Commons Sitting of 23 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable
  968
  thereto, have been complied with, viz.?—Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill do consist of three Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of the Lords. Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith, and to request that they will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of this House.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—South-Western and Isle of White Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, with an Amendment. London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; Bexhill Water and Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have agreedito—Amendments to Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [Lords]; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, containing the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges applicable to the Regents Canal." [Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Abbotts Bromley; Acrefair; Alpraham; Altarnun; Anwick; Ashopton; Ashton in Maker-field (four); Baptist Mills; Barnet; Bealbury; Beeford; Birds Royd; Billinghay; Birmingham (two); Blackburn; Blackpool (three); Blaydon on Tyne; Bolton (four); Brant Broughton; Brig-house; Bristol; Brynn (four); Builth Wells; Bunbury; Burraton; Burslem; Callington; Castle Hayes; Caterham on the Hill; Catford; Caythorpe; Cefn Mawr; Chasetown; Choppington; Coed-poeth (five); Crafthole; Cresswell; Cwm; Cwmayfiog; Devoran; Digby; Ditton; Dorrington; Driffield; Eaton; Earlestown; East Denbighshire; Ellaston; Erdington; Etruria; Exming; Falsgrave (two); Farnworth; Ffynnongwen; Fishponds; Fleetwood; Forest Gate; Fulbeck; Garton on the Wolds; Gillingham; Golberdon; Gronant; Gwaenysgor; Gwespyr; Hale Magna; Halifax (two); Heaton; Heckington; Hetton Downs; Holmbush; Horden; Hough Green; Hull (two): Hutton Cranswick; Ilford; Johnstown; Kelsall; Kentish Town; Kilkhampton; Kirby Muxloe; Landrake; Landulph; Langwith; Leadenham; Leeds; Lewisham; Lincoln (two); Littleborough; Littleworth; Llanasa; Lockington; London; Long Eaton (two); Low Fell; Lund; Maidenhead; Malvern Link (two); Manor Park; Marchington Woodlands; Marshgate; Marton; Metheringham; Mostyn; Mouldsworth; National British Women's Temperance Association; Newborough; Newbiggin by the Sea; New Brompton; North Dalton; North Frodingham; North Kyme; North Wales and Cheshire; North-wich; Osbournby; Pelton Fell; Pendleton; Penyffordd; Perranwell; Pitton; Plymouth; Polyphant; Port Clarence; Poulton le Fylde (two); Rafferton; Ranceby; Rhosllanerchgrugog; Rochester; Rushington; St. Dominic; St. Germans; St. Ive; St. Ives (Hunts.); Saltash; Sandiacre; Scarborough (two);Scopwick; Scredington; Seaton Sluice (two); Sheffield; Sleaford; Sledmere; South Gosforth; South Kyme; Springburn; Staple-ford; Stockton on Tees; Stoke Climsland; Stoke Golding; Stone; Stromness; Sydenham; Tanvats; Tarvin; Thornaby on Tees; Tibthorpe; Tideswell; Timber-land; Trebullett; Trematon; Trenavin;
  970
  Upholland; Uttoxeter; Uxbridge (two); Walbottle; Walcot; Wallsend; Warmley; Welbourn; Wellingore; Westborough; Wetwang; Whitwell; Widmore; Widnes (two); Wellington Quay; Windsor (two); and Woodlands; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Darwen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Cuck-field; Darwen; East Retford; Foleshill; and Salford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TOBACCO (RATES OF DRAWBACK).
  Copy presented, of Reports, with Minutes of Evidence, of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the Rates of Draw-back on Tobacco [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of list of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1904, and pa}'able under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of The Civil List Act, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th June, 1904, declaring that William Donelly, Leading Hand, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3192 and 3193 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  Copy presented, of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 219.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Docking (Norfolk) Workhouse—Beer Allowance for Sick Inmates.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the medical officer of the Docking (Norfolk) Board of Guardians, who has declined to accept Year 1901 the decision of the board in favour of the withdrawal of beer from the inmates of the workhouse, and to the fact that the doctor has given a fresh order for three pints of beer a day to be given to sick inmates since the order was issued; and, if so, will he state under what authority the doctor has acted; and whether the Board propose to take any, and, if any, what steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.)My attention has been drawn to the case referred to. One of the regulations in force in the Docking Union requires that the medical officer shall prescribe proper dietaries for the sick inmates of the workhouse. It is, however, provided that no allowance of fermented or spirituous liquor given by his direction to a sick inmate shall be continued for more than eight days, unless before the expiration of that period it is renewed for a further period not exceeding eight days by his direction in writing. Subject to the regulations in force, it is for the medical officer to determine the dietary of the sick inmates, and I could not undertake to interfere with his discretion in the matter.

  Statistics of Animal Disease.
  MR LAMBERT (Devonshire,: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the statistics of swine fever, anthrax, glanders, and sheep scab for the past three years; also the statistics of animal disease to the latest available date of I this year, together with corresponding totals for the past three years.
  972
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellow s.)The statistics asked for by the hon. Member are given as follows, viz.—

  Swine Fever.

  Outbreaks.

  Swine slaughtered as diseased or exposed to infection.

  Year 1901

  3,140

  15,237

  Year 1902

  1,688

  8,263

  Year 1903

  1,478

  7,933

  First 25 weeks 1901

  2,011

  9,723

  First 25 weeks1902

  836

  3,984

  First 25 weeks 1903

  840

  3,956

  First 25 weeks 1904

  762

  3,695

  Glanders (including Farcy).

  Outbreaks.

  Horses attacked.

  Year 1901

  1,347

  2,370

  Year 1902

  1,155

  2,040

  Year 1903

  1,456

  2,499

  First 25 weeks 1901

  621

  1,080

  First 25 weeks 1902

  538

  993

  First 25 weeks 1903

  655

  1,078

  First 25 weeks 1904

  725

  1,321

  Anthrax.

  Outbreaks.

  Animals attacked.

  Year 1901

  651

  971

  Year 1902

  678

  1,032

  Year 1903

  767

  1,143

  First 25 weeks 1901

  346

  494

  First 25 weeks 1902

  370

  612

  First 25 weeks 1903

  416

  649

  First 25 weeks 1904

  517

  807

  Sheep Scab.

  Outbreaks.

  Sheep attacked.

  Year 1901

  1,537

  22,764

  Year 1902

  1,664

  21,523

  Year 1903

  1,833

  24,431

  First 5 months 1901

  1,071

  15,905

  First 5 months 1902

  1,011

  12,055

  First 5 months 1903

  1,046

  12,015

  First 5 months 1904

  913

  13,249

  Expenditure in Dealing with Animal Diseases.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, what has been the amount spent for each of the last four financial years in dealing with swine fever, anthrax, glanders, and sheep scab respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.)The net expenditure incurred by the Board in respect of swine fever for each of the last four financial years has been as follows:—

  £

  1900–1

  50,722

  1901–2

  56,991

  1902–3

  45,442

  1903–4

  53,300

  The Board have incurred no expenditure specially attributable to anthrax, glanders, or sheep scab, the conduct of operations against those diseases being in the hands of local authorities, of whose expenditure the Board have no record.

  Margarine Supplied as Butter to Merchant Seamen.
  MR. GILHOOLYTo ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that sailors aboard merchant ships who sign or contract to be supplied with butter are, as a rule, supplied with margarine; and whether he will give the matter his attention.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.)Butter is not one of the articles which the Board of Trade officers have power to inspect
  974
  under Section 206 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and I am not aware to what extent, if at all, margarine is supplied in cases in which the ship's agreement provides that butter shall be given. If the terms of the agreement are broken in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, the crew would presumably have their remedy at law.

  Alleged Inaccuracies in Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland) Return.
  MR.WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Return, Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland), is inaccurate in stating that the post of medical officer for Harris was vacant only once during the seven years prior to 1903, inasmuch as the post of medical officer was vacant on two occasions for the North Harris Division and also on two occasions for the South Harris Division; and, in view of the fact that the Return contains other inaccuracies of a similar nature, will he consider the expediency of having an amended Return issued.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.)The Local Government Board for Scotland have communicated with the inspector of poor of Harris, who supplied the information given in the Return, and he states that, so far as he knows, it is not correct that the resident medical officer ship had been vacant since 20th July, 1896, in the northern division of the parish twice, and also in the southern division of the parish twice. If the hon. Member will give the dates when the vacancies are said to have occurred the Local Government Board will make further inquiry.

  Civil Service Writers promoted to Senior Assistant Clerkships,
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the number of Civil Service writers who were promoted to senior assistant clerkships under the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 10th August, 1889, giving the number in each department, and the age at which they were promoted.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.)It would be necessary to refer to over 600

  975
  sets of papers to ascertain these particulars which do not appear to be worth the trouble and expense of compilation. But I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Extension of County Courts Jurisdiction—Forthcoming Legislation.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General when the Government propose to introduce a Bill for the extension of the County Courts' jurisdiction as a supplement to the Act of 3 Edw. 7, c. 42.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.)A Bill supplementary to the Act of 3 Edw. 7, c. 42, is under consideration, and I hope that it will be introduced at an early date.

  Naas Petty Sessions—Action of Colonel Wogan Browne, J.P.
  MR.LEAMY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if Colonel Wogan Browne, J.P., one of the magistrates who had adjudicated in the case of Lane Joynt v. Tyrrell at Naas Petty Sessions, refused to take the recognisances of the defendant, who had appealed from the order made in the case, and of his sureties; and if it is the duty of a magistrate who adjudicates in a case at petty sessions to take such recognisances, and to sign the certificate of appeal if requested to sign it.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.)On Wednesday, the 15th June, the petty sessions clerk, accompanied by Mr. Tyrrell, met on the road Colonel Browne, who was driving to keep an appointment. The clerk informed Colonel Browne that they were proceeding to his residence to ask him to take Mr. Tyrrell's recognisances. Colonel Browne explained that he was pressed for time to keep an appointment, and that they should apply to Colonel Moore, who had adjudicated, but added that if Colonel Moore was not available he, Colonel Browne, would on his return later on call at the barrack and attend to the matter. Further than this no application whatever was made by Mr. Tyrrell, or his solicitor, to Colonel Browne, and the latter does not seem to have violated his duty in any respect.

  Consular Vote—Payment for Commercial Intelligence.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what person or persons receive the £2,500 taken for the collection of commercial intelligence.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.)The amount set down for this purpose in the Estimates, under Sub-head K of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, is for the salaries and office and travelling expenses of the British Commercial Agents at Moscow, Zurich, Chicago, Guatemala, and Vladivostok. The appointments are experimental.

  Delimitation of Anglo-German Boundary in Central Africa—Amount of Estimate.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the Estimate of £7,000 for the delimitation of Anglo-German boundary east and west of Lake Victoria is arrived at; and why the amount is seven times that voted last year.
  (Answered by Earl Percy)Only £499 15s. 8d. was charged to the Vote in 1903–4. The Estimate of £7,000 is based on the expenditure anticipated during 1904–5, and represents charges for the salaries of the Commissioner and his assistant, and for porters and other means of transport, besides incidental expenses.

  Post Office Officials—Date from which Seniority is reckoned.
  MR. BROADHURST: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the seniority of a new entrant into the Post Office is reckoned from the time of his entry into the office, the date of his Civil Service certificate, or from the date of his qualification in the preliminary duties required.
  (Answered Lord Stanley.)The Question of the hon. Member does not sufficiently indicate the situation to which he refers or the means by which admission is obtained, viz., whether by competition or qualifiying examination. In the case of the former, the place in the examination usually governs the seniority; in the latter, the date of taking up duty.

  Hours of Duty in Belturbet Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the male staff at Belturbet are continuously employed on attendances commencing at 5.20 a.m., the earliest of which terminates at 7.15 p.m. and the lastest at 8 p.m., a stretch of from fourteen or fifteen hours; and whether, in view of the early hour at which the men are obliged to attend and the period covered, he will inquire into the case and endeavour to effect some improvement in the attendances.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.)I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Indebtedness of Borough Councils—Basis of Calculations.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the statements of assets of the councils of boroughs in England and Wales in the recent Return of indebtedness are based on book values or on valuation surveys; and, if on book values, whether they are on any general basis as regards writing off depreciation, and providing for obsolescence; and whether in any cases the assets are valued at the original cost of the various undertakings.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.)The town clerks who furnished the particulars from which the Return was compiled were requested to state how the estimated value of the corporate property was arrived at, and the methods adopted are in most cases fully set out in column 12 of the Return. These values appear to have been based on recent special valuation in a few cases only. In some cases depreciation and obsolescence were provided for, but there was no evidence of any general method on this point. In many instances the values given seem to be the original cost of the undertakings and works.

  By-Laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet been able
  978
  to sanction and confirm further by-laws under The Employment of Children Act, 1903; what is the total number of local authorities who have submitted by-laws, and why those of the London County Council have not yet been confirmed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)As regards the first two parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave yesterday on the same subject.† As regards the last part, a draft of by-laws was submitted to me by the London County Council, and on the 15th April last I wrote a letter to the council recommending reconsideration on some points and asking for certain information. I have not as yet received any reply to that letter.

  Liability of Colonial Firms with London Agencies for Income-Tax.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a firm carrying on business in one or more places in South Africa which arranges for an agency in London to facilitate business, and to expedite the sending of machinery and goods to South Africa, thus becomes liable to pay income-tax on all or any part of its profits.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)It would depend entirely upon the character of the business entrusted to the agency. If the agency merely supervised the execution of orders issued by the firm in South Africa, it is probable that no liability would be incurred. But if it acted on its own responsibility, and entered into contracts on behalf of the firm, then liability would be incurred in respect of the profits arising on such contracts.

  Seaborne Trade of India.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state in tens of rupees the total of exports and imports of the seaborne trade of India, for three years respectively ending with 31st March, 1904, merchandise and
  † See page 825.

  979
  treasure being separately set out; also the value of rupee paper in each year enfaced for payment of interest here, and the amount of such stock returned to India.

  1901–2.

  1902–3.

  1903–4.

  Exports.

  Imports.

  Exports.

  Imports.

  Exports.

  Imports.

  Private Merchandise

  124,465,000

  81,519,000

  128,815,000

  78,788,000

  153,157,000

  84,808,000

  Government Stores

  430,000

  7,262,000

  581,000

  7,031,000

  558,000

  7,769,000

  Total Merchandise.

  124,895 000

  88,781,000

  129,396,000

  85,819,000

  153,715,000

  92,577,000

  Private Treasure

  8,463,000

  19,648,000

  8,810,000

  25,256,000

  5,980,000

  29,144,000

  Government Treasure

  3,008,000

  953,000

  848,000

  123,300

  10,292,000

  10,985,000

  Total Treasure

  11,471,000

  20,601,000

  9,658,000

  25,379,000

  16,272,000

  40,129,000

  Grand Total

  136,366,000

  109,382,000

  139,054,000

  111,198,000

  169,987,000

  132,706,000

  (2) Amount of rupee paper standing on the books of the Bank of England—

  Rupees.

  On 31st March, 1901

  22,10,89,500

  On 31st March, 1902

  20,33,61,200

  On 31st March, 1903

  18,68,90,500

  (3) Amount of rupee paper returned to India:—

  Rupees.

  In 1901–2

  1,77,07,200

  In 1902–3

  1,64,70,700

  In 1903–4

  1,53,11,000

  Police Force in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Commission appointed in 1902 to inquire into police administration in British India contains recommendations for the further development of the village police system; and whether, by extending the use of the village police, a saving might be effected in the cost of the higher paid branch of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)The Report contains recommendations for a further development of the village police system; but it does not appear probable that if these recommendations were adopted any saving would be effected in the cost of the regular police.

  Maintenance of Magdalene Tower, Drogheda.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Bodrick.) Rupees.
  (1)Exports and Imports in tens of rupees—
  Ireland whether he is aware that some years ago the Corporation of Drogheda granted £100 per annum to the mayor for the purpose of renovating and maintaining the Magdalene Tower, an ancient monument in Drogheda; and if he can say the total amount spent upon this object together with the number of years that has elapsed since the grant was made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)This monument is not vested in the Commissioners of the Public Works or under their guardianship. I understand that in 1891 the Corporation voted a sum of £100 a year for the purposes of maintaining the monument in good repair; but that payment of the amount has not since been made.

  Religious Meetings at Belfast Custom House Steps.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of prosecutions that have taken place because of proceedings in connection with the various religious services held at the Custom House Steps, Belfast; what has been the cost of maintaining the police force on the occasion of such meetings to protect the various sectaries against one another; whether, in view of the fact that the meetings are held on Government property and of the scenes of riot and disturbance which take place every Sunday, he will give an order to the proper authorities that collections at these meetings be disallowed

  981
  on the same grounds as they are disallowed in Hyde Park.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Fifteen such prosecutions have been instituted. The police employed on these occasions have been drawn from the local force, and no extra expense has been incurred by their employment. The collection of money in Hyde Park is prohibited by statute. I have no power to pursue a similar course at Belfast.

  Ventilation of Pressing Room at Royal Army Clothing Factory.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether complaints have been brought to the knowledge of the War Office as to the ventilation of the pressing room at the Army Clothing Factory by a private deputation to the Secretary of State and by other communications; whether the War Office were represented at the inquest on Alice wright held on Tuesday, and whether immediate steps can be taken to improve the ventilation of the two work rooms known as pressing rooms.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) No complaints of the ventilation of the pressing rooms at this factory have been brought to the knowledge of the War Office either by a private deputation or by other communications. The Department was represented at the inquest on Alice Wright by the matron of the factory. There are six pressing rooms in all, two being on the ground floor of the main factory where this woman worked. I am informed that the ventilation of these rooms is satisfactory, and no steps for its improvement are necessary.

  Long Service Medal—Claim of Squadron Sergeant-Major Styles.
  MR. PEEL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Squadron Sergeant-Major Styles, of the Bedfordshire Imperial Yeomanry, who has served for seventeen years in the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Bedfordshire Regiment, and for throe years in the Yeomanry, and has been efficient for twenty years, was refused a long service medal, he will consider the advantage of having a long service medal for Militia and Yeomanry, and of allowing a man to claim the medal,
  982
  although his years of service have not been, all passed in the same branch of the Auxiliary Forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The question of the grant of a long service medal to Militia and Yeomanry and the further point of the manner of reckoning service in the Auxiliary Forces for such medal is now being considered.

  Reference Libraries for Military Station Messes.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the supply of standard military books of reference and history to military station messes; and whether, in order to reduce the expenses of officers, the War Office will provide a small military library in all such establishments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Before embarking on the general expenditure involved in such a scheme it was decided to start four libraries in officers' messes for the four infantry regiments quartered at Bordon. These libraries have been duly supplied with books, and a report on the working of the scheme will be furnished in the course of the year by the General Officer Commanding.

  Officers' Musketry Course—Payment of Travelling Expenses.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that all young officers of the Army serving abroad or at home are required to hold musketry certificates before being promoted, and for this purpose are obliged to go to the School of Musketry at Hythe, whether he will consider the advisability of the expenses of the journey to and from that place being paid by the Government, as formerly, instead of by the officers themselves, as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) Officers serving at home are allowed travelling expenses for attendance at one course at the school at Hythe. I Officers serving abroad as a rule attend courses when on leave at home. There are, however, schools in India and South Africa, and a limited number of officers from Hong-Kong, Ceylon, and Singapore

  983
  are allowed to go to the India schools. Officers abroad who do not attend the schools in India or South Africa, and who do not attend the School of Musketry, Hythe, when on leave, are required to pay their own passages home when no public opportunity is available.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Vacant Staff Appointments at the War Office.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say how soon it may be expected that the large number of staff appointments now vacant at the War Office will be filled, and when the officers already appointed to the staff of the War Office now receiving regimental pay only will receive the staff pay to which they are entitled.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTEE,: I am glad to state that these appointments will be filled up at a very early date, but I regret that at the present time I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member any further information.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I presume that the officers who have been put to these duties on regimental pay only will receive back pay from the time they started.

    The Second Army Corps.
    MR. WALTER PALMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to remove the headquarters of the 2nd Army Corps, or any part of the clerical staff, from Salisbury to Southampton.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole question of the distribution of the new commands is still under consideration. I may say, however, that the removal of the headquarters of the 2nd Army Corps to Southampton is not contemplated.

