To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions unanimously passed by the Loughrea Rural District Council on the 12th January last, with reference to the poverty and distress existing in the congested and other districts of the union; and whether, having regard to the necessities of the case, he will bring the matter at once under the notice of the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Agriculture, so that free grants of suitable seeds may be given to the very poor occupiers living in those districts. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board of Guardians of Loughrea Union have accepted tenders for the supply of over 250 tons of seed potatoes, and the union will be entitled to a share of the grant made by the Department of Agriculture towards the reduction of the price of seed to the purchasers. It is not the intention of either of the Departments referred to, to give free grants of seed to occupiers of laud in this or any other union.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of learners appointed to post offices in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, under open competition and under a qualifying examination on

To ask the Postmaster-General whether the attention of the Department has been called to the unsatisfactory postal arrangements in Liscarroll and Churchtown districts, county Cork, and to the fact that the mails now arrive in Liscarroll about 8. 15 a. m., and are despatched from there about 5 p. m. ; and whether, in view of the fact that important fairs, petty sessions Courts, butter and produce markets are regularly held in this town, the Department will arrange that letters shall arrive at about 7 a. m. and be not despatched earlier than say 7 p. m., so as to provide adequate time for traders to conduct their correspondence. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is the fact that the mails now arrive at Liscarroll at 8. 10 a. m., but the despatch is made, except during the four winter months, at 6 p. m. A scheme for improving the service was considered some

To ask the Postmaster-General whether arrangements can be made to ventilate public telephone call-boxes. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The telephone silence boxes used by the Post Office are already ventilated as thoroughly as is consistent with the privacy of conversations and the exclusion of outside noise. The point has received a good deal of attention, and the system adopted is, it is thought, the best that can be devised.

To ask the Postmaster-General how many municipal boroughs in Great Britain with a population of over 20, 000 are classed by the Post Office as railway sub-offices, and what are the names of these boroughs. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I understand that there are three municipal boroughs in Great Britain with a population of over 20, 000 at which the principal post office is a railway sub-office. The names of these boroughs are: Gillingham (Kent), 43, 000; Ilkeston, 25, 000; Wallsend, 21, 000.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he could arrange for a mid-day delivery of letters to Aghnacliffe by bicycle from Granard or Ballinalee. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can undertake not to appoint the Select Committee upon the Telephone Agreement without giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I venture to think that a thorough examination of the Telephone Agreement can best be secured by referring it at once to a Select Committee. If hon. Members insist upon raising a discussion upon that reference, I fear that the appointment of the Committee will inevitably be delayed.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 4th March a telegram was handed in at Clones Rail telegraph office in connection with the Postal Telegraph Conference at Dublin; that the attention of the postmaster to the contents of the message; and that the letter gentleman has caused inquiries to be made into the meaning of the message and the person who despatched it; and, if so, whether he can state what were the reasons for this action; whether such action is warranted by any rule of the service; and whether officials connected with service organisations are liable to be called to explain to their superiors their action in using the public telegraph service for the purpose of legitimate business. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The circumstance has not come under my notice, but I will inquire about it.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that James Webb, auxiliary postman, of Levenshulme, Manchester, on 7th December, 1903, when on duty, met with an accident which has permanently incapacitated him for active labour; that the man has done no work since the accident; that the only compensation awarded Webb has been a compassionate gratuity of £9 11s. 5d. ; and, if so, whether, under the exceptional circumstances, some further grant will be made to Webb. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Webb's capacity to contribute to his own support was materially impaired as the result of an accident. The whole of the circumstances were represented to the Treasury before the award of a gratuity was made, and I regret very much that there are no grounds on which I can obtain a further grant for him from public funds.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to secede any further portion of British Somaliland; and, if so, to what Power; what is the area of British Somaliland evacuated by the adoption of the policy now announced. (Answered by Earl Percy.) No cession of any part of the protectorate is contemplated.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether vacant places in training colleges for women students in September next are correctly stated amounting to 3, 141, being 1, 941 and 1, 200 in residential and day colleges respectively: whether he is aware that, of the 4, 245 women reaching the qualifying standard for admission, 1, 875 candidates are returned in the recent scholarship list as not desirous of entering any college; and whether there is any probability of a shortage of accommodation for women students. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The 1, 877 candidates to whom the hon. Member refers cannot be described as not desirous of entering any college; they have merely not informed the Board whether they desire to enter a training college or not. They were not compelled to supply this information, and the failure to supply it does not warrant the inference which the Question suggests. The Board has further no information as to the number of women desirous of entering a college who have qualified by some means other than that of passing the last King's scholarship examination. In the absence of such information, it is impossible to say for certain whether there will be a deficiency of accommodation for women students in September next, though such a deficiency is extremely probable.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that evasions of the Medical Acts and the Dental Acts to the detriment of the public have been effected under the provisions of the Companies Acts: and, if so, whether he proposes to initiate legislation to preclude the possibility of such evasions being effected in future. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am aware of the cases, recently before the Courts, to which the hon. Member refers. I am not in a position to make any statement as to legislation, but I may say that the Lord President of the Council has been in communication with the General Medical Council and the Board of Trade on the subject of companies carrying on business as doctors and dentists; and the Board of Trade are, I understand, obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question of the registration of such companies under the Companies Acts.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade when the General Report upon the Accidents on the Railways of the United Kingdom for 1904 will be in the hands of Members, and whether he will give the following figures for 1904: From train accidents—passengers killed and injured respectively; railway servants, killed and injured respectively; train mileage; from movement of trains and vehicles, exclusive of train accidents—passengers killed and injured respectively; railway servants killed and injured respectively; number of servants exposed to danger from movement of railway vehicles. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The General Report on Railway Accidents for 1904 will not in the ordinary course be issued for some little time, but the Returns for the three months ended 31st December last are now with the printers, and will shortly be issued. During the year 1904 there were six passengers and seven railway servants killed, and 533 passengers and 114 servants injured in train accidents. In other accidents caused by the movement of trains and railway vehicles 109 passengers and 403 servants were killed, and 2, 135 passengers and 3, 768 servants were injured. These figures may be subject to some slight alterations before the Returns are published but are substantially correct. The Board of Trade cannot yet give the train mileage for 1904, or the number of servants exposed to danger from the movement of railway vehicles.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have taken into consideration the report of Admiral Rawson, dated 30th March, 1901, with reference to the harbour works of Gibraltar; and whether it is their intention to carry that report into effect, so far as regards the provision of a dock on the east side of the rock. (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part of the Question, the Board of Admiralty decided, after full consideration of the report referred to, and of the further report by Captain T. H. Tizard, C. B., F. R. S., R. N., and Mr. William Shield, M. I. C. E., F. R. S. E., that the advantages to be gained by the construction of a dock and harbour on the eastern side of the rock were not sufficient to justify the expense that would thereby be incurred.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state what is the present strength of the police force in county Longford; by how many men it has been reduced since 1st November, 1903; and how many existing barracks are to be closed in consequence. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The present strength of the county force is one county inspector, three district inspectors, and 120 men, a reduction of nine as compared with the numbers on 1st November, 1903. One station has been disestablished.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will direct that the Local Government Board Engineering Inspector will hold a second sitting in connection with the proposed scheme to purchase the villages of Newtownforbes and Drumlish, under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, with a view to getting over certain difficulties that arose at the last inquiry. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It will be necessary for the Board's Engineering Inspector to make a further inspection of the houses included in the proposed scheme before a loan can be sanctioned by the Board in this case.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the dissatisfaction in regard to the introduction of the new rule in boys schools, he will consult with the National Commissioners of Education as to the advisability of the amalgamation of boys and girls schools where work goes on under one roof, and inaugurate a separate infant department for both sexes up to eight, the head mistress holding her salary and put in charge of the latter department. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Question, presumably, refers to Rule 127 (b). If so, I would ask the hon. Member to defer the Question until Monday next.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the approximate cost incurred by railing the troops in two half battalions to and from Newry, together with the cost of their field training in Newry. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) My hon. friend apparently refers to the move of the 1st Battalion King's Own Scottish Borderers from Belfast to Newry, which took place in order to make room for another regiment returning home from South Africa. Half the battalion was moved in February, 1904, and half in May, at a cost of about £40 each move. The battalion did not return from Newry to Belfast. The cost of the field training at Newry cannot be calculated without considerable labour.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the field guns promised four years ago to the 4th West York Volunteer Artillery will be delivered. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No field guns are at present available for issue to this corps; but the question of the future armament of Volunteer Artillery corps is under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the yearly rate of increase of pay for men who extend after three years colour service; and at what period, and the amount of the maximum daily pay that can be obtained by a private soldier. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The maximum daily pay that can be obtained by a private of infantry is 2s., attainable after five years service, as follows:—From attestation, Is. ; after six months service, if efficient and 19 years of age, 1s. 5d. ; after two years service, if extending colour service to eight years, 1s. 9d. ; after two years, if extending, on becoming a second-class shot, 1s. 11d. ; after five years service, if a second-class shot, 2s.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the loans which entail an increase of £370, 000 on the Army Estimates. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This increase arises from sums of £1, 875, 000 advanced in 1904 under the Military Works Acts, and of £2, 625, 000 advanced under the Capital Expenditure (Money) Act of 1904 for the purposes of the Military Works Acts.

