Sitting of 7 March 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the
  given out of public funds to establish a school at one place, it is futile to call that a temporary experiment. It is certain that the scheme will eventually become a permanent one. While I regret that the noble Marquess cannot give me any further satisfaction with regard to the spending of the money, I am grateful that at any rate an inquiry will be held into the matter.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:— Content, 24; Not-Contents, 30.
  First Reading thereof, Standing Order 63 has been complied with, viz.:— Seaham Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Darien Gold Mining Company.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Heckmondwike Improvement Bill; Wigan Corporation Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order); London County Council (Tramways) Bill (by Order); Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill (by Order); Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill (by Order); Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill (by Order); Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the Caledonian Railway Company in relation to their undertaking; to authorise them or the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company to construct a railway to connect the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway with the Clydebank Dock branch of the North British Railway Company, and to acquire a joint interest in such dock branch; to authorise the Callandar and Oban Railway Company to raise additional capital and to transfer to them the Leitir Mhor Pier and empower them to maintain, regulate, and charge rates at Achnacloich Pier; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  Name of colony.

  Date and method of incorporation into British Empire.

  Date and method of conferment of Representative Institutions.

  Population, revenue, and area at time of conferment of Representative Institution.

  —(Dr. Macnamara.)

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Copy ordered, "of Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1905; and Return of the number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1899 to 1904, both years inclusive; together with a Statement of the Progress made in the Arrangement and Description of the Collections, and an Account of Objects added to them in the year 1904."—(Mr. John Morley.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (CRUISERS NOT STRUCK OFF EFFECTIVE LIST).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd February; Mr. Edmund Robertson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
  NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1903–4).
  Annual Accounts presented, for 1903–4, of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 76.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 3rd March, 1905, declaring that William Eaton, Rural Postman, Welling-borough Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertance on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES (REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS).
  Address for "Return showing the methods in each case by which Representative Institutions have been conferred upon British Colonies since the Accession of the late Queen Victoria:—

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.
  Signal Station at Ballylynch, Baltimore.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state at what date the signal station at Ballylynch, Baltimore, was erected; and whether the consent of the landlord was obtained before its erection.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) This signal station was erected in September,

  555
  1891, on a site obtained on a yearly tenancy from Mr. Cornelius Regan, who, in making his offer to let the ground, stated that he was the ''lawful tenant with all legal rights." It does not appear that the landlord was asked to consent to the erection of the signal station.

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

  Poor Law Officers and the Local Government Board in Ireland.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Poor Law officers of Ireland are placed under different regulations by the Local Government Board at the present time than what obtained prior to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898; and whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board have in their published Reports paid tribute to the efficiency of the administration of the Local Government Acts by the local bodies of Ireland, he will see his way to
  556
  recommend the withdrawal of the late Orders of the Local Government Board, so far as concerns these bodies which have protested against them.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The general regulations under which union officers now serve are the same as those in force prior to the passing of the Act of 1898. The fundamental changes introduced by that Act necessitated an entirely different code of instructions in respect to financial administration, for example, union rating has been substituted for electoral-division rating and the guardians no longer collect their own rates, but are financed by county councils. It has already been stated that it is not proposed to withdraw the Orders recently issued.

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

  Gambling in Options.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further information respecting the working of the regulations against dealing by gambling in options and futures in Germany, Canada, and other countries; whether the Government intend to send representatives to the congresses about to be held at Liège and Rome; and whether they will initiate

  557
  a discussion on this subject with a view to prevent International conspiracies of bulls and bears to operate markets.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Some information has been received from time to time on this subject, but the Government do not propose to take the step indicated in the Question.

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

  Statistical Abstract of British Empire.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the table in the new Statistical Abstract for the British Empire, which purports to show the area and population of each part of the Empire, is incomplete, since it includes in its totals particulars of none of the African Protectorates, except that attached to the Gold Coast Colony, and since no mention is made, either in text or footnote, of Rhodesia, or of the Protectorates of British East Africa, Zanzibar, Uganda, British Central Africa, Somaliland, Northern Nigeria, and Southern Nigeria, or of British North Borneo and Sarawak; and whether, in future numbers of the Abstract, he will include in this or a supplemental table particulars, so far as ascertainable, of these territories.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The official statistics relating to the population
  558
  and area of the Protectorates were too imperfect to admit of inclusion in the first number of the Abstract. There is a note on page 7 with regard to the treatment of protectorate trade. How far the desired particulars can be included in future numbers of the Abstract must depend on the information available at the time of preparation.

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

  Exemption of Children from School Attendance for Ingathering of Crops.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any, and if so which, local authorities have issued notices exempting from the prohibitions and restrictions of the Act (39 and 40 Vic., c. 79, s. 9) the employment of children above the age of eight years for the necessary operation of husbandry and the ingathering of crops for a period not exceeding six weeks, exclusive of the time during which the school is closed for the holidays; and whether any, and if so which, local authorities for any district have by by-law under the Act (62 and 63 Vic., c. 13, s. 1) for any parish within their district fixed thirteen years as the minimum age for exemption from school attendance in the case of children to be employed in agriculture, providing that in such parish such children over eleven and under thirteen years of age who have passed the standard fixed for partial exemption from school attendance by the by-laws of the local authority shall not

  559
  be required to attend school more than 250 times in any year.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have been advised that the result of Section 4 of the, Education Act of 1880 was to confine the operation of Section 9 of the Act of 1876 to children who do not come within the operation of the by-laws. So far as I am aware, no Orders have been issued under the section since 1880. Thirty-five counties have adopted the agricultural by-law under Section 1 of the Act of 1899 for the whole, or practically the whole, of their area. It is also in force in many parts of the eleven counties for which new by-laws have not yet been approved since the Act of 1902 came into operation. The by-law has also been adopted by a few urban authorities.

  Applications for Entry to Residential Training Colleges by Successful King's Scholars.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state how many of the 1,506 young

  Class of College.

  Men.

  Women.

  Church of England

  708

  1,084

  Wesleyan

  90

  107

  Roman Catholic

  27

  159

  Undenominational

  205

  634

  Vaccination Fees—Report of Departmental Committee.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Vaccination Fees will be presented to Parliament; and when a revision of the fees in question will come into force.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I propose to present the Report at once. The subject to which it refers is receiving my attention, but I cannot say when a new Order will be issued. I may however, observe that effect could not be given to some of the recommendations contained in it without legislation.
  men and 4,245 young women, respectively, who qualified for admission to a, training college in December, 1904, are desirous of obtaining a place in a residential training college, Church of England, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, or Undenominational, respectively, in October next; also how many, though qualified, do not propose to go to either residential or day college.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The numbers of men and women given in the table below are the numbers of men and women who were successful in the King's Scholarship Examination in December last, and who have informed the Board of the name of the residential college which they desire to enter. Two hundred and forty-six men and 1,877 women have given the Board no information as to whether or not they desire to enter any kind of training college. The Board have no information at present as to the numbers of men and women who, having passed some equivalent examination, desire to enter a residential college in September next:—

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

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

  Utilisation of Peat Bogs in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will consult with the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland regarding the utilisation of peat bogs in Ireland; whether he has had any recent Report from the Department, on the subject; whether he will consider the advisability of giving a special grant to enable the Department to test the efficacy of scientific methods already successfully being worked in Germany and also by private companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) For the past two years the Department have been experimenting with German and other machinery for the more economical production
  562
  of peat fuel. Articles on the subject appeared in the Department's Quarterly Journal, March, 1904. The conclusion drawn from the Department's operations in the year 1904 on the bog leased by them at Inny, county West-meath, is that the failure which has heretofore attended the efforts of private individuals and others to develop the two chief branches of the industry in Ireland, viz., peat fuel and peat moss litter, may be attributed to the defective and, in many instances, to the mistaken methods employed. A number of residents in the district have now arranged to take over the Department's experimental peat works at Inny, and to carry on the manufacture of peat fuel on a commercial scale on the lines indicated by the experiment. The Department propose continuing their operations this year at Castleconnell, county Limerick, where experiments in the manufacture of peat moss litter as well as of peat fuel by improved machinery will be undertaken.

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

  Technical Instruction in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Manual and Practical Instruction Committee recommended that science teaching should be made compulsory as soon as possible in all the primary schools;

  563
  and, if so, whether, seeing that the teaching of elementary experimental science is not progressing owing to the diminution of the necessary funds, and that technical instruction in Ireland is impeded from the want of money for the erection of suitable buildings as schools, he will endeavour to meet those claims.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Manual and Practical Instruction Commission recommended that elementary science instruction (including object-lessons) should be introduced generally into national schools, and should be made compulsory as soon as teachers could be trained to give the instruction. A special grant was made by the Treasury in 1900, to be continued for a period of five years, terminating on March 31st, 1905, for the purpose of organising elementary science teaching, and for the training of teachers in the subject. With the aid of this grant the Commissioners of National Education were enabled to appoint a head organiser of elementary science and several sub-organisers, and to make grants of science apparatus to national schools in which there were teachers qualified to give the instruction. The Treasury have consented to continue the grants for the head organiser, Mr. Heller, and for two of his assistants, Miss Maguire and Mr. Ingold, permanently, and they have also consented to continue the grants for science apparatus. Arrangements have been made in all the training colleges for the instruction of King's scholars in elementary science. In addition to the 2,397 teachers trained in elementary science at the several training colleges, 3,774 teachers have been trained at the classes conducted by Mr. Heller and his assistants in Elementary Science, Part I., and 500 of these latter have also attended courses of instruction in Elementary Science, Part II. Instruction in elementary science and object-lessons is progressing in the schools, and there is no reason to anticipate that it will diminish in the future. As regards funds for the erection of technical schools, the work of technical instruction, as defined in The Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, is, in most of the urban districts in Ireland, carried on at present in temporary buildings. The Department permit a portion of the funds allocated
  564
  to schemes of technical instruction in urban districts to be applied to the repayment of loans for building purposes; but in the majority of cases the amount of the funds available is insufficient to admit of this being done.

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

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

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

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

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will grant the Return standing on the Paper to-day relating to the Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Irish Government has no information on this matter, and no means at its disposal of obtaining it.
  The Return referred to was as follows: Irish Provident Assurance Company,—Return showing the capital stock and insured risks of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, with the amount repaid to policy holders in respect of claims not matured; the proportion
  566
  of capital to insurances effected; and the names of trustees, if any, for (a) shareholders, and (b) policy houlders in this Company.

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

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

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Conditions of Naval Service.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval authorities are aware that, in the official illustrated pamphlet "How to Join the Royal Navy," that can be obtained from the Secretary to the Admiralty, a recruiting officer, or at any post office, in which the career of a sailor is sketched, there is no mention of the fact that boys and youths under eighteen are liable for trivial offences triable summarily under the provisions of the King's Naval Regulations to twenty-four strokes of the birch, and to twelve strokes of a cane; and whether steps will be taken to rectify this omission in the pamphlet.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is Yes; to the second part, No.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will take care to supplement that this afternoon.

  The Volunteer Grant.
  MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to alter the incidence of the present grant to the Volunteer force; and, if so, whether such alteration will be extended to the Imperial Yeomanry.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): It is not possible to make any change in the incidence of the grant to Volunteers during the coming year, but I consider it most important that changes should be made in the directions which I have already indicated as soon as possible. The changes should allow of larger grants being paid in respect of efficient Volunteers and smaller grants in the case of those who are unable to comply with the full requirements.