    Soldiers and the Harvest.
    MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
    984
    War whether an officer commanding a regimental district or depot in the United Kingdom may allow soldiers under his command to engage themselves to undertake harvest work upon terms and conditions approved by him; and, if so, whether, in districts where harvest labour is scarce, the readiness to assist agriculturists in this manner might be made publicly known.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Under paragraph 160 King's Regulations, general officers commanding are given power to use their discretion in allowing soldiers to be employed in the harvest work provided the employment of the population is not thereby interfered with. This regulation has been in force for some years and there is no apparent reason to suppose that it is not generally known.

    Admiralty Yacht "Enchantress.'
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, did the Director of Naval Construction or did the Engineer-in-Chief of the Admiralty examine and report upon the various tenders and designs which were under consideration for the building of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; and, if not, who did examine them; who is responsible for advising the adoption of the design finally adopted; seeing that the metacentric height of the "Enchantress" is still stated to be sixteen inches, can he state why it was necessary to put 200 tons of ballast into the vessel; what was her draught of water after that ballast was put in; and what was the difference, if any, between that draught and the draught stipulated by the Admiralty.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk,: The answer to the first Question is yes; but the examination was limited to ascertaining whether the general arrangements and accommodation were satisfactory and a comparison of the qualities of speed, radius of action, stability, etc., guaranteed by the several contractors. The Admi alty could take no responsibility for these qualities in a vessel wholly designed and built by a private firm. The conditions were the

    985
    same as those under which all the torpedo-boat destroyers have been built. The answer to the second Question is, the Controller of the Navy on the usual reports of the technical advisers. The 200 tons of ballast are required to obtain the guaranteed metacentric height in the light condition. The permanant ballast has not yet been put on board. The amount may probably be reduced to 100 tons, this will give the vessel an additional immersion of about five inches.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether he was to understand that the examination was limited to the question of accommodation.
    MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir, I said it was limited to the general arrangements and accommodation, and a comparison of qualities of speed, radius of action, stability, etc., guaranteed by the several contractors.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether this was the vessel in which the Lords of the Admirality, having made one trip, were afraid to go to sea in because of her evil behaviour.
    MR. PRETYMANwas understood to stay that what happened was this. The ship had to proceed to Queenstown. The water ballast was put in too far forward and the vessel shipped a good deal of water at the head in heavy seas. When, however, the ballast was put back and the vessel was properly trimmed, she proceeded to sea the next morning and behaved extremely well.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But the First Lord was afraid to go to sea in her.

    Resignation of Sir Charles Eliot.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the resignation of Sir Charles Eliot of his position under the Crown in East Africa was on account of ill-health or difference of opinion with the Government on its policy in East Africa.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRD (Earl PERCY,: As I stated in the
    986
    course of the debate on Monday, Sir Charles Eliot's resignation is due to a difference of opinion between him and the Government, arising out of their refusal to grant leases of land within a certain area in the province of Naivasha pending a final decision on the question of a native reserve.
    MR. BAYLEY: Might I ask the noble Lord whether he will, before the grant is given, let the House have an opportunity of seeing what the grant is.
    EARL PERCY: What grant?
    MR. BAYLEY: The grant of territory which is to be given to certain concessionaires out there.
    EARL PERCY: I think that the lion. Gentleman is referring to the lease of land that is to be granted to the Jewish Syndicate which is in a different part of the country.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I think, Sir, the noble Lord referred to a difference of opinion with the Government arising out of a refusal to grant leases of land. I think that my hon. friend desires to know what those grants are before they are granted.
    EARL PERCY: They are grants of leases to private persons.

    Chinese Labour and Beriberi.
    MR. JOHNSON: I to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disease beriberi appeared among the Chinese coolies brought from Hong-Kong to Durban; if so, how many suffered from this disease and how many died from it; whether the coolies were medically examined before embarking; and if he can state to what cause the outbreak is attributed.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,: I have no official information, but, as I stated yesterday, I have telegraphed to Lord miler on the subject. The coolies were medically examined before embarking. I am making inquiry as to the cause to which the reported outbreak is attributed.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the right hon. Member state the date of the telegram.
    MR. JOHNSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he first telegraphed to Lord Milner.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say, I think the day before yesterday.

    Licensed British-Indian Traders in South Africa.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir Arthur Lawley stated, in reply to an address presented to him at Heidelberg, by a deputation of British-Indian residents, on the 18th May last, that the liberty of licensed traders to carry on business outside locations, declared by the Supreme Court in the test case of Habob Motan v. the Transvaal Government to be legal, will not be tolerated, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had already been approached with a view to sanctioning legislation to annul the decision; and, if so, whether, in case he is so approached, he will refuse to countenance any such legislation, in view of the pledges repeatedly given by Lord Milner that existing rights will not be interfered with.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen a newspaper report of Sir Arthur Lawley's reply to the address presented to him at Heidelberg in which he referred to the question of the introduction of legislation with regard to Asiatic residents in the Transvaal. Such legislation will, of course, be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and in dealing with the question I shall have specially in mind the safeguarding of the interests of British-Indians now settled in the Transvaal. I am in communication with Lord Milner on the subject.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman addressed any request, or will he do so, to Sir Arthur Lawley to ascertain whether he did make this outrageous declaration? Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to verify
    988
    the truth, or the contrary, of the newspaper report.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Yes.

    Chinese Labour for the Transvaal.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the coolie steamer "Tweedale," on arrival in Durban Harbour, was guarded by armed police boats; whether the wharves where the Chinese coolies landed were surrounded by armed police; whether the coolies are to be taken up the Rand in locked railway carriages, and whether, before their departure, their photographs and finger prints are to be taken for purposes of identification; whether these precautions are taken to prevent the escape of the coolies, and to ensure that they are not brought into contact with the colonists; and whether such precautionary action has ever been taken in the case of the arrival of coolies at British Guiana or Trinidad.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not received any official information on the subject, but I think it not unlikely that precautions were taken to prevent an evasion of the Natal Immigration Acts. I will ask for a report on the proceedings and the reasons for them. I am not aware that similar measures have been taken in British Guiana or Trinidad. I presume the hon. Member is aware coolies landing in British Guiana or Trinidad are not in transit to their destination through a colony in which they would not be allowed to remain.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that answer, whether there is any authority for taking photographs and finger prints of these coolies for the purposes of identification, and whether the coolies will be informed that it is not lawful to do so.
    MR. LYTTELTON: It will be better to ascertain the facts before I give any hypothetical reply.

    Transvaal Government Loan.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the purposes to which

    989
    the £5,000,000, now being borrowed by the Transvaal Government, are to be devoted, and how much money is to be spent on each specific object in view.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The £5,000,000 now being borrowed are required, in addition to the £30,000,000 raised last year, for the purposes set forth in the schedule to the South African Loan and War Contribution Act, 1903, which gives the amount under each head of expenditure.
    MR. WHITLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the amount of that schedule has not been varied.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Statements will be laid this week on the subject.
    MR. WHITLEY: But the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. friend was to refer him to the schedule? I ask whether we can take it that the figures in that Schedule have not varied in the meantime.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I must have notice.

    The Gold Mine Profit Tax in the Transvaal.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount received by the Transvaal Treasury from the gold mines profit tax during the year 1903, and the amount saved by the mines by reduced cost of dynamite in the same period.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The receipts during the calendar year were £162,573. I understand that the reduction of the cost of dynamite, as compared with prices in 1899, is considerable, but I am not in a position to say what amount was saved by the mines in the year 1903, nor does the hon. Member make it clear with what year he desires a comparison to be made.
    MR. WHITLEY: I purposely put it in that way in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to take any complete year he liked in both cases. Might I ask further whether the saving on account of dynamite was not greater than the total receipts of the tax.
    MR. LYTTELTON: If the hon. Member will put down a general Question I will endeavour to answer it.

    The Transvaal Guaranteed Loan
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will withhold the payment of the remaining £5,000,000 of the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan until he has received the first instalment of the War Contribution, which was to have been paid in January last.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: No, Sir; I am not prepared to act on that suggestion.
    MR. WHITLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pay over this sum of £5,000,000 without any understanding with regard to the £10,000,000 which is now six months overdue.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is no reason to vary the understanding with regard to the £10,000,000.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two transactions are part of one arrangement?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is arguing the question. The Question on the Paper has been answered.

    "The Times" in Government Departments.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the manager of The Times, in the issue of The Times of 11th June states he had received an order from one Government Department for forty copies of The Times daily for twelve months for the sum of £120 per annum, he will say if free copies of The Times are provided for the use of all Government Departments; and, if so, what is the total amount annually voted for this purpose.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: Copies of The Times are required in most public Departments, but I cannot state the total cost of supply without inquiry. I will make inquiry into the statement that as

    991
    many as forty copies are supplied to a single Department.
    MR. MARKHAM: Will the hon. Member say under what Vote these papers are taken?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will all these officials who are supplied with copies of The Times be also supplied with copies of "The Life and Times of Piggott?"
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The amount is charged against the Vote for the incidental expenses of the Department concerned.

    Burglary at Golden Sub-post Office, County Tipperary.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Golden, county Tipperary, sub-post office was forcibly entered, and a considerable sum of money stolen therefrom, on the night of the 13th instant; and whether, in view of this and cases of a similar character, he can see his way to providing sub-offices with suitable safes.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am aware that the office in question was recently forcibly entered and that a small sum of money was stolen. The matter is being investigated by the police. At offices of the class of Golden a safe is not generally needed, but if one be really necessary it should be provided by the sub-postmaster, whose salary and commissions are fixed on the understanding that he will arrange for the proper custody of official money.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any clue has as yet been obtained to lead to the detection of the burglars who forcibly entered and took a considerable sum of money from the Golden, county Tipperary, sub-post office on the night of the 13th instant; whether the police patrolled the streets that night and at what hours; or whether the police were engaged at that time, under orders, patrolling the river banks acting in the capacity of water bailiffs.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No clue has yet been obtained to the perpetrators of the outrage. The case is still under investigation. The police were on duty in the streets at various hours during the night. They do not act in the capacity of water bailiffs.

    Porterage on Telegrams to Irishtown, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for a number of years telegrams have been delivered free at Irishtown, county Mayo, as it is well within the three mile limit, and that recently a charge of one shilling each has been made for the delivery of telegrams in that place; and, if so, will he say what is the reason for the charge and will it be discontinued.
    LORD STANLEY: I have not heard, but I will inquire.

    Commercial Missions to Germany and the United States.
    MR. GUEST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to extend the principle of commercial missions which has been adopted in the case of Persia and South Africa by sending similar missions to Germany and the United States, with the special object of furnishing expert reports on new or improved methods of manufacture and machinery adopted in those countries.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I will communicate this suggestion to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence which deals with commercial missions. The hon. Member will, however, understand that an inquiry such as he proposes into improved methods of manufacture in highly developed commercial countries is a very difficult matter, requiring special expert knowledge with regard to each industry investigated.

    Protection of Live Bails on Electric Railways.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements are being

    993
    made to protect the public and railway servants from contact with live rails between platforms at stations where electric trains stop or pass through.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that on most railways which are being worked electrically the live rail is guarded where it passes through stations. Inquiries have been ordered into two recent accidents arising from electrical working, and when the reports of these inquiries are received the question of the precautions to be taken will be considered.
    MR. RENWICK: Might I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I can give him the names of certain lines on which in many important places live rails are unprotected. It is an extremely important question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take notice of it.

    Steamboats Racing on the River.
    SIR HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the captains of pleasure steamers plying from the Thames to seaside resorts on the East and South Coasts frequently race their boats against each other causing great risk to life; and, if so, if he will take steps to put a stop to this dangerous practice.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No complaints as to racing on the part of the Thames steamers referred to by my hon. friend have been recently received by the Board of Trade, but my attention has been called to allegations in the Press on the subject, and to these attention is being given. Whenever any such complaints have been received in past years, action has been at once taken with a view to putting a stop to this dangerous practice.

    The Publication of Convictions.
    MR. MARKKAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a large placard posted on the stations of the South Eastern and Chatham Railways giving the names and addresses of seventeen persons convicted in the Police Courts during the month of March, 1904, for trespassing and travelling without tickets on the lines of these companies; and whether, seeing these persons have been
    994
    punished for their offences, he will advise these railway companies to discontinue the practice of inflicting further punishment on persons who have purged their offences in Courts of justice, and, failing a satisfactory reply, will he introduce legislation to render illegal such action by railway companies.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Railway companies adopting the action referred to by the hon. Member do so on their own responsibility. I am not prepared to intervene in the matter.

    Turbine Engines on Cunard Steamships built with Government Money.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the fact that the committee appointed by the Cunard Steamship Company, on which representatives of the Board of Trade sat, to report on the relative merits of reciprocating and turbine engines, recommended the use of turbine engines for the two steamships to be built by public money will, by reason of such Government officials recommending turbine engines, absolve the Cunard Company from liability if the ships when built are unable to maintain the contract average speed of 25 knots; and will he say what steps ho proposes to take to safeguard the repayment to the Exchequer of the £2,000,000 granted for the building of these ships if the contract speed is not obtained; and what guarantee, if any, has been obtained to meet this end.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No representative of the Board of Trade sat on the committee referred to. The fact of the committee having been appointed by the Cunard Company in no way absolves the company from liability. The repayment of the loan to the Exchequer is safeguarded by Clause 10 of the Agreement which was laid on the Table of the House.

    South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the rates charged the public by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies since the amalgamation of these companies are considerably higher than those charged by the Northern lines, that the rolling

    995
    stock is generally antiquated, the trains are overcrowded and unpunctual, and that many of the stations are old wooden erections without any proper protection for the travelling public against bad weather, he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown with a view of taking action against these companies to compel them to carry out their statutory obligations; and will he make representations to them against the excessive rates.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that the rates charged by the South Eastern and Chatham Company exceed either the maximum powers which have been given them by Parliament or the actual rates charged prior to the amalgamation. If traders desire to make specific complaints as to rates the Board of Trade will be happy to consider them under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. With regard to the remainder of the hon. Member's Question I do not know to what statutory obligations he refers. So far as the general condition of the railway is concerned I believe it to be common knowledge that the company has recently expended large sums of money on improvements to the line.

    English Proof Marks on Foreign Made Barrels and Firearms.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the practice of the English proof houses, both in Birmingham and in London, of proof marking foreign-made barrels and firearms with the same proof marks as those put upon British made barrels and firearms; and to the fact that this practice is taken advantage of by importers and Continental makers to send their goods to the English proof houses instead of to the proof houses in the countries of origin for the purpose of obtaining English proof marks and thereby passing off the goods so marked as of British make; and, if so, what steps do His Majesty s Government propose to take to prevent the deception.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question raised by my right hon. friend is one of considerable difficulty. A conference representing the various branches of the trade was recently held under the
    996
    presidency of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to consider whether a remedy for the grievance referred to should be provided by a change in the regulations applying to British proof houses. No agreement, however, was reached, and the proposed new rule was ultimately withdrawn. I am afraid I cannot promise any further action at present.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Arising out of that Question, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there are two branches. The one branch, which is in favour of the present state of things, is composed of gun dealers, who do not care where the guns are made; the other is composed of working men who suffer from the competition.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of guns and barrels used by the Government themselves are made abroad?

    Smallpox in North Staffordshire.
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the renewed outbreak of smallpox in North Staffordshire; and if he can state what provision has been made for hospital accommodation by the local authorities, and what steps the Local Government Hoard propose to take to deal with the epidemic.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,: I am aware that an outbreak of smallpox has occurred in the Leek Urban District, and in connection with it I have sent a medical inspector to visit the locality and have received a report from him on the subject. Leek is included in the district of the North Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital Board, and up to the date of the Inspector's report at the end of last week-all the cases of smallpox had been removed to the temporary hospital provided by that board. Further and better hospital accommodation seems to be required. I have already sanctioned the borrowing of money by the Hospital Board for this purpose. I am pressing

    997
    upon them to proceed with the works, and also to consider whether even further provision may not be needed.

    Municipal Trading Accounts.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in accordance with the recommendation contained in Clause 9 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading, lie has invited a conference of representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants of England and Wales, the Society of Accountants, Edinburgh, and the Scottish Institute of Accountants, Glasgow, to discuss the question of prescribing a standard form of keeping accounts for all municipal or other local authorities as therein set forth; or whether he has otherwise entered into communication with the various bodies mentioned in the clause; and, if such conference has not been convened or communication taken place as to its being convened, when such conference will be convened, or what other steps will be taken to obtain a standard form of accounts.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have received communications from some of the bodies mentioned in the Question offering to co-operate in the consideration of this matter. No conference has taken place; but I have been giving attention to the practicability of a standard form of accounts of local authorities being prescribed, and I am disposed to think that the best course will be to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the system upon which the accounts should be kept.

    Applications for Land Sales in county Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases applications for sale of estates to their tenants in county Longford have been lodged with the Land Commission; and will a Return be panted of these applications.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Return recently laid by me on the Table of the House [No. 181] gives this information in respect of the six months ended 30th April.

    Colonel White's Estate, County Clare.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when estates are sold in the Land Court under the Act of 1903, the I Commissioners may sanction the sale though part of the property is left unsold; and whether the unsold land, as in the case of Colonel White's estate in Clare, is treated as a separate estate; and, if so, under what provisions of the Act it can be so treated; and, if such unsold land was held by an evicted tenant, what steps do the Commissioners propose taking to have him restored to his holding.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners may offer to purchase a portion of the property for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and may declare it to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Act. The unsold portion may be purchased subsequently as another separate estate. Any application by an evicted tenant for restoration to his former holding would be duly considered by the Estates Commissioners before deciding to offer a portion only of a property for sale in the Land Judge's Court.

    Lord Oranmore's Estate, County Mayo
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Lord Oranmore is charging his tenants, who live on small and uneconomic holdings at Ballindine, county Mayo, 50s. an acre for accommodation lands I which are used for the purpose of grazing a cow in each case, and which are valued at about 6s. an acre, and that he has let more of his lands which are better in quality to graziers at 40 per cent, less than he has charged the small tenants; and, in view of the price at which he has offered to sell the unproductive small holdings to his tenants, whether the Estates Commissioners will refuse to make an advance unless he sells that portion of his estate which could be used for increasing the size of the holdings of these tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been made to the Commissioners for the sale of this estate or any portion of it. The circumstances of the tenants will he fully considered in the event of such an application, but obviously the Commissioners cannot say in anticipation whether they will sanction, or refuse to sanction, an advance.

    Major Hely's Estate.
    MB. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Major Hely, of Foulk's Court, Johnstown, county Kilkenny, has sold the Ballyonskill, Queen's county, portion of his estate to his tenants at twenty years purchase and refuses to sell the Foulk's Court portion at the same price, though the land is of bad quality; and that he has seized on the cattle of several tenants on the latter portion of his estate, and served ejectment processes on others, and that at the same time he is negotiating the sale of Foulk's Court demesne to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether, under the circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will consider it advisable to purchase his mansion and demesne.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Agreements for purchase comprising the lands referred to have been lodged with the Commissioners (the average number of years purchase of the rent being 21·2), and, subject to the result of further inquiries, they have provisionally declared that these lands may be regarded as an estate. The vendor also proposed to re-purchase his demesne, but no order has yet been made on this application. The lands adjoining the demesne were not included in the originating application as part of the estate which the vendor contemplated selling.

    Future Tenants in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention to introduce legislation by which future tenants in Ireland who now pay over 40 per cent, more rent than their neighbours may be enabled to go into the Land Courts, particularly on estates
    1000
    where the tenants have expressed their willingness to purchase and the landlords have refused to sell on reasonable terms.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, it is not my intention to introduce such legislation.

    Sales of Land in Ballinrobe Union, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any sales of estates have taken place, under the Land Act of 1903, in Ballin-robe Union, county Mayo; and, if so, how many, and what was the average number of years purchase given.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No sales have yet taken place in this union.

    Colonel Browne's Estate, County Dublin.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Colonel Browne, Monkstown, county Dublin, has offered to sell his estate situate at Ballindine, county Mayo, to his tenants at twenty six and a quarter years purchase first-term rents; that he has refused to let them grass for their cows, which they had been in the habit of getting for many years, because they refused to pay him that price; that he offered thirty-six acres of grass lands to be divided amongst twenty-three tenants whose holdings are small and uneconomic; that he refused any of the grass land to one tenant, who has served him with an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed, because he is availing himself of the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, although other tenants on the same estate received a reduction of 40 per. cent, off first-term rents; and whether he will direct a prosecution against Colonel Browne for intimidation with a view to preventing his tenants from seeking the protection of the law.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The action attributed to Colonel Browne, of which I have no knowledge, seems by the description in the Question to have been within his legal rights. No crime was committed and no I prosecution will be instituted.

