flogging had been abolished in every Navy except our own, but the worst feature was that it was a punishment inflicted by the rich upon the poor. He had stated the facts as fairly and as temperately as possible, and he thought he had made out a strong case for a thorough investigation into the system. There could be no higher honour for the new First Lord than that he should initiate his régime by instituting a searching investigation into this matter. He had confined himself largely to letters and questions, because the Secretary to the Admiralty, having exhausted his right to speak, would be precluded from making any reply. But why was there not present some other member of the Government who was or had been connected with the Admiralty. This atrocious system demanded some defence or explanation, as it was not right that such charges, made in good faith, should go broadcast to the country. If they were true, what was the House of Commons thinking about that it did not abolish the system when it abolished flogging in the Army? He had brought the question forward not merely in the interests of Irish boys, but in the interests of humanity, feeling strongly that such cruelties ought not to be inflicted on the young of the poor and defenceless.

said that while there was no flogging properly so-called in the Navy, there was a caning and birching restricted to boys, but it was not the fact that that punishment was reserved for the children of the poor. In the gun-room, the home of the midshipmen, flogging of a much more severe character was practised, not with a birch or cane, but with a dirk-scabbard. This flogging was practised by the so-called rich themselves on themselves and never yet had a boy been heard to complain, but on the contrary many had declared that to the discipline of the gun-room they owed a great deal of their success in the service. ["Oh."] He had two sons in the Navy who had passed through the gun-room, and if they were not scabbarded themselves, they had doubtless scabbarded others. But he did regret that this punishment still existed, even for boys, in the Navy, as he thought it could be dispensed with. It could not be denied, however, that boys required a lot of keeping in order, and he would like to have known the offences for which some of the birchings were given, as possibly they would have revolted the House as much as the birchings themselves. At the same time he deeply regretted that there should be retained in an honourable and noble service even the semblance of personal violence, and, as he had said on former occasions, he earnestly hoped that some means would be found of putting an end to it for ever. Turning to the Main question, he submitted that the discussion with Mr. Speaker in the Chair ought properly to be concerned with matters of high policy, such as strategy, the principles of naval construction, lesser matters being reserved for the particular Votes under which they naturally arose. More especially ought that to be the case in a year marked by a change of policy such as the oldest Member of the House could not remember in the history of the Navy. Any eulogy of the Board of Admiralty on his part had been rendered unnecessary by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, although a member of that Board, had with unwonted readiness. generosity, and modesty bestowed that eulogy himself, and nothing he could add would increase its force or aptitude. His absence from the House during the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was due not to any want of respect to the hon. Gentleman, but partly to other occupations, and partly because the supreme authority over the Navy had been short-circuited. That authority now belonged neither to the Secretary to the Admiralty nor even to the First Lord, but to the First Sea Lord. It was the First Sea Lord who appeared in the new policy and throughout the Memoranda in which that policy was described, and, therefore, less importance attached to the highly interesting speeches of the Secretary to the Admiralty. At the present moment the Board of Admiralty was in a strange situation, there being, in fact, an interregnum. There was no First Lord really responsible for the Memoranda which had been put forward, It was true that Lord Cawdor had been brought from the Great Western Railway to take command of the Navy, but he was not responsible for any of the Memoranda, nor was it known even whether he approved of them. The noble Earl should make a good First Lord, as he had the reputation of a man of business, which reputation it was to be hoped he would justify in his new sphere. But, at any rate, Lord Cawdor was not responsible for these Memoranda. The First Lord who was responsible had gone to South Africa to take up a higher position. He was fortunate in many respects, but in none so fortunate as in the acquisition of Sir John Fisher at the Admiralty. For Sir John Fisher had overruled the whole of his policy, and substituted for it a completely contrary policy. He wished to know the conditions under which Sir John Fisher had been brought to the Admiralty. Was he a colleague I Was he a superior? Was this another MacDonnell case? He strongly suspected that, more astute, or more fortunate, than the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Selborne had flown to South Africa to escape the beneficent tyranny of Sir John Fisher, instead of resigning, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thought it honourable to do, to escape being overruled by his subordinate. He had not a word to say against Sir John Fisher; on the contrary, he approved of his policy, although there were some matters in regard to which he should like some explanation. He believed that what was being done upon his advice was of the soundest and the most profitable description and would have the best possible results. The changes set forth in the two Memoranda before them were not only new, but they formed a different policy contrary to the old. They included new principles in strategy, naval bases, and ships, gunnery, and even a new organisation of the Board of Admiralty itself; in fact, the whole system, from the First Lord to the Admiral's barge, had been completely