To ask the Secretary of State of War what are the present allowances to Volunteers; and will he compare them with the changes that would be allowed if the force were reduced to 200, 000 men. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A description of the present allowances to Volunteers will be found in paragraphs 510 and 534 of the Volunteer Regulations. I am not prepared to make any further statement regarding changes that can only be carried into effect under conditions which are not at present realised.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how soon the new accommodation for officers undergoing training at Whale Island will be completed.

It is expected that this accommodation will be completed by the end of August next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Brigade of Guards is short by thirty to forty of its full complement of officers; has any proposal been before the authorities to admit young officers on probation to fill up these vacancies without the usual entrance examination or military training; if so, on what reasons was that proposal based; and whether an undertaking will be given that officers shall not enter the Brigade of Guards in a manner different from the way in which other branches of the Army are entered.

The shortage of officers in the Foot Guards is forty-four. This deficiency is very serious and is receiving the careful consideration of the Army Council. I am not at present, in a position to give the hon. Member any further information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for ordering the construction of military earthworks on the Surrey Hills; for what purpose they were constructed; whit has been the total expenditure upon them to date; whether the construction is still in progress; and, if not, who is responsible for ordering the discontinuance of the work.

It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to the mobilisation centres round London, some of which are in the form of redoubts. The responsibility for the initiation of these works, in 1889, rests with Mr. Stanhope, who was then Secretary of State for War, and the reasons for them are fully given in his speech on the introduction of the Army Estimates on Mar 11th, 1889. The total expenditure on the whole works amounted to £160, 700, and all expenditure has been completed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received on behalf of ex-Sergeant Martin, of the Land Transport Corps, a solemn declaration, together with medical certificates, to prove that Martin has been for years, and is now, suffering from a shattered leg, due to the splinter of a shell during the Crimean War; and whether, in view of this man's age and circumstances, he will consider the advisability of increasing his present pension of ninepence per day.