    Natural History Museum, Dublin—Increase of Staff.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give any assurance that, in preparing the Estimates for next year, provision will be made for an increase of the staff in the Natural History Museum of Dublin, in view of the representations which have already been made, and of the arrears into which the work of classifying and arranging recent acquisitions has fallen.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the sufficiency of the Museum staff has been investigated by the Department, which will shortly submit its proposals in the matter to the Treasury for consideration. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that until the decision of the Treasury has been taken I cannot make any announcement in the matter.

    The Case of Constable Anderson.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that John Higgins, a witness at the Court of Inquiry against Constable Anderson, swore that Father Denis O'Hara sent for him and instructed him what he would have to prove against Anderson; and, if so, what action, if any, did the Court of Inquiry take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The witness remembered making a statement to District Inspector Shankey on the 15th August in the presence of Father O'Hara and Sergeant Keegan; that Father O'Hara sent for and spoke to him on the subject a short time before, and told him he would have to prove this against the policeman. No action was taken in the matter by the Court of Inquiry; its function was to elicit facts.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that without smiling?

    Police Visits in County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many police stations, including police huts and protection posts, have been closed in the Newmarket, county Cork, police district
    1002
    within the past three years; is he aware that police constables have orders to visit certain houses in the district, and that subsequently these houses are visited by a sergeant or other superior officer to inquire if the constables have made these visits; and, if so, what explanation of these occurrences can be given by the Constabulary authorities.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Three stations were discontinued in the past three years. It is one of the fundamental duties of a constable in every police force to inspire the community with confidence in his vigilant guardianship of person and property. As a means to this end the police in rural districts occasionally call at houses and inquire if the occupants have any complaints. These visits are not resented. The police are not instructed to visit particular houses. No inquiries of the character mentioned are subsequently made by a superior officer.
    MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those visits were of an inquisitorial or social character?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Of an inquiring but not of an inquisitorial character.

    Atnell Estate, County Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Atnell Estate, county Tyrone, came to an agreement in January last with the receiver (C. E. Fair) for the purchase of their holdings at Sheskinspull at a reduction of 25 per cent, off the existing rents; and if he can explain why Mr. Fair, acting for the Lord Chancellor, is now threatening legal proceedings to recover the rent due last November, and ignoring the agreement to which he was a consenting party.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that a receiver has no power to enter into agreements with tenants as to the purchase of their holdings, and that Mr. Fair did not purport to enter into any such agreement. The proposals made by the tenants were considered inadequate by those representing the estate, and have not been accepted.

    National Schools at Rathview, Dundalk,
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the national school in which Mr. Denis Lavelle, Rathview, Dundalk, teaches, was built by himself at a cost of £350; and that he was not refunded any of this when he was compelled to assign his interest to trustees; and, if so, whether special inquiry will be made into this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have received a Report in this matter, but as it does not deal in sufficient detail with the facts, I have called for further and fuller information. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Tuesday next.

    Ringrove National School.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Ringrove National School, Castlepark, Kinsale, was closed owing to epidemic by the order of Dr. Browne, Local Government Board inspector, from 5th November, 1903, to 31st December, 1903, and that, in spite of this fact, salary was only paid for 54 out of the 92 days of the quarter; and, if so, whether under these circumstances the salary which has been withheld will be immediately paid.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners are not aware that the school was closed by order of the Local Government Board inspector. They will give further consideration to the case of the teachers of the school.

    Irish Fair Rent Appeals in Killarney.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Head Land Commissioner will sit in Killarney this year to hear appeals; and, if so, when, and why is it that appeal cases heard June, 1903, are not listed for this year.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that it is improbable the Land Commissioners will be able to hold a sitting for the hearing of fair rent appeals at Killarney before the end of the present year. It has not been found possible to arrange
    1004
    for the holding of more frequent sittings of the Appeal Court at Killarney, having regard to the claims of other districts, and to the large number of fair rent appeals awaiting hearing from the several counties in Ireland.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. CDLLINAN: I beg to ask tin Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary force are compelled to devote the greater part of their time to patrolling river banks and game preserves, rather than to looking after the interests of the general community; and whether, as such a system allows freedom of action to thieves and robbers, he will consider the advisability of having it altered.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The suggestion in the first part of the Question is absolutely devoid of foundation.
    MR. CULLINAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I am personally aware of the facts, whether he will make inquiries into the fact of whether the police are on river duty?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to what I have said.

    Town Tenants in Ireland.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has recently received a resolution fro a the Macroom Town Tenants Association, making certain representations as to the necessity for legislation on their behalf; and will he state what action, if any, the Government intends to take in connection with this question.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. The Government does not propose to introduce legislation such as suggested.

    Police Arrangements in Ballingeary, County Cork.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that ten years ago, consequent upon some alleged agrarian disturbances in the district, a

    1005
    number of police were stationed in the village of Ballingeary, county Cork; that, though the original reason for their introduction no longer exists, they are still continued; will he state how many cases they had at petty sessions within the past twelve months; and whether, seeing that there is another police barrack in the same parish, will he recommend that one of them be abolished.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A police barrack was established at Ballingeary in 1894 in consequence of the commission of crime and of the necessity for affording special protection to certain persons. This necessity happily no longer exists, but in the opinion of the local responsible authorities the station is still required for general police purposes in the district. There were eleven cases from the village tried at petty sessions during the past year.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenant on the Warden Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a fine of £100 has been paid by ex-Head Constable O'Sullivan for the farm on the Warden Estate, Sneem, county Kerry, from which Mrs. Currane was evicted; and whether, in view of the fact that the evicted tenant had previously lodged her application for reinstatement with the Estates Commissioners and has now returned from America in the expectation of being reinstated, steps will be taken to procure her reinstatement.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to say whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. I have already said that an application for reinstatement has been received in this case and will be considered in due course by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BOLAND: Has the right hon. Gentleman directed an inquiry of the landlords?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have stated that the case will be considered. It is not my business to address inquiries to landlords.
    MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a case of land grabbing on the part of a police constable?

    Trinity College Lands Commission.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the object for which the Viceregal Commission has been appointed in connection with Trinity College lands; and how are the tenants concerned to secure the presentation of their views before the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The objects of the inquiry are set out in the Warrant appointing the Commission, which has been widely published in the Press. The Commissioners are authorised to examine all persons whom they shall consider to be possessed of information on the subject. The procedure to be followed will be that usually adopted on the occasion of such Commissions.
    MR. MURPHY: I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell me the real meaning 'of this.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will carry his memory back to the time when the Committee was appointed, he will remember that the suggestion came from the other side of the House.
    MR. REDDY: Was it a shelving Commission?

    Piers in the Dingle Union.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to inquire into and report on the needs for better piers for the fishermen at Ballydavid, Smerwick, and Brandon Creek.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question on the 11th May by the hon. Member for West Kerry, † except that the slip at Smerwick will be commenced by the Board in the course of the present year.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether,
    †See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 1023.

    1007
    having regard to the position of the local fishermen employed in that part, he will reconsider his reply?
    MR.WYNDHAM: I have said I cannot reconsider my reply. There are other interests as well as those of the fishermen to be considered.

    Construction of Pier at Minard.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Ventry refuses to allow the Kerry Council and the Agricultural Department to construct a pier at Minard, which is urgently needed by the fishermen of the district; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department promised to make a contribution towards the cost of erection of a slip at this place, but it has no information of Lord Ventry's alleged action in the matter.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: As Lord Ventry has refused, will the right hon. Gentleman take any further action?
    ME. WYNDHAM: Neither I nor any one in this House has any power to order persons to part with their property if they do not wish to.

    Boys' National School, Coalisland.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Boys' National School in Coalisland is unsuitable in size and structure for the efficient instruction of the increasing average attendance, and that the parish priest and manager obtained a site, submitted plans, and made an application to the Commissioners for a building grant over four years ago; and, if so, whether he can explain the cause of the Board's delay in sanctioning the grant.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have requested the manager of the school to state if he is prepared to proceed with the building of the school under the old regulations, and should he elect to do so the case will be considered accordingly.

    Lord Shaftesbury's Visits to county Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how often Lord Shaftesbury visited the county of Kerry since his ap-appointment on the Congested Districts Board; what was the date of his last visit to the county; and did he on any visit or by other methods ever seek or obtain the opinions of the county council and other representative bodies in an official manner in reference to the problems to be dealt with and the methods, to be applied.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Lord Shaftesbury made two visits to Kerry in 1902; two in 1903, and one during the present year, in February. He was accompanied on the last occasion by the Board's Chief Inspector, Mr. Doran. In the course of his visits he has come into contact with most of the parish priests and a large number of county and district councillors.
    MR. MURPHY: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question as to whether Lord Shaftesbury consulted the county councils or other representatives in their official capacity.

    Trinity College, Dublin.
    CAPTAIN D0NELAN: On behalf of my hon. friend the Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give the Return asked for in the Order Paper this day relating to the revenues and method of government, and administration of Trinity College, Dublin.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I could not promise to give this Return until I have had a full opportunity of communicating with the authorities of Trinity College, but in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1873 there are Returns available. If the hon. Member will put his Question again, I will communicate with the authorities with regard to the revenue.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On what day may I repeat this Question on behalf of my hon. friend?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This day week I shall be pleased to deal with it.
    The Return referred to is as follows:— Trinity College, Dublin.—Return of Revenues and Statement of method of government and administration, in the following form:—

    (a) A Statement of the Revenues of the College, and of the sources from which they are derived.

    (b) As to the Fellows of the College—Their number; method of election; tenure of office; the duties and emoluments of each individual Fellow, and the sources from which those emoluments are derived; how many, and which of them, hold professorships or other offices.

    (c) As to the Professors—Their number; method of election; tenure of office; the duties and emoluments of each Professor; whence are these emoluments derived; how many, and which of them hold other collegiate offices.

    (d) A Statement of the method of government and administration of the College (distinguishing the duties of the Board and of the Academic Council) and of the number, duties, and salaries of the persons, other than servants, porters, etc., employed in the College.

    (e) A Statement giving particulars as to the four professional schools, showing—(1) The number of Professors and Teachers in each school; (2) The emoluments received by each such Professor and Teacher; (3) The fees paid in each school for professional instruction.

    (f) A statement giving particulars of the amount and employment of the Fund received as compensation for the Church livings of which the College was deprived in 1869, showing—(1) The original amount of the Fund; (2) The method of investment; (3) The employment of the interest, of the Fund; (4) The present amount of the Fund.

    (g) What provision is made for pensioning Fellows and Professors and other persons in the employment
    1010
    of the College. How many pensions have been granted since 1870. Age, employment, and cause of retirement of persons to whom such pensions have been granted. How many of such persons are now living.

    Redistribution of Seats.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give a day, before the end of the present session, for the discussion of the principles on which the Redistribution of Seats Hill of next session is to be founded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My experience is that the business of the current session is quite enough for the time of the session. I am unwilling to introduce the addition my hon. friend thinks appropriate or necessary, and he will forgive me if I cannot accede to his request.
    MR. COGHILL: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if I am to gather that the Government have no intention whatever of introducing such a Bill during the present Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any phrase or part of a phrase I may have used would give my hon. friend any foundation for that inference.

    Effective Warlike Preparations.
    MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield,: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to appoint an Inter-departmental Committee to consider the bearing of the present financial system of the country on effective warlike preparation in times of crisis and to report whether, by the establishment of a money reserve or otherwise, any changes in that system are desirable.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware my hon. friend has given much time and trouble to this subject, but technical reasons influence the Treasury and induce me to ask him to allow me to consider his request further. I will communicate with him on the subject, but I hope he will not assume that further consideration will necessarily end in a favourable reply to his Question.

    Southwark and Birmingham Bishoprics Bill.
    ME. THORNTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when it is proposed to take the Report stage of the Southwark and Birmingham Bishoprics Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to complete the remaining stages of this Bill, but my hon. friend is aware that I cannot give him any promise with regard to it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked what business would be taken on Friday and Monday.
MR. BRYCEasked whether it was intended to defer further consideration of the Scotch Education Bill until the Licensing Bill was finished. He also asked when it was proposed that the Secretary for War should make his promised statement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to observe that the session was advancing, and it would become important before long to have a discussion on the Army Estimates, for which the statement was necessary.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I differ from the right hon. Gentleman's last statement; the views of my right hon. friend do not affect the Army Estimates for the current year.
MR. BRYCE: Surely we cannot properly discuss the Estimates without knowing what the proposals for altering the existing conditions in the Army are.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked was it not a fact that Estimates had been passed on the understanding, given by the Secretary for War, that he had a plan he intended to announce?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that he could do that. But the Estimates for the year deal with the necessary Army expenditure, and that estimated expenditure cannot be affected for good or for evil by a plan for Army
1012
reform which cannot come into operation until after the period dealt with by the Estimates. Therefore, though it might be very convenient to raise the question on the Estimates, it is not necessary for the discussion of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman asks a question in reference to the Scotch Education Bill. I think it would be inconvenient to make any definite arrangement as to the exact order in which the various stages of Bills that have to be passed should be taken. That depends on considerations that are not now present to my mind or the minds of Members. I can only deal with the immediate future. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Water-ford, I had sanguinely hoped that, even; if we were not fortunate enough to finish the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last night, we at ail events should without difficulty or doubt be able to finish it on Friday; but it is evident now that I the fulfilment of such a hope is not possible, and, inasmuch as I have promised to bring on the Licensing Bill on Monday, we shall not dispose of the stage of the Finance Bill whatever plan is adopted. In the circumstances, therefore, and to meet the strongly expressed wish of a large section of the House, I propose on Friday to take the two Irish Bills upon which the hon. and learned Member I for Waterford has asked several Questions.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the: Labourers (Ireland) Bill would be taken first. It would probably occupy the whole day.
MR. BRYCEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had not answered the Question about the statement of the Secretary for War. The Army Estimates would contain a number of Votes for the salaries of officers whose offices might or might not be continued, and a discussion on these points would be useless if the offices were not to be continued in the next year. Did the Licensing Bill still stand for Monday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. I dissent entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. The Estimates will not be affected by the statement, for which I cannot now fix a day.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman says he will take the Licensing Bill on Monday. Is he then going to hang up the Finance Bill? When will it be taken again?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already said I can only deal with the business immediately before us. It is quite evident that the Finance Bill must be passed and the Licensing Bill must be passed.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLdesired a ruling from the Speaker upon a point of order which arose out of an incident on the previous day in connection with proceedure in the House. The point he desired to submit for ruling was whether a Member was in order in addressing a Question to a non-official Member of the House on a subject relating to a Motion, Bill, or other business of the House with which that non official Member was concerned. In asking for this ruling he mentioned that on the previous day Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member is now asking me to give a ruling in reference to a ruling given yesterday by the Deputy-Speaker. That cannot be done.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not intend the slightest disrespect towards the Deputy-Speaker's ruling; he was anxious for guidance in the future, fearing that a valuable right might be lost to private Members. Most respectfully he asked, and not in connection with any incident of the previous day, for a ruling on the point raised, and in doing so drew attention to the record of proceedings in the House on 29th April, 1864, from which it appeared that, in answer to Sir C. O. Loghlan, the then Speaker said:—The Rule of the House in respect to asking Questions is that any Question can be put relating to any Bill, Motion, or any other public matter relating to business of the House, and if the hon. Member is prepared to show that his Question comes within this limit he may put it, otherwise he must take the opportunity of referring to the subject in
1014
debate." He desired most respectfully to ask the Speaker's ruling on the point.
MR. SPEAKER: Of course I dissociate myself altogether from any suggestion that there is an appeal to me from any ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. In answering the Question I confine myself to stating my opinion whether the ruling given in 1864 correctly represents the present Rule of the House. I think it does. The Question must relate to some Bill, proceeding, or matter for which the hon. Member to whom the Question is addressed has responsibility. It does not follow that any Question may be asked or that it ought to be asked without notice; it may be that the Member may require notice of the Question to be given. The hon. Member will understand that I give a categorical Answer to his Question and I decline to go further.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not gather that the ruling of the Speaker was that in no circumstances could a Question be addressed to any Member without notice.
MR. SPEAKER: It is sufficient to say that the Rule is correctly stated in Sir Erskine May's work, and also, I believe, in the Manual of Procedure recently laid on the Table.
MR. CORRIE GRANTdrew attention to the fact that Question 52 on the Paper was not asked. Was that due to the fact that it had been overlooked or had the hon. Member withdrawn it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member withdrew it.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Williams Benn, esquire, for the Borough of Devonport.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
Reported, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 220.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

NEW BILL.
  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  "To amend the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1894," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; supported by Sir A. Acland-Hood; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £110,406, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid."
    MR. J. P. FARKELLsaid he rose for the purpose of drawing attention to the working of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act passed in the year 1899 for the purpose of advancing the agricultural interest in Ireland. He believed the intention of the Government also at the time was to create some new industries, or at least to protect those that remained in the country. The Board was
    1016
    to include a President, a Vice-President, and certain elected and non-elected members. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was the President of the Board created by the Act the Vice-President was really the be-all and end-all of the Department. He had no desire to make any personal attack on Sir Horace Plunkett, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought they were criticising that gentleman too strongly he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that no one could say that too much criticism had been bestowed upon the working of this Act, considering that for the last four rears it had escaped criticism altogether, although the House had voted large sums for its working. He did not doubt that this Department was set up with good intentions. He would be very slow to assume that the intentions with which it was set up were altogether bad, although they were opposed to those ideas which the Nationalist Members held, but at the same time he believed that the idea underlying the establishment of this Department was anti-Nationalist and to draw another red herring across the path of Home Rule. No one could say that the Act had not a fair trial, but so far as the result of its working was concerned it was, in his opinion a ghastly failure. The Vote for the purposes of this Act was £196,406, in addition to which the counties provided a penny rate, so that in addition to the Imperial contribution Ireland contributed a very large sum for the working of this Act—a sum of nearly £400,000 a year. Of this amount £43,402 was for salaries paid to officials; for greasing the wheels of this machine; paid to a number of people who were believed to be experts in agricultural and technical sciences but who had been far from giving value for the salaries they received.
    It might be said that because this Department was spending £400,000 a year on its work in Ireland they ought to be grateful for the sum that was spent upon this scheme, but that was not the view of the Nationalist Members. England had undertaken to rule Ireland and do everything for her which she could do for herself, and when some portion of the over-taxation which was extracted from her was given back in this way they did not look upon it as a favour. Further

    1017
    they were entitled to say the money should be spent in the way which would give the greatest benefit. He asserted that this Department was run according to the worst traditions of Castle Rule in Ireland. He had studied its work in his own bailiwick and had some personal knowledge of it, and he knew that on every occasion when the local County Committees, whether of Agricultural or Technical Instruction, with their better local knowledge of the necessities of the district, set their backs to the wall in order that certain concessions should be granted, they were told by the secretary of the Department that if they persisted in making these claims the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Grants could not be paid. He had read a book in which great claim had been made for the advance of democratic thought, but if this was a specimen of democratic management of the Department by Sir Horace Plunkett, then it would be a very good job if they had never seen the Department. Everything had been done by the people to give the Act a fair trial, but, although that was so and this Department had the assistance of all the expert local advice it could reasonably be expected to have, on every occasion that it was necessary for a committee to draw a line for themselves and not go according to the inspectors of the Department, they were threatened with these serious results unless they fell in with the wishes of the Department.
    The Agricultural Committee under this Act devoted itself to improving the breed of cattle, swine, horses. and poultry. He had it on the authority of the largest farmer in county Longford, who was chairman of the county council, that the horse breeding scheme, so far as county Longford was concerned, was the very worst that had ever been invented. It had cleared the district of a strong native stock and had resulted in a positive injury to the farmers of the district. The same might be said of the pigs. Pigs. pigs were a very important item with the small fanner in Ireland. The Department had introduced a breed of pigs—"technical pigs" they called them in Ireland—the progeny of which was better fitted for a coursing match than
    1018
    fattening for a cattle show, long thin things which never fattened and one became tired of feeding them. More important still was the evil which hid been done to the cattle; several classes of cattle had been introduced into the country not one of which had been suitable to the locality. At the end of last session political business took him to county Meath, and during his visit there he came across a large number of the grass farmers of that country, who assured him that before the institution of this blessed Department there was a good strong healthy native breed of cattle, but since the introduction of the new breeding stock the cattle had been much disimproved.
    The Act, therefore, was an absolute failure and a loss to the farmers of the country. They complained loudly that they were already taxed to the extent of 1d. in the £ for the purpose of working this Department, which, so far from being of an assistance to them, caused injury. After having done all they could during the last four years to assist the working of the Act, and to extract all the good they could get out of it, that result was very disappointing, and he considered that they were entitled to complain that they did not receive value for the money expended nor was there any likelihood of obtaining value at the hands of this Department.
    The same remark applied to the technical instruction side of the working of the Act. That was designed to give young lads and girls some training so that the eye and hand could work together and they might become something more than mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water." The complaint made with reference to this sort of instruction was that it was very good whilst it lasted but the results were not permanent. The proper facilities refused by the Department for the creation of a central school to which the best boys could be sent was the cause of this complaint. He did not like to introduce the question of sectarianism or religion in the House. Whatever the feelings of Irishmen might be towards their opponents as politicians, they had always been tolerant towards them as