  Manufacture of Guns by Private Firms.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the contractors have recently
  568
  delivered at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, two 4·7 guns which are entirely out of truth, and also that several 12-pounder 18 cwt. guns are under plan sizes; and, if so, will he say whether the specifications for guns given out to private firms are the same as that for the Government Departments; and, if so, who is responsible for passing these guns, in view of the standard adopted by the inspectors in the Government workshops.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The two 4·7 guns which presumably are referred to are guns which have been issued for armaments some time and have recently been returned to Woolwich for repair. They were found to be slightly bent. Some 12-pounder guns have been delivered for inspection below plan size and are being lapped out before proof. There is nothing exceptional in this. Guns made by private firms and the Government factories are subjected to the same tests and passed to the same specifications by the Chief Inspector, Woolwich.

  The Army Estimates.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The date given me by the printer is the 16th, but I hope that it may be possible to anticipate that date.
  MR. BUCHANAN: That will be within ten days of the end of the financial year. Have they ever been so late before?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have said I am trying to accelerate them.

  The Army Council and Army Reform.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Army Council now approve of the changes in the Army adumbrated by him last year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The policy of the Army Council is that which I explained to the House last year, subject to the modifications which it has been necessary to introduce in view of the special circumstances of the coming year.

  Maintenance of Order in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say on how many occasions within the past six months it has been necessary to call out the military in the Transvaal as a matter of emergency in support of the civil power; what the nature of the emergency in each case was; and, if not, whether he will ask for a detailed report from Lord Milner.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I am informed that on no occasion has it been necessary to call out the military for such a purpose within the last six months.

  Chinese Competition with White Labour in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement in the South African News of February 4th to the effect that at the monthly meeting of the Johannesburg Trades and Labour Council a number of complaints were made regarding the employment in Johannesburg of Chinese coolies in trades hitherto solely followed by white mechanics, and to the statement that the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners complained that Chinese coolies were making and fixing sashes and frames in Terreira township; and whether he will make inquiries of Lord Milner as to these alleged breaches of the Ordinance.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the newspaper statement referred to. I will make inquiry, but the statement implies that attention was to be called to the alleged breach in the ordinary way. It must be remembered that there were a certain number of Chinese in the Transvaal before the passing of the Asiatic Labour Ordinance and that to these the restrictions in that Ordinance do not apply.

  Education on Ceylon Estates.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry out the scheme of education for children on tea estates and other estates
  570
  in Ceylon, which had his approval in September last.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave on the 28th† ultimo to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

  Land Settlement in South Africa.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total acreage acquired for land settlement in South Africa, the number of settlers, the cost of the land, and amount of advances to settlers.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I expect to have the latest information in a few days, which I shall be happy to furnish to the hon. Member in reply to an unstarred Question.

  The Tibetan Treaty.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Chinese Government have expressed their adhesion to the Tibetan Treaty; what is the amount of indemnity finally settled; and during what period is it to be paid.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for West Denbighshire yesterday,‡ the Chinese Government have appointed a Plenipotentiary to negotiate with the Government of India on the subject of their adhesion to the treaty. The amount of the indemnity is Rs. 25 lakhs, and is, I understand, payable, under Article VI. of the treaty, in annual instalments of one lakh, commencing on January 1st, 1906.

  Upper Congo—New British Consuls.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the insecurity to the life and property of British subjects in the Upper Congo, he will consider the advisability of taking
  † See (4) Debates, exli., 1474.
  ‡ See page 406.

  571
  steps to appoint Consuls with jurisdiction powers at Leopoldville, Stanley Falls, and elsewhere.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: The information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government does not appear to justify the description given by the hon. Member in the first paragraph of his Question, but it is proposed to appoint two additional Vice-Consuls to reside at Leopoldville and Stanleyville.

  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state who, in addition to himself, are the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; which, if any, of the Commissioners are in the habit of taking part in the proceedings of the Commissioners in relation to the Post Office Savings Bank Fund; by whom and on how many occasions has any part been taken in such proceedings during the tenure of office by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and were the Commissioners, collectively or separately, consulted as to the policy of suppressing the balance-sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank, and the intended omission of the deficiency from the finance accounts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are: The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the Paymaster-General, the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I am aware, the Commissioners have not been summoned to meet since the establishment in 1861 of the Post Office Savings Bank. The business of the office is conducted by the Controller-General, with whom I am in frequent communication.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
  572
  will state what is the deficiency in the income account of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended December 31st, 1904; whether, having regard to the view expressed by himself to the House on March 15th, 1904, that for several years to come there will be a deficiency in the income account and the view that the taxpayer should not constantly be required to make good a deficiency in the income account, he proposes to submit measures to make the Post Office Savings Bank self-supporting; and, if so, will he state the nature of those measures.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The deficiency in the income account for the year ended December 31st, 1904, is estimated to be £113,785. I presume that the last part of the Question is intended to suggest legislation for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest allowed to depositors. If so, the hon. Member will find my reasons for not taking that course fully stated in my speech in March † last.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all the depositors in the Savings Bank came for their money the bank would be unable to pay them without making a call on the taxpayers?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That has absolutely no reference to the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, but the question is what steps will be taken to make the bank self-supporting?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That refers to the income account and not to the capital account of the bank.

  Remuneration of Excise Officers and Clerks in Collectors' Offices.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that officers of Excise employed in warehouses and distilleries are allowed extra remuneration when performing duty for an absent colleague; that these officers are not employed in single stations, as many as ten or twelve being sometimes employed
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1164.

  573
  in the same building; and whether, as these circumstances are closely analogous to those prevailing in collectors' offices, and inconvenience is caused in these offices when any of the staff are absent without a substitute, he will reconsider his former decision, and allow clerks in collectors' offices extra remuneration for extra duty performed under such circumstances.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The position of clerks in collectors' offices bears only a very qualified analogy with the position of officers employed in warehouses and distilleries. Their position, on the other hand, is absolutely parallel with that of clerks in all other public offices, and to grant them the concession asked for would involve its extension to the whole Civil Service, which I consider neither desirable nor practicable.

  Fatalities on Electric Railways.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many fatal and how many non-fatal accidents have occurred up to the present time through persons coming in contact with the live rail on electric railways; and whether the Board of Trade is taking any steps for the prevention of such accidents.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): On the Lancashire and Yorkshire and North Eastern Railways nine fatal and twenty-two non-fatal accidents have occurred through contact with the electrically charged rail, including eight fatal and eight non-fatal accidents to trespassers, and one fatal and eleven non-fatal accidents to railway servants. No accidents from contact with the rail in question have been reported to the Board of Trade on any of the other lines which have recently been equipped for the use of electrical power in place of steam, and no such fatal accident has, it is believed, occurred on any of the tube railways. The number of non-fatal accidents of this description on tube railways, some of which have been opened now for a considerable period, cannot be given, as
  574
  no separate record of such accidents has been kept, but the number, if any, must be very small. Recommendations as to the steps to be taken to prevent the occurrence of accidents of this character have been made from time to time to the railway companies and have been adopted by them; and the matter is one that receives unremitting consideration from the inspecting officers of the Department in the execution of their duties.
  MR JOHN ELLIS: Has there been any refusal on the part of any railway company to comply with any suggestion made by the Board of Trade.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not think so.

  Bath Female Telegraphists' Grievances.
  *MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that three female telegraphists, who have been appointed at Bath Post Office for several years, have received orders that they are to be compulsorily removed to other towns, and given the choice of Exeter and Birmingham; if so, will he say whether they were informed at the time of their appointment at Bath that they were to be sent away from their homes at short notice; and whether he will investigate the circumstances of the case and consider the advisability of retaining the young women at the offices at which they were appointed.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: The exigencies of the service at Bath, where there is much night duty to be done, render it necessary to substitute three men sorting clerks and telegraphists for three women. I have accordingly decided to transfer from Bath the three junior female officers. The present state of the work at Bath could not be anticipated at the time of the appointment of these young ladies; but this circumstance should not, in my opinion, stand in the way of their removal from an office where their services are not required to one where they can be made useful. Reasonable removal expenses will be paid, and ample time will be allowed.

  Pay of London Telegraphists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state his intentions with reference to the claim that the maximum salary of telegraphists should be increased; and whether, in view of the fact that the wages paid in English able companies and in the State Telegraph Services of France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany are in excess of those paid to postal telegraphists in England, and that the Bradford Committee recommended considerable increases, he is prepared to raise the salaries of this staff to the level of that paid for similar work elsewhere.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not prepared to admit the validity of the arguments embodied in the hon. Member's Question; and I have no intention of raising the maximum pay of the general body of telegraphists in London, viz., £160 a year. But I hope to make some improvement in the pay of the cable-room staff of the Central Telegraph Office, which forms a separate establishment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to the promise made to these men why is not good faith kept with them? Are they to be treated in the same way as the hon. Member for King's Lynn?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Local Government Accounts.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee to consider the practicability of a standard form of accounts being prescribed for local authorities, which he announced his attention of appointing at the end of last session, has been appointed; whether it has taken any evidence on the subject; and will he say whether the Local Government Board's system of audit has recently been imposed upon the Corporation of Cheltenham as a condition of the Board's sanction of a loan to pay the accumulated deficits on the electric lighting undertaking.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Owing to the illness
  576
  and subsequent resignation of the Officer of my Department chiefly concerned with forms of accounts I have had to defer the appointment of the Committee. The vacancy has now been filled and I will proceed with the appointment of the Committee as soon as possible. With regard to the Cheltenham case, the town council have applied for a Provisional Order which will give them power to borrow to pay off an accumulated deficit of some £18,000 in respect of their electric lighting undertaking. With a view to preventing the recurrence of an irregularity such as that of the deficit in question, it appeared to be desirable that the accounts of the town council should be made subject to the same system of audit as those of county councils and other local authorities. The town council, who had themselves included in a Bill which they prepared in 1900 a provision for making their accounts subject to this system of audit, accepted the arrangement. They desired, however, that provision should be made for giving them power to incur certain expenditure similar to the power conferred by Parliament on the Plymouth Corporation last year, and I propose to give effect to their wishes in this respect.

  Physical Deterioration Committee's Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet considered the expediency of issuing to parochial medical officers, sanitary inspectors, and inspectors of poor, leaflets containing the opinions of the Committee on Physical Deterioration relative to ventilation and the bringing up of young children, with a view to the dissemination of information on these subjects.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have given consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion, but I have not at present seen my way to adopt it.
  MR. WEIR; Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me the same Answer a year ago?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes; and I gave the same reason. The adoption of

  577
  such steps must be dependent on the advice I receive from my officers.

  Secondary Schools—Fees and Free Scholarships.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the objection felt by local education authorities to the rules laid down by the Board of Education that the minimum fee for scholars attending secondary schools under Part II of the Act of 1902 shall be £3 per annum, and that the number of free scholarships at such schools shall not exceed 25 per cent. of the total number of scholars; whether he has taken into consideration the effect of these regulations in debarring from the benefits of higher education a considerable number of the children of the industrial classes; and, if so, whether the Board of Education will, at an early date, respond to the wish of many education authorities that the minimum fee should be reduced, and the number of free scholarships tenable at secondary schools should be increased.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): This matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Board. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a letter which has been despatched to the president of the Association of Education Committees on the subject. Briefly, the Board will not insist as a condition of grant upon the observance of any general rule as regards the amount of fee or the number of free places. Each case will be considered on its merits.