This man's case has already been very carefully investigated. As there is no corroborative evidence either in this man's possession or in official records of his having been wounded or treated in hospital during the few months which he served in the Crimea, it is not possible to grant him the benefit of n higher rate of pension.

May I ask whether, in view of the fact that this man is seventy-five years old and quite destitute, cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his case?

I am afraid that the fact of age is not relevant. The allegations of the man as to his service cannot be substantiated.

A warning to Irishmen to keep away from the British Army.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that full inquiry has been made into each of the cases mentioned in pages 112 to 125, inclusive, and page 242 of the Appropriation Account, 1903–4 [Command 45], under which a sum of £201, 815 6s. 3d. has had to be written off as irrecoverable on account of losses consequent on fraud or otherwise during the war in South Africa.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War why it was not ascertained before the 59, 000 war medals, afterwards returned to the Mint and broken up, were struck for issue to natives in South Africa after the war, that the issue of these medals would involve, as stated on page 227 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General [Command 45] racial objections.

At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state where the ammunition referred to in the Ordinance Store Accounts Return from South Africa was manufactured, of which over 50, 000, 000 rounds were received in an imperfect or doubtful condition; and what steps have been taken in connection with this ammunition; and what is its total value.

These three Questions deal with matter arising from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the accounts for 1903–4. These matters will come before the Public Accounts Committee and I am not, therefore, prepared to discuss them at the present time.

May I ask whether the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not now before Parliament, and whether the final Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which we await, was not issued last year after Parliament rose?

I do not dispute the facts. But I say it is in accordance with precedent for these matters to be dealt with by a Committee of the House, and I must reserve anything I have to say upon them.

Is not the War Office itself going to investigate these matters?

Yes, the War Office has already investigated them. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, with the complaints renewed, was received only a few days ago, but long anterior to that the War Office instituted an investigation.

Will there be an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General this session.

I cannot give a more precise Answer. I am simply following the course dictated by precedent and the one I believe to be most acceptable to the House and most respectful to the House. The Public Accounts Committee investigated these matters, and they are now sub judice. It would be very wrong on my part to withdraw from the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee matters which are definitely referred to them by the custom and practice of the House.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be in order for me to ask the Prime Minister the Question which the Secretary of State says he cannot answer—whether any opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the finding of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report.

The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister that Question yesterday.

With great respect, no, Sir. What I asked was whether the Prime Minister would give facilities for the discussion of the notice of Motion on the Paper.

The Question is practically the same.

Is it not a fact that seven months elapsed before there was any reply—

Order, order! Notice must be given of any further Question. The right hon. Gentleman has stated, in reply to the Question on the Paper, he does not consider that under the circumstances he is justified in saying anything further. The hon. Member is not entitled to argue upon it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what were the strong Departmental reasons on which the Army Council decided to reduce the establishment of the small arms factory at Sparkbrook; by whom was the decision reversed; and was the Army Council consulted before its reversal.

The Army Council's decision was based solely upon grounds of economy. The decision has not been reversed; but further action has been temporarily suspended pending the determination of a larger question which was indicated in an Answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield on February 27th. †

My last Question has not been answered. Was the Army Council consulted?

The Army Council was, of course, consulted. I have already informed the hon. Member that there was no reversal, and that under the circumstances I have described there was a postponement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant the Return on the Paper relating to this matter and explaining the negotiations that have taken place?

Notice must be given of that Question. The Return referred to is as follows:—Small Arms Department (Sparkbrook). Address for Return of (1) the Minute of the Army Council relating to the reduction of the establishment at Sparkbrook; (2) the communications between the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division and the Secretary of State for War relating to

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1338.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of the responsibility and the cost of the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt has been the subject of correspondence between the Imperial and the Dominion Governments; and. if so, by what Department of the Imperial Government has that correspondence been conducted.

I have been in correspondence with the Governor-General of Canada on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and, as I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Gloucester on the 2nd instant, †the correspondence will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is complete.

Which Government now bears the cost and responsibility of these defences?

The Home Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the minimum wage of the Chinese coolie is at the rate of one shilling a day, he proposes to take any steps to carry out the pledge he gave the House on June 22 nd, † 1904, to the effect that the minimum wage of the Chinese coolie would be, increased from thirty shillings to forty-five shillings a month after the first six months, if it should appear that the Chinese coolie was in any way undercutting the Kaffir labourer in the mines.

I would refer the hon. Member to the provision in the contract for an increase in the minimum

† See page 182.

See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 821.

Is it proposed to take any steps in connection with this pledge?

I keep myself constantly informed on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the estimated cost per annum of the Indian troops which it is proposed to leave as a garrison in the interior of Somaliland; and whether all the charges incurred in the transport of these troops together with the current rates of pay, allowances for foreign service, and debits due to pension accounts arising out of their employment in Somaliland, will be borne by the British Treasury.

The estimated cost for one year of the Indian troops now in Somaliland is £53, 063, including initial and terminal charges as well as those mentioned by the hon. Member. All these charges will be borne by Imperial funds.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the British Minister at Brussels a report of the proceedings of the International Diplomatic Conference held at that city in February last to consider the proposed unification of the laws of the various Maritime States with respect to collision and salvage; and whether the draft treaties adopted by the Conference, when communicated, will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

A full report has not yet been received. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has assented to the increase of the ad valorem Customs duty proposed by the Porte in consideration of the surplus being applied to the execution of reforms in Macedonia; if so, what further reforms, if any, have the Government stipulated for as a condition of their assent; and what security is there that she money obtained will actually be applied to the execution of reforms.

His Majesty's Government have not yet given their assent to the proposed increase. The conditions on which assent could be given are still under their consideration and that of the other Powers.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, how many, British officers are to be appointed for the organisation and defence of the tribes in the Somaliland Protectorate with whom His Majesty's Government have entered into treaties of protection.