up-ended. He was about to ask for an explanation which he should have been glad if some member of the Council of Defence had been present to afford—for these matters belonged at last to them—but not one of them was present. There had been tremendous alterations in the organisation of the Admiralty. The Senior Naval Lord was now to be called the First Sea Lord, and everything concerned with "important naval policy" was to be left to him. That meant a supersession of the First Lord of the Admiralty by the First Sea Lord—as to which he would only say that if it produced such beneficial results as the supersession of Lord Selborne by Sir John Fisher, long might it continue. With regard to gunnery he noticed that there was to be an inspector of target practice who would "not be an Admiralty officer," but who would work under the superintendence of First Sea Lord. Was this officer under no subordination? Did he owe obedience or respect to nobody? Why was such an officer not to be placed under the Board? Was this yet another MacDonnell? He was aware that the personality of Admiral Percy Scott would justify his appointment under special conditions, for he had made the gunnery of the Navy, and had done it in opposition to and in spite of the present Board of Admiralty. He knew that Admiral Percy Scott had experienced the very greatest difficulty in getting the smallest advances made towards his system of quick-hitting gunnery. After constant refusals there had at last been a tardy recognition of the true principle that, not the gunnery lieutenant alone, but the captain and the admiral were responsible for the gunnery of the squadron. That was an enormous step in advance. It was almost impossible for any Member of the House not acquainted with gunnery to appreciate the enormous advantage to the future of gunnery achieved by this change. Nevertheless there remained much to be done, for a great many ships still had defective sights and sighting machinery, and nobody knew that better than the Secretary to the Admiralty. He hoped and believed that Admiral Percy Scott's system would make their gunners the best quick-hitters of any navy in the world. But what position did Admiral Percy Scott hold? Were the Admiralty bound to listen to him? If there was any uncertainty about this it might lead to another resignation of a Minister. There was a further change in the rank and file of the Navy itself which he should like to suggest. There was a disposition and a determination on the part, of the Board of Admiralty to neglect and put aside the ordinary Naval Reserve, which consisted for the most part of fishermen and Marines who formed the best material in the world for the Navy. This Reserve appeared to be set aside for the Naval Volunteers who were a perfectly useless set of people who liked to wear uniform, the money spent upon whom was absolutely thrown away. What he complained of was that while they were developing this popinjay naval stuff they were neglecting the proper material in the Naval Reserve. They were extending the Naval Volunteer system which cost so much instead of the Naval Reserve which cost less, and they were stopping recruiting for those Reserves. That was unfortunate considering the great value of this body of men. We had 121,000 Naval seamen, costing each, in wages, victualling, clothing and doctoring, some £82 per man yearly, whereas the 34,000 Naval Reserve men only cost £7 or £8 per man. In modern ships the trained Preserve man was as good as the Naval seaman, in boats he was usually far better, and the true system was to increase the numbers of the £8 man and by so much to diminish the numbers of the £82 man. By reducing 10,000 Naval seaman at the higher rate and adding 40,000 Reserve men at the lower, you would get 30,000 more men at £500,000 less cost. Yet the Admiralty had stopped recruiting for the Reserves! He now came to the change of policy as to ships. He did not know whether the House realised the extent of the changes made. The First Lord of the Admiralty confessed in his first Memorandum of December last that for the last fifteen years the Board of Admiralty had never had men enough to keep the Fleet Reserve in proper condition. Yet, in the same breath he acknowledged that Parliament had always freely granted him all the men he asked for. What a discreditable confession! This Memorandum went on to say that the increased number of ships in commission had more than swallowed up the increase in the personnel, and consequently adequate provision for the ships in the Fleet Reserve had not yet been made. It practically avowed that in consequence of their want of personnel the ships in the Fleet Reserve could not be trusted to fight nor to inspire confidence in any admiral. He now came to the other ships—what he might call the general run of the Fleet. What were they told about them? They were told that there were a number of obsolete ships. 130 or 160, which were to be removed from the Navy List in order that the country might have ships that were really ready for war. But why did the Admiralty not adopt that policy years ago? Why had this new and perfectly proper principle of having the Fleet composed only of vessels competent for naval purposes occurred now for the first time to the Board of Admiralty? When he was in Malta in 1890, or thereabout, the Admiralty were engaged in fishing up from the bottom of the sea, the Sultan, a ship which ought to have been thrown on the scrap heap years ago. That ship, in fact, ought never to have been fished up from the bottom of the sea in the expensive manner employed. She was, however, now tardily to be removed from our deceptive list and other obsolete ships with her. This was what he would call the scrap-heap policy. It was quite right. His complaint was that the House had been asked for, and year after year had given, money for these useless ships. The Admiralty had adopted the idea that because they had a number of bows and arrows in the Admiralty office they were justified in keeping them as possibly useful somehow, someday, instead of devoting themselves to the torpedo tube. There had been one delightful ingenuous avowal put as a defence. The Prime Minister, speaking recently at Glasgow, said—