  Local Authority (Default) Act, 1904.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board has determined to declare any local education authority, or authorities, in default under the Local Authority (Default) Act, 1904; if so, which these authorities, if any, are, and the circumstances which have, in the opinion of the Board of Education, rendered the application of the Default Act necessary; and whether he will lay Papers containing the correspondence between the Board of Education and such
  578
  local authority or authorities, if any, now in default which has led the Board to the decision to apply the Default Act.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education are in communication with more than one local education authority in respect of matters which might call for the application of the Local Authority (Default.) Act, 1904. These communications are still proceeding.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Has the Default Act not yet been applied in respect of any authority?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not yet.

  Teaching of the Irish Language in Schools.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London County Council has decided to accept Irish as a modern language at its examinations for clerkships; and whether, in issuing the new Code, he will specify that Irish may be included amongst the subjects for elementary day and evening schools.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No alteration of the regulations of the Board appears to be necessary. There is nothing in the existing regulations which prevents Irish being taught in any day or evening school where the Board are satisfied that it is a suitable subject of instruction.

  Battery Park, Stornoway—Sites for Fishermen's Dwellings.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether the whole of the twenty-nine feus offered as sites for fishermen's dwellings at the Battery Park, Stornoway, have now been allocated, and what progress has been made with the construction of the houses.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): According to the latest information only twenty feus have been allocated. The contractor has informed the Congested Districts Board that, with favourable weather, he hopes to finish the twenty houses contracted for by the end of April.

  Shader Landing Place, Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work at the Shader Landing Place, Lewis, Ross-shire.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Congested Districts Board on June 4th, 1901, offered a grant of £270 to the County Council of Ross to aid in the execution of the work in question. On the 13th ultimo the county clerk asked that the offer of the grant should be kept open until May 15th next, and the Board have consented.

  Milk Supply—Government Inspection of Stock.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that Dr. Chalmers, the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow, states that the epidemic of sore throat at the Belvedere Hospital in that city last summer was due to teat eruption in the stock at the farm from which the milk supply was obtained, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will secure the periodical inspection of stock kept for the supply of milk to public dairies.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Under No. 14 of the Local Government Board Draft Regulations for regulating the duties of sanitary inspectors, which are in force over almost all Scotland, those officers are bound to visit dairies, cowsheds, and milkshops at least once in every three months. Legislation on this subject, therefore, appears to be unnecessary.

  Scottish Congested Districts Board —Loans to Fishermen.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board will consider the expediency of making loans to fishermen in congested districts for the purchase of boats and gear.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The question of making loans to fishermen has engaged the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, but he can come to no decision on the matter pending the Report of the Committee of Inquiry recently appointed by his predecessor.

  Thompson-Orpen Estate, Millstreet, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with legal proceedings on the Thompson-Orpen Estate, near Millstreet, county Cork, some members of the Constabulary force (including Sergeant Lee and Constable Cahill) have urged the tenants to pay the old rents and otherwise intervened in matters outside their ordinary duties; and, if so, will the Constabulary authorities take action in this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I am informed that the suggestion in this Question is absolutely devoid of foundation.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that ejectment decrees have been obtained against several tenants on the Thompson-Orpen Estate, near Mill-street, county Cork, for the non-payment of one year's rent, including the hanging gale; and whether, in view of the fact that purchase negotiations were in progress, and in consequence of the terms demanded by the landlords the tenants had served originating notices to fix fair rents, he will consider the advisability of withholding the forces of the Crown for the purpose of the proposed eviction.
  MR. ATKINSON: The tenants on this estate refused to pay their rents because the landlord would not sell to them at their own terms. Subsequently a party of armed men visited several of the tenants, fired shots, and warned them not to pay. Two arrests have been made in connection with this occurrence, and the accused have been returned for trial at the next Assizes. The landlord has obtained ejectment decrees against ten of the tenants. The Executive are bound in law to afford protection to the sheriff in the execution of the King's Writs.
  MR. FLYNN: Is not this a case in which an administrative solution might be found?
  MR. ATKINSON: We are bound by law to give the protection asked for.

  Case of H. J. Livingstone, of Newry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by what official and on whose representations it was decided not to execute the warrant issued against H. J. Livingstone, late of Newry and now in Canada; whether, in addition to the Fearon case, he was concerned in the malversation of the funds of the Urban Council of Newry; and whether it is intended to apply for Livingstone's extradition in view of the fact that he absconded.
  MR. ATKINSON: After the issue of the warrant on Fearon's information, Livingstone absconded, it was believed to Canada. It then became necessary to consider whether extradition should be applied for in case his whereabouts was ascertained, and with that object it was necessary to examine whether there was any evidence available to sustain the general charge made on Fearon's information. No such evidence was available, and accordingly the Inspector-General, acting on the instructions of Government, was advised not to execute the warrant. After Livingstone had absconded it was reported to the district inspector that he had misapplied moneys belonging to the urban council, but the council declined to make any information or give any guarantee for repayment of the expenses of his conveyance from America, if arrested there. In these circumstances, no application was made by the Crown for his extradition. The urban council have now instituted proceedings to recover the amount of the defalcations from Livingstone's sureties as rate collector.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that the resident magistrate at Newry was satisfied there was a prima facie case, what right had a permanent official in Dublin Castle to reverse in secret a decision arrived at in public?
  MR. ATKINSON: It was necessary when it was discovered that Livingstone had absconded to ascertain whether there was evidence that could be laid before
  582
  the Canadian or American Court to justify the application for extradition.
  MR. MACVEAGH: But what right had the Dublin Castle official to reverse the decision of the magistrate?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered
  MR. MACVEAGH: With due respect, Sir, it has not. I asked by what official, and on whose representations justice was defeated in this case.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of any further Question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not told me the name of the official who did this.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question may be answered though no name was given.

  The Handwriting Expert in Sergeant Sullivan's Case.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. T. P. Nolan was consulted as a handwriting expert in the course of the charges brought against Sergeant Sullivan, of Mulranny, county Mayo; and, if so, whether he expressed any opinion, as to the authorship of the letters inciting to outrage, and alleged to be written by Sergeant Sullivan.
  MR. ATKINSON: In answer to this Question I beg to refer to the reply to the similar inquiry addressed to my right hon. friend by the hon. Member for Cork on October 20th, † 1902.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it in order for a Minister thus to refer to a reply given three years ago.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On a point of order, would it not be better for him not to answer at all than thus to refer to another Question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  † see (4) Debates, cxiii., 211.

  King-Harman Estate, Boyle.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that in connection with the sale of the King-Harman Estate some of the direct tenants in the town of Boyle have their purchase agreements completed, he will explain why other tenants who hold directly have been excluded from the sale; whether sub-tenants have been excluded from the sale and no attempt at negotiation with the middleman made by the Estates Commissioners; and whether such negotiation is one of the functions of the Commissioners.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the sale of the King-Harman Estate, at Boyle, in the county of Roscommon, the entire of the estate of all descriptions has been sold to the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether he can state the character of the excluded portion, and why it was excluded.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners were duly notified by the tenants of the King-Harman Estate that they agreed to the purchase by the Commissioners on the grounds that the Commissioners would buy up any un-tenanted land, non-residential holdings, or other portions of the estate that might be available for redistribution amongst the tenants; whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any and what steps to secure such lands for the purpose mentioned; and whether several of the occupiers of such lands have expressed their willingness to sell their interests to the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners have arranged to purchase the entire of the estate, save the demesne, certain portions of the town of Boyle, the houses in which are occupied by sub-tenants, and certain other portions where the houses are occupied by weekly and monthly tenants at very low rents. The
  584
  Judical Commissioner has decided that advances cannot be made to middlemen who have wholly sublet their holdings, and in the case of weekly and monthly tenants the Commissioner considers the security for advances inadequate. The tenants' representatives deny that they entered into agreements to purchase their holdings on any such condition as is mentioned, and stated that they did not wish to withdraw from their bargains. Some of the tenants of nonresidential farms have expressed their willingness to sell their holdings to the Estates Commissioners, and negotiations are proceeding.
  MR. HAYDEN: Have the Commissioners entered into negotiations with middlemen in the town for the sale of their holdings to the occupiers, and are they willing to sell?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Belfast Water Supply—Mourne Catchment Area.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Water Commissioners propose to prohibit, after May 1st, the letting of lands within the Mourne catchment area; whether he is aware that before the Commissioners obtained their Bill the parties concerned were led to believe that no local industry would be prejudicially affected; whether he is aware that the operations of the Commissioners have since resulted in the closing of several granite quarries, and that the prohibition of the letting of lands will now injure the sheep-breeding industry, the two chief means of livelihood in the district; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken by the Estates Commissioners or the Department of Agriculture to safeguard the rights of the residents.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the secretary to the Water Commissioners that the catchment area of the waterworks comprises but a very small portion of the lands in the district available for sheep grazing, and that the Commissioners when acquiring the lands compensated the parties interested in the

  585
  grazing. In order to avoid any danger of pollution of the water supply they have also decided to discontinue in future the letting of the lands for grazing. No quarrying has been done on the Commissioners' lands during the past two years, and no persons have the right of quarrying there. Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Estates Commissioners have any jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

  Revaluation of Licensed Houses in Belfast.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Armstrong v. the Commissioner of Valuation; and whether, in view of the fact that that decision lays down the principle that in valuing all business houses the volume of business done is to be taken into account, and that that principle has been applied in the revaluation of Belfast to licensed houses only, he proposes to take any action towards suspending that revaluation till the error committed by the Commissioner of Valuation has been rectified.
  MR. ATKINSON: The revaluation of Belfast has been carried out strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the Valuation Acts, and that this has been correctly done in the case of both licensed and unlicensed houses is confirmed both by the result of the many appeals to the Recorder of Belfast, and by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal. There is no intention of postponing the coming into force of the revaluation.

  Irish Estates Commissioners' Report.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the Report of the Estates Commissioners on the first year's working of the Irish Land Act of 1903 will be published.
  MR. ATKINSON: An Interim Report of the proceedings of the Commissioners to December 31st, 1904, is in preparation and, it is expected, will be laid on the Table of the House during the present month.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state the total reduction which has taken place in the Royal Irish Constabulary since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, and the proportion of officers which has been included in such reduction.
  MR. ATKINSON: The total reduction which has taken place in the strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary since the passing of the Act of 1903 is 753 men, including 2 officers.

  Pay of Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the amount of the average salary and emoluments, including all extras and expenses, of a county inspector, district inspector, sergeant, and ordinary constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary respectively.
  MR. ATKINSON: The figures are £621; £340; £84 5s.; and £62, respectively.

  Maryborough Police Force.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons for continuing the services of a county inspector and district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Maryborough, Queen's County; how many men are told off as servants to those two officials; and whether he will consider the advisability of retaining only a head constable, sergeant, and four or five constables for the district.
  MR. ATKINSON: The services of a county and district inspector are retained at Maryborough because it is the most centrally situated town in the county, and because the requirements of the public service necessitate their retention at this station. No members of the Constabulary act as servants to these officers, and it is not proposed to make any reduction in the strength of the force at Maryborough.