There is no present intention of increasing the staff of British officers for the special purpose referred to.

I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether rifles are being supplied gratis to the protected tribes of Somaliland, and, if so, what description of rifles, and how many it is proposed to issue.

I think the hon. Member will see on reflection that it is not desirable at the present juncture that a wider publicity than necessary should be given to the details for which he asks.

But the noble Lord, in describing this altered policy, said these tribes were to be armed with rifles. Surely it is within the competence of this House to inquire as to the nature of the rifle to be provided? [No Answers was returned.]

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been explained to the protected tribes of Somaliland that His Majesty's Government do not repudiate the general obligations into which they have entered with the tribes, but that the particular manner in which they interpreted these obligations depended on circumstances.

His Majesty's Government have instructed their Commissioner to explain to the tribes that they are expected to take advantage of the present opportunity to organise for their own protection, and that if they do not fulfil their engagements towards this country we shall consider ourselves at liberty to reconsider our relations with them.

What is the engagement of these tribes towards this country?

Chiefly to keep the roads into the interior open.

On what occasion have they failed to do that?

Has it been definitely decided to arm these tribes?

Yes, Sir, it has been decided to issue a limited number of rifles to certain specially selected tribes.

How many?

I do not think it is advisable in the public interest to give that information.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt have not been summoned to meet on the business of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund since the establishment of the bank in 1861, he will now cause the Commissioners to be summoned for the purpose of taking their opinion as to the propriety of repealing so much of the Savings Bank Act, 1904, as relates to the release of the Postmaster-General and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt from the obligation of preparing balance-sheets of the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks respectively; and as to the desirability of informing the Treasury of the deficiency in the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank (present amount unknown, but £11, 033, 000 on December 31st, 1903), in order that such deficiency may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of the growing produce thereof, in accordance with the provisions of 24 and 25 Vict., c. 14, s. 6.

No, Sir. I see no reason for taking the unprecedented course proposed in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the reason why the Criminal Statistics for 1903 were not published till December, 1904; and will he take steps to prevent such long delay in the corresponding publication for 1904.

The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. The Criminal Statistics for 1903, so far from being delayed, appeared at an earlier date than the statistics for any previous year since they assumed their present form. The Returns from which the statistics are compiled are not completely available until the middle of the year following, and the work of compilation and preparation of the introduction is extremely heavy. Perhaps I may add that the English statistics of crime are issued much earlier than those of most of the principal foreign countries.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters reaching Stornoway, Island of Lewis, on Tuesday forenoon are not delivered in the Bernera district of the island until Saturday afternoon; and, as this delay causes inconvenience to a number of inhabitants, will arrangements be made to provide Bernera with a mail three times a week instead of only twice a week, as at present.

I find that since the question of the postal service at Bernera was last considered, a new public ferry has been established between Callanish and Miawaig and that it is now practicable to afford a service three times a week at Bernera. I have had pleasure, therefore, in giving instructions for carrying out that improvement.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of learners appointed to post offices in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, under open competition and under a qualifying examination on the nomination of the local postmaster respectively.

I will furnish the hon. Member with a statement giving the information asked for, which could not conveniently be given in an Answer in the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that the North Eastern Railway Company have electrified a portion of their system without obtaining specific statutory powers, will he state whether he proposes to notify other railway companies in the United Kingdom of the irregularity of such a course; will he state how many miles of the North Eastern system have been electrified, on what date the system came into force, the number of accidents resulting therefrom, and the number of persons besides Alice Maughan who have lost their lives through contact with unprotected rails; whether compensation has been granted in the case of each accident; and whether the Board of Trade inspectors are now quite satisfied that the rails are sufficiently protected.

The Board of Trade are not prepared to say that the North Eastern has been guilty of any irregularity, and see no necessity, therefore, to call the attention of the companies generally to the course adopted by that railway. I understand that the length of that company's line which has been electrically equipped is thirty-three miles, and that electrical working was begun towards the end of last March. Up to the present time twenty-eight accidents have occurred from the use of electrical power on this railway; this number includes four fatal accidents, in addition to that mentioned by the hon. Member, resulting from contact with the electrically charged rail. The Board of Trade are not aware whether compensation has been paid by the railway company in each case. An inquiry has been held into the accident to Alice Maughan, but the Board of Trade have not yet received the inspecting officer's report. The railway company has carried out the recommendations of the inspecting officers in so far as they have been made at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are fifty children in attendance at St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield, whilst the attendance at the Church school is only nineteen; and whether, in view of the fact that St. Joseph's School was fulfilling all the requirements and conditions of a public elementary school before the Act of 1902 came into operation, he can state in what respect it is now held not to fulfil those conditions.

The St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield, has never been recognised as a public elementary school. The Board have very carefully considered the circumstances under which application for recognition was made. In arriving at their decision they have proceeded in strict accordance with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act of 1902.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the circle, of which the architectural design at Buckingham Gate forms an are, is to be completed.

The reply is in the negative.

Then if the circle is not to be completed is it to be squared?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the discomfort experienced by Members, especially in hot weather, crowded in the division lobbies after the outer doors of the Chamber have been locked; and whether he can see his way to recommending the appointment of a Committee to consider and report on suggestions for new exits to be used as soon as the outer doors are locked.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner is unable to give any reply to the second paragraph; it appears to him to be a matter for the House. My hon. and gallant friend's suggestions might be discussed on the Estimate for Houses of Parliament Buildings.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the need for ventilation experienced in the Ladies' Gallery, especially when many are in it in hot weather; whether he will consider the possibility of piercing a window in the end wall to open to the outer air.

The ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery is part of the general scheme for the ventilation of the Chamber and its precincts; the works incidental to this are not yet completed. It is hoped that they will remove the defects which now exist, but until these works are finished, and tested during the Easter recess, it is impossible to give any undertaking as to making a window.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of removing the grating?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, whether his Committee was aware, when appointing the hon. Member for Wandsworth as Chairman of a Committee to consider Group 1 of Railway Bills, that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is Chairman of the South Indian Railway Company; whether it is the usual practice of the Committee of Selection to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and, if so, what action.

I was not aware that the hon. Member for Wandsworth was Chairman of the South Indian Railway Company when he was appointed Chairman of the Committee to consider Group 1 of Railway Bills. As regards the question whether it is the usual practice of the Committee to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills, I would observe that the ordinary declaration of a Member serving on a Committee on a private Bill is that his constituents have no local interest in the Bill and that he himself has no personal interest in it. I view these conditions as sufficient safeguard against irregular practices, and I am of opinion that the fact that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is Chairman of an Indian railway company should not disqualify him from serving on a Committee on an English Railway Bill. I am therefore not prepared to take action on that ground.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is not only Chairman of an Indian railway company but Chairman of a second railway company, and the London agent of a third? [Cries of "Order!"] I would also ask whether, in view of the fact that there are no less than seventy-six railway directors in this House—["Order, order!"]

The hon. Gentleman is going beyond his Question. The hon. Member for Bath is entitled to notice of any such Question as that.

I recognise that, Sir, but in view of the fact that the Committee is probably to meet tomorrow, I ask whether the hon. Member is aware that when the Great Southern and Western Amalgamation Bill was to be considered the hon. Member for Wandsworth was nominated as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and that the Committee rejected him as Chairman on the ground, amongst others, that he was Chairman of an Indian railway company.

Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond his licence. He is now proceeding to enter into arguments why the hon. Member for Wandsworth should not be appointed.

Move the adjournment.

My object is to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, for the reasons I have advanced, if he will not reconsider the matter.

The hon. Member can ask whether the Chairman, if fresh facts are put before him, will again consider the matter, but he is not entitled to proceed to narrate those fresh facts.

May I ask the hon. Member whether it is the usual practice of the Committee of Selection to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills?

I am not aware that it is the usual practice.

Is it usual to appoint a London agent?

later, asked whether the hon. Member for Wandsworth, under the circumstances, intended to serve as Chairman of the Committee on Railway Bills?

The hon. Member is not entitled to put a Question to a private Member on a matter which is not on the Order Paper.

It relates to the proceedings of the House, and I warned the hon. Gentleman of my intended action four days ago.

The Question in these terms is irregular.

The hon. Gentleman is willing to answer it, I think. I thought the hon. Member might as well answer the Question to-day as to-morrow. I do not intend to drop it. I beg to give notice that I will ask my hon. friend the Member for South Westmeath and other Members of this Select Committee if, under the circumstances, they are willing to serve under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wandsworth.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that the harbour at Ness, Island of Lewis, is choked with sand, will he state whether it is proposed to take any action to render it of service to the fishermen of the district.

I have nothing to add to the reply to a similar Question given by Mr. Graham Murray on February 17th† last year.

† See (4) Debates, cxxx., 6.

Then I take it that this harbour is to remain choked up, and to-be absolutely useless for all time.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the Lewis District Committee, it was proposed that a medical officer of health should be appointed for the Island of Lewis; and, in the event of effect being given to the suggestion, will arrangements be made for the new officer to be responsible to the Local Government Board direct and not to the medical officer of health for the county.

The Board have no information of the meeting referred to and are at present awaiting the action of the district committee, with whom any arrangements regarding the appointment and its conditions primarily rest. I may further refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on February 27th, † 1905.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, seeing that the Congested Districts Board are now the constituted harbour authority of the estuary of the Cahirciveen River, they will take steps to erect perches on Leck-a-vallig and East Ballycarberry reef of rocks, so as to make the river navigable and safe for fishing and other boats.

The Congested Districts Board are recognised as a lighthouse authority for erecting and maintaining lights. The Board have undertaken to erect perches at the two places named, the county contributing a portion of the cost.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has come to a decision with reference to the scheme for the insurance of large fishing boats; and, if so, whether he can state the particulars of the scheme.

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1321.

Yes, Sir; arrangements have been completed for putting this scheme into operation. I have communicated printed particulars of the scheme to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland will he state the date on which the survey was made for the timber-pile extension of the pier at Darby's Point, Achill Island, and by whom it was made.

The survey was made by the engineer's foreman on various dates between January 17th and February 7th. The engineer's assistant also inspected the place on January 23rd.

I had a letter from the Congested Districts Board on March 7th saying their surveyor had not been there.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether police facilities will be given to the Clovenden, Loughgall (county Armagh) band to traverse the by-road leading to the county road, seeing that the only house on the by-road is that of the Catholic clergyman, and that there is no danger of a breach of the peace.

The police are of opinion that any attempt on the part of the band to proceed along the by-road in question would be calculated to provoke serious rioting and disturbance of the public peace. There is an alternative route by which the band has proceeded for some years past, and which is equally convenient. Under the circumstances the Government are unable to entertain the suggestion that the band should be allowed to traverse the road to which reference is made.

How could a disturbance occur along a road in which there is only one house?

It might arise from the assembling of a large number of people.

Would not the better way to preserve the peace be to prevent people coming into the district at all?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in a recent decision of the Sub-Commission, presided over by Mr. Crean, 25 per cent. was added to his value of a farm held by Dr. Jennings in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen on account of its proximity to the town; and, if so, whether he Will state the grounds of proximity on which this decision was based.