    1019
    Protestants. But Sir Horace Plunkett had written a book which he regretted had ever been published. The right hon. Gentleman, whilst professing a very great interest in their moral and material welfare, had gone out of his way to insult the feelings of the people of Ireland. No doubt he had bestowed credit and blame impartially, and seemed to find salvation in no place in Ireland. As much fault was found with hon. Gentlemen from Ulster as was found with the Nationalists. But it was a different thing when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to criticise the clergy of Ireland. In the work of this Department the Catholic clergy had given the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of assistance, and they deserved better treatment at his hands. Sir Horace Plunkett said—
    "A charge of another kind has of late been brought against the Roman Catholic clergy, which has a direct bearing upon the economic aspect of this question. Although, as I read Irish history, the Roman Catholic priesthood, had, in the main, used their authority with personal disinterestedness if not always with prudence and discretion, their undoubted zeal for religion has on occasions assumed forms which enlightened Roman Catholics, including high dignitaries of that Church, think unjustifiable on economic grounds, and discourage even from a religious standpoint. Excessive and evtravagant Church building in the heart and at the expense of poor communities has been objected to on, the surely not irreligious grounds that the best monument of any clergyman's influence and earnestness must always be found in the moral character and spiritual fibre of his flock, and not in the marbles and mosaics of a gaudy edifice. If, however, in some cases the sense of proportion has been obscured by a misdirected zeal, the excesses complained of cannot be fairly judged without some reference to the past.
    This was an insult of the gravest character. The right hon. Gentleman must know that when Ireland had its own churches and when Ireland had built up a great national system of churches throughout the country, the class to which he belonged came in and confiscated it. It was an insult of the very gravest character to now taunt the people of Ireland because they were trying to undo the work of centuries of Protestant zeal and Protestant confiscation. Another passage from the book was as follows—
    "It is not alone extravagant church building, which in a country so backward as Ireland, shows the economic sense. The multiplication
    1020
    —in inverse ratio to a declining population—of costly and elaborate monastic and conventual institutions, involving what in the aggregate must be an enormous annual expenditure for maintenance, is difficult to reconcile with the known conditions of the country.
    Would it not be time to say this when the Catholics of Ireland made a protest? If the Catholic people of Ireland were willing to maintain their convents and monasteries, what had that to do with the right hon. Gentleman or with any Protestant so long as that Protestant was free and was not asked to contribute to their fund? The publication of this book was an insult to the Catholics of Ireland, and, after the help and assistance which the Catholics of Ireland had given, it was most ungrateful of the right hon. Gentleman to insult them in this unpardonable manner.
    One would imagine from reading the book that everyone was treated on a broad and liberal basis by this Department, but he would call attention to the manner in which the Catholic and Nationalist clerks were treated by permanent Government officials. He would convince hon. Members that this liberality was not so-real as it appeared. The Department was run by a great number of officials the heads of which received large salaries. Mr. Cautrell was a first-class clerk with a. salary of £850, first-class railway fares. 21s. for lodging allowance, and 7s. per day of seven hours spent away from home. He was in charge of six clerks, to whose case he (the hon. Member) desired to call attention. These clerks, who constituted the main staff of the Veterinary Department, had all been in the service at least ten years, and yet their salaries were under £90 a year each. According to a statement prepared by these gentlemen, which he would be glad to send to the Chief Secretary, they conducted the administrative work of the branch practically on their own initiative; they had repeatedly asked the Department to give them salaries at a reasonable figure, but the request had always been refused, notwithstanding the fact that inexperienced persons, generally English or Scotch non-Catholics,were constantly being brought in to do exactly the same work at three times the salary. This was the broad-minded liberal Department which was to be a substitute for Home Rule in Ireland! Moreover, these

    1021
    clerks had received an intimation from Mr. Cautrell that if they pressed their application they would be removed from the Department altogether. He submitted that it was grossly unfair that such a man, brought in and placed over the heads of others, should be permitted to address these gentlemen in such terms, or indeed to refuse the revision of their salaries at all when Sir Horace Plunkett was at the head of the Department. The clerks had endeavoured, without success, to see the chiefs of the office, and they remained with wages practically equivalent to those of day labourers.
    It would probably be said that it was very easy to criticise and condemn this or any other Department, but that they never put forward an alternative constructive policy. It was not his place to propound policies, but he might express his individual opinion. The hundreds of thousands of pounds spent by this Department had been badly spent, there was no value to show for it, and he believed there never would be. The predecessor of the present Chief Secretary, when introducing the Rill by which the Department was created, prophesied that the working of the Board would be of so beneficent a character that emigration would cease. The Board had been in existence four years, during which time 160,000 people had left the shores of Ireland. So far from anybody having been kept in the country through the work of the Board, he believed it had prepared people to seek their fortunes elsewhere. There were many ways in which the money might have been spent, with less waste on officials and more benefit to the country. If one-fourth of the amount wasted under the Act had been spent on the railway system of Ireland, the whole condition of railway transit might have been altered. Many Acts for the benefit of the labourers had been passed, but they were starved in their operation by the refusal to grant money for the relief of rates. The drainage of the country and the amelioration of the condition of the congested districts afforded great fields in which this money might have been much more usefully expended. But it all came back to the old point. The Government were ready to take the advice of everybody except the elected representatives
    1022
    of the people in preparing their measures for the Government of Ireland. The only remedy for all this maladministration, the foolish expenditure of public money, and the bolstering up of officialdom, was Home Rule. The people had the right to work these things themselves without the control of imported inspectors or of men who neither knew nor wished to know the true wishes of the people. As a protest against the working of this Act, and as an evidence of his belief in its failure, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £110,306, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Farrell.)
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)said that with reference to the particular office under discussion, he thought a great breach of faith had been committed by the Government towards the House. When the then Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in the Bill creating this office he gave a distinct pledge that the office of Vice-President should be a Parliamentary office. When Sir Horace Plunkett was first appointed, he was a Member of the House of Commons, but at the election of 1900 he lost his seat, and in view of the Chief Secretary's pledge he ought to have ceased to hold the office. Since then he had stood as a candidate for Galway, and he (the hon. Member) was bound to say that the programme put forward by Sir Horace Plunkett on that occasion made it very hard indeed for any Unionist Member to support him. He wished also to refer to the appointment of the secretary of the Department, Mr. Gill. He did not wish to say anything about the merits or demerits of Mr. Gill, as he knew nothing about him; but he did say it was extremely hard, seeing that in the year 1887 they were asked to vote for the imprisonment of Mr. Gill, that they should now be asked to express their confidence in him as the secretary of a public Department. He wished to ask how long the present state of things was to continue, and when the pledge given by the late Chief Secretary was to be redeemed.
    MR. FLYNNsaid that they had tried to give the Department

    1023
    the fullest possible chance of promoting the material and moral welfare of the people of Ireland, but it had absolutely failed, and the Department was now in a woeful state. There was not a practical man in Ireland to-day outside the small coterie of officials who had any confidence in the Department. All along the Members of the Nationalist Party had mistrusted its ability to work out the millennium or to settle for ever the great political questions upon which the people of Ireland had set their hearts. After four years experience of this Department where did they find themselves? They found that they possessed in Ireland a Department as much overmanned as any Department that ever existed in Ireland. The Board of Agriculture had secured the hearty assistance of the various localities all over Ireland, and the co-operation of the county councils and the district councils, and these public bodies had raised rates and taxed themselves to further the work of the Department. Notwithstanding all this, after four years, the only result was that everything was centralised in Dublin in the hands of a few people, who were utterly ignorant of the public opinion of the rest of Ireland. Until the recent Return was issued, few people had the faintest notion of the manner in which this Department was overmanned. In the administrative branch they had five gentlemen with large salaries and an assistant costing £5,450 a year. Now, if there was one thing which the Vice-President of that Board had pleaded for more than another it was efficiency and economy. Then there were five other gentlemen, whose salaries came to £1,220 with travelling expenses. In the agricultural branch there were fourteen inspectors and assistants, costing £3,711, and the technical instruction branch employed nineteen inspectors and assistants, at a cost of £4,060. This Department cost £190,000 and the main result of four years labour was that no man or county in Ireland was one penny the better. His hon. friend had referred to a very lamentable fact. It was thought when this Department was started and thoroughly supplied with funds that it would effect such improvements in the condition of the people that the terrible drain of emigration would have been
    1024
    decreased, but this had not been the case, for no less than 160,000 young men and women had left Ireland since this Department was established. Consequently, it had not had the slightest effect in checking emigration.
    He had heard it stated publicly by the Vice-President that in selecting gentlemen for appointments under the Board no regard was paid to nationality or creed, but it was a fact that nearly all the "plums" in regard to the chief appointments were given to gentlemen from England and Scotland, and from anywhere but Ireland, of whose experience they knew nothing. They were men of whose attainments they knew nothing, and yet they were paid those very fat salaries which they had hoped would never have been paid by the Board. In the fisheries branch there was an officer who was described as a temporary inspector, and he knew from his own knowledge that this gentleman was trained as a brewer. He believed this official had had some yachting experience but that was all. He should not have referred to this case except for the fact that he was anxious to show the system of jobbery which underlay these appointments in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had informed him that this gentleman was only appointed temporarily, but he noticed that when the Department took him over he was appointed at £500 a year. This official might be an excellent judge of porter and beer, but his knowledge of deep sea fishing was very small. He noticed in the list of officials that there was a Viscount at £250 a year. Viscount Ikerrin was appointed as an inspector in the Veterinary Department, and his qualification was that he had been the manager of an engineering firm. Therefore in Ireland they had veterinary inspectors trained in engineering works and fishery inspectors who obtained their experience in breweries.
    Referring to the technical instruction branch of the Board's work, the hon. Member said the Irish people were told that they ought to depend more on their own energies instead of eternally crying to Parliament for this grant and that subsidy. They thought that was the spirit with which this Department was

    1025
    animated. The fact, however, was that it was the most centralised Department in Ireland, with the exception, perhaps, of the Prisons Board. A congress on technical instruction was held recently in Dublin, and good friends of the Department had sturdily denounced the centralisation connected with the work of the Board. A resolution was carried urging upon the technical department of the Board of Agriculture to secure a full share of the science and art grants and expressing regret that secret and exclusive meetings should be held between the Department and the county technical officials. This referred to the extraordinary action on the part of the Department in sending out to the principal teachers what appeared to be a secret circular inviting them to attend a conference in Dublin. Great dissatisfaction had been expressed by the local bodies that with the exception of a limited number they had been ignored. At the congress in Dublin one gentleman after another got up and complained of the action of the Department in utterly ignoring the local bodies with which they were connected in the sending out of that circular to the teachers, who were employed and paid by them, inviting them to meet in secret conclave in Dublin, in order to discuss some kind of curriculum. This was not the way to develop either self-help or the energies of the Irish people.
    He wished to refer to what in the South of Ireland—which was largely agricultural—was regarded as a mistaken policy on the part of the Board. The Board seemed to distrust the system of home dairying in Ireland, and had given an unfair preference to the system of creameries. That was not the place to discuss the relative merits of home dairying and of creameries, whether proprietary or co-operative, but he might say that there were many who thought it was a misfortune for Ireland that expert skill in dairying should be lost by the people on account of the milk being sent for treatment at creameries. They held that if proper dairy arrangements were made at the farms better butter could be produced there than at the creameries. It was stated that the skim milk which was returned from the central creameries was most deleterious. One
    1026
    would have thought that, in a matter of this kind, the Board of Agriculture would have acted impartially, but they had encouraged the system of creameries, and discouraged the legitimate growth of home dairying. In a matter of this kind the Department should hold the scales fairly, and not throw in the weight of its authority and officialdom in favour of one particular class connected with the agricultural industry when there was among the people a marked division of opinion. The scheme of the Board's work had been a woeful, grievous, and disappointing failure. When it was proposed many of them looked upon it with distrust, and did not believe it was going to perform the extraordinary miracles in connection with the condition of Ireland which Sir Horace Plunkett so sanguinely predicted. It had had a fair trial. It had had the loyal and active co-operation of the best intellects of Ireland; it had secured the co-operation of the county and district councils, the clergy of all denominations, and particularly the Catholic clergy, but notwithstanding all that it had caused a woeful waste of public money. The extravagance that had marked other departments of Dublin Castle had been manifested in this Department in an alarming degree. If hon. Members from Ireland had not criticised it before it was because they wished it to have a proper trial.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid he did not wish to enter on that fertile field of criticism which was always very much before the House of Commons in connection with the administration of Irish Departments—the subject of appointments. The hon. Member had criticised the appointments made by Sir Horace Plunkett. It was not disputed, he believed, that the appointments made by that man were extremely satisfactory from the point of view of the interests of the Department and the welfare of Ireland. In the case referred to, a man had been appointed who had been an extreme political opponent of the Unionist Party. He looked at this from an English or Scotch, rather than an Irish point of view, and for his part he rejoiced to find that the Government was able to let bygones be bygones, and to appoint a man who was generally considered to be best

    1027
    fitted to do the work. The Government might have preferred some one else on account of his partisanship. It was a little characteristic of an Irish debate on the Estimates that when the hon. Member behind him sat down after criticising that appointment, an Irish Member on the other side got up and proceeded, instead of defending the appointment, to criticise the appointment on precisely opposite grounds.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he did not criticise the appointment on political grounds. It was entirely on the ground of efficiency that he protested.
    MR. ELLIOTsaid it was rather hard that they should always have disapprobation of appointments. It would be sometimes advantageous if those who approved of an appointment were to stand up for it. He wished in all seriousness to call attention to the way in which Sir Horace Plunkett's recent expression of opinion had been treated in this House by the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion. It had been the spirit of Sir Horace Plunkett for years past not to work for Ireland as a mere politician. Looking at his work from that point of view, and remembering that it was his desire to promote the welfare of Ireland generally, he should have expected to find him supported instead of being attacked by Irishmen of different creeds and of different politics. It was Sir Horace Plunkett's desire to work for Ireland as a whole, and not as a mere politician, or as the representative of one religious persuasion. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: We could do very well without him.] He had succeeded beyond his predecessors in rallying to his support those who took different views in politics. They had been able to work together on non-Party and non-political lines for the good and welfare of their country. The hon. Member for Long-ford accused Sir Horace Plunkett of having insulted the Roman Catholic religion or the priesthood. He had said things about Roman Catholics which were not dissented from by all Roman Catholics, and which were in the nature of criticism. He had made remarks of the same kind regarding the Unionist Party in Ireland which must have come
    1028
    home to some members of that Party Was it not right that he, from his great experience in Ireland, should speak out frankly and point out the defects he might find on one side or the other instead of saying, as some people did, that which was only pleasant. When he was told that Sir Horace Plunkett had made an attack on the Irish priesthood he should like to read a few words from a work by him when referring to the great services rendered to Ireland by the priesthood. He said—
    "From such study as I have been able to give to the history of their Church, I have come to the conclusion that the immense power of the Irish clergy has been singularly little abused."
    Then he went on, in the very next passage to that referred to by the hon. Member, as to the educational work done by the Christian Brothers and other associations. He was speaking as an educationist and gave full credit for the good work done by the Christian Brothers and other associations, and said—
    "Personally I do not think that the people who have retired from the world are the best moulders of the character of the youth who will come into direct contact with the trials and temptations of life."
    Now, though Sir Horace Plunkett was a Minister of the Crown, it was of great use and importance that such views, expressed in quiet, temperate, almost judicial language should be laid before the public. Sir Horace Plunkett had been working hard with this great object in view. He believed in and greatly appreciated certain distinguished qualities in the Irish people. In some respects he considered that Irishmen were considerably in advance of Englishmen in natural gifts, and he singled out the one quality which the Irishman possessed in a higher degree than the Englishman—the power of working in association. He gave a certain advantage to the Englishman in regard to individual character, but he believed the genius of the Irish people would enable them to do better work associated together. Accordingly he had gone to work in that spirit with a system of agricultural reform which would call out those qualities which showed the merits of the Irish people in competition with the English and Scottish nations. Having acquired the habit of working together

    1029
    Sir Horace Plunkett wished his fellow countrymen to take a further step onwards in the direction he wished them to take. These views deserved the earnest consideration of Parliament. Were they an insult to the Irish people? He maintained that they were nothing of the kind. He had no sympathy with those who said that because Sir Horace Plunkett was a Minister of the Crown he should not express his opinions. In this country, which was governed by public opinion, it was not only the right but the duty of a man of experience and of a judicial mind to come into the open and show what he thought. Sir Horace Plunkett said that it was not only Irishmen who wanted teaching but Englishmen who wanted teaching, too. The latter had not understood the peculiarities, the merits, and possibly the defects of the Irish people. Sir Horace said that what was wanted was a better understanding between the one race and the other. He maintained that Sir Horace was doing a certain work such as had never been dreamed of in England or Scotland. He was taking the Irish people in hand, showing them how to help themselves and putting them in the way of developing their good or strong qualities. It was, he must say, a little disappointing to find that, when a man was animated by such admirable motives, the criticisms of his work assumed almost a captious character. Sir Horace Plunkett was an Irishman who was working to do good to Ireland, and if he had any extra-official criticism to offer he should say that it was necessary for the people at the Treasury to keep an eye on Sir Horace Plunkett. Instead of that the critics of the hon. Gentleman were in quarters where his best friends should be found. He hoped that as the debate went on there would be no condemnation of Sir Horace Plunkett because of the language he had held on political and religious topics. That gentleman had treated these matters in a judicial spirit and was an example to all of them. He had criticised the Irish Unionists in a way they did not like. He might offend one section or the other, but he had told what he believed to be the truth; and as the reader followed his words he came to believe that it was the truth that he was reading.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid that although the Department had been at work for a considerable time, and had done good work, it was a fair subject for discussion and criticism. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Durham that Sir Horace Plunkett should be relieved from criticism. He was sorry that Sir Horace Plunkett had written the book which had been referred to, because it could not but create ill-feeling and coldness among the people with whom he was working. It was not very pleasant for the Catholic clergy to be attacked for extravagance in chapel building. He did not think there had been extravagance in this respect. During the last half-century they had been simply restoring and recreating chapels which had for three hundred years either been left to go to ruins or been smash d up. Sir Horace Plunkett had one disqualification—he was an Irish Protestant, and was not, therefore, qualified to criticise Catholics any more than he, Col. Nolan, was to criticise Protestants. He had attended every meeting of the Council and of the Board of Agriculture except when Parliament was sitting, and he knew the tone of these bodies. If it was wanted to find out what the public opinion was as to the working of the Agricultural and Technical Act, the meetings of the Agricultural and Technical Councils should be attended to. These Councils represented the opinion of the people, because two-thirds of them were elected by the county councils. Sir H. Plunkett had placed a very large number of Catholic clergymen on the Technical Committees, but the reason of that was that they took more interest in technical education than any other people. As to the Agricultural Department and its operations, people took very different views in regard to the breeding of horses and the rearing of cattle. Complaints had been made as to the bulls which had been purchased by the Department. There were 6,000,000 cattle in Great Britain, and 4,000,000 in Ireland, and although the Agricultural Department had done good work so far as it went in introducing bulls from first-class herds, too few had been purchased and it would be years before a full improvement could be made in the strain