  Grazing Farm at Toneymore.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large grazing farm held on the eleven-months system is available at Toneymore, parish of Abbeylara, barony of Granard, for purchase for the evicted tenants; and will he direct the attention of the Commissioners to this property with a view to their making an offer for it.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners have no knowledge of the farm in question, but will be prepared to consider its purchase in the event of the estate upon which it is situated being brought before them to be dealt with.

  Irish Land Purchase Act.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state the reasons which influenced the announcement that no further sales of towns in Ireland would be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; whether, in view of the pledges given during the passage of the Act, will the matter be now left an open one for the decision of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reasons are that the entire purpose and object of the Land Purchase Code was to deal with the sale and purchase of holdings of land, and that it was never contemplated by Parliament to apply the funds provided by those Acts to the purchase of property in towns. And, further, that in practice it has been found impossible to make advances for the resale of small houses in the occupation of town tenants, as the security is quite inadequate. I am not aware that any pledges of the kind mentioned have been given. The Estates Commissioners can, of course, refer this point for decision in any particular case which may come before them.
  MR. HAYDENinquired if the Commissioners had not made advances for the purchase of town holdings. Who was responsible for altering the intentions of
  588
  the Commissioners in respect of the working of the Act?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he was not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member.
  MR. HAYDEN: Was not the town of Boyle a case in point?
  MR. ATKINSON'S reply was inaudible.

  Irish Science—Instruction Grant.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to stop the grant for organising practical science teaching in Irish national schools; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which such decision has been arrived at, in view of the fact that the Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction recommended the teaching of elementary experimental science in Irish primary schools.
  MR. ATKINSON: A reply to this Question cannot conveniently be given across the floor of the House. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the reply which I am giving at some length to the similar unstarred Question of to-day† in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, and which will be circulated in the morning.

  School Age Regulations in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have in their new regulations made a rule that no boy under eight years of age shall be enrolled in a male school; and whether any provision has been made for compensating teachers who will suffer under this rule.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners have found that boys under eight years of age have received little or no instruction in schools where there were no mistresses, and especially in schools with only one master. The tender ages of these children necessitate instruction of a special character, and the Commissioners
  † See page 562.

  589
  are convinced that women are more fitted to impart this instruction than men. The rule has been made solely in the interests of the children, and the necessity for such a rule was strongly pointed out in Mr. Dale's Report on primary education. With respect to the concluding inquiry there is no evidence yet that teachers, generally, will be in any way sufferers under the rule.

  Irish Education—Mr. Dale's Report.
  MR. SWIFT MAGNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will lay upon the Table the observations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on Mr. Dale's Report.
  MR. ATKINSON: The general purport of the observations of the Commissioners on the Report made by Mr. Dale is embodied in their Annual Report, recently presented to Parliament. It is not proposed to lay on the Table of the House any further official communications from the Commissioners in the mutter.

  Tipperary Courthouse.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the South Tipperary County Council will be expected to pay rent for and maintain the county Courthouse, over which they are not permitted to exercise any control whatever, and which the sheriff without recognition of their views and obligations allows the use of, amongst others, for a tea and bridge club.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I have already explained that the sheriff, in accordance with a practice of many years standing, has, with the general assent of the community and, I understand, of the majority of the county council and to the inconvenience of no person, permitted a portion of the Courthouse called the Assembly Rooms to be used for social amusements.

  Irish Agricultural Department—Miss Anderson's Appointment.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he
  590
  will state the terms of Miss Anderson's temporary appointment as inspector under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and her qualifications for her work; on what date was her recent report on the class in Limerick received by the Department; what steps have the Department taken to satisfy themselves of the fairness of her report; will the Department require the teacher to modify her teaching to suit the views of the inspector in opposition to the views of the purchasers of the goods; and will he say what sources of information do the Department possess, apart from this inspector's reports, as to the condition and progress of the knitting and hosiery industry in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: Miss Anderson is paid a salary at the rate of £200 per annum and her appointment is renewable every six months. She has been regularly employed by the Department since August, 1900. Her qualifications were stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of February 27th.† Her report on the class in Limerick was received by the Department on January 14th. The Department are satisfied as to the fairness of that report, and will require the teacher to remedy the defects to which attention was called. The Department have many sources of information as to the condition and progress of the hosiery knitting industry in Ireland, including special reports of experts in the trade.

  Irish Post Office and the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Mr. Thomas Murphy, of Booterstown, county Dublin, through the failure of the postal officials to deliver a letter, addressed in Irish, to a correspondent in Kilronan, Aran, county Galway, and to the fact that, although the letter reached Kilronan on a Tuesday, it was not delivered at the proper address until the following Saturday; and, if so, whether, seeing that Irish is the home language of the Aran Islands, he can state what steps will be taken to insure that such a delay shall not occur again.
  † (4) Debates cxli., 1332
  LORD STANLEY: I have had inquiry made into the case to which the hon. Member refers. The delay in the delivery of the letter was caused by the fact that, although the officers employed in the Kilronan Post Office can speak Irish, they were unable to decipher the address, which is stated to have been incorrectly written and spelled. I am sorry for the inconvenience occasioned.
  MR. BOLAND: Was the postmaster at Kilronan not able to read Irish, as well as speak it?
  LORD STANLEY: He was not able to read it, but he took every possible method he could to find out what was meant by the address.
  MR. BOLAND: Is it not a fact that the reason why the delay took place was that the postmaster could not read Irish?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; it was because the man who wrote the Irish did not, apparently, know how to do it properly.
  MR. BOLAND: May I ask who informed the noble Lord that the address was incorrectly written?
  LORD STANLEY: Those in whom I have implicit confidence.

  Dublin Postmen's Overtime.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the overtime earned by several postmen in the Dublin district on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve is not yet paid; what is the reason for the delay; and whether he will give instructions for its payment forthwith.
  LORD STANLEY: The overtime claimed by some of the Dublin postmen for the Christmas and New Year season was so large as to necessitate special inquiry being made before the claims could be sanctioned. Payment was made on the 3rd instant, with the current week's wages, in accordance with instructions which were given on the 28th ultimo.
  MR. NANNETTI: Has not the money been paid since the Question was put down?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not know. Instructions were given for it to be paid on the 28th ultimo, after proper inquiries had been made.

  Auxiliaries in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that several auxiliaries are employed in the Dublin Post Office at primary sorting for two hours each evening; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of employing the staff engaged as learners on this work; and will he say whether these auxiliaries passed any technical or other examination; what is the salary paid to them; and whether the salaries paid to the learners while waiting for appointment could be augmented by employing them to do this work; and will he explain why two messengers, a paper-keeper, and a boy copyist from the secretary's office are performing overtime at the same class of work.
  LORD STANLEY: The employment of some auxiliary sorters at Dublin in the evening is necessary to provide for duties vacated by learners who are being employed as substitutes for sorting clerks and telegraphists. These minor duties cannot be assigned to other learners, as they are not then available. The auxiliaries, who are paid 4½d. an hour, are not required to pass any technical or educational examination before employment; nor is it necessary that they should do so, inasmuch as the work they perform is of a very simple character. The persons drawn from the secretary's office, to whom the hon. Member refers, are employed between 6.0 p.m. and 7.0 p.m., during which period no learners are available.
  MR. NANNETTI: Are not these learners receiving the magnificent wage or 6s. per week, and will the noble Lord see that they get overtime pay as well as the auxiliaries who receive 15s. weekly.
  LORD STANLEY: I could not hear or understand the hon. Member's Question. Perhaps he will put it down.
  MR. NANNETTI: I did not speak in Irish, anyway.

  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the discontent amongst the teachers of national schools in Ireland in connection with the present condition of the Teachers' Pension Fund and its administration, he will secure the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the matters complained of.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): At the close of the present year the usual quinquennial investigation of the Teachers' Pension Fund will be instituted. Pending the result of that investigation I think that such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests would be premature.

  Irish National Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that promotion on the pension establishment has been denied to Irish national teachers for the past five years owing to the abolition of classification and the introduction of grading; and, if so, whether he will make provision in the pension rules to meet the new arrangements.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: New rules are about to be enacted to meet the new arrangements referred to by the hon. Member.

  Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Abstract of the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund, which was presented in June last, has been printed as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if not, will he have it printed.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Abstract referred to has not been printed, but in compliance with the hon. Member's desire I will cause it to be done.

  The Government's Fiscal Policy.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether
  594
  the Government has determined at the ensuing general election to ask a mandate from the electorate to oppose any proposal to impose taxation which for purposes other than the raising of revenue tends to raise the price of wheat or flour to the consumer in this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not think that the contents of my election address are a proper subject for Question and Answer across the floor of the House.
  MR. BLACK: Is it then the policy of the Government that Ministers should alternately advocate and condemn taxation of this character?
  No Answer being given,
  MR. BLACK,again rising, said: Has the right hon Gentleman no Answer to give to my supplementary Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not even hear it.
  MR. BLACK: May I repeat it, Sir?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It does not arise out of the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman. The Question on the Paper was fully answered.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to submit, Sir, that the Question was not answered.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There seems to be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members as to the difference between an Answer and a satisfactory Answer.

  Training of Teachers in Scotland.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of various points of general interest arising upon the Minute for the Training of Teachers in Scotland, whether he will afford an opportunity of discussing the terms of the Minute before it becomes operative.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot promise to give facilities for discussing this question, but an opportunity will arise either on the Scotch Education Bill or on the Estimates before the Minute comes into operation.

  Imperial Defence Committee and the Defence of the United Kingdom.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has arrived at the authoritative decision, on which it was engaged in July, 1903, as to the force which should be maintained for the defence of the United Kingdom; if so, what its numbers and composition should be, and the number of invaders it is calculated to repel.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee of Defence are clearly of opinion that invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or threaten our independence is impossible. The governing consideration which, as it seems to us, ought to determine the number of troops to be maintained depends not so much on considerations affecting home defence as upon the claim which Colonial and, still more, Indian needs may make upon our military resources.