I have no information in this matter. Under the 38th Section of the Irish Land Act, 1903, any person aggrieved by an Order made under the Land Law Acts by a Sub-Commission may apply for a re-hearing to the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may confirm, modify, or reverse such Order.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have in any instances sanctioned the appointment by the council of any county of natives of such county as male or female agricultural or technical instructors; and, if so, if he can explain why the Department has refused to sanction such appointments when made by the County Council of Donegal.

Before the Department found it necessary to make the rule in question in 1903, certain instructors had been appointed in the counties of which they are natives; but there has been no departure from the rule since it was first inserted in the Department's schemes. The rule specially applies to agricultural schemes, and it was only adopted when the need for it had been demonstrated by experience.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a fully qualified person from Donegal was rejected simply because she was a native of the county and knew the locality?

And is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that a fully qualified person who was thus rejected had her appointment approved on several occasions by the county council?

If so, it was done under the rule I have mentioned.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to secure the reinstatement of Mr. George Ward, of Tuberheen, Dungloe, county Donegal, in the holding from which he was evicted; or, failing such reinstatement, they can hold out any prospect of settling him in another holding on any unoccupied lands in the neighbourhood.

The evicted holding is in the occupation of a new tenant. Ward has been so informed, and also that his application for reinstatement will be considered by the Commissioners should they acquire untenanted lands in the neighbourhood.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the practice has been adopted in recent years of appointing temporary medical officers to Irish prisons, instead of appointing permanent medical officers as was formerly the practice.

The arrangement referred to has been adopted in the Irish prison service in order to assimilate the system to that previously existing in the Scotch service. The question of pensions is not affected, as these officers did not devote their whole time to the service before the introduction of the change and consequently were not eligible for pensions.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Sligo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many extra King's scholars were admitted into De La Salla (Carysfort Park, Blackrock) during session 1904–5, owing to the £5, 000 voted out of Development Grant last year.

The certificate of this college has not been increased during the current session. Application was made by the principal of the college for an enlarged certificate, but the reports made to the Commissioners of National Education on the condition of the college by their chief inspectors were of such an unsatisfactory character as to preclude the Commissioners from recommending the application for sanction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a complaint as to a delay in the transit of butter, made by a Limerick merchant, on November 14th last, to the Irish Department of Agriculture was not answered until the 7th of this month; will he inquire into the cause of the delay, and take measures to prevent a recurrence of such delay in future.

The complaint referred to was made to the Department on November 14th, and on the following day the Irish railway company concerned was communicated with. The Department was not placed in possession of the final information given by the English companies until the third instant, and on the 7th the result of the inquiry was communicated to the complainant. The Department are, therefore, in no way responsible for any delay that may have occurred.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the resolution unanimously adopted by the Banbridge (county Down) Urban District Council calling for an amendment of the jurors laws in Ireland and the payment of jurors; and whether the Government intend to introduce legislation on this subject.

The resolution has been received. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the Royal Irish Constabulary has been reduced by 751 men and only two officers, and those district inspectors representing 96 men, he will see that a proportionate reduction is made in the number of officers, the cost to the country of a district inspector being five times, and of a county inspector ten times, that of an ordinary constable.

The published Estimate for the Royal Irish Constabulary shows the number in each of the ranks mentioned for which provision is proposed in the next, as compared with the current, financial year. Owing to the statutory rights of county and district inspectors the scheme of reduction cannot have a proportionately large effect on them as on the rank and file.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Treasury sanction was obtained for the increase of the maximum salary of the chief clerk of the Department of Agriculture from £700 to £850 per annum; and is he aware that while the Treasury sanction has been obtained for this and other increases of salary the Department has made unsuccessful recommendations to the Treasury for increases amounting to less than 1s. per week in the salaries of men with service under the Crown of from ten to thirteen years, whose pay is approximately £95 a year; and whether he will see that no further increase in the chief clerk's salary is proposed to the detriment of the humbler officials and until their claims have been suitably dealt with.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. There is no analogy between the case of an administrative officer of the position and standing of the chief clerk, who has completed over thirty-seven years service, and the cases of the junior clerks referred to in the Question. The latter are on the scale of salary determined by the Treasury for the grade of the service to which they belong.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the application of the rural district councillors of Kenmare for an inquiry into the death of a fever patient named Cotter, and to the charges made against the Rev. Mr. Duggan for attending the patient, although he was not a qualified medical man, he will state what steps can be taken to prevent such practices in the future; and whether, seeing that the district was rendered liable to an outbreak of fever through the action of a gentleman not medically qualified, he will see that full inquiry is made into the whole circumstances of this case.

I stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of Thursday last† that upon the information before the Local Government Board, the reverend gentleman had not contravened the law. The Board are not aware that there are any grounds for the statement in the second part of the Question. No cases of fever have been reported recently from this district other than that of the man Cotter.

What steps can be taken to prevent unqualified men in a district treating cases wrongfully, thereby creating danger of the spread of infection?

None can be taken by the Local Government Board if the law is not broken.

† See page 928.

Can the Crown take steps?

There is no crime alleged in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland in refusing to register the classes established by the Limerick Technical Education Committee, although repeatedly appealed to by the committee, who were willing to conform to any rules they would wish to lay down; and whether, seeing that expense has been incurred both in the matter of teaching staff and laboratory, he will ask the Pharmaceutical Society to reconsider their decision.

My attention has not been directed to the matters alleged in the Question, nor has the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction been invited to intervene in the case.