"What has this Government been doing?' They have abolished 130 vessels—my figures are not exact, I speak from memory—130 vessels which figured upon the list of the British Navy. [A VOICE: "Good riddance of bad rubbish."] That brief interruption puts even more concisely and pithily than I can do, one of the aspects, but only one of the aspects, of the great reform. It is not merely that the Board of Admiralty have laid down the rnle that a ship, however useful in time of peace—and we have to do, it must be admitted, a great deal of small police work in a time of peace for diplomatic or other purposes—is not only useless, but worse than useless in time of war it possesses neither fighting power nor speed; it is merely a ship which exists to embarrass British admirals and to discredit the British flag."

The Board of Admiralty after having ignored and by its conduct denied it for years, suddenly discovered this important principle, but it required Sir John Fisher to help them to discover it. In the some speech the Prime Minister said—

"Well, with one courageous stroke of the pen, as it were, these ships have been removed."

One courageous stroke of the pen! He liked to hear that this Government was sometimes courageous. He thought that when they found courage to force one of their colleagues to break his pledge they derived it not so much from them-selves as from the power behind the Cabinet, and that it was in spite of them-selves that the heel of Birmingham was crushed upon them. But we were assured they found the courage to abolish a number of obsolete ships in the Navy. No. It was not the Government that abolished the ships, it was Sir John Fisher who abolished them. During all the ten years that these great Lords of the Admiralty had flourished at the head of the Navy the ships were allowed to go on. Ships had been fished up from the deep, and old ships incapable of fighting had been kept on the list. Now it had been discovered that the true policy was only to keep in the Navy ships which were fit for service. The new policy was a full confession of the badness of the old policy so long pursued, so costly, so dangerous. He came now to the question of naval bases. A great change and reversal of policy had taken place there. He need not remind the House that a naval base was important as indicating what our strategy was. The naval bases suggested or disclosed to every strategic, mind the events which were expected to occur in war, the places where they expected great actions, and the refuges where they expected the ships to go for repair. Therefore the retention or abandonment of a naval base was in itself a disclosure of strategy. What was the disclosure here. He need not remind the House that this Government had always been tinkering at naval bases. They took Wei-hai-Wei as a base for meeting Russia and it had been kept as a sort of Chinese Margate. They were retaining it now to see which way the cat jumps. Then there was Gibraltar, where £5,000,000 had been spent in order to make it loss secure and more tempting to an enemy. Finally there was the great base of Rosyth, bought at a cost of £122,000. If his memory did not play him false the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty told us that we should have to incur considerable expenditure in order to make it the important, naval base contemplated. The Peer who received a great deal more than the value of that land had been dismissed with the purchase price. What was to have been a great naval base at Rosyth was now, it seemed, to be a place to keep a few stores. It was difficult to imagine the confusion of mind that seemed to exist in the Board of Admiralty with regard to naval bases, taken up lightly and expensively, then as lightly abandoned, even before they were completed. But there was something even more startling. Halifax, Esquimalt, Jamaica, and Trin-comalee were, as it seemed, practically to be abandoned. The last-named place was a most important station, and if ever we had another fight about India it would be as important that we should have it as it was found to be in the last century. It was a very serious matter to abandon it. It might be said that we had Colombo instead, but that would never be the same thing. All these were great questions in regard to which the House had no proper explanation and as to which they were entitled to an explanation. Jamaica, always a most commanding strategic base, was becoming more important as a naval strategic point than ever before on account of the impending Panama canal. The abandonment of it would, it appeared to him, be an acknowledgment that we meant no longer to defend our West Indian Islands with our naval force. If that were so, a serious question would arise as to whether the Government were justified in signing the Sugar Convention. How was it that all these abandonments had now been discovered to be possible, and never before? Was it all due to Sir John Fisher? Was there nobody at the Admiralty who could invent or imagine anything before? It looked like it. The Secretary to the Admiralty had rightly said that the great thing in regard to the Navy was "continuity of policy." But this was discontinuity of policy. All those things he had mentioned, and others he was about to mention, represented not a continuance of the same policy, but an entire change. He did not say that it could not be justified, but it had not been justified yet. The reasons for it had not yet been suggested. It was absurd to talk of continuity of policy in the face of revolutions like these. He observed with considerable apprehension that part of the new policy was to leave the Atlantic, Fleet consisting of eight iron-clads and a corresponding number of cruisers—which was the most important Fleet we had, to entirely rely for its repairs on Gibraltar. He did not think that was very safe. Gibraltar, let it be remembered, produced nothing. Every pound of steel and every pound of coal or biscuit that Gibraltar used or supplied to the ships of war had to be sent across from this country, and in time of war, if we forced our most important Fleet to rely on Gibraltar for supplies and repairs, that meant that it would be necessary to set up a new line of communications between these islands and Gibraltar to carry the stores and the repairing materials, and it would be a very difficult and dangerous line of communication to guard. He presumed that was present to the mind of those who had agreed to adopt the new policy. Here again he should like some explanation. Take the alterations all these matters involved in the conception of naval strategy. It was something almost incredible that this country should give up the naval base in the West Indies. That meant a kind of thing that would have appeared to the men of Nelson's day or of Lord St. Vincent's as impossible to conceive of, and still more impossible to be adopted by a naval country like this. It meant an enormous alteration in the conception of what this country would have to do in a great war. They were going entirely to abolish the South Pacific Squadron. Were there no British interests in the South Pacific? The abandonment of Esquimalt almost seemed to him to be an abandonment of the small squadron in the North Pacific. Was that intended? Were they going practically to abolish the North Atlantic Squadron, as a squadron? If so, they were going to abolish their naval watch and ward on both sides of the great continent of North America. He did not say it was wrong, but what justification had they for it? Had they an understanding with the United States? Was Canada going to build a navy? What was the new element that enabled the Government to detach this country from those parts of the world which formerly we held so strongly navally? What induced them to give up those naval bases in this manner? This was the stage at which the House should be told. He had endeavoured in a summary manner to follow some of the points that were suggested by this Naval Memorandum. It raised some vital questions of high policy and strategy. He trusted the Government had good answers to the very serious questions he had raised. On many of them he was perfectly convinced the new policy was right; on others he had very serious doubts. He trusted that before the debate ended he might receive satisfaction of these doubts from the Government, which would enable him to feel greater confidence in the plan than he did at present.