    1031
    of cattle in Ireland. The reason for this was that the supply of good bulls in Great Britain was limited. As to horses, it was impossible to have any agreement. It was a vexed question as to whether hackney or thoroughbred sires should be employed'; but he was sure that Sir Horace Plunkett had shown that he was most anxious to pay attention to the opinions of the county council committees. Sir Horace Plunkett and his Department had endeavoured, as far as possible, to steer clear of politics; but that did not always keep the Department in smooth water. Politics were all very well in their proper place. Irishmen should endeavour to obtain Home Rule, which would be for Ireland than any Department; but it was absolutely impossible to run Department politically. That had always been the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett, and he had been abused on all sides because of it. He was abused for appointing Mr. Gill. They had heard from the hon. Member for Stoke his opinion of Mr. Gill, who he said was an Irishman of the highest type. But, as a matter of fact, Mr. Gill was one of the mildest Irish Members who was ever in the House of Commons. A large number of Unionists in South Dublin were opposed to the appointment of Mr. Gill; and the result was that his hon. friend the present Member for South Dublin was returned in his stead.
    Sir Horace Plunkett, undoubtedly, had great difficulty in selecting his staff. There was no first-class agricultural college in Ireland, although there were several in England and Scotland. Consequently Sir Horace Plunkett had to appoint Englishmen and Scotchmen although, doubtless, he would have preferred to have appointed Irishmen. Mr. Greene, whom he knew, was a man of first-class ability. He agreed with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Longford. He thought that the case of the clerks ought to be reconsidered. Sir Horace Plunkett only appointed clerks who had passed a Civil Service examination. That acted against the interests of his own province of Connaught because they had no available first-class educational establishments there; and, therefore, students had to go to Dublin to be trained. Sir Horace Plunkett's action was, however,
    1032
    proof that he had no desire to either use or abuse patronage. He endeavoured to get in touch with the people. He initiated a scheme by which every county could to a great extent manage its own affairs; and on the whole the scheme was working fairly well. Some counties wanted to purchase their own animals in England; but if that were allowed they would have thirty-two gentlemen from Ireland bidding against each other in the English markets. That could not be tolerated by the Department. Up to the present, however, Sir Horace Plunkett's relations with the county councils had been very satisfactory. He was attacked because he was too economical and had not spent all the money at his disposal; but his explanation was that while the Department was still engaged in the work of organisation he could not spend the money properly. But the money would eventually be useful. He himself hoped that the Motion would be discussed dispassionately, as, otherwise, it might have the effect of impairing Sir Horace Plunkett's authority in Ireland. He devoted himself to his work with great pains, and in a manner which on the whole was very successful.
    SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that it was a matter for congratulation that this debate had been conducted in a kindly spirit. He joined with the hon. Member who had just sat down that they should not approach the subject in a carping spirit. He believed the right hon. Gentleman sought in the work of his Department to produce the best and kindest results to Ireland. He was somewhat surprised to hear from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the efforts to improve the breed of cattle had not only proved utterly abortive, but that the character of the cattle had deteriorated. He did not think the statement was borne out by the facts. Certainly it was not borne out by the exhibitions at the shows, nor by the cattle exported, nor by the Scottish demand for young Irish cattle. In all these respects it was universally stated that the quality of the cattle had appreciably improved. He was speaking only of the North of Ireland. Unfortunately, he had no personal acquaintance with the South; but he was quite free to confess

    1033
    that outside the immediate prize counties of Antrim and Down there was a great improvement in the breed. In the North, farmers found it more profitable to breed young cattle for the Scottish and English demand than to fatten them themselves. Scottish buyers complained that the cattle were large in bone and correspondingly large in flesh, and they required them to be small in bone and large in flesh. The Ulster farmers were, as men should, endeavouring to meet that demand, because they must cater for the market and try to produce goods which would bring in the best possible prices. It had been said that after three or four years they had not had the result that was expected. He could quite realise that. But supposing they took the ordinary cow, the property of the ordinary small farmer, and tried to produce a superior calf by a superior bull. They had then only got one generation. It required three or four generations before they could rise to the higher scale in the animal creation and produce the highest I class of animal. In the same way with regard to pigs. In Limerick they had a pig to which there was none superior in the kingdom. They had catered for the market both in the curing of the pork and the production of the pigs, and it was desirable that that practice should become universal in Ireland. The class of pig known as the "greyhound" had had its day. It would not put on flesh, though it was a splendid animal for grazing on the neighbours' farms. That, however, was not the class of pig wanted for the market in competition with America and the countries of Europe. With regard to horses, Ireland had produced, and he hoped would continue to produce, the best hunters in the world. The question was repeatedly being asked as to what class of animal could be best produced. If they went in for an extremely tine animal, such as was found on the racecourse, it would probably turn out deficient in bone and general usefulness. Personally, he believed hackneys would yield the best results. But, inasmuch as every hon. Member would have his own favourite, surely the proper policy to pursue was to try each and find out which yielded the best results. The West of Ireland would produce the best horses. He had been told that if a horse
    1034
    was taken from the West of Ireland and grazed in county Down or Antrim on what was generally conceded to be better grass, the horse would not turn out so good an animal as it would if kept on its native soil. These were matters for careful study and keen competition, and the Department, if it did nothing else, would have set men to think out the problem of the best way to make agriculture successful.
    He was specially interested in certain matters connected with technical instruction. Technical instruction, like the breeding of animals, must be slow. It was necessary to begin with the youth of the country. Old men in businesses of any kind could scarcely adapt themselves to new forms and ceremonies. Therefore, the youthful mind should be grappled with, and moulded for greater usefulness in the society into which it would ultimately enter. The technical schools had produced certain results. Creameries had been established to compete with the creameries abroad, but they required very delicate handling. Everything started by Tom, Dick, or Harry, and calling itself a creamery, was not to be taken into one's arms as though it were certain to be a success. Creameries might be damned by bad management, therefore it was of the utmost importance that when they started on the principle of co-operation—for that was what a creamery practically meant—the creamery should be managed on the best possible business lines and according to a system that was economically sound. Unless that were done, farmers would find they had lost their money, and in consequence would look with suspicion upon everything which arose out of the system of creameries. He was not at all certain that Ireland could ever develop into a cheese country. It was strange that it should be so, seeing that Ireland was one of the best butter countries in the world, if only the manipulation of the butter progressed as it ought to do. But the old-fashioned arrangements with the midden outside the window of the building in which the cream and milk were placed to mature, and all that sort of thing, would have to give place to something better, and if the technical schools taught the

    1035
    people that "something better" they "would have done good service.
    The next point to which he wished to refer concerned the technical schools. Be hoped the schools throughout the country would be generously treated, and that the scholastic work would be carried on without fear or favour. In Belfast they were establishing a technical school at a cost of £100,000. They received their share of the grant for technical instruction, amounting to £9,000 or £10,000 a year, and they raised a penny rate, which yielded about £4,500, but that was swallowed up by the interest on the cost of the building. Therefore, they were depending upon the grant in aid for technical instruction, and he hoped that that would man them fairly well for grappling with the entire subject of technology as necessarily applied to a manufacturing district like Belfast. In technology each district should try and adapt its technical instruction to the general wants and needs of the district. He was a Home Ruler in that respect. He held that they must of necessity take note of their instruction and bring it near to the people and let it be in sympathy with the wants of the particular district. But they must not stop there. They had passed the day when they could expect five or six sons of one farmer to vegetate about one farmstead; a number of them would necessarily go elsewhere. In that respect emigration was not to be deprecated. They were not to say that a man who sought a better outlay for his capital should not be allowed to go abroad. It was that which was the curse of Ireland in the old times—when a man with fifty acres had five or six sons, and as each of them got married he gave them a slice off his farm until he brought it down to five or six acres, upon which no man could live and prosper. Therefore, they must educate the men in their position, but they must not expect to fix them there, though in the long run he would hope that the technical instruction and general instruction would so open up the industries of the country that emigration might be stayed and that they might rather have immigration than emigration in the future.
    1036
    As regarded the Belfast Technical School, it would occupy a postion of general instruction on all mercantile and general subjects. But there was a sphere beyond what a technical school could and should aim at, viz., the sphere of higher inquiry that belonged properly to a college. They would educate in technology through a college. in Belfast, which would be second to none in the kingdom; but technical instruction or technology proper as applied to general instruction could not go up to the higher departments of inquiry in order to continue instruction given in the lower departments of technology. In chemistry, for instance, they taught all that at present was known as chemistry, but they would not begin to teach in a technical school the subject of research in bacteriology, though they might incidentally teach it in the ordinary lectures. But that was a necessary inquiry, because their health depended upon inquiry in connection with that great science. What he wanted to bring to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary and of the Attorney-General was that Queen's College at Belfast got its £10,000 a year. The wealthy citizens of Belfast had subscribed £40,000 or £50,000 in an endeavour to bring that Queen's College up to a high standard. In a year or two when the technical school or college in Belfast was fully equipped it would be in many respects superior to Queen's College, and that was the fault of which he complained. It ought never to be so. Queen's College should be the aim of the higher students, and the higher knowledge of Queen's College should be disseminated through the technical college. They had appealed to the Chief Secretary, who was always most kind and assured them of what he was going to do; but he had never brought that assurance down to the £. s. d. What they wanted was that they should have a fair and reasonable proportion of this technical grant given for special work in the higher departments connected with such subjects as chemistry and engineering, and plans worked out in connection with the great industries of the North of Ireland, which he hoped would be spread to the South and West of Ireland. He desired to see those departments fostered

    1037
    and matters so arranged that Queen's College would be no longer starved, the students no longer left craving for this higher instruction, and the professors no longer left hungering for the best powers of higher research. He did not grudge the higher school in Dublin; it was a centre which he hoped would prosper; but surely the North of Ireland should also have brought nearer to it an institution which would enable the authorities to supply what the Dublin Central Board supplied to the South of Ireland. He appealed to the right lion. Gentleman to give the matter favourable consideration.
    MR. MOONEYsaid that one of the reasons the Nationalist Members criticised Sir Horace Plunkett's book was that Members representing English constituencies took it as representing life in Ireland as it really was. Four years ago, when the Board was created, the hope was held out that through its agency Ireland would once more take her position as a manufacturing and farming country. The Board was to be absolutely non-sectarian and non-political, working solely for the better education of the people, and the retention of the population in the country. Many people never believed the hope would be realised; but in view of certain events they abstained from evincing active hostility to the Board. The amount of money spent had been variously estimated, but, whatever it was, what had the country to show for it? Nothing but a tract from Sir Horace Plunkett, If the right hon. Gentleman were not Vice-President of the Board, nobody would have said a word about his having written the book complained of; but the ground of complaint was that Sir Horace Plunkett, holding a position supposed to be non-political, had stepped down into the Party arena, written a Party pamphlet, and thus abused his position as Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture. Personally, he (the hon. Member) would not exclude a man from an appointment on account of his political or religious beliefs; he did not care what a man's religion was, provided he was the best man for the post; but in a country where the majority of the people were of a certain belief, he did object to outsiders of another belief
    1038
    being brought in to take positions which native-born persons were competent to fill. He admitted that for some of the higher appointments it might have been necessary to import these foreigners. But the right hon. Gentleman himself did not practise what he preached, because, while it was constantly urged that the religious belief of the servants of the Board were absolutely unknown, Sir Horace Plunkett in his book made references "to notorious bigotry," and carried out his doctrine of recreating Ireland from within by importing Scotsmen from without. The whole spirit of the book was that of a superior being who had come down amongst the people, telling them that they possessed no moral character, no self-reliance, that they were deficient in all national qualities, and that they ought to forget their history and imitate English models. Sir Horace Plunkett might be proud of his connection with Ireland, but he knew very little of the Irish character if he thought that upon his ipse dixit the Irish people were going to forget either their history or their nationality. Long after Sir Horace Plunkett and his book were forgotten, the doctrines which the Irish people held to be right would remain. The right hon. Gentlemen had had to find some excuse for the failure of his Department to stem the stream of emigration, and he had turned on the Roman Catholic clergy, stating that—
    "No man can get into the confidence of the emigrating classes without noticing that it is largely due to the feeling that the clergy are taking all innocent joy from home life."
    That was the return the Catholic clergy received for helping Sir Horace Plunkettin the work of his Department. If the Board was to do any good work it would have to be run on the theory with which it was supposed to have been started, viz., that it should be non-sectarian and non-political. At present it was neither the one nor the other, and for that reason the Nationalists had felt compelled to bring forward the present Motion.
    COLONEL SAUNDEESONagreed that hon. Members had every right to criticise the book written by Sir Horace Plunkett, but personally he had never read a less one-sided work. The writer certainly spoke his mind with regard to the Nationalist Party and the Roman Catholic clergy—though he (the

    1039
    speaker) could not find anything in the book insulting to their religion—but he also strongly criticised the Unionist and Orange Parties. It had been suggested that Irish landlords must have felt their plumage ruffled by the book, but he assured hon. Members that Irish landlords had had all the feathers plucked out of their plumage long ago. The Party opposite regarded any criticism of the Church to which they belonged, or of its clergy, as necessarily insulting to that Church. It was nothing of the kind. It was impossible to avoid criticising the clergy of the Church of Rome, not because of their religion, but because of the political attitude they had assumed. They were criticised not as Roman Catholic priests, but as political priests, and the criticisms which had been levelled against them were eminently such as any man with the slightest pretence to statesmanship would write when dealing with the condition of the country, to the improvement of which Sir Horace Plunkett had undoubtedly devoted his life. The Vice-President of the Board was not at present a Member of the House of Commons, but his rejection was mainly due to his sympathies with the Nationalist Party, and the present debate was the return they made. Both in his appointments and in his administration Sir Horace Plunkett had shown that his sympathies were largely with the Party opposite, and now to a man they rose to abuse him. Sir Horace Plunkett's work was work with which every Irishman who understood the requirements of his country would entirely agree. Who could read Irish history, either past or present, without realising that the one great obstacle to Irish growth and to Irish social happiness and prosperity was the gulf that was dug in the past, and which was kept wide open in the present by bigotry and political rancour? [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: On your side.] He did not for a moment deny that there was bigotry on his side, but could hon. Members opposite say that bigotry was not also to be found on their side. [Cries of "Yes"] He knew hon. Members opposite would say anything. Whether Nationalist Members agreed with him or did not altogether agree with his policy and procedure, he believed that Sir Horace Plunkett had done a most excellent work
    1040
    for Ireland. Whatever the result of this debate might be he was sure it would not be a condemnation by the House of Commons of Sir Horace Plunkett for having put down in black and white what he conscientiously believed to be the great crux of the Irish question.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to some of the appointments made by the Board because some of those appointed got too much and some too little salary, but as to the work of the Board itself they did not pass any very scathing criticism. Hon. Members opposite did not like this Board, because it originated in the House of Commons. They said it had done no good. If they could trace the origin of a pig, or a cow, or a calf, to the action of the House of Commons, or even the money the House gave, it had a flavour that destroyed its pleasant taste to hon. Gentlemen opposite. That, however, was not the view of Irish farmers. He could give one instance which came to his own knowledge. Hon. Members opposite were good enough to set him down as a bigot. He should like to throw down a friendly challenge to hon. Members opposite. A bigot, he supposed, was a man who not only held very strongly to his opinion—he did that, and was proud of it—but allowed his religious feeling to affect the justice of his dealings with other people. He challenged hon. Members opposite to appoint a small Committee. Let them visit estates of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the South and West and put on a piece of paper the number of Protestant labourers on those estates. Then let the same committee go to the county in which he lived, visit his estate, and find out how many Roman Catholics he employed as labourers and workmen on his demesne, and they would find three-quarters of the labourers on his estate, in Ulster, Roman Catholics. They all went against him solid. Politically, he was sure they disliked him very much, but, personally, he was glad to say they were on most excellent terms. The case he wished to bring forward was this. The Board of Agriculture sent round to various counties in Ireland lecturers who spoke on the way of cultivating the soil and bringing up crops. He knew a farmer, a most excellent man, a Roman Catholic,

    1041
    who attended those lectures, and put in practice on his own farm the lessons he learned, and the result was that he trebled the amount of crops he grew on his land Hon. Members laughed but they probably grew no crops. He had done this simply by learning from a lecturer how those things ought to be done. And the crops were so good that people came from the whole surrounding district to look at them. There was no politics in that, there was no religion m that. It was nothing but simply improving the Irish tenant by teaching him how to cultivate his land—a sort of humdrum policy which did not commend itself to excited political patriots. That was going on now all over Ireland, and as the Irish people learned, as they must learn soon, that by paying attention to the scientific cultivation of the land they would be able to compete with Denmark, France, and other agricultural countries, they would have learned a lesson that would do more to make Ireland a happy and prosperous country than all the politics that had ever been fulminated in their ears either south or north of the Boyne.
    In regard to technical education he had always been told that Ireland was an agricultural country, and not a country that could carry on great manufacturing industries. It had not got coal and iron, true, but the great asset of Ireland was not a matter of horses or pigs or sheep or cattle; it was the brains that had been bestowed upon her people. He did not believe there was any other country in the world with which they did not compare favourably in that respect. How were they to develop the brains of the Irish people? One thing must be done. They must divest technical education of the flavour of religious intolerance or bigotry. Unfortunately that was not always done. In one case that came before him it struck him that the technical education authorities had not learned it yet, a case in which Sir Horace Plunkett, he was afraid, was very considerably to blame. In the town of Lurgan, where undoubtedly the majority were Protestants, although there was a considerable Roman Catholic minority, the local authority determined to set up a technical school; an inspector went down and the result was a grant of
    1042
    £850 was made to that school. But a gentleman who had been once a Member of the House, sitting on the Nationalist Benches, discovered a great difficulty in the way. He wrote a letter to say that to carry on a technical school in the town of Lurgan without separating the Roman Catholics from the Protestants was impossible. He stated that the Roman Catholic children could not leave the part of the town in which they lived and go to the part of the town in which the schools were situated without insult and injury. There never was a greater invention even of an exuberant Irish mind than that. The children in Lurgan lived on friendly terms. Certainly stones had been thrown in Lurgan—he did not deny that.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman was this ex-Member of Parliament an Irish Protestant?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I do not think he has much religion of any kind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were no doubt acquainted with him and knew his profession of faith.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I say the statement that he has no religion at all is a foul slander. He is as good a Protestant as you are.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he had not the least idea whether he had any religion or not. All he was dealing with was the letter he wrote pointing out the probability of the children being assaulted coming out of school. It was true that at one of his elections his speech was interrupted by one of the co-religionists of hon. Gentlemen opposite—some admirer of his—who threw a stone weighing 4 lbs. 8 ozs. which hit him on the head. Luckily his head was pretty hard. He now used the stone as a paperweight. If any hon. Member who doubted the accuracy of his statement would call at his house he would show him the stone. But that fact did not make the streets of Lurgan unsafe for children. After the representation made of the great danger run by children in going to and from school the grant of £850 was divided

    1043
    and £250 was given to the nuns' school, so that there might be two technical schools in Lurgan, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic. He looked upon that way of working out the salvation of Ireland as absolutely and hopelessly bad. He contended that the Government and the Irish Board dealing with this matter should invariably see that the sectarian and religious element did not come into play. The facilities offered by the Board of Technical Education in Ireland ought not to be given with the view of keeping alive the hideous gulf between the denominations. There were two ways of getting rid of a gulf. It could be bridged or it could be filled up. Hon. Gentlemen opposite withed to fill it up by putting all the Protestants into it. He wanted to bridge the gulf, for he was certain that if Irish men and women were brought up together they would see, without any injury to their religion, a diminution of that spirit of hatred which had been kindled by bitter memories of the past and was now kept alive by the Irish politician. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: By Orangemen.] If they pleased. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Why don't you say that in Portadown?] He had said it there a hundred times, and would say it again. That was his view. To fill up the gulf they must first bridge it over and bring people together. If the Irish people would learn that they were brethren, although they differed in religion, their children would grow up good citizens of Ireland, a credit to their country, and would make their power felt not only in this country but all over the world.
    MR. CULLINANsaid he had listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was almost a revelation to find him speaking so liberally with regard to his Catholic fellow-countrymen. He spoke with great anxiety apparently with regard to bridging over the gulf which separated Catholics and Protestants. That reminded him forcibly of the way they tried last year in that House during of the passage of the Land Act to bridge over on, fair and reasonable terms, by means of a bonus to the Irish landlords, the gulf that separated them from the tenants. What did they find? The
    1044
    gulf was being filled up by putting the tenants into it. He thought the effect would be somewhat similar if they were to attempt to bridge over the gulf to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. He had spoken of the intolerance and bigotry of the Catholics in the South of Ireland, and contrasted the disinclination on the part of Catholic employers there to engage Protestants with the spirit prevailing in his own locality in the North, where many Catholics were employed by the Protestants. His answer to that was that the Protestants in the North employed Catholics because they found it convenient to do so. He very well remembered when there were published in the Tipperary Press advertisements by Protestant landlords for grooms, stableboys, and ordinary workmen, the announcements stating that no Irish and no Papist need apply. Where was the bigotry then? That state of feeling had prevailed until quite recent times on the Protestant side. He was glad that the Catholics had had the courage to defend themselves against that kind of bigotry. Why did they find it necessary to offer adverse criticism of the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture? It was because when the Bill establishing that Board was passing through this House Irish popular sentiment was altogether ignord. The administration of the Board was carried on altogether from a partisan point of view. In regard to the importation of Englishmen and Scotchmen to fill appointments in Ireland, he and his friends did not object to that, when Irishmen could not be found for the performance of the work, but in many instances posts which were given to outsiders could be equally well filled by Irishmen.
    The hon. Member for North Galway had stated that the scheme of the Board had not yet been given sufficient itme to accomplish the good results which might be expected from it. What had the scheme actually done? To his mind it had done more to help emigration and to send the youth out of the South of Ireland than any other method introduced in recent times. An attempt had been made to establish cooperative creameries in Ireland. He believed this huge co-operative system