  Opportunity for Discussion of Indian Affairs.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the disappointment of the people of India at the lack of opportunities afforded for the discussion of their affairs in Parliament, he would give an early opportunity for a full debate, on Indian affairs.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A full debate on Indian affairs is a rather large order, as I suppose it would cover the whole question of the external and internal relations of India. I should be very glad for such a debate to take place, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are methods by which private Members can obtain opportunities for such a discussion, but I cannot promise him exceptional opportunities.
  MR. J. H. LEWISasked whether the Prime Minister thought the interests of 300,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in India were satisfied by one discussion at the end of the session on the Indian Budget. Why could not a further opportunity be given to the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not hostile to a discussion in this House on Indian affairs, but I could not admit it to be axiomatic or self-evident that the interests of 300,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects in India would be improved by a debate in this House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what the business is for to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to ask my right hon. friend to bring in the Scottish Education Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, and after that I shall proceed with the Supplementary Estimates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:If the Education Bill is substantially the same one as last year there is nothing unreasonable in bringing it in under the Ten Minutes Rule, but if it is novel I hope that course will not be adopted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I am justified in saying that it is substantially the same Bill as last session.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure; and Mr. John Edward Ellis to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade, (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures.
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following resolution: That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's panel to take his place in case of necessity.
  Reports to lie upon the Table

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Liverpool Corporation Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parries be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That, in the case of the Malvern Water, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  4. "That, in the case of the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Donegal County Council,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  5. "That, in the case of the Hammersmith, City, and North East London Railway, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  First Four Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Baird, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Boland, Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Cawley, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Vaughan Davies, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland,
  598
  Mr. Doogan, Sir J. Fortescue Flannery, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Garfit, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir William Holland, Mr. James F. Hope, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir James Joicey, Mr Lambert, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Grant Lawson. Sir Elliott Lees, Colonel Long, Mr. Charles McArthur, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. William McKillop, Mr. Maxwell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Mara, Mr. Pike Pease, Colonel Pilkington, Sir James Rankin, Sir Charles Renshaw, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Round, Mr. Runciman, Mr. T. W. Russell, Sir Henry Seton-Karr, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir John Barrington Simeon, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Whitley Thomson, Sir William Tomlinson, Mr. Tully, Sir William Walrond, Mr. George Whiteley, Mr. Osmond Williams, Colonel Williams. Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Young.
  Mr. WODEHOUSE further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Barran, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Boland, Mr. Butcher, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Colston, Mr. Cripps, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. George Faber, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Flynn, Sir Frederick Godson, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Henry David Greene Mr. Haldane, Mr. Harwood, Mr. T. M. Healy, Sir James Heath, Mr. Helder, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Jordan, Sir Lees Knowles, Mr. William Frederick Lawrence, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Legge, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Loder, Mr. Loyd, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Middlemore, Mr. Milvain, Mr. William Moore, Mr. Arthur Morton, Captain Norton, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. Samuel

  599
  Roberts, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Soames, Mr. Scares, Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Ure, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Lawrence Waldron, Mr. Robert Wallace, and Sir James Woodhouse.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Shipowners' Negligence (Remedies) Bill:—Mr. Bell, Major Evans-Gordon, Mr. Cameron, Mr. John Burns, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Charles McArthur, Colonel Pilkington, Mr. Russell Rea, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Runciman, Sir Harry Samuel, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Austin Taylor, and Mr. Charles Wilson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing) Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Compensation for Damage to Crops Bill:—Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Bell, Mr. Brigg, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Fellowes, Mr. Gardner, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Hudson, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Mount, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Spear, Viscount Turnour, Mr. Warner, and Mr. George White.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WODEHOUSE reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Public Trustee and Executor Bill:—Mr. Black, Mr. Fison, Mr. Philip Foster, Mr. Beckett, Sir J. Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Helme, Mr. Howard, Sir Henry Kimber, Sir Henry Seymour King, Mr. Layland-Barratt, Mr. Platt-Higgins, Mr. Thomas Richards, and Colonel Tufnell.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  "To transfer to the Local Government Board the powers of the Treasury under enactments relating to Local Authorities," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
  TIED HOUSES BILL.
  "To abolish Tied Houses," presented by Mr. Broadhurst; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Levy; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  "To amend The Shop Clubs Act, 1902," presented by Mr. Broadhurst; supported by Sir John Brunner and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed, [Bill 83.]

  SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [6th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee oil Navy Estimates)."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcontinuing his speech of the preceding night, said he desired to bring under the notice of the House a matter which, in his opinion, was one of the most serious that could possibly be raised, and, so far as he was aware, one which had never yet been brought before that Assembly. It had only to be stated in order to evoke from every true-hearted and true-minded person in England a storm of reprobation. They had believed during the last twenty-five years that flogging had been abolished both in the Army and the Navy, and it would be news to many people that to-day it was in active exercise in the Navy, and he would prove before he sat down that the Admiralty had done their very best to conceal that fact.

  601
  In the early part of that day he put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to important omissions in the invitations to our youth to join the Navy. Those invitations sketched out in bright language prospects of pay and treatment and the joys of a sailor's life, but they failed to make it clear that sailors were subject to the cat-o'-nine-tails, and that the youths and boys of the Royal Navy were liable to have inflicted upon them twenty-four strokes of the birch for trifling offences without being first tried by Court-martial. Clearly the Admiralty did not intend that a man should know what was before him when he was entering the service. He intended to avail himself of that opportunity—the first one he had had—to give to the public through the House of Commons particulars of what was going on every day in the King's ships, and he could tell them that he had in his possession hundreds of documents on which he based his allegations. Did the rules of the House permit, he would have moved a Resolution to the effect that the House regretted that, while the punishment of flogging had been abolished with the best results in His Majesty's Army for twenty-five years, men in the Navy were liable, under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, to receive a flogging consisting of twenty-five strokes of the cat-o'-nine-tails, which was a necessary equipment of every one of His Majesty's ships, while the boys and youths in the Navy under eighteen years of age were also by the naval regulations not merely tried by Court-martial for trivial offences, but were summarily liable to floggings over the bare breech of twenty-four lashes with birches nine ounces in weight and steeped in brine, or to twelve strokes with a cane, such birchings and canings to be inflicted by the ship's police in accordance with naval regulations and in the presence of all the boys on board the ship. He asserted that that sort of thing was going on in the Navy every day and that this flogging was even worse than the flogging which went on in the Chinese compounds of the Colonial Secretary. That might be considered to be a strong observation, but he put a question to the Colonial Secretary on the previous day, and he had the advantage of a clear answer in writing describing what went
  602
  on in regard to the flogging of refractory Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal mines. That answer was to the following effect—
  There are no cat-o'-nine-tails. The maximum of strokes inflicted with a cane, which is the instrument of whipping, would be twenty-four. The whipping would be given in the presence of the governor or deputy-governor of the prison, and the gaoler, and the visiting medical officer, who certifies to the fitness of the prisoner to undergo the punishment. The sentence being by a magistrate cannot be carried oat till the record has been sent to and confirmed by a Judge of the High Court.''
  How different to what was going on in the King's Navy!
  He would like to point out the folly and absurdity of the present state of affairs. The two Gentlemen who now represented the Admiralty in that House were both formerly officers of the King's Army—both distinguished officers, and could it be believed that they were bound to sanction the use of the lash in the Navy when it had been abolished in the Army for over twenty-five years? He must put it still more strongly. On March 11th, 1893, the present Secretary for India, who was then Secretary for War, said on the floor of the House of Commons that a colonel of the Grenadiers, an excellent officer, had been placed on half-pay because there had been the caning of a drummer boy in his regiment, for although he knew nothing about the occurrence at the time, it was considered there must have been an absence of discipline on his part. Yet at sea canings and floggings on board His Majesty's ships could be inflicted for the most trivial causes. With reference to Irish boys in the Navy his attention was directed to their case by a circular issued by the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland asking parents and guardians of Irish boys not to allow the boys to go into the Navy because they were denied the ministrations of their faith. He thought there was an additional reason which might be advanced for not allowing them to enter the Navy, and that was that, while they were denied the spiritual ministrations of their faith, their bodies were subjected to atrocious and abominable outrages. Was that language exaggerated? He thought it would not be suggested that it was. On July 4th last in answer

  603
  to a question the Secretary to the Admiralty distinctly denied that flogging existed in the Navy, but he minimised the effect of his answer by explaining that it had been suspended, but not abolished. He saw a letter some time ago addressed to Lord Selborne in which the writer asked leave to be permitted to take photographs of boys being flogged, and immediately afterwards placards were placed all round the dockyard threatening with instant dismissal anyone who gave information to strangers. That showed that the Admiralty were of opinion that it would be indecent to expose what was going on, although they did not think it indecent or atrocious to allow it to be done.
  He recently received an answer from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (the "Terror of Germany") to the effect that there was no flogging at all in the Navy. The present Prime Minister also made a statement to the same effect, but then there was nothing but inaccuracy to be expected from the right hon. Gentleman. When the question was pressed the Civil Lord stated that boys under eighteen years of age were not subjected to the punishment of flogging, but that they might be punished by birching or caning under regulations which prescribed in whose presence such punishment was to be inflicted, together with the maximum number of stripes and the character of the instrument to be used. He had looked up the regulations dealing with this matter, and he had found that the birching was to be confined solely to boys rated as such, and to be inflicted with the birch supplied by the dockyards, that the punishment was to be inflicted over the bare breech, that it was never to exceed twenty-four strokes, and that it was to be inflicted by the ship's police in the presence of the medical officer and others. He had looked up the regulations to see for what kind of offences that punishment could be inflicted and he found them most trivial. He had asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to make some alteration of the horrible regulation compelling boys to witness these floggings, but the hon. Gentleman declined to do so. What had since happened? Only last December there was a Court-martial on board the "Victory." He visited the vessel in that month, and
  604
  was prevented from going into Nelson's cabin by the mere fact that a Court-martial was being held. But he was present at the close, and saw the prisoner emerge, and he never witnessed such a look of agony and despair on a boy's face as on that occasion. What were the circumstances under which that boy was tried? He had been compelled with a crowd of other boys to be present, on one of the cruisers at the flogging of one of his companions, and he had been so overwhelmed by what he saw that he attacked the officer inflicting the punishment and almost knocked him down. Of course his offence was a very shocking one, but it was possible to sympathise with the feelings of the lad under such circumstances. He, of course, was also put upon his trial and was sentenced to a long term of hard labour, and to receive in addition twenty-four lashes. It was actions such as that which tended to produce rebellion in the Navy. It simply drove men to madness. There was another Court-martial at Devonport to which he would like to draw attention. In that case the boy had committed the very atrocious offence of stealing a few pence and had deserted his ship. For that he was very properly dismissed the Navy, but more was done. The full maximum flogging of twenty-four strokes with the birch was ordered to be inflicted, and he ventured to assert that that was both unconstitutional and illegal, for the lad having been dismissed the service there could have been no right to flog him in addition.
  There was one special fact which struck him in connection with this matter, and that was that it was the children of the poor who were subjected to these indignities. The naval cadets and midshipmen in the service were not flogged, the flogging was reserved for the sons of the poor who had to pay the piper. He hoped that these facts would become known wherever the English working men had a vote. He had been furnished with a vast amount of information upon the subject, but he was not going to take up the time of the House by communicating it. Amongst his informants was an Anglican clergyman whose tender heart revolted at what he had heard, and who told him that the greatest apprehension