said that the House must feel indebted to the hon. Member for Donegal for having brought forward the question of punishment in the Navy. In view of the prominent part which hon. Members for Ireland took in securing the abolition of flogging in the Army twenty-six years ago, it was only fitting that attention should be drawn to the existence of corporal punishment in the Navy from the same quarter of the House. He thought that the general question which must arise in the mind of hon. Members was "Can these things be true?" And the conclusion must be that, if they were true, as the hon. and learned Member undoubtedly believed them to be, or even only half true, they constituted a great scandal which ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. They knew only too well what an invincible prejudice surrounded the question of the abolition of corporal punishment in the minds of some people, and how hard it was to kill that prejudice. For over a century, whenever even a mitigation of that revolting punishment was suggested, its advocates, one after the other, held that discipline could not be maintained without it, and that to do away with it would be to undermine the whole basis on which the military and naval service rested. He had in his possession the, order book of a regiment in the Waterloo Campaign in which it was recorded that a Court-martial had been held on an unfortunate soldier for a not very serious offence, and the result of which was that the soldier was condemned to the punishment of a thousand lashes. That punishment in the Army died very hard, and was only eliminated late in the nineteenth century. The statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Donegal must, he thought, have come to hon. Members and to the general public with a shock of surprise. The general impression was that flogging had been abolished, at all events in the services, though it lingered unfortunately in the military and civil prisons—a practice which many hon. Members were most anxious to see abolished. It was almost universally believed that any one taking service in the Army or Navy would not be liable to the brutal and degrading punishment of flogging. It was perfectly true that its existence must discourage enlisting. They were told that the Army would suffer greatly by its abolition, but exactly the contrary had been the result. There had been an infinitely better class of recruits, and the status of the soldier had been much improved. To his mind the inability to keep discipline or order either on shipboard, in a regiment, or in a prison was simply a confession of incompetence of those in command. He hoped that in the course if the debate in Committee they should have some satisfactory assurance from the Under-Secretary that in a very short time corporal punishment in the Navy would be entirely abolished.