    1045
    would have meant the disappearance of towns and villages, but, thanks to the good sense of the farmers interested in these places, the game did not succeed. They were told that the different breeds of cattle and horses had been considerably improved since the Board of Agriculture was established. As a member of the committee of the county council with which he was connected, he had been able to observe the working of the Board's scheme, and he must say, that he had not seen evidence of the great benefits in which they were asked to believe. The hon. Member for Galway had referred to the buying of bulls. He was mistaken if he thought they were going to pay fictitious prices to English and Scotch breeders. When representatives of the county councils were sent to the English or Scotch sales they should be allowed to buy the animals they considered best suited for the localities from which they came. But they were not allowed to buy these animals, for an official of the Board of Agriculture walked round and selected a certain number. Whether the representatives of the county councils approved or disapproved of the selections, they had to take the animals and pay for them, not at a fair and reasonable price, but at the price fixed by the representative of the Board of Agriculture. He insisted that the local man, the practical farmer who knew the class of stock that would be useful for fattening purposes, was the man who was the best judge of the wants of the district. He was sure that hon. Members from the North of Ireland would not be very much out of line with him in that respect.
    After the famine, when the landlords cleared the people out of the land and prices went up, they thought that they were going to make huge fortunes; but before many years had passed they found that estates cleared of people were not gold mines. Then they did not reinstate the Irish peasantry on the land, but introduced men from England and Scotland; but these experts, who were to remodel Ireland, all came to smash. He had been a member of a technical education committee which had been most anxious to develop a scheme of technical education; but after going to the expense of pro-
    1046
    curing a building, the Education Department refused to give them the necessary equipment. It was that sort of cheeseparing that they had to complain of. It was a waste of time to go on with technical or agricultural education because it was not done satisfactorily. Some of his own friends, including clergymen of all denominations, were anxious to promote technical and agricultural education in Ireland, but when a pupil had received his training there was no opening for him in his native land, and he had to go to a foreign country. He had always held that the system of education should be such as to confer a benefit on Ireland itself, and should be in accordance with popular sentiment and popular experience. For twenty-five years those who had contended for a reform of the land system in Ireland had been denounced as agitators, thousands had been sent to gaol or shot down in the streets of Irish towns; but the end of it all was the Land Bill of last year, which justified the whole action of the Irish people. The English Parliament would have to realise that the wishes of the Irish people to manage their own affairs must be conceded.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he was not competent to express an opinion in regard to the administration of the Irish Board of Agriculture and Technical Education to which most of the speeches that afternoon had been directed. But two topics had been touched upon as to which he wished to say a few sentences. One of these was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, who adverted to the desirability of connecting technical instruction with the existing institutions for University education. He should like to express a strong concurrence with that view. He was persuaded that if they wanted to make technical instruction useful, it could not be better done than by connecting it with the hierarchy of University education. Therefore, he supported a very liberal treatment of the Queen's Colleges in Cork, Galway, and Belfast, and the institutions in Dublin which gave technical and scientific instruction. He did not mean to suggest that such institutions should be multiplied. The modern apparatus necessary for proper scientific instruction was costly, and it would be impossible to have them

    1047
    installed in too many centres. He thought it would not be wise to spend money over too many institutions, but they should have a few and make them strong. Subject to that condition, he believed a great deal could be done by giving promising young men, and, for that matter, young women too, an opportunity of obtaining a good technical education, and by training them in the study of the applied sciences. He was persuaded that that would be a great benefit to Ireland. Not so much had been done in Ireland for higher education as had been hoped for fifty years ago; but, nevertheless, we lived in an age when the methods of science might find means by which Ireland would suffer less from her want of coal and minerals than in times past. Any money spent in the furtherance of technical instruction would conduce to the development of her natural resources by her own children. He would like to see a liberal treatment of Ireland in that direction. Much had been done in England and Scotland by private liberality, but that could not be expected in Ireland on account of the poverty of the country. He did not think that in these matters they ought to adhere to the principle of exact equality of treatment between the three parts of the United Kingdom. He, for one, would be glad to see Ireland receive more than she had done in that direction; and he was sure that it would be good for Ireland and for the United Kingdom as a whole. Reference had I been made to a book published by Sir Horace Plunkett. He thought that there was an excess of courage shown when any official attempted to write a book about Ireland. He did not mean to express any view as to the opinions enunciated in that book by Sir Horace Plunkett. He was quite sure that the whole tenor and spirit of Sir Horace Plunkett's life showed that he was quite free from any political or ecclesiastical bigotry, and that he approached these subjects as a friend of his country and as a patriot who had laboured very sedulously for many years in reference to the development of Irish industrial resources. Even those who thought Sir Horace Plunkett would have done better to have left this matter alone would feel that he deserved credit for having bestowed his criticisms im-
    1048
    partially, and, whether he had written prudently or not, he had not written with a desire to censure any Party, but merely to express his honest opinions.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the hon. Member for South Tipperary had stated that technical instruction was not for the benefit of Ireland as a whole but for the benefit of the individual. That was one of the most extraordinary criticisms he had ever heard. He did not think the resources of the Technical Board in Ireland would be sufficient for a good many years to come to provide more technical instruction than the recipients would be able to find ample opportunity to make use of in their own country, without going to America. He thought the technical side of this work was the more important of the two. In places like Belfast, Dublin, Limerick, and towns of a similar size there would always be a large number of trades in which technical education would be necessary, and for anyone to get up in the House of Commons and say that the country would not benefit, and the individual would, by technical education was, to his mind, nonsense.
    MR. CULLINANsaid he never said any such thing. What he said was that it would be more of a personal benefit.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGconsidered that technical education would be quite as much benefit to the country as to the individual. In Belfast there had been a very great demand for technical education; only last year they had started upon the erection of a fine technical school, and he anticipated good results in a few years time. They had just listened to a dissertation on the breeding of pigs which was very interesting, and he only regretted that the hon. Member opposite did not continue his dissertation on cases other than "technical" pigs, and he might have introduced the "technical" bull. With regard to Sir Horace Plunkett's book, he had not read it, but he had seen a considerable number of excerpts from it, and a good many had been read in the debate, and judging from those he did not think there was much in them to which Nationalist Members had

    1049
    any right to object to. As the hon. Member for North Langford had rightly said, the book was simply an expression of opinion. They had all got fairly tough skins, and the book would not do any of them any harm. He was, however, surprised at the action of the Nationalist Party in regard to this matter, because Sir Horace Plunkett was more of a Nationalist than a Unionist. This Board was bound to do some good in the future. Nobody except a lunatic could be entrusted with the spending of such a large sum of money in Ireland upon these objects without doing some good. Whether this money was at the present time being spent in the most beneficial manner, the data before them were not sufficient to decide. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway was of opinion that a great deal could be done. Several Nationalist Members had expressed an opinion in the opposite direction. Personally he could say from his own experience that already a very considerable amount of progress had been made. The initial stages had been passed and the Board had settled down to its work. It was impossible to undertake work of this kind without a certain amount of experiments. After a few more years, when they had come to look at this matter from an absolutely non-political point of view, he believed this Department would do more to make up for lost time in Ireland than any other Department, and, with the operation of the Land Acts as well, Ireland would be placed on a footing which they were all desirous of seeing. With regard to Queen's College, Belfast, sight would not be lost of the great necessity of co-ordinating the work of technical education. He wished, however, to point out that the Technical Schools of Belfast could only serve those who lived in Belfast itself. The Queen's College was intended to serve the whole of the North of Ireland and not Belfast only. There were a large number of people who lived at some distance from Belfast who would not be able to take advantage of this technical school, but who would be able to take full advantage of Queen's College when it was properly equipped. It was most absurdly equipped at the present time, and suffered from want of funds and insufficient buildings. The whole question
    1050
    was so intermixed and dovetailed that he hoped the Chief Secretary, in replying to the remarks addressed to him, would be able to give some satisfactory assurance that the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in connection with Queen's College, Belfast, would be put an end to.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKEregretted that the question of religious differences had been introduced into the discussion. As a Protestant, in reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, all he could say was that so far as bigotry was concerned in Ireland the whole of the blame did not rest upon Catholic shoulders. When the power of the Catholic clergy was alluded to he said that those who made the Catholic clerical power were those who forbade Catholic education, who hunted Catholic priests, and who threw people wholesale into the arms of the parish priest as their one guide, philosopher, and friend in times of tribulation and oppression. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had alluded to Irish ingratitude in moving this Resolution. But the constitutional form of attacking a public Department was to move a Resolution to reduce the salary of some official. They all knew that the Chief Secretary was only the nominal head of this Department and that the responsible head was Sir Horace Plunkett, who held the reins of government and had all the patronage which the Department commanded. So far as his personal feelings towards that Gentleman were concerned, he recollected the time when he was a Nationalist candidate against him for South Dublin. The contest was conducted with good feeling and temper, and both sides fought hard, but Sir Horace said that the fact that there was no incident to regret was due to the manner in which his opponent had acted. He had no feeling of antagonism towards Sir Horace Plunkett, and he would further say that so far from it being a case of Irish ingratitude, it was a case of Unionist ingratitude towards that gentleman, since the managers of the Unionist Party did not avail themselves of the opportunity to enable him to be present in the House and reply to the criticisms directed against

    1051
    his Department. It was almost a constitutional grievance that the head of a big patronage and paid Department should not be in the House to answer any Question of which he, above all others had the most practical and intimate knowledge.
    He was not among those who believed that the Department was going to make a sort of millennium for Ireland; he always had some scepticism of the Irish Board, but, the Department having once been constituted, he was entirely in favour of giving it the fullest and fairest trial, and he ventured to say that in the whole history of this House there was not an instance on record in which a great Government spending Department had a better start or a freer hand or a more prolonged freedom from criticism than this Department had had for the past four years. If the Irish Party had committed any fault at all it was that it had been too charitable to a Department which was costing £194,000, of which £43,000 went for the payment of official and odd expenses. This Department was not a philanthropic institution, or a gift horse that ought not to be looked in the mouth. They were perfectly entitled to criticise it without being told that they were political beggars who refused ungraciously the alms thrown to them. The Board had no fixed standard of fitness for its employees, and it subsidised the Agricultural Organisation Society, whose lecturers were as much Government employees as if they were appointed directly by the Government. He would ask for a recognition of the principle of popular control in the working of this Department, and he desired particularly to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Irish county councils had distinguished themselves beyond all expectations by the completeness with which they had discharged their duties. They had the official statement that from the very first the county councils of Ireland had done their work to practical perfection, and yet it was to those bodies that power was refused when they came into collision with the Agricultural Department. The people of Ireland were anxious and willing to give the Department every
    1052
    possible chance of doing good, but those possibilities absolutely depended upon the recognition of the principle of popular control.
    With regard to what had been said about Sir Horace Plunkett's book, he had never regretted anything more than that gentleman's allusion to the clergy, because he knew full well that four-fifths of the work done was owing to the aid rendered by the Catholic priests. In this position, the right hon. Gentleman would have been well advised to have abstained from criticism of the character used. In voting for this reduction he was not reflecting upon the character or the honour of the right hon. Gentleman as a politician, but was simply supporting the great principle of popular control.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid there seemed to be an idea that the discussion of the affairs of the Department necessarily involved a root and branch condemnation. That was not so, and he thought that neither Sir Horace Plunkett nor the Agricultural Department had any reason to complain of anything that had been said. Three objections had been put forward. First, the expenditure of the Department had been challenged; secondly, the appointment of officials had been challenged; and, in the third place, a good deal had been said about the book written by Sir Horace Plunkett. To deal first with the book, he had himself said, written, and done so many unpopular things that he had very great difficulty in condemning a man who felt strongly, because he happened to write what was unpopular. Let him put this case as fair-minded gentlemen anywhere would put it. They were dealing with Ireland, not with England or Scotland. Sir Horace Plunkett referred to the question of undue church building so far as Roman Catholics were concerned, to the large amount of money spent on conventual institutions, and to the employment of religious orders as teachers in contradistinction to the employment of laymen. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said he knew many Roman Catholics who agreed with him. If a Roman Catholic had said it, nobody had a right to object. It was altogether

    1053
    different when a Protestant in Ireland criticised Roman Catholics. What right had he as a Presbyterian to object to the expenditure of the Roman Catholic population upon church building? They did not ask anything from him or from his. They did it at their own expense. Let it never be forgotten, too, that in the past history of the country Protestants took all their churches from Catholics, that up to a hundred years ago their religion was practically proscribed, and that if they worshipped at all it was in many cases under thatched roofs. Because Roman Catholics emerging from that state went to what many might think excessive church building, surely it was no concern of Protestants. It was done with the loftiest motives, and it did not lie with Protestants to complain. Much less did it lie with a Minister of the Crown. Sir Horace Plunkett ought to have sat down and asked himself plainly whether, engaged as he was in a work which he believed involved the regeneration of the country, writing of this sort, would be more likely to hinder and impair his work than to promote it. When a man became a Minister of the Crown the less he took part in these fiercely contested questions in Ireland the better. Sir Horace Plunkett had made a mistake in this instance, and he thought in his calmer moments he would admit it.
    The charge had been made that aliens had been brought in to fill these positions under the Board, but they must look facts in the face. With regard to Mr. Blair's appointment, it was true that he was a Scotchman, but it was a strong proof of the wisdom of this appointment that Mr. Blair had just been appointed by the London County Council to the highest position in the administration of the Technical Education Act in London. Mr. Blair had been given this high appointment on no other ground than that of merit. That was a strong point in favour of this particular Scotchman. There had never been any Proper system of technical education in
    1054
    Ierland, and therefore it was impossible to find in Ireland a man who had had sufficient experience to qualify him for such an appointment. Like hon. Members opposite, he was in favour of Irishmen being appointed to these positions, even against Scotchmen. He agreed that, all other things being equal, or nearly equal, Irishmen ought to have the preference; but there were exceptions, and he thought that in regard to the appointment of superintendent for technical education the Board made an excellent choice.
    In regard to the expenditure, the estimate roughly was £200.000. He should not consider twice that amount excessive for this great work. There was £43,000, for salaries, but this money was not all for clerks, for it included inspectors, lecturers, and teachers all over the country. He knew that some interesting experiments were being carried out for encouraging the growing of early potatoes for the London market. Early potatoes now came from Guernsey, Jersey, the Scilly Isles, and Malta, but there was nothing to hinder Ireland engaging in this competition, and a teacher under the Board was now engaged in that work with success. Look what could be produced per acre on a farm in this way. Although mistakes had made—it would be a great wonder if a new Department did not make mistakes—they would do well to give the Department time to grow before they condemned it. The plea was all the stronger because of this. He remembered one of the lecturers coming to South Tyrone and lecturing in his constituency. He asked a number of his friends what they thought. They said it was very fine, but so-and-so, naming a certain person, got up to move a vote of thanks at the end, and told the lecturer they would be a great deal more glad to see him after the Land Act was passed. What did that mean? They were asked to put money into the land and improve it, and, if they did, then the Commissioners would come round and raise the tent. Farmers in South Tyrone did not take any action upon that lecture, bat what was now the case? A very large number of the farmers of Ireland would probably in a few years own their holdings. He was told there were £6,000,000 of applications before the commissioners now.

    1055
    When the farmers became owners of their holdings they would listen to these lectures. All that could be done to bring scientific education to these men was for their good, and although he thought Sir Horace Plunkett made a mistake in his book, and although the Department had made mistakes, he thought it should have a chance of living. He told hon. Members frankly that in the only bit of business he had had with the Department he was totally unsuccessful. He thought them absolutely and totally wrong, but he had been in a Department himself and he did not condemn a Department for one thing although he was the sufferer himself. The Department had been doing good work, and he thought it was capable of more. Though he thought nothing but good could come of a discussion like that, still he should be sorry to see a division against Sir Horace Plunkett's salary.
    MR. JORDANsaid he agreed in many things with his hon. friend who had moved this Motion, especially when he said he did not desire to say anything against the work which Sir Horace Plunkett had done nor against Sir Horace himself, nor against the Department. He agreed with the hon. Member for Longford that with regard to the money spent by this Board they did not get full value for their money. He believed they did not get fair value for their money. It cost too much. In every department the salaries were too high. In the counties the minor officials got more than was necessary. He thought a great deal of economy could be effected by proportioning the salaries and expenses to the work which had to be done, and to the capacity of the parties doing it. He could not agree with his hon. friend who said that the Department was a ghastly failure, and that the country was not a penny the better for the whole expenditure and the whole machinery. He thought it had effected some good. While he admitted that there might have been mistakes and errors he did not see how a new and complex Department could be initiated without them. He thought the Department ought to be kept strictly under supervision, and that it ought to be under popular control. The hon. Member for Longford had referred to the disagreements between his county
    1056
    council and the Department in connection with their scheme of technical education. That was not his experience in the county he came from. Their scheme was formulated by a much respected Catholic clergyman, passed almost unanimously by a Unionist county council, and sanctioned without any material change by the Department. It had been working well ever since. He objected, however, to the too high salaries paid to the lecturers who were going about the country. He thought the Department had come to stay, but moderate criticism of its work such as they had had that day would not militate against, but rather promote, its efficiency.
    MR. PARKER SMITHcalled attention to the cattle trade between Ireland and this country, and to the necessity of seeing that the cattle were taken proper care of. He had had the honour of sitting on two Committees appointed to look into the condition of things. They found that great injury was frequently done to cattle in transit, and it was felt that the state of things ought to be remedied on two grounds, namely, the cruelty to, and suffering of, the cattle, and the pecuniary loss to those concerned in the trade on account of the injury done to the beasts. It was estimated that the injury the cattle suffered in the course of a journey from an Irish fair to Glasgow or Liverpool, ran frequently to £1 per head or even higher. The Committees had made a good many recommendations both in regard to the conduct of those concerned with the cattle in Ireland and with the steamers coming to this country. The Board of Agriculture took charge of this matter in Ireland, but great difficulty was found in dealing with, it so far as the steamers were concerned, because several Departments were concerned. It was very hard indeed to get hold of the person responsible where several Departments were concerned. The Irish Department did not interfere too much with the discretion of the ship owners so long as they succeeded in landing the cattle in a comfortable condition; but where serious mischief was done to the cattle, of which the Commission had been told terrible stories, then it was time to intervene and prosecute by course of law, so as to secure that that should not be repeated. The great difficulty experienced in initiating prosecutions in such cases was the divided responsibility