I beg, in accordance with private notice, to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland: whether he can make any general statement as to the measures now in force for the relief of distress in the West of Ireland, giving, amongst other particulars, the names of counties which have adopted Clause 13 of the Local Government Act; the names of unions which have adopted Clause 13; the number and nature of the works sanctioned in each union which has adopted Clause 13, and the number sanctioned for employment in each electoral division; and the conditions under which the guardians have been; allowed to employ men on works sanctioned under Clause 13.

The counties which have adopted Clause 13 are Galway, Mayo, and Cavan. The unions which have adopted the clause are Bawnboy, county Cavan; Oughterard, Galway, Clifden, county Galway; Swineford, Westport and Belmullet, county Mayo. The number of divisions for which works have been started is as follows:—In Bawnboy Union, 6; in Oughterard Union, 11; in Clifden Union, 9; in Galway Union, not yet stated; in Swineford Union, 15; in Westport Union, 6; in Belmullet Union, 15; The works consist of road construction and repairs, road fencing, clearing drains, etc. The numbers relieved by the operation of Section 13, apart from ordinary outdoor relief, according to the returns received last week were, in Bawnboy Union, 1, 099 persons; Belmullet Union, 1, 148 persons; Oughterard Union, 1, 781 persons. Works were only opened recently in Swineford and Clifden Unions, and information of the, numbers relieved has not yet been received. The schemes proposed in Galway Union have not so far been submitted to the Local Government Board. In reply to the concluding inquiry, each person employed is required to work for eight hours daily. The daily wage does not exceed one shilling, except in cases of very large families.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amount of expenditure, by the Board of Works on the cleaning of the mill-stream at Galway.

The Board of Works have expended nothing on the cleaning of the mill-stream at Galway, the care of which is vested in trustees by the, Act 41 and 42 Vic., cap. 212.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a complaint made by Mr. Robert Gibson, butter merchant, Limerick, as to a delay of nine days in the delivery of a box of butter sent from Limerick to Newport, Essex, by passenger train, on which the highest rate is paid; and, if so, whether he will take steps to insist on the railway companies insuring prompt delivery so that Irish produce will have a fair chance of competing with foreign produce.

No complaint has been received by the Board of Trade of the delay of the consignment of butter referred to, but they have communicated with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and learn that the delay was due to the consignment having been by mistake conveyed in the, first instance to a place named Newport other than that for which it was intended.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the latest hour for posting letters at the General Post Office, Dublin, for the North of Ireland is 6. 40 p. m., and with a late fee 7. 40 p. m. ; and, if so, whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to traders both in Dublin and the North of Ireland, he will take steps to have an alteration made in the present arrangement.

The latest hour for posting letters at the General Post Office, Dublin, for the night mail despatch to the North of Ireland is, as stated by the hon. Member, 6. 40 p. m., or with a late fee 7. 40 p. m. It would hardly be practicable with the present train service to afford any extension of time at the post office, but letters may be posted in the mail train at Amiens Street Station up to 8. 20 p. m. A letter which misses the despatch by the 8. 20 train will still be delivered in Belfast at 9. 30 next morning.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Imperial Defence Committee is of opinion that our Fleets can safeguard the United Kingdom, under all circumstances of war, against invasion by raiding or by larger forces; if not, what authoritative calculation they have arrived at of the number of troops, not liable to be serving abroad when such invasion may occur, necessary for defence.

In answer to my hon. and gallant friend I have to say that, in the opinion of the Defence Com- mittee, invasion for the purposes of conquest of these islands is an impossibility. The question of raids is a less important one, and is also a more complicated one, and I should hardly like to give an opinion on the subject by way of Question and Answer across the floor of the House; but I think I may go the length of informing my hon. and gallant friend that they are not a source of serious anxiety to His Majesty's Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to accept the figures supplied by the War Office to the Norfolk Commission?

I am afraid I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that in connection with the church dispute in Scotland the representatives of the Free Church have, in a large proportion of the cases in which Sir John Cheyne, the Government Commissioner, has issued recommendations, disregarded these recommendations, and are evicting the United Free Church ministers and congregations from the churches of which they are in possession; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the Government have learned, and learned with the very greatest regret, of the action which the Free Church of Scotland has taken in reference to one of the Commissions now sitting in respect of the ecclesiastical disputes in that country. With regard to the last clause of the Question we hope, as soon as we have received the Report of the Elgin Commission and have had time to consider it, to introduce legislation which will deal with the whole circumstances.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Estimates he proposes to take on Wednesday and Thursday, and why has he altered the arrangement made to take Supplementary Estimates to-day.

It would also be a convenience if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what will be taken on Monday?

It is quite true that I had hoped to be able to proceed with Supplementary Estimates to-day. Subsequent to the announcement which I made to that effect yesterday the adjournment was moved and the order of business was to that extent upset, and we did not make as much progress as was expected. We therefore continue discussion with Vote 1 to-day. I think it probable that on Thursday we shall go on with the Supplementary Estimates, and on Monday with the Vote on Account. As regards to-morrow, I have to give notice that I have been carefully examining the condition of Supply in reference to the legal obligation under which the Government and the House lie to deal with certain financial matters before the end of the financial year, and I have come to the conclusion that without taking special measures there is no possibility of attaining that object. I propose to move a Resolution to-morrow with the view of attaining that object. I cannot at the moment give the terms of the Resolution which I shall move, though I hope to announce them to-night before the adjournment of the House. I may say generally that the lines on which I shall proceed are those which govern the final stages of ordinary Supply.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he seriously expected yesterday to take Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in a single sitting of the House. Has he ever known such a thing?

Is the House to understand by what the right hon. Gentleman has just told it that it is proposed to suspend the 12 o'clock rule to-morrow? Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate more specifically what he means?

If I may judge from some informal interruptions, my meaning is perfectly apprehended by most of those opposite. The procedure contemplated is not precisely identical with, but is analogous to, that by which we close the annual Supply of the year.