  605
  prevailed among the parents of the children on board the training ships. Even for not being able to swim birching and caning was inflicted. He pat a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty on that point, and his reply was that it was better to teach a boy to swim by flogging than to allow him to drown without flogging. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that an answer of that kind—a nice, pithy, little, after-dinner society joke—did more to accentuate the feeling against this horrible system than the finest speeches one could make, either before or after dinner. A short time ago an article was published by Mr. Tighe Hopkins, who declared that flogging and anything which tended to degrade the person was shocking, and that there should be complete statistics furnished in regard to it, but he was sorry to say that there were no statistics as to the canings in the Navy. He had asked for them several times, bat he had never been able to get them. He had been told that to obtain them for the last three years would be too expensive. Yes, it would be too expensive in the votes which the Secretary to the Admiralty and his Party would lose if the system were made public. He had, however, obtained a Return—a very poor, meagre, stingy Return—which would meet his purpose to some extent. It was a Return for the year 1901–2, and it stated that in that period there were 238 birchings by summary conviction—by the nod of the captain's head—and only three by Court-martial, while there were something like 12,000 minor offences among the boys, and for those minor offences at least 8,000 canings were inflicted. The Return for last year showed a slight decrease in the figures, there having been 250 birchings and about 8,000 canings. He felt it incumbent upon him to do what he could to put a stop to this. The weight of the birch used upon these poor boys was twice as heavy as that used in civil life, by order of the magistrate and the Judge, for the punishment of boys guilty of the most atrocious crimes and offences. The cane used weighed 2 oz., was 3 feet long, and was laced round with waxed twine like the handle of a cricket bat. When the Fleet under the command of Lord Charles Beresford
  606
  came into Dublin Bay he pretty well knew what was going on, and he wrote to the people of Ireland through the Freeman's Journal, and pointed out the dark and sinister designs of these ships upon the youths of Ireland, and warned the parents not to let their sons join the Navy.
  These were the things produced by this system, and not efficiency, and the Government ought to know, having tried it everywhere else and failed, that force was no remedy, and that it had not survived in the Army and could not survive in the Navy. After the various things that had been said upon this subject, which led to parents and guardians being chary of allowing their boys to enlist in the Navy, a most outrageous placard was published by the Admiralty, under the King's Cypher, and sent to every post office in Ireland, to the effect that youths between seventeen and eighteen could now join the Navy without their parents' consent.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge)explained that that notice was issued without authority, but that when it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty it was at once withdrawn.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid no doubt that might be so, but how many boys were allowed to enlist before this notice came to the knowledge of the Admiralty. The Civil Lord had stated that there was no flogging in the Navy at all. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt to encourage young ambition, went down to the Royal Naval School at Greenwich and told the lads there that, just as it was said of the soldiers of Napoleon that every soldier carried a marshal's baton in his knapsack, so it was true of the Navy to say that everybody who joined it had a chance of a baton. Yes, the birch and the cane. He did not desire to bring this matter to a vote, but he would bring it up again and again, and would appeal to the Press of England to have this matter properly ventilated. The hon. Member also read a letter from a clergyman who had spent many years in the service, describing the manner in which the flogging was conducted, and

  607
  giving a particular instance when the deck was more like a slaughter-house than anything else, and the victim died a few days afterwards. He said he had other cases of a revolting character with which he would not trouble the House, as he thought he had said enough to stimulate a spirit of inquiry and investigation in every honourable, and true-hearted man. He appealed to hon. Members to put themselves in the place of these defenceless boys, and to allow the strong arm of England to protect them. Flogging had been abolished in every Navy except our own, but the worst feature was that it was a punishment inflicted by the rich upon the poor. He had stated the facts as fairly and as temperately as possible, and he thought he had made out a strong case for a thorough investigation into the system. There could be no higher honour for the new First Lord than that he should initiate his régime by instituting a searching investigation into this matter. He had confined himself largely to letters and questions, because the Secretary to the Admiralty, having exhausted his right to speak, would be precluded from making any reply. But why was there not present some other member of the Government who was or had been connected with the Admiralty. This atrocious system demanded some defence or explanation, as it was not right that such charges, made in good faith, should go broadcast to the country. If they were true, what was the House of Commons thinking about that it did not abolish the system when it abolished flogging in the Army? He had brought the question forward not merely in the interests of Irish boys, but in the interests of humanity, feeling strongly that such cruelties ought not to be inflicted on the young of the poor and defenceless.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: said that while there was no flogging properly so-called in the Navy, there was a caning and birching restricted to boys, but it was not the fact that that punishment was reserved for the children of the poor. In the gun-room, the home of the midshipmen, flogging of a much more severe character was practised, not with a birch or cane, but with a dirk-scabbard. This flogging was practised by the so-called rich
  608
  themselves on themselves and never yet had a boy been heard to complain, but on the contrary many had declared that to the discipline of the gun-room they owed a great deal of their success in the service. ["Oh."] He had two sons in the Navy who had passed through the gun-room, and if they were not scabbarded themselves, they had doubtless scabbarded others. But he did regret that this punishment still existed, even for boys, in the Navy, as he thought it could be dispensed with. It could not be denied, however, that boys required a lot of keeping in order, and he would like to have known the offences for which some of the birchings were given, as possibly they would have revolted the House as much as the birchings themselves. At the same time he deeply regretted that there should be retained in an honourable and noble service even the semblance of personal violence, and, as he had said on former occasions, he earnestly hoped that some means would be found of putting an end to it for ever.
  Turning to the Main question, he submitted that the discussion with Mr. Speaker in the Chair ought properly to be concerned with matters of high policy, such as strategy, the principles of naval construction, lesser matters being reserved for the particular Votes under which they naturally arose. More especially ought that to be the case in a year marked by a change of policy such as the oldest Member of the House could not remember in the history of the Navy. Any eulogy of the Board of Admiralty on his part had been rendered unnecessary by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, although a member of that Board, had with unwonted readiness. generosity, and modesty bestowed that eulogy himself, and nothing he could add would increase its force or aptitude. His absence from the House during the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was due not to any want of respect to the hon. Gentleman, but partly to other occupations, and partly because the supreme authority over the Navy had been short-circuited. That authority now belonged neither to the Secretary to the Admiralty nor even to the First Lord, but to the First Sea Lord. It was the First Sea Lord who appeared in the new policy and throughout the Memoranda in which

  609
  that policy was described, and, therefore, less importance attached to the highly interesting speeches of the Secretary to the Admiralty. At the present moment the Board of Admiralty was in a strange situation, there being, in fact, an interregnum. There was no First Lord really responsible for the Memoranda which had been put forward, It was true that Lord Cawdor had been brought from the Great Western Railway to take command of the Navy, but he was not responsible for any of the Memoranda, nor was it known even whether he approved of them. The noble Earl should make a good First Lord, as he had the reputation of a man of business, which reputation it was to be hoped he would justify in his new sphere. But, at any rate, Lord Cawdor was not responsible for these Memoranda. The First Lord who was responsible had gone to South Africa to take up a higher position. He was fortunate in many respects, but in none so fortunate as in the acquisition of Sir John Fisher at the Admiralty. For Sir John Fisher had overruled the whole of his policy, and substituted for it a completely contrary policy. He wished to know the conditions under which Sir John Fisher had been brought to the Admiralty. Was he a colleague I Was he a superior? Was this another MacDonnell case? He strongly suspected that, more astute, or more fortunate, than the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Selborne had flown to South Africa to escape the beneficent tyranny of Sir John Fisher, instead of resigning, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thought it honourable to do, to escape being overruled by his subordinate. He had not a word to say against Sir John Fisher; on the contrary, he approved of his policy, although there were some matters in regard to which he should like some explanation. He believed that what was being done upon his advice was of the soundest and the most profitable description and would have the best possible results.
  The changes set forth in the two Memoranda before them were not only new, but they formed a different policy contrary to the old. They included new principles in strategy, naval bases, and ships, gunnery, and even a new organisation of the Board of Admiralty itself;
  610
  in fact, the whole system, from the First Lord to the Admiral's barge, had been completely up-ended. He was about to ask for an explanation which he should have been glad if some member of the Council of Defence had been present to afford—for these matters belonged at last to them—but not one of them was present. There had been tremendous alterations in the organisation of the Admiralty. The Senior Naval Lord was now to be called the First Sea Lord, and everything concerned with "important naval policy" was to be left to him. That meant a supersession of the First Lord of the Admiralty by the First Sea Lord—as to which he would only say that if it produced such beneficial results as the supersession of Lord Selborne by Sir John Fisher, long might it continue. With regard to gunnery he noticed that there was to be an inspector of target practice who would "not be an Admiralty officer," but who would work under the superintendence of First Sea Lord. Was this officer under no subordination? Did he owe obedience or respect to nobody? Why was such an officer not to be placed under the Board? Was this yet another MacDonnell? He was aware that the personality of Admiral Percy Scott would justify his appointment under special conditions, for he had made the gunnery of the Navy, and had done it in opposition to and in spite of the present Board of Admiralty. He knew that Admiral Percy Scott had experienced the very greatest difficulty in getting the smallest advances made towards his system of quick-hitting gunnery. After constant refusals there had at last been a tardy recognition of the true principle that, not the gunnery lieutenant alone, but the captain and the admiral were responsible for the gunnery of the squadron. That was an enormous step in advance. It was almost impossible for any Member of the House not acquainted with gunnery to appreciate the enormous advantage to the future of gunnery achieved by this change. Nevertheless there remained much to be done, for a great many ships still had defective sights and sighting machinery, and nobody knew that better than the Secretary to the Admiralty. He hoped and believed that Admiral Percy Scott's system would make their gunners the best quick-hitters

  611
  of any navy in the world. But what position did Admiral Percy Scott hold? Were the Admiralty bound to listen to him? If there was any uncertainty about this it might lead to another resignation of a Minister.
  There was a further change in the rank and file of the Navy itself which he should like to suggest. There was a disposition and a determination on the part, of the Board of Admiralty to neglect and put aside the ordinary Naval Reserve, which consisted for the most part of fishermen and Marines who formed the best material in the world for the Navy. This Reserve appeared to be set aside for the Naval Volunteers who were a perfectly useless set of people who liked to wear uniform, the money spent upon whom was absolutely thrown away. What he complained of was that while they were developing this popinjay naval stuff they were neglecting the proper material in the Naval Reserve. They were extending the Naval Volunteer system which cost so much instead of the Naval Reserve which cost less, and they were stopping recruiting for those Reserves. That was unfortunate considering the great value of this body of men. We had 121,000 Naval seamen, costing each, in wages, victualling, clothing and doctoring, some £82 per man yearly, whereas the 34,000 Naval Reserve men only cost £7 or £8 per man. In modern ships the trained Preserve man was as good as the Naval seaman, in boats he was usually far better, and the true system was to increase the numbers of the £8 man and by so much to diminish the numbers of the £82 man. By reducing 10,000 Naval seaman at the higher rate and adding 40,000 Reserve men at the lower, you would get 30,000 more men at £500,000 less cost. Yet the Admiralty had stopped recruiting for the Reserves! He now came to the change of policy as to ships. He did not know whether the House realised the extent of the changes made. The First Lord of the Admiralty confessed in his first Memorandum of December last that for the last fifteen years the Board of Admiralty had never had men enough to keep the Fleet Reserve in proper condition. Yet, in the same breath he acknowledged that Parliament had always
  612
  freely granted him all the men he asked for. What a discreditable confession! This Memorandum went on to say that the increased number of ships in commission had more than swallowed up the increase in the personnel, and consequently adequate provision for the ships in the Fleet Reserve had not yet been made. It practically avowed that in consequence of their want of personnel the ships in the Fleet Reserve could not be trusted to fight nor to inspire confidence in any admiral.
  He now came to the other ships—what he might call the general run of the Fleet. What were they told about them? They were told that there were a number of obsolete ships. 130 or 160, which were to be removed from the Navy List in order that the country might have ships that were really ready for war. But why did the Admiralty not adopt that policy years ago? Why had this new and perfectly proper principle of having the Fleet composed only of vessels competent for naval purposes occurred now for the first time to the Board of Admiralty? When he was in Malta in 1890, or thereabout, the Admiralty were engaged in fishing up from the bottom of the sea, the Sultan, a ship which ought to have been thrown on the scrap heap years ago. That ship, in fact, ought never to have been fished up from the bottom of the sea in the expensive manner employed. She was, however, now tardily to be removed from our deceptive list and other obsolete ships with her. This was what he would call the scrap-heap policy. It was quite right. His complaint was that the House had been asked for, and year after year had given, money for these useless ships. The Admiralty had adopted the idea that because they had a number of bows and arrows in the Admiralty office they were justified in keeping them as possibly useful somehow, someday, instead of devoting themselves to the torpedo tube. There had been one delightful ingenuous avowal put as a defence. The Prime Minister, speaking recently at Glasgow, said—
  "What has this Government been doing?' They have abolished 130 vessels—my figures are not exact, I speak from memory—130 vessels which figured upon the list of the British Navy. [A VOICE: "Good riddance of bad rubbish."]