congratulated his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Donegal on raising this question of flogging in the Navy. His hon. and learned friend by doing so had performed a public service. When the people of this country heard of the brutality that existed in the Navy they would take the matter into their own hands and do something to abolish it. The naval authorities might say that it was necessary to keep that degrading flogging in order to maintain discipline, but his hon. and learned friend had shown that in the French, German, and other navies the system had been abolished; and he wanted to know what there was in the British youth which was worse than in those of other countries which made this system necessary. He ventured to say that future generations would wonder why this brutal punishment had been continued so long. His hon. friend the Member for Crewe was right in saying that it was fit that the subject should have been pressed from those benches. He was glad to say that the Party with which he was identified had brought about the great reform in the Army of the abolition of a punishment which was degrading to those who suffered it, to those who inflicted it, and to those who witnessed it. The soldiery of England had to thank, in great measure, a body of Members from Ireland who had always stood up for the rights of the people, for the abolition of flogging in the Army. He remembered that when the late Mr. Parnell was making a tour through Ireland soldiers approached him and asked to be allowed to shake hands with the man who hid "killed the Cat." As to the reductions in the Navy Estimates he wanted to know what benefit that would be to his country. He remembered the time when the cost of the Navy was only £15,000,000, and the Navy seemed just as efficient then as now. Ireland had no commerce to protect. England took very good care of that, because she had crushed their native industries. To his mind the people who should largely contribute to the naval Votes of this country were the Colonies for whom we kept the sea open and who had a large trade to protect. Canada refused, and though other colonies gave a small contribution, it was far more their duty to contribute to naval expenditure than that of Ireland, who, nevertheless, had to contribute an eleventh of the whole. Then look at the matter in another way. The naval expenditure percolated through the whole community in this country; because the Votes were mostly spent on the Thames, the Tyne, the Clyde, and at Pembroke. The only expenditure in Ireland was at Haulbowline, but that was a small, tinkering amount. They had asked the Admiralty for £100 to assist in making a pier which would be of the greatest advantage to the Admiralty themselves; but they could not see their way to incur that small outlay. Ireland derived some small advantage under the Army Votes; but derived literally no value under the Navy Votes; yet Ireland was called upon to pay more than her proper proportion. This, he assumed, was one of the benefits resulting from the Union. When the details of the Votes were before the House, his colleagues and himself might be compelled to take what the late Mr. Biggar would call an intelligent interest in them; and would be able to show that while Ireland contributed an enormous sum to the Navy she derived no benefit from it. He hoped the speech of his hon. friend would draw the attention of the public to the gross cruelty which still existed in the public service. In that case his hon. friend would deserve the thanks of the country and of humanity.

said that several of the old vessels referred to by the Secretary to the Admiralty had been anchored in the Clyde; and he wished to impress on the House the large amount of inconvenience and annoyance they caused. Many hon. Members knew that the Kyles of Bute were not only fishing grounds, but were also used by yachtsmen. The result was that not only was the fishing industry injured, but much inconvenience was caused to yachtsmen. The hon. Gentleman had received a very strongly worded memorial from all the yacht clubs in the Clyde on the subject. The House was aware that those waters were the most favourite yachting waters in the United Kingdom; and the memorial mentioned several other parts where the ships could be equally well anchored. He quite understood that the Admiralty wanted to have those vessels within easy reach of suitable yards; but he wished to direct attention to alternative anchorages, such as Gareloch portion of Loch Fyne and Loch Long. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were prepared to send a proper official from the Admiralty to report on those alternative anchorages, so that, if possible, the ships might be moved from places where they caused so much inconvenience to navigation and trade to anchorages equally convenient to the Admiralty. He would also ask that a copy of the Report should be laid on the Table of the House.

said that one sentence fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn which interested him somewhat. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a fact that the Government had abandoned altogether their ambitious plan at Rosyth. If so, the Government would appear to be repeating the blunder they committed at Wei-hai-Wei. That was supposed to be a great naval base which would checkmate Russia at Port Arthur; but, after considerable sums of money had been spent on it, it was suddenly announced it was no good except as a sanatorium. With regard to Rosyth, two years ago the scheme was triumphantly brandished in the eye of Germany as a kind of threat when the German frenzy was at its height. As far as could be gathered from Lord Selborne's reply to the Member for East Aberdeenshire, he did not altogether deny that the scheme was abandoned, but, at the same time, he did not admit it, and took refuge in the assertion that the whole business had been very cheaply done. It was not a question as to whether it was cheaply done or not, but why it was done at all. It seemed to be a gross blunder; and it was no argument to say that it was only a small one. It was small blunders like Wei-hai-Wei, Somaliland, and Rosyth, together with administrative incompetence, which had, during the last nine years, increased the taxation of this country.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

I think the House should have an opportunity of saying whether it desires to continue, this debate