When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put this new guillotine rule down for discussion?

I propose to put it down to-morrow for discussion.

May I ask whether the limitation of discussion to which the House is to be made to submit is not really due to the late summoning of Parliament and the late presentation of the Estimates?

That does not relate to the course of business?

May I ask whether, in view of this important announcement of a new, important, and far-reaching rule, the right hon. Gentleman does not think longer notice should be given, inasmuch as it will be impossible for hon. Members to put on the Paper the Amendments they will desire to move.

I quite understand objection being taken to the principle of the proposal I shall make, and no doubt exception will be so taken; but I do not think that longer notice is required, nor is it in accordance with the ordinary practice of this House.

There is no precedent for such a Motion at this date.

There are precedents, unfortunately, for the state of business in this House instantly requiring the taking of exceptional measures.

Not before March 31st.

If I may be allowed to say so, I have looked into this matter, and I have expressed my opinion. To-morrow I shall be glad to enter into this question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest there is a single precedent for a guillotine Resolution before March 31st.

I never suggested anything of that kind.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for putting down a Motion of this kind without an opportunity to hon. Members of moving Amendments.

Certainly there is plenty of opportunity. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this question at the proper time.

I beg to ask whether the object of bringing the guillotine into operation is to close the Parliamentary session by March 31st.

The object of the process the hon. Gentleman describes is to enable the House to obey the law of the land.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us one day's notice and allow the Resolution to be taken on Thursday.

I honestly think that the course I have suggested will be for the general convenience of the House.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Trades Unions and Trades Disputes Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wrightson, Mr. Duke, Sir William Tomlinson, Colonel Pilkington, Sir Charles Renshaw, Mr. Galloway, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Bell, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Paulton, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Randles, and Mr. Pemberton.

said that this money Vote afforded the Committee a fitting opportunity of discussing the financial aspect of the new distribution scheme which the Secretary to the Admiralty had placed before the House. They had had considerable debate as to the financial control of the House, and he would like to point out that, apart from any new measure of control, the Government were not really adhering to the ordinary rules which ought to govern the discussion of Supply. Last year they had on the Army Estimates a statement that those Estimates did not apply to the scheme then to be adopted by the War Office, and now in regard to the Navy they had Estimates which certainly had been framed in accordance with the new scheme of distribution, but they had not had from the official in charge any statement as to what reduction was due to the scheme which had been proposed by the naval authorities. If that new scheme had involved an increase of expenditure they would have had from the Admiralty a statement as to how that increase was made up, and the mere fact that the scheme showed a reduction surely was no excuse for information being withheld. He had no doubt there was a considerable saving as the result of the new proposals. They had the Estimate before them and it showed the considerable reduction as compared with last year of £3, 500, 000. Of course they had to deduct from that £1, 000, 000 which was in the Estimate of last year for the two Chilian war vessels. That reduced the net reduction to £2, 500, 000. What the House was entitled to know was what proportion of that reduction of £2, 500, 000 was due to the new scheme of redistribution. That it would amount to a considerable sum was shown by the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty issued on December 6th last. The noble Lord concluded that Memorandum by saying that the scheme would greatly increase the fighting efficiency of the Fleet, and he was happy to say would also result in very considerable economy on the Naval Estimates. Surely they were entitled to know what that "considerable economy" was. He gathered from the speech which the Prime Minister delivered in Glasgow on January 12th last, that a very large saving was anticipated, for, in speaking of the ships which were to be discarded, the right hon. Gentle- man said they had abolished 130 vessels which figured on the list of the British Navy, and in so doing had made certain economies. They had not depleted the Navy for the mere sake of saving a few hundred thousands or millions; they had not sacrificed the strength of the force on which the well-being of the country depended. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the cost of their maintenance and repairs—he did not go into figures—was very big, and that had been struck off the Navy Estimates. That went to show that, unless the Prime Minister was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, he had the figures before him, and it he had them, why should they be withheld from the Committee? They were entitled to an answer to that question. The Admiralty must have considered the financial effect of their distribution scheme before they launched it on the country, and, according to the First Lord's Statement, and according also to the statement of the Prime Minister, those figures were available. If they were not, surely it would be a most extraordinary thing on the part of the Admiralty to come to a decision in regard to a great scheme of redistribution without taking into consideration what the financial effect of their proposal was likely to be. There had been some confusion in regard to the figures connected with the scheme. The First Lord told them that 130 vessels were to be abolished, the Secretary to the Admiralty said there were to be no fewer than 160, and later on the hon. Gentleman qualified that statement by saying that only eighty-four were to go on the scrap heap for three years, and on the previous day he gave a still further qualification. Now the hon. Gentleman had been exceedingly fair to the Committee, he had given them all the information in his power, and therefore he was not to be blamed. The Department, however, was to be blamed for withholding figures, or, in the alternative, for producing a scheme of that magnitude without considering what its financial result would be. An excuse, and probably a justification, for the reduction of the Estimates was to be found in the great increase which had occurred in those Estimates in the last few years, an increase which had amounted in two years to £9, 000, 000. They had treated the Secretary to the Admiralty fairly and had admitted that, so far as the information was available, the scheme proposed was based on sound principles, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman should be equally fair to the Committee and should give them the figures on which the scheme was based, and should show what saving it was expected to effect. He told them the other day that a certain saving had been effected from the fact that they had been making up leeway, and that ships were in better repair, and that, therefore, it was possible to slacken expenditure to a certain extent. Well, a certain amount of the saving might be due to that, but he thought that before proceeding further with the discussion they ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a statement as to what was to be the economy consequent on the adoption of the distribution scheme.