    1057
    as between the different Departments. In Scotland, when they endeavoured to prosecute, they were met by witnesses from Ireland who said that the cattle were in a perfectly satisfactory condition when they were put on board the steamer. The result had been that prosecutions, even in bad cases, had altogether failed in Scotland. On this Vote there was a considerable sum for inspectors whose duty it was to see the cattle actually on board the steamer. He thought that that was a mistake, and that the duty of inspection in Ireland ought to be limited to the treatment of the cattle so long as they were on the quay. There was strong reason for throwing the responsibility on a single department, the officers of which should have charge of the steamer and all that happened to the cattle during the voyage. He was very glad to welcome the new Order issued by the Board of Agriculture. It would be very valuable, but he did not think it would cover the treatment of cattle on board ship.
    MR. FFRENCHsaid as this debate had covered such a wide field he would merely refer to what the Board of Agriculture had not done which it might have done. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Ffrench) remembered making a speech in that House in which he recommended that something should be done for the inland fisheries of Ireland. That was many years ago, but nothing had been done, and the rivers of Ireland were becoming depleted of salmon. The Canadian Government was spending £100,000 a year on their inland fisheries, and the American Government were also spending large sums of money in the development of their inland fisheries. They had established not only salmon hatcheries, but hatcheries for small fish which served as food for the salmon. Then something should be done for the sea fisheries of Ireland. Many of the small fishing harbours were becoming silted up with sand. He suggested to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that two small dredgers should be purchased—they would cost only about £2,000 each—to dredge these fishery harbours in order that the fishermen should have security for their boats. Something should be done to
    1058
    encourage barley-growing for malting purposes. Some weeks ago he had put a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in which he pointed out that the farmer's profits were becoming diminished, owing to the use of patent spirit in the production of whiskey, and the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no proof of that. That reminded him of Mark Twain's story of a certain gentleman who was trying to prove that there was no such thing as pain, and happened to tread on a cat's tail. The cat yelled, and Mark Twain said, "I wonder what is the matter with that cat." What was the matter with the Irish farmers? They were becoming poorer and poorer. Last year there were 10,000 acres less under barley than in the previous year. He recollected before patent spirit was used for the production of whiskey that the price of barley was 22s. a barrel, that is 2 cwt; whereas the price was now only 12s. or 13s. in the Wexford market for the same class of barley.
    There was another matter to which he called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago; and that was foul brood in bees. Bee-keeping was being introduced into his constituency, but it was being destroyed by foul brood. He would suggest that a Bill of a few lines might be passed through the House making it compulsory to destroy bees affected with foul brood. Then there was the question of remounts for the Army. Wexford was remarkable for the breeding of horses; and there were more horses in that county than in the county of Dublin including the city. Some time ago, dealers were sent to Enniscorthy to buy remounts for the Army; this was one of the principal fairs in the county. They, however, only bought three or four horses, whereas the ordinary dealers bought 150 horses on the same occasion. Afterwards the Government dealers actually turned round and bought from the ordinary dealers the horses they required. That meant a considerable loss to the farmers; and he would, therefore, suggest that in future the Government dealer should deal directly with the farmers. The Department was striving to make good farmers in Ireland. They were sending lecturers all over the country; and he did not say that they

    1059
    were not doing good. If, however, the Government desired to have good farmers in Ireland, they should give every farmer security in his holding. Even if the Department were able to make two Blades of grass grow where only one grew before, if they could make every cow have two calves instead of one, how would it benefit the farmer when his judicial term expired? The only way to make good farmers in Ireland was to make them the owners of the soil they tilled. Why did an Irish farmer stick to his holding, and borrow, wherever he could, in order to stave off the evil day of eviction? It was because the improvements and the buildings and the very hearthstone spoke to him. They were the work of himself or his predecessors in title. If his house were secured to him, if he were the owner of the land he tilled, the Irish tenant would be a good farmer; otherwise, all the theories of the Board of Agriculture would not be successful.
    ME. MURPHYsaid it was desirable that an expression of opinion from all parts of Ireland should be uttered in this debate. There had been, however, such an unnecessary amount of laudation of Sir Horace Plunkett and his Department that he was afraid he would strike a jarring note. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to give a record of some substantial work carried out by the Department, having regard to the vast sum of money spent in connection with it. The Estimate of the present year amounted to £190,000, of which £74,000 was for salaries. It did not require any very strong argument to show that there must be something wrong with a Department which produced so little of a substantial character and cost so much. Schemes in connection with technical instruction had been beneficial to some slight extent in some parts of the country; but the whole administration was worked in an un-businesslike way, and for ulterior purposes. Sir Horace Plunkett stated in 1895, when he was inviting persons to participate in his Recess Committee, that if his policy were carried out the Irish people would cease to desire Home Rule. The Government had placed enormous sums of money at his disposal, and it
    1060
    was being distributed in a very peculiar manner, but still Home Rule remained as the demand of the Irish people. It had been said during the debate that Sir Horace Plunkett did not desire to exercise patronage; but if precedent were to be followed, some of the relatives of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken would be given appointments.
    And it being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVEXIXG SITTING.

  MAIDENHEAD BRIDGE BILL [LOKDS] (BY ORDER).
  DR. SHIPMANsaid that in moving the Instruction that stood in his name, he hoped he had done all that was possible to bring the matter to a settlement, and he had put down an Instruction as, he thought, representing fairly what Mr. Joseph Taylor claimed. The Maidenhead Bridge Bill was brought forward in order that the corporation might not be charged with the application of certain moneys that had been received and which properly belonged to the public. It was a Bill to indemnify the Corporation of Maidenhead, who appeared as claimants not so much for justice as for mercy, and asked that all its misdeeds should be passed over and that it should be enabled to start a new and more honourable career as a corporation. Section 11 of the Bill said the corporation was to be discharged from liability for past misapplication of this fund. It also asked that they might be put into secure possession of a property to which they had no right. It also asked to be allowed to borrow £20,000 in order to pay past debts, and all expenses and costs incurred in getting this Act passed. The House might ask with reason, "Where does Mr. Taylor come in? He did not come in at present, but he had as large a claim to do so as had the corporation. Neither had any legal claim. The corporation asked for an act of mercy, and he pleaded on behalf of Mr. Taylor for an act of justice. The corporation wanted to be whitewashed, but it

  1061
  wanted the expenses to be paid by someone else. It had used the bridge estate, which was a valuable property purchased out of tolls and which should have gone to free and maintain the bridge. If it was mean of Mr. Taylor to ask for his expenses to be paid, it was equally mean for the corporation to make a similar appeal. They were both on the same level, except that Mr. Taylor was a weak and helpless man and the corporation was a strong body. Mr. Taylor would have liked to address the Committee of the House of Commons just as he addressed the Committee of House of Lords. The corporation, being afraid, put in a notice of objection, and the Court of Referees said he had no locus standi. The Court could not have acted otherwise, but the corporation might have given Mr. Taylor a chance of being heard before a Committee of the House of Commons. The only opportunity afforded was by addressing the House through a Member, and he believed Mr. Taylor had an excellent case, as whatever grounds could be used for supporting the corporation in getting this Bill passed could be used in favour of Mr. Taylor. It had been said that he wanted to blackmail the corporation, but, as a rule, blackmailers did not do their work first and then ask for their money. The reputation of Mr. Taylor could stand all the petty insinuations that had been launched against him. He had devoted a great deal of his time to the public service. He had got Windsor Bridge freed by taking an action up to the House of Lords, and it was due to his energy and public spirit that he got the Charity Commissioners to investigate the whole matter. Mr. Taylor did not ask for all the expenses to which he might have a moral claim, but only for the barest expenses that could be properly allowed, and he was willing for the amount to be determined by a taxing official. The sum in question could not be very large, but in case there was any dispute and the parties could not agree it was proposed to take the matter before a taxing official either of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The Instruction only asked for the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred incidental to, and arising from, the inquiry held by the Charity Commissioners, and further that, as he had already received something from the public, anything
  1062
  received in the shape of public subscription should be deducted. He asked the House to pass the Instruction and embody it in a clause to be added to the Bill. It would be hard if a great corporation was to approach the House of Commons and get what it wanted and for an individual who had done a great public service to be denied a simple act of justice.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire,, in seconding the Resolution, desired to explain that he was not a relative of Mr. Joseph Taylor. They did not bring the Instruction forward in any vindictive or censorious spirit, but only asked the House of Commons to do justice to this private individual who, without personal interest and gain, had done a great public service to the inhabitants of the district. Maidenhead Bridge was the second that Mr. Taylor had freed. He had no desire to cast a stone at the Corporation of Maidenhead, but their action in the past had required whitewashing by means of this Bill, and private individuals ought not to be allowed to lose money by doing the public a service. They had heard about the extravagance of corporations, but this would not be a case of wasting public money. It was only a simple act of justice that this gentleman should have his expenses, and he hoped that the Rules of the House would permit them to be paid.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause directing the Corporation of Maidenhead to pay as costs, under Section 28, the balance of the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Joseph Taylor, of Eton, Buckinghamshire, incidental to and arising from the inquiry held by the Charity Commissioners on the 18th November, 1902, after deducting there from £35 19s. received by him from public subscriptions, and in ease of difference the amount of those expenses to be taxed in the manner provided by the said section." —(Dr. Shipman.)
  MR. GARDNER (Berkshire,said he agreed with the mover and seconder that there was no reflection against Mr. Taylor intended by the Corporation of Maidenhead. He had, however, to speak for the ratepayers. There was a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill when

  1063
  the sins of the corporation of pretty well a century ago were brought up. The present day ratepayers were under no responsibility for the troubles caused in respect of their bridge, and it was unreasonable that they should be called upon to do more than was necessary to put themselves right. He did not quarrel with the suggestion that Mr. Taylor should not be a loser by the course he had taken, but he did not think that Mr. Taylor had any right to go beyond the necessities of the case with which they were dealing. Mr. Taylor's action in regard to Windsor Bridge had been referred to in support of his claim in this matter. Windsor Bridge was freed by proceedings which were much more expensive.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is about Windsor Bridge in the nothing in the Instruction. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Instruction.
  MR. GARDNERsaid that when Mr. Taylor suspected there was something wrong with the administration of this bridge, all he had to do was to move the Charity Commissioners and ask them to hold an inquiry. But he went beyond it. He took counsel's opinion, and, having obtained that, all he had to do was to tell the Charity Commissioners what he had done and leave the whole question in their hands. There was no necessity whatever for him to have gone beyond that. Reasons could be advanced that made the corporation fear very much to allow Mr. Taylor to have more than his legal expenses. Out of what funds was the corporation to pay the costs, if awarded? They could only come out of funds to be provided by this Act and to be borrowed under the control of the Local Government Board. The funds had all to be accounted for, and he suggested that they had no right to make any further demand upon those funds beyond the necessities of the case. Mr. Taylor had already received by public subscription£35 or £36,and the case of the corporation was that that amply covered all the expenses to which he had been put in this matter. The corporation feared that if this Instruction were passed Mr. Taylor might make terms which it would be difficult to satisfy or
  1064
  repudiate. He had made large claims in the past, and, although they had now been limited, the corporation objected to be in his grip or under his control in this matter. They had done everything to put themselves right; they thought that they had behaved straightforwardly, and they asked to be protected from this Instruction.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he knew nothing about the merits of the case until that evening, but in his opinion a weaker case had never been brought forward. He hoped no one would think the House would bear hardly upon any individual, but, if they were to act with impartiality, no such Instruction as this ought to be passed except in an extreme case. Could anyone think it right to put upon borough funds, compulsorily and without any inquiry, an expense of this sort—an expense to which there was no claim whatever, and which ought not to have been brought before the House? To pass this Instruction would be to act in the teeth of all tradition of private business, and he hoped the House would not consent to the Instruction.
  MR. TOULMINsaid the hon. Member for Berkshire hid admitted that out-of-pocket expenses should be granted, and if Mr. Taylor were found to have no claim there would be nothing to pay. The claim was to be submitted to the taxing officer, and if he did not establish anything there would be nothing to pay. The corporation might not have the power to make the payment, but this Bill would give them the power, and he thought a case for the Instruction had been made out.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasserted that a more extraordinary Instruction had never been submitted to the House of Commons. Mr. Taylor, from philanthropic or some other motive, took certain proceedings of his own free will, but he afterwards asked the ratepayers to pay him for doing it. In this case the Maidenhead Corporation had taken the only course possible to pursue, and it was useless to contend that the House of Commons ought to sanction the payment of expenses

  1065
  incurred of one's own free will. Such a course would raise up a class of people who would take action in order to get something out of it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes 69. (Division List No. 172.)

  AYES.

  Abraham,William (Cork,N.E.)

  Hayter,Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Austin, Sir John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon.N.

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal,W.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Shackleton, David James

  Crooks, William

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spear, John Ward

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Spencer.Rt.Hn.C.R. (Nothants

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Moss, Samuel

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col.JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, James F X. (Cork)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  TELLERS for the Ayes—Dr.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Shipman and Mr. Theodore

  Hammond, John

  O'Doherty, William

  Taylor.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Fellowes,Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Randles, John S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Renwick, George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Beach, Rt. Hn.Sir MichaelHicks

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F (Middlesex

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Worc.

  Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks N.R.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Chapman, Edward

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Davies, SirHoratio D.(Chatham

  Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Disraeli. Coningsby Ralph

  Percy, Earl

  Mr.Gardner and SirFrederick

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury.

SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £110,406, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    MR. MURPHY, resuming his speech, which had been interrupted by the adjournment, said Sir H. Plunkett could not be surprised if he and his policy were regarded with a certain amount of suspicion, seeing that in 1895 he stated that if his policy were adopted the Irish people would cease to demand Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was mistaken in his view, because when he and his policy were forgotten the Irish people would still be true to the national ideal. With regard to Sir H. Plunkett's book, it had been truly said that both his friends and his enemies were pleased that it had been published; his friends because they were saved the necessity of reading the manuscript, and his enemies because it had revealed the true character of the man. Ireland in the main was a Catholic country, and yet this gentleman, who drew his salary from the Irish people and administered a large public Department, thought it proper to write of the religion of the people in these terms —
    "The Roman Catholic clergy cannot be exonerated from some responsibility in regard to Irish character as we find it to-day.….An impartial observer will, I fear, find amongst the majority of our people a striking absence of self-reliance and moral courage… and there is a listlessness and apathy in regard to economic improvement which amounts to a form of fatalism, and in backward districts a survival of superstition which saps all strength of will and purpose."
    In view of such an expression of opinion, one could only come to the conclusion that
    1068
    the writer was unfit for the position he occupied and ought to be removed from it. How was it that a grant of £194,000 was frittered away to the extent of £82,000 in salaries and expenses? There must be leakage and improper administration somewhere, and the Committee were entitled to detailed information so that they might judge where the defect and bad policy came in. Much had been heard about the Agricultural Organisation Society, established under the patronage of Sir H. Plunkett, and existing to a large extent upon grants made out of the public moneys of the Irish people. That organisation competed with other organisations, such as the Manchester Co-operative Wholesale Society, which had spent large sums of money in Ireland, and would have been able largely to assist the butter-making industry had it been given a fair field. Owing, however, to the action of Sir H. Plunkett in financing the other organisation, the work of the co-operative society had been crippled, and the butter producers deprived of the opportunity of securing fair competition and better prices. In several ways it had been clearly shown that the maintenance of butter-making and dairying in the old form with improved methods was necessary in the interests of the Irish farmer, but the Board of Agriculture, following Sir H. Plunkett's policy, had done everything possible, not to foster dairying in the old form, but to destroy it and to establish instead the creamery system. The creamery system had some advantages, but it was altogether unsuited and was calculated to be very injurious to certain localities. The butter was all produced in the summer time, and being sent to one market in such large quantities it caused a glut, with the result that it had to be sold at a lower price than the ordinary dairy butter would fetch. The fact that the advice of public bodies and public men with regard to winter dairying had been disregarded was a strong proof of the neglect of the Department in reference to a matter of prime importance to the people of Ireland. Under the Act of 1899, the sum of £10,000 was set aside for introducing improvements and getting additional land for the benefit of the Munster Dairy School, but the governors of that institution had still to complain that nothing whatever had been done in the matter.

    1069
    The question of transit was a matter of great importance in Ireland, but, in spite of the excessive rates and the improper arrangements of the railway companies, the Department had done nothing to improve the carrying facilities in the country. This Department, which was to have revolutionised Ireland, especially the agricultural districts, had appointed to look after the question of railway rates a gentleman connected with the veterinary department, with the result that matters of detail, but of considerable importance, had been neglected. Nobody with the least intelligence would deny that technical and agricultural schemes, if properly worked, would effect-great improvements in the condition of Ireland. In some instances schemes had been well worked, and had resulted in improvement to the community; but the credit for such excellent work and improvement rested not with Sir H. Plunkett and his Department, but with the local representatives who had had charge of the schemes. The whole matter came back once more to the fact that Government department. could not be expected to work well in Ireland as long as the Irish people were deprived of their own Government. Much of the work of Sir H. Plunkett was calculated to direct the minds and thoughts of the Irish people as far a field from their own land as possible, and in that connection he asked whether any of the moneys of the Board were devoted to paying the expenses of gentlemen who were sent to America and elsewhere in connection with the fads and fancies of the Vice-President of the Department. There would never be proper administration of technical and other schemes in Ireland until the people enjoyed self-government. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That a sum, not exceeding £110.306, be granted 4or the said Service."—(Mr. Murphy.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM, S4V0136P0-said he did not include himself among those critics, if such there were, who consider five hours an excessive time to devote to this one subject. The debate had doubtless been
    1070
    a long one, but no one interested in Ireland could pretend that it had been tedious. Fifteen or sixteen speakers had taken part in the debate, and nearly every one of them would have satisfied the rigorous standard of the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex with regard to the duration of speeches. Speeches had been answered by other speeches which had been delivered. From each side of the House they had had a measure of criticism and a measure of praise. That should stand as his first plea for Sir Horace Plunkett's Department. That a Department in Ireland had been administered for four years, and that praise and blame was then not confined to the one or the other side of the House, was in itself a tribute which very few of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in any official position had ever been able to obtain. Their debate of five hours had centred round four pivots, first, the book recently published by his right hon. friend; secondly, the personnel of the Agricultural Department; thirdly, the allegation of extravagance in the expenditure on salaries; and fourthly, the contention that the Department had not been sufficiently considerate of local wishes expressed through local authorities. He would add that during the whole of the discussion there had not been a single charge that the Department had favoured one part of Ireland at the expense of another part. That was not only remarkable but unique, and he claimed that, part of the case by default. It would not do for hon. Members later to argue that more money might have been spent in this province or the other. That charge had not been made, and that in itself was a tribute to the Department. He did not himself intend to speak about Sir Horace Plunkett's book. They had had agreat deal of advice offered to those who had written, or might intend to write, a book; but no hon. Member-had quoted the old dictum "Oh ! that mine enemy would write a book." But every hon. Member who took part in the debate was very careful to point out that he made no charge against Sir Horace Plunkett's honour, good intention, zeal, or industry. Hon. Members might differ from his right hon. friend, but they evidently did not regard him as an enemy. Perhaps next to writing a book the most

    1071
    foolish thing was to criticise a book, and it was very unwise for one official person to criticise a book written by another official person. But in declining to do so it must not be thought that, leaving the author on one side, he was not sensible of the value of the work Sir Horace Plunkett had done. He did not know in: Ireland, or in any other country, a man who had so devoted all his thoughts and I hours for so many years, without rest or relaxation, to give effect and force to an idea which he believed, and with some justice he thought, to be conceived in the best interests of his country. When many of them, who had tried according to their opportunities and capacities to do something for Ireland, were forgotten, he believed the name of Sir Horace Plunkett would be remembered, enshrined in history side by side with the names of Arthur Young and Thomas Drummond.
    Having satisfied himself that his right hon. friend was working for the good of Ireland, he felt it no part of his duty to check him at every turn, although he was responsible to that House for the Department. It; had been suggested that there was an anti-national intention underlying the creation of the Department. But the Department had its birth in a conference of Irishmen of all political beliefs. The Recess Committee and the Land Conference marked the initiation of two measures, which would do more for Ireland than many others which had been passed solely because they were conceived in that way. He admitted that after the intentions of those who conferred were put into the form of Acts of Parliament or of administration, there always was a reaction. But the dynamic forces which sprung from the fact that these measures were conceived by Irishmen of different political opinions meeting together would very soon pierce through and overbear the momentary disappointments that were bound to arise. He now came to the second general point of the argument developed by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and those who supported him, the point of the personnel of the Department. Ireland could not afford to neglect the example of every other country, which, in similar circumstances, had made a de-
    1072
    liberate attempt to foster agriculture and industry. Nothing was more technical than technology. They could not possibly start technical instruction unless they acquired the brains and the experience of those who for years had devoted their lives to the work. Could it be said that in Ireland they could find men who were fitted not only to teach Immediately themselves but to lay down the lines upon which teachers should be trained Surely it was the duty of Sir Horace Plunkett to seek elsewhere for men possessing these qualifications: and it could hardly be said that he had been unwise in his selection when they found that one of those chosen by him to start this system of training teachers, Mr. Blair, had been recaptured by the London County Council to fill the chief post in their technical educational system at an initial salary of £;1,000 a year. There was no country in the world which did not select men for such purposes from other countries. That he, thought, was-a conclusive answer, so far as the higher officials of this department were concerned. It had been contended that the expenditure of £43,000 upon the staff at headquarters was excessive in comparison with the amount spent on practical | work in the country. That attack was founded upon a great misconception. They had an annual income of £200,000, and there was the extreme possibility of getting local aid amounting to £56,000, not £200,000 as the hon. Member the mover stated. A penny rate over the whole of Ireland might result under the most favourable conditions in a revenue £56,000. The staff had to deal not only with the administration of these sums, but also with the administration of a number of national institutions. Therefore £20,000 should be deducted from the £43,000 for the salaries of the staffs of departments like the College of Science, the National Museum, the Botanic Gardens, the National library, and the School of Art. Apart from these national institutions, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction were charged with the administration of seven or eight Acts of Parliament which in England were entrusted to other departments. That being the case, it was fair to calculate that not more than