  613
  That brief interruption puts even more concisely and pithily than I can do, one of the aspects, but only one of the aspects, of the great reform. It is not merely that the Board of Admiralty have laid down the rnle that a ship, however useful in time of peace—and we have to do, it must be admitted, a great deal of small police work in a time of peace for diplomatic or other purposes—is not only useless, but worse than useless in time of war it possesses neither fighting power nor speed; it is merely a ship which exists to embarrass British admirals and to discredit the British flag."
  The Board of Admiralty after having ignored and by its conduct denied it for years, suddenly discovered this important principle, but it required Sir John Fisher to help them to discover it. In the some speech the Prime Minister said—
  "Well, with one courageous stroke of the pen, as it were, these ships have been removed."
  One courageous stroke of the pen! He liked to hear that this Government was sometimes courageous. He thought that when they found courage to force one of their colleagues to break his pledge they derived it not so much from them-selves as from the power behind the Cabinet, and that it was in spite of them-selves that the heel of Birmingham was crushed upon them. But we were assured they found the courage to abolish a number of obsolete ships in the Navy. No. It was not the Government that abolished the ships, it was Sir John Fisher who abolished them. During all the ten years that these great Lords of the Admiralty had flourished at the head of the Navy the ships were allowed to go on. Ships had been fished up from the deep, and old ships incapable of fighting had been kept on the list. Now it had been discovered that the true policy was only to keep in the Navy ships which were fit for service. The new policy was a full confession of the badness of the old policy so long pursued, so costly, so dangerous.
  He came now to the question of naval bases. A great change and reversal of policy had taken place there. He need not remind the House that a naval base was important as indicating what our strategy was. The naval bases suggested or disclosed to every strategic, mind the events which were expected to occur in war, the places where they expected great actions, and the refuges where they expected the ships to go for repair. Therefore the retention
  614
  or abandonment of a naval base was in itself a disclosure of strategy. What was the disclosure here. He need not remind the House that this Government had always been tinkering at naval bases. They took Wei-hai-Wei as a base for meeting Russia and it had been kept as a sort of Chinese Margate. They were retaining it now to see which way the cat jumps. Then there was Gibraltar, where £5,000,000 had been spent in order to make it loss secure and more tempting to an enemy. Finally there was the great base of Rosyth, bought at a cost of £122,000. If his memory did not play him false the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty told us that we should have to incur considerable expenditure in order to make it the important, naval base contemplated. The Peer who received a great deal more than the value of that land had been dismissed with the purchase price. What was to have been a great naval base at Rosyth was now, it seemed, to be a place to keep a few stores. It was difficult to imagine the confusion of mind that seemed to exist in the Board of Admiralty with regard to naval bases, taken up lightly and expensively, then as lightly abandoned, even before they were completed. But there was something even more startling. Halifax, Esquimalt, Jamaica, and Trin-comalee were, as it seemed, practically to be abandoned. The last-named place was a most important station, and if ever we had another fight about India it would be as important that we should have it as it was found to be in the last century. It was a very serious matter to abandon it. It might be said that we had Colombo instead, but that would never be the same thing. All these were great questions in regard to which the House had no proper explanation and as to which they were entitled to an explanation. Jamaica, always a most commanding strategic base, was becoming more important as a naval strategic point than ever before on account of the impending Panama canal. The abandonment of it would, it appeared to him, be an acknowledgment that we meant no longer to defend our West Indian Islands with our naval force. If that were so, a serious question would arise as to whether the Government were justified in signing the Sugar Convention. How was

  615
  it that all these abandonments had now been discovered to be possible, and never before? Was it all due to Sir John Fisher? Was there nobody at the Admiralty who could invent or imagine anything before? It looked like it. The Secretary to the Admiralty had rightly said that the great thing in regard to the Navy was "continuity of policy." But this was discontinuity of policy. All those things he had mentioned, and others he was about to mention, represented not a continuance of the same policy, but an entire change. He did not say that it could not be justified, but it had not been justified yet. The reasons for it had not yet been suggested. It was absurd to talk of continuity of policy in the face of revolutions like these.
  He observed with considerable apprehension that part of the new policy was to leave the Atlantic, Fleet consisting of eight iron-clads and a corresponding number of cruisers—which was the most important Fleet we had, to entirely rely for its repairs on Gibraltar. He did not think that was very safe. Gibraltar, let it be remembered, produced nothing. Every pound of steel and every pound of coal or biscuit that Gibraltar used or supplied to the ships of war had to be sent across from this country, and in time of war, if we forced our most important Fleet to rely on Gibraltar for supplies and repairs, that meant that it would be necessary to set up a new line of communications between these islands and Gibraltar to carry the stores and the repairing materials, and it would be a very difficult and dangerous line of communication to guard. He presumed that was present to the mind of those who had agreed to adopt the new policy. Here again he should like some explanation. Take the alterations all these matters involved in the conception of naval strategy. It was something almost incredible that this country should give up the naval base in the West Indies. That meant a kind of thing that would have appeared to the men of Nelson's day or of Lord St. Vincent's as impossible to conceive of, and still more impossible to be adopted by a naval country like this. It meant an enormous alteration in the conception of what this country would have to do in a great war. They were going entirely to abolish the South
  616
  Pacific Squadron. Were there no British interests in the South Pacific? The abandonment of Esquimalt almost seemed to him to be an abandonment of the small squadron in the North Pacific. Was that intended? Were they going practically to abolish the North Atlantic Squadron, as a squadron? If so, they were going to abolish their naval watch and ward on both sides of the great continent of North America. He did not say it was wrong, but what justification had they for it? Had they an understanding with the United States? Was Canada going to build a navy? What was the new element that enabled the Government to detach this country from those parts of the world which formerly we held so strongly navally? What induced them to give up those naval bases in this manner? This was the stage at which the House should be told. He had endeavoured in a summary manner to follow some of the points that were suggested by this Naval Memorandum. It raised some vital questions of high policy and strategy. He trusted the Government had good answers to the very serious questions he had raised. On many of them he was perfectly convinced the new policy was right; on others he had very serious doubts. He trusted that before the debate ended he might receive satisfaction of these doubts from the Government, which would enable him to feel greater confidence in the plan than he did at present.
  *MR. TOMKINSONsaid that the House must feel indebted to the hon. Member for Donegal for having brought forward the question of punishment in the Navy. In view of the prominent part which hon. Members for Ireland took in securing the abolition of flogging in the Army twenty-six years ago, it was only fitting that attention should be drawn to the existence of corporal punishment in the Navy from the same quarter of the House. He thought that the general question which must arise in the mind of hon. Members was "Can these things be true?" And the conclusion must be that, if they were true, as the hon. and learned Member undoubtedly believed them to be, or

  617
  even only half true, they constituted a great scandal which ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. They knew only too well what an invincible prejudice surrounded the question of the abolition of corporal punishment in the minds of some people, and how hard it was to kill that prejudice. For over a century, whenever even a mitigation of that revolting punishment was suggested, its advocates, one after the other, held that discipline could not be maintained without it, and that to do away with it would be to undermine the whole basis on which the military and naval service rested. He had in his possession the, order book of a regiment in the Waterloo Campaign in which it was recorded that a Court-martial had been held on an unfortunate soldier for a not very serious offence, and the result of which was that the soldier was condemned to the punishment of a thousand lashes. That punishment in the Army died very hard, and was only eliminated late in the nineteenth century. The statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Donegal must, he thought, have come to hon. Members and to the general public with a shock of surprise. The general impression was that flogging had been abolished, at all events in the services, though it lingered unfortunately in the military and civil prisons—a practice which many hon. Members were most anxious to see abolished. It was almost universally believed that any one taking service in the Army or Navy would not be liable to the brutal and degrading punishment of flogging. It was perfectly true that its existence must discourage enlisting. They were told that the Army would suffer greatly by its abolition, but exactly the contrary had been the result. There had been an infinitely better class of recruits, and the status of the soldier had been much improved. To his mind the inability to keep discipline or order either on shipboard, in a regiment, or in a prison was simply a confession of incompetence of those in command. He hoped that in the course if the debate in Committee they should have some satisfactory assurance from the Under-Secretary that in a very short time corporal punishment in the Navy would be entirely abolished.
  MR. POWERcongratulated his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Donegal on raising this question of flogging in the Navy. His hon. and learned friend by doing so had performed a public service. When the people of this country heard of the brutality that existed in the Navy they would take the matter into their own hands and do something to abolish it. The naval authorities might say that it was necessary to keep that degrading flogging in order to maintain discipline, but his hon. and learned friend had shown that in the French, German, and other navies the system had been abolished; and he wanted to know what there was in the British youth which was worse than in those of other countries which made this system necessary. He ventured to say that future generations would wonder why this brutal punishment had been continued so long. His hon. friend the Member for Crewe was right in saying that it was fit that the subject should have been pressed from those benches. He was glad to say that the Party with which he was identified had brought about the great reform in the Army of the abolition of a punishment which was degrading to those who suffered it, to those who inflicted it, and to those who witnessed it. The soldiery of England had to thank, in great measure, a body of Members from Ireland who had always stood up for the rights of the people, for the abolition of flogging in the Army. He remembered that when the late Mr. Parnell was making a tour through Ireland soldiers approached him and asked to be allowed to shake hands with the man who hid "killed the Cat."
  As to the reductions in the Navy Estimates he wanted to know what benefit that would be to his country. He remembered the time when the cost of the Navy was only £15,000,000, and the Navy seemed just as efficient then as now. Ireland had no commerce to protect. England took very good care of that, because she had crushed their native industries. To his mind the people who should largely contribute to the naval Votes of this country were the Colonies for whom we kept the sea open and who had a large trade to protect.