    1073
    £10,000 was paid to the staff at headquarters for dealing with agriculture and technical instruction throughout the country. He contended that that was not too much. He was criticised on the one hand because the staff of this office cost too much, and on the other hand because a few temporary clerks were not paid enough. His reply to the latter criticism was that these clerks had now been made permanent Civil servants, and not only had security, but could look forward to a pension.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that s aum of £29,500 was down on the Estimates for the salaries of the staffs of the national institutions to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. Therefore the sum from which the £20,000 should be deducted was not £43,000, but £72,000.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid his argument was that of the total of £72,000, only £19,856 represented the cost of the new permanent staff, the balance being the salaries of the staff transferred to the Department from many other offices, not only those which he had named, but many other departments throughout Ireland. It was said that the administration of this £200,000 cost £43,000, and he had given reasons to show that that was not the case. He had given reasons to show why it could not be said that £43,000 a year was the cost of administering this £200,000. Of course the people in the country who were doing the practical work were paid, a id sometimes paid by the local bodies, but the whole point of the contention had been that the headquarters staff received this enormous sum for administering the £200,000, and that it was out of all proportion to that-expenditure. The Department had been criticised for not falling at once completely into agreement with local bodies throughout Ireland. Sometimes local bodies asked the Department to sanction the appointment of this or that secretary. If the secretary whom the local bodies wished to appoint was a man who had no clerical experience and was unable to send to headquarters intricate and complex reports upon five, or six, or seven different topics, and was unable to put a large amount of information before the headquarters in a proper state, the result
    1074
    was they had to have another clerk at headquarters to do the work that ought to be done in the district. It was unfair to criticise the headquarters on the ground that they had a large clerical staff and at the same time to maintain that the local body was entitled to have its own way and to say the last word on every appointment. There must be some adjustment between the two unless the local bodies were to become really extravagant. He was the last man to say that this House was not supreme or that any department should be free from criticism; but he did submit that that Committee, and certainly Ministers, were not competent to say that in this rural district or that urban district the right man or the wrong man had been chosen, or that the pay should have been £100 instead of £90. Criticism ought to be one of two kinds. Either they should prefer a charge that some one had been malicious or negligent, or they must bring some general proposal before the House and say that the whole constitution of the Department was at fault and ought to be amended in this or that particular.
    The fourth charge which had been brought against the Department was that it had not given sufficient consideration to popular control. He would, however, invite the Committee to take seriously into account the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway, who showed that he had the courage of his opinions. The opinions of that hon. and gallant Member were those of a member of the Agricultural Council instituted by the Act of 1899 and of the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Member stood up in his place and stated that the Agricultural Council was a body two-thirds of whose members were representative of Irish local opinion, and the other third of which, though nominated by the Department, included a number of persons who were acceptable to him. Indeed, complaint had often been made by some of his hon. friends that the whole of this Department was run upon national lines, because the Agricultural Council of 102 members was composed in that manner. The Agricultural Council had been persuaded, sometimes reluctantly no doubt, to assent to all the propositions challenged in that afternoon's

    1075
    debate. Again, the majority of the Agricultural Board were representative. In any district there was always one party whose views were not permitted to prevail; but when a case had been settled in the locality by those who were cognisant of all the facts, it was idle after the lapse of years to bring it up again before a tribunal like the House of Commons, which could not possibly be cognisant of the facts. That would be a poor encouragement of local government in Ireland.
    MR. J. P.FARRELLsaid he only used that as an illustration of the way in which the work was being carried on throughout the country. What he said was that the Department was continuing the worst traditions of Castle rule.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid there might be people who had not had their way in particular districts. There were thirty-two counties in Ireland, and this Act had been in operation four years. If it were true that local opinion had been uniformly over-ridden during those four years would they not have, instead of a general statement that local opinion had been disregarded, not one but fifteen, twenty, or thirty cases in which schools, put forward by particular localities, had been rejected. They had, however, one from Longford, and in that county a scheme had been in operation for three years with the tacit and explicit sanction of the Longford District Council, and of the Agricultural Council. It was idle to bring a case of this kind before the Committee, which knew nothing of the flux and counter flux of local opinion. As to the Viscount Ikerrin, whose "outlandish" name one hon. Member had suggested was that of a Spanish grandee, and another had likened to that of a Japanese nobleman, he happened to be the son of an Irish peer and a member of one of the oldest families in Ireland. Surely it was to his credit and not to his reproach that instead of wasting his time he had gone into business and had then offered his services to an Irish department in which he worked hard for the salary of £200 a year. The hon. Member for North Galway had referred to what he called the secret consultation between the Department and the masters of certain
    1076
    technical schools. Something was made of that matter at the Congress which recently sat at Dublin. What the Department had done was to ask the headmasters to meet them upon certain matters which might or might not involve expenditure of money. He asked this House whether a Government Department was to be told that it was not to consult experts upon matters which might involve the expenditure of money, unless all the deliberations were to be published in the Press. If they consulted experts and published the deliberations in the Press they at once laid themselves open to the charge of bringing unfair pressure to bear on the Treasury. The very worst way to ask the Treasury to advance money for a legitimate object was to create the impression that they were using an unfair lever to make them disburse the sums required.
    He had appreciated much the speech of his right hon. and gallant friend the Member for North Armagh. It would interest Sir Horace Plunkett to hear that in some quarters he was supposed to sympathise entirely with the Party opposite; and he thought that was proof that Sir Horace Plunkett was not a target for all the shafts which had been levelled at him. With regard to the Lurgan schools, his right hon. and gallant friend was in error in supposing that a sum was deducted from the original grant and allocated to another scheme. A scheme had been assented to which involved a local contribution of £100 a year, a contribution from the Department of £500 a year, and an equipment grant of £360 a year. It was represented to the Department that some of the young Catholic children could not always attend in the Protestant quarter, and that was met, not by a diminution of the original grant, but by an addition to it. Unfortunately there were places in Ireland where the populations were divided into different quarters, and where if both sections were to have all the advantages of citizenship facilities must be given, not in common, but separately. That was a fact which he deplored, but they must recognise it, while hoping that a better state of things would ultimately supervene. He had been asked what had the Department done. [NATIONALIST cheers.] Of course, if every reference to

    1077
    tuition was to be met only by gibes he had no case. But in Ireland, as had been the case in Denmark, Gothenburg or Switzerland, tuition not for four years only, but ten or fourteen must precede any full revival of industry. Until Irishmen were educated in these sciences they could not expect such a revival Last year the Department gave 719 lectures throughout the country, and they had an average attendance of ninety people. He did not know whether any hon. Member had ever tried to lecture in a village, but even if the meeting were on a burning political question they might congratulate themselves on having evoked a great deal of interest if they had an attendance of ninety. To illustrate the progressive expansion of the work of the Department he would mention that the number of instructors in horticulture had increased from one in 1902 to nine last year and fourteen this year, and that the number of counties which were working on horticulture were three in 1901, twenty-two last year, and thirty-two this year, or all the counties of Ireland. The number of experimental science schools was in 1901,154, last year 196, and this year 250, every one of them equipped with laboratory appliances. The year before the Department was started the number was six. Last year the number of students was 29,500; this year 40,000. Of the teachers who had been trained there were, in 1901,276, last year 562, this year 711.
    His answer to the charge on the ground of expenditure was that in starting work of this kind there must be initial expenditure upon the staff, which at first blush might seem excessive. They must employ men from other countries who knew something of the matter, but if they saw such an expansion as these and other statistics indicated then they ought not to doubt the ultimate success of this great experiment. Whereas at the outset almost
    1078
    every county and urban district resented or dissented from the scheme proposed, now nearly all of them agreed. And believing as he did that in the future it would be possible to consult local fee ling more than in the past, he would submit that the Committee ought not to pass a vote of censure upon men who had worked and overworked themselves in this most promising undertaking, and which would be misunderstood in the country. They should encourage the officials of the Department, the teachers and the pupils; they should encourage also British constituencies in a hopefulness of this experiment, which, he was convinced, would be attended during the next four years with far greater success than had attended it in the past.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just delivered had been a delightful intellectual treat. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for sixty-five minutes, and had devoted sixty of these minutes to the delightful political flippancies for which he was noted, and the last five minutes to the work of the Department. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman proved how essential it was that Sir Horace Plunkett should keep the promise which he made when the Board of Agriculture was constituted, that he would either come into the House or resign his position. It was important that a great Department like this, which spent £200,000 a year, should have a representative in the House to answer the criticisms of the representatives of the Irish people. It was a curious compliment to Sir Horace Plunkett that there was not a constituency in Ireland to accept him. Sir Horace had received the blessing of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh that light, and he opened his eyes when he saw that hon. and gallant Gentleman deliver that eulogy, because it was notorious that the hon. and gallant Gentleman

    1079
    had been one of the chief agents in keeping Sir Horace Plunkett out of South Dublin. It was the landlords of Ireland that were responsible for the absence from the House of Commons of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture. He could easily see why it was that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had given his benediction to Sir Horace Plunkett that night for the first time. Sir Horace Plunkett had written a book in which he spoke of the Irish people with a feeling of contempt. The late Lord Salisbury once compared the Irish people to Hottentots; Sir Horace Plunkett in his book described them as a race of imbeciles. He had attacked the Trish clergy, which was rather ungrateful of him, because the Irish clergy had stood by him and encouraged him in his work. This was what Sir Horace Plunkett said—
    "The real matter in which the direct and personal responsibility of the Roman Catholic clergy seems to me to be involved is the character and morale of the people of this country. No reader of this book will accuse me of attaching too little weight to the influence of historical causes on the present state, social, economic, and political, of Ireland, but even when I have given full consideration to all such influences I still think that, with their unquestioned authority in religion, and their almost equally undisputed influence in education, the Roman Catholic clergy cannot be exonerated from some responsibility in regard to Irish character as we find it to-day. Are they, I would ask, satisfied with that character? I cannot think so. The impartial observer will, I fear, find amongst a majority of our people a striking absence of self-reliance and moral courage; an entire lack of serious thought on public questions; a listlessness and apathy in regard to economic improvement which amount to a form of fatalism; and, in backward districts, a survival of superstition, which saps all strength of will and purpose—and all this, too, amongst a people singularly gifted by nature with good qualities of mind and heart."
    That was the description by Sir Horace Plunkett of a powerful and
    1080
    virile race which had sent missionaries the world over, had produced famous poets, and had been a great intellectual force in Europe for hundreds of years! Sir Horace Plunkett had also made sweeping charges against the teaching orders in Ireland. He said that the Christian Brothers and nuns were incapable guides of Irish youth; but Mr. Dale, the Protestant inspector of schools, who had been sent to Ireland to report upon educational work being done there, refuted these reckless charges. He had inspected 292 convent schools and many of the Christian Brothers' schools, and found them the most efficient and best schools in Ireland. He hoped the Committee would recognise that if a department like the Board of Agricultural and Technical Instruction was to be conducted by a man with practically the whole power in his own hands, that man ought to have sympathy for the people and their aspirations. Sir Horace Plunkett's sympathy showed itself in a slander upon a great body of public servants who were engaged in a high and holy mission. Sir Horace Plunkett was nothing more or less than the head of a great proselytising agency in Ireland, which had come in to kill Home Rule with kindness. If this was a part of the kindness with which Home Rule was to be killed, it would take much more than Sir Horace Plunkett could accomplish to do it. The real and legitimate settlement of the Irish question could only be done through the agency of an Irish Parliament. He had heard the Chief Secretary quote a number of continental countries where agriculture flourished under the direction of the Technical Instruction Department, but the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the one notable difference between these countries

    1081
    and Ireland — they were self-governing countries, whereas in Ireland the representatives of the people had nothing to do with the administration of the public funds of this Department. He was not afraid to give his vote on this question. Sir Horace Plunkett should not be held to be above criticism, and the Irish Members were justified in the attitude they had taken up in regard to that gentleman.
    MR. DELANYsaid he wished to support the Motion of his hon. friend. He agreed with the hon. Member for Longford that no practical result had followed from the expenditure by the Agricultural Department. Emigration was on the increase, and the condition of the country was worse than it was four years ago. He said this from his own knowledge, as he was a member of two county committees and also of the Agricultural Council. He believed the Department was working on wrong lines. Something might be done to keep the young men and the young women in the country. He would quote an opinion on the working of the Department, which, perhaps, would be received with some respect by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was given by Lieutenant-Colonel W. Warburton, who was recently on a visit to a relative in Ireland. That gentleman said—
    "I now turn to the Irish Department. Sir Horace Plunkett and Mr. Gill have been aware of this for over a year and a-half, but they have persistently shut their eyes to the facts with which they were acquainted, and they have been squandering the public money in ' industrial efforts' which only tend to the impoverishment of the people and the country in the interest of England and English industries. Since 30th November last I have been urging the Irish Department and the public, through the columns of the Press, to change their policy. The replies of Mr. Gill, the book written by Sir Horace Plunkett, the
    1082
    last issue of the Irish Department's journal, and concurrent testimony, leave me no doubt whatever that the policy of the Department has been designedly shaped with this end in view— the prevention of Irish competition, and no other. The Bishop of Ardagh, in the chair at a lecture in Longford by the chief instructor of the Department, uses these words: 'What have you done these four years with the Department's money and the ratepayers money? Have you kept the people at home? The answer to these questions reveal failure. I have my serious doubts if we are not squandering the money that is so badly wanted for other purposes. I have none. The answer to these questions is, not only nothing has been done, but the efforts of the Irish Department have been concentrated upon hand industries which have nearly all disappeared in England, and whose principal effect is poverty, emigration, denationalisation, and aggravation of all the evils which the curse of seven centuries of English rule has inflicted on Ireland. A complete and sufficient explanation of the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett and Mr. Gill (who has been purchased at a cheap rate by his master) may be found in one paragraph of a paper read by Sir Richard Sankey, R.E., at the Cork Exhibition and published in the Irish Department's journal over a year ago. 'The peat bogs are the true gold mines of Ireland. There is no reason why all the machinery of Belfast should not be run from the bogs. They are capable of sending out vivifying streams of power to the farthest corner of Ireland, which would be placed in a position to compete in all forms of industry with England and Scotland."
    That was an expression of opinion of a Lieutenant-Colonel in His Majesty's Army. Reference had been made during the debate to the unfair methods which had been pursued in connection with the appointment of the staff of the Department. The Chief Secretary made a great point of the fact that, owing to the neglected state of technical education in Ireland, Irish instructors could not be found. When, however, the King's County Technical Committee was about to appoint a chemical expert, an Irishman of good qualifications was a candidate. The Department sent down two other candidates, and intimated that the Irish candidate had not proper qualifications. Reference had been made to the clerks in the

    1083
    Veterinary Department. He believed that no more partisan or sectarian action was ever taken in Ireland than that which had occurred in connection with that Department. When the Department was transferred from Dublin Castle it contained twelve clerks and one head clerk. Six of these were Catholics; and although they had from ten to thirteen years service they had to remain at £9C a year, and when they petitioned for an increase of salary they were threatened with dismissal. There were, however, others in the Department who were receiving salaries of £1,000,£950, and £700. When he put a question with reference to this partisan and unfair treatment of men of capacity and respectability, he was informed that the Department had no knowledge as to the religion of these gentlemen; just as the Attorney-General said that he did not know what was the religion of the twelve Protestants he put into a jury box to convict a Nationalist. If the matter were not remedied he would revert to it again, in order that justice might be done. He had no objection to any man because of his creed; but he certainly objected to the sectarian and partisan manner in which these clerks were being treated; it amounted in his opinion to a public scandal.
    MR. FIELD (Dublin,said he desired to intervene in the debate because he had been a member of the Recess Committee and was at present Chairman of the Technical Instruction Committee at Blackrock. He had been identified with the Department and, therefore, he did not wish to give a silent vote. He was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary that he welcomed criticism. Criticism was not only useful but
    1084
    absolutely necessary to preserve the a efficiency and economic administration of every public Department. It was even it more necessary in Ireland than in England, because in Ireland the officials were masters of the situation. He agreed that the discussion was a practical one as far as the mistakes and omissions of the Department were concerned; and it was in the interests of the Department as well as in the interests of the Irish ratepayers that the present situation should be discussed. He would not enter into a discussion of Sir Horace Plunkett's book. They were engaged in discussing his Department, not his book; but, at the same time, he thought that an Irish Minister who was responsible for a Department which was supposed to be non political and non-sectarian would be wiser If in not writing such a book. On the general question he thought that the reason why Ulster was more prosperous than the other three Province? was that they had in Ulster absolute ownership of land and houses. He was of opinion that ownership went to the root of all prosperity in Ireland; and that the security of farmers and town tenants in Ulster undoubtedly helped to establish the prosperity of the province. No doubt security would be partially accomplished by the Land Act as far as farmers were concerned; but he hoped that similar protection would also be afforded to town tenants. One of the principal reasons why the Agricultural Department was not working more efficiently was because there was a certain difference between local opinion and the opinion entertained by the Department. He did not know how the friction to which his hon. friend referred arose between the Longford County Council and the

    1085
    Department, because if the county council did not approve of the scheme they need not have adopted it. The Department and the local authorities did not, however, appear to be in harmony. For instance, a breed of bulls called Galloways were introduced into the West of Ireland against the strong protest of farmers and dealers. The result was that dealers would not now attend fairs in districts where Galloway bulls had been introduced. He only mentioned that as one instance. Then, again, Hackneys were introduced into Connemara, although everyone knew they would be unsuitable for the work. It was assumed that the Department had certain functions with regard to the railways; but, in practice, they found that Sir Horace Plunkett had practically no power; and that the railways did as they pleased. It was difficult to get at the figures and facts of the railway question. Years ago he suggested that a Viceregal Commission should be appointed.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was the hon. Gentleman himself who accepted the alternative of a Departmental inquiry.
    MR. FIELDsaid he did not then expect that a policy of masterly inactivity would be pursued. He had been reading Reports of the American Board of Agriculture, and he found that one of its functions was to test soil. Why should not similar tests be introduced into Ireland, in order that the soil might be utilised to the best possible advantage? With reference to technical instruction the one thing necessary was that they should have schools properly equipped, and he thought that the Chief Secretary ought to bring pressure to bear on the Treasury to provide them. He hoped also that when boys and girls were given technical education, means of employment would be given to them.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 146. (Division List No. 173.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Dowd, John

    Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Kelly.James (Roscommon.N.

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Leamy, Edmund

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Lundon, W.

    Reddy, M.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Roberts, John (Eifion)

    Cullman, J.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Roche, John

    Delany, William

    M'Kean, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas'

    Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Sheehy, David

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Moss, Samuel

    Sullivan, Donal

    Ffrench, Peter

    Murphy, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, Luke (York. E.R.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork

    Gilhooly, James

    0'Brien,Kendal Tipperary,Mid

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas Esmonde and

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N)

    Captain Donelan.

    Hammond, John

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin& Nairn)

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Arnold-Forster,RtHn.Hugh O.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Peel,Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gretton, John

    Percy, Earl

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Platt-Higgins, Frederck

    Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHn. Sir H.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Balfour, RtHn GeraldW.(Leeds

    Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Renwick, George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Beach, RtHn.Sir Michael Hicks

    Hobhouse,Rt Hn H(Somers'tE.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Bignold, Arthur

    Howard, John(Kent,Faversham

    Russell, T. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sackville, Col, S. G. Stopford

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir JohnH.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Bull, William James

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Butcher, John George

    Keswick, William

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Worc.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Chapman, Edward

    Lawson,John Grant (Yorks.NR

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Give, Captain Percy A.

    Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Lees, Sir Elliot, (Birkenhead)

    Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

    Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

    Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

    Cross," Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Tuff, Charles

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wilson,A.Stanley (York, E. R.)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Murray, RtHn A.Graham (Bute

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Manc'r

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    O'Doherty, William

    Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PRIVILEGES.
Ordered, That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seven Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Blake, Sir Henry
1088
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. John Edward Ellis, and Mr. Halsey.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Adjourned at twelve, minutes after Twelve O'clock.