  619
  Canada refused, and though other colonies gave a small contribution, it was far more their duty to contribute to naval expenditure than that of Ireland, who, nevertheless, had to contribute an eleventh of the whole. Then look at the matter in another way. The naval expenditure percolated through the whole community in this country; because the Votes were mostly spent on the Thames, the Tyne, the Clyde, and at Pembroke. The only expenditure in Ireland was at Haulbowline, but that was a small, tinkering amount. They had asked the Admiralty for £100 to assist in making a pier which would be of the greatest advantage to the Admiralty themselves; but they could not see their way to incur that small outlay. Ireland derived some small advantage under the Army Votes; but derived literally no value under the Navy Votes; yet Ireland was called upon to pay more than her proper proportion. This, he assumed, was one of the benefits resulting from the Union. When the details of the Votes were before the House, his colleagues and himself might be compelled to take what the late Mr. Biggar would call an intelligent interest in them; and would be able to show that while Ireland contributed an enormous sum to the Navy she derived no benefit from it. He hoped the speech of his hon. friend would draw the attention of the public to the gross cruelty which still existed in the public service. In that case his hon. friend would deserve the thanks of the country and of humanity.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid that several of the old vessels referred to by the Secretary to the Admiralty had been anchored in the Clyde; and he wished to impress on the House the large amount of inconvenience and annoyance they caused. Many hon. Members knew that the Kyles of Bute were not only fishing grounds, but were also used by yachtsmen. The result was that not only was the fishing industry injured, but much inconvenience was caused to yachtsmen. The hon. Gentleman had received a very strongly worded memorial from all the yacht clubs in the Clyde on the subject. The House was aware that those waters were the most favourite yachting waters in the United Kingdom; and the memorial
  620
  mentioned several other parts where the ships could be equally well anchored. He quite understood that the Admiralty wanted to have those vessels within easy reach of suitable yards; but he wished to direct attention to alternative anchorages, such as Gareloch portion of Loch Fyne and Loch Long. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were prepared to send a proper official from the Admiralty to report on those alternative anchorages, so that, if possible, the ships might be moved from places where they caused so much inconvenience to navigation and trade to anchorages equally convenient to the Admiralty. He would also ask that a copy of the Report should be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid that one sentence fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn which interested him somewhat. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a fact that the Government had abandoned altogether their ambitious plan at Rosyth. If so, the Government would appear to be repeating the blunder they committed at Wei-hai-Wei. That was supposed to be a great naval base which would checkmate Russia at Port Arthur; but, after considerable sums of money had been spent on it, it was suddenly announced it was no good except as a sanatorium. With regard to Rosyth, two years ago the scheme was triumphantly brandished in the eye of Germany as a kind of threat when the German frenzy was at its height. As far as could be gathered from Lord Selborne's reply to the Member for East Aberdeenshire, he did not altogether deny that the scheme was abandoned, but, at the same time, he did not admit it, and took refuge in the assertion that the whole business had been very cheaply done. It was not a question as to whether it was cheaply done or not, but why it was done at all. It seemed to be a gross blunder; and it was no argument to say that it was only a small one. It was small blunders like Wei-hai-Wei, Somaliland, and Rosyth, together with administrative incompetence, which had, during the last nine years, increased the taxation of this country.
  Mr. PRETYMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the House should have an opportunity of saying whether it desires to continue, this debate
  with me in the Chair or in Committee. I will, therefore, put the Motion.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 198. (Division List, No.26)

  AYES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Kenyon. Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dimsdale. Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Kerr, John

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Lawson. Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bartley, Sir George C T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bigwood, James

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bill, Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Bingham, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. )

  Mujendie, James A. H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Goschen. Hn. (George Joachim

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bull, William James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milner. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cavendish. R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants. )

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'nd'ry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Moore, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain. Rt Hn. J A (Worc. )

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hobhouse, RtHnH. (Somers't, E

  Myers, William Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Percy, Earl

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R. )

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH. (Sheffield

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, H. C (North'mbTyneside

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith. Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Randles, John S.

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

  Whiteley. H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs. )

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stroyan, John

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Tuff, Charles

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E,

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William. J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshr.

  Asher, Alexander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Joyce, Michael

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Edwards, Frank

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ellice, Cap. EC (S. Andrw's Bgbs

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  Kitson, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Labouchere, Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Black, Alexander William

  Evans, Sir-Francis H. (Maidstone

  Langley, Batty

  Blake, Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brigg, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Field, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. )

  Lundon, W.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burns, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Caldwell, James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cameron, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kean, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Crombie, John William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cullinan, J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Delany, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norman Henry

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  624

  625

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  O'Dowd, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sheehan Daniel Daniel

  White, Luke (York, E. R. )

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  O'Mara, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Parrott, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Reddy, M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Roche, John

  Toulmin, George

  Mr. Spencer.

  Runciman, Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Russell, T. W.

  Wallace, Robert

  Question put accordingly, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 27.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. )

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bigwood, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bingham, Lord

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middle'x

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (In'v'rn'ss B'ghs

  Howard, J. Kent, Faversham)

  Bull, William James

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs).

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshr.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kenyon Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Kerr, John

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Spear, John Ward

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Stan1ey, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs. )

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Pemberton, John, S. G.

  Stock, James Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR

  Percy, Earl

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stroyan, John

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredrk. N. S.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Talbot. Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Randles, John S.

  Tuff, Charles

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Welby, Lt., Col. ACE. (Taunton)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshr.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Moore, William

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. )

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cawley, Frederick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Asher, Alexander

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Crean, Eugene

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Field, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Black, Alexander William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Blake, Edward

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Boland, John

  Delany, William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Brigg, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gilhooly, James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duffy, William J.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dunn, Sir William

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Burns, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Hammond, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Elibank, Master of

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Caldwell James

  Ellice, Cap. EC (S Andrw's Bghs

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  Harwood, George

  628

  629

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehy, David

  Hemphill, Rt Hn. Charles H.

  Mooney, John J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Murphy, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Norman, Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Johnson, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Tomkinson, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S. )

  Toulmin, George

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kellv, James (Roscommon. N.

  Wallace, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Langley, Batty

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Parrott, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lavland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Lundon, W.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Lvell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson. J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Young, Samuel

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  M'Kean, John

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

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shackleton, David James

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."—Motion by leave, with-drawn.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1904–5 (SOMALILAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding
  630
  £550,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services,
  viz.:—

  £

  Vote 1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  985,000

  Vote 2.

  Medical Establishments, Pay, etc.

  21,000

  Vote 6.

  Transport and Remounts

  265,000

  Vote 7.

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  260,000

  Vote 12.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  2,000

  Vote 14.

  Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other non-effective charges for Officers etc.

  1,000

  Vote 15.

  Pensions and other non-effective charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men and others

  2,000

  1,536,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  -386,000

  1,150,000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid

  -600,000

  £550,000

  *SIR A. HAYTERsaid he did not complain of any increase in the Reserve, but he thought the present would be a good opportunity for the Secretary of State to allay in some degree the apprehensions entertained in many quarters with regard to the maintenance of the Reserve. The Reserve added so greatly to the fighting strength of the Army in the late war that Lord Lansdowne stated that the system introduced by Lord Cardwell had enabled this country to put into the field a larger and more efficient force than had ever left these shores before. There was also the economic fact that the Reservist cost only £9 per annum as against the £50 of the man with the colours. That being so, the War Office could not do better than have as small a force with the colours as was consistent with the safety of the country, and as large a Reserve as they could get. But the right hon. Gentleman had found it necessary to alter the mode of recruiting with the result that we were not getting the short-service men by whom the Reserve would be increased, but were limited to the nine-years men, who, after spending almost the whole of their time in India, would hardly be able to give a very efficient service in the Reserve. Their time in the Reserve was also limited to three years. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any calculation as to the retardation in the general progress of the Reserve caused by the adoption of the nine-years system, and the stoppage of recruiting for short service. The question was of vital importance, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the country that an
  632
  efficient, economic, and powerful Reserve was increasing in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERendorsed all the right hon. Baronet had said with reference to the great utility and strength of the Reserve in the late war, but he thought there was another point of considerable importance. The increase in this Vote would suggest that there had been an unexpected addition to the Reserve, but that was a practical impossibility as the number of men who would go to the Reserve in the course of the year could be calculated very closely. There might be a slight variation in the number of men who re-engaged, but the variation was so small that it could not, materially alter the Estimates, and therefore he strongly protested against an under-estimate of £10,000. He protested against these Estimates being £10,000 wrong. There had occurred a miscalculation in regard to deferred pay, and no satisfactory reason was given for it, and he did not think any justifiable reason could be given for the miscalculation in connection with this Vote. Why could they no-have these Estimates right in the first instance? Now that they had got soldiers looking after matters in the War Office he hoped they would be able to bring forward true Estimates instead of theoretical ones. He thought the Secretary of State for War ought to answer the right hon. Baronet's question about, the condition of the Reserve. They had had a vague statement about it being all right, but that was hardly sufficient. He could not pass over this Vote without some further explanation, and he begged to move its reduction by £20 as a protest against the miscalculations of the War Office.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head Y (Pay, etc., of Army Reserve) be reduced by £20."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  MR. O'MARAsaid these Estimates appeared to have been prepared with the greatest possible carelessness. He agreed with all that the hon. Member for Lichfield had said upon this point. How was it that they could not tell at the War Office how many men

  633
  would be on the Reserve next year, and what amount of money would be required. Why should the Estimates be out to the extent of £10,000? They never failed to hour of it when the Estimates wore short, but he should like to know what became of the savings when the Estimates were too much. What had become of the savings which must have been effected under some of the heads of expenditure connected with the War Office? He joined in the protest which had been made against this Vote because he considered a deficiency of £10,000 was most excessive, and could only have been brought about by great carelessness.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD FORSTER, Belfast, W.)said the hon. Baronet opposite had asked a question with regard to the Reserve. He did not think a more important matter could have been raised. With regard to the number of the Reserve it stood at 80,000 men, and, as far as he had been able to ascertain, instead of there being any likelihood of a falling-off the War Office were confident that there would be an addition considerably in excess of the normal number which would raise the Reserve to 100,000 men. The hon. Member for Lichfield had asked why they could not anticipate the number that would pass into the Reserve more accurately, and he wished to know why it was impossible to make this calculation with the same certainty as other Departments. In this case they had to deal with the will and inclination of individual men, and they were absolutely unable to forecast what would be the disposition of any particular man when he had to make his choice. In an Estimate of £700,000 he thought £10,000 was not a large miscalculation. When the men had the option of passing into the Reserve or of remaining with the colours, it was impossible to forecast, with absolute accuracy, what would take place. When the enlistments were for one period and the men had no option, they could easily calculate because they could control it by preventing men going into the Reserve. There was no such possibility under the present system, and so there must remain a certain amount of uncertainty such as was represented by this £10,000.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the fact that the right hon. Gentleman could tell them what the Reserve was likely to be next year showed that the War Office had some idea as to what would be required. They knew what number was likely to go to the Reserve, and so they ought to be more accurate. He did not think his right hon. friend's question had been answered. It was true that there would be an increase this year, next year, and the year after, because men had been enlisting on the three-years system. The question was whether the Reserve would be injured in the future when the three-years enlisting ceased. That was the point they wanted information upon, and not as to what the Reserve was going to be next year. The Secretary of State for India used his whole energies to get up the Reserve to a large number, and he succeeded at the expense of the drafts for India. They wanted to know what the expense of the Reserve would be. They knew the Reserve was increasing, for that was obvious to everybody, but they wanted to know what was likely to happen three years hence when the system of recruiting began to tell to the detriment of the Reserve. The War Office could make a fairly accurate estimate if they only took the trouble to go into the matter carefully before the Estimates were made out.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not feel inclined to quarrel with the War Office because of the discrepancy in their original Estimate, because individual opinion and option amongst the soldiers must introduce a large element of uncertainty. Nevertheless he was glad that his hon. friend's Motion had given him an opportunity of asking a few questions about the Army Reserve. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer a little more fully the question as to the probable future strength of the Reserve when the new nine years with the colours order came into operation. They admitted that it was necessary to have recourse to strong measures for the Indian drafts. He did not know how long the right hon. Gentleman contemplated maintaining an enlistment of nine years with the colours, and three years

  635
  with the Reserve. Until they knew that they could not tell what the condition of the Reserve would be in the future. The Secretary of State for India told them that they would have an unparalleled Reserve, and he would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that, even if it reached 100,000, that would be short of the number contemplated by his predecessor, who placed it at 150,000. He never approved or agreed with the scheme of the Secretary of State for India, and he did not quarrel with the Secretary of State for War for taking measures to reverse it, but he thought the condition of the Reserve in the future was going to be serious. Why was the full service of the soldier always limited to twelve years? Why should the period not exceed twelve years? He would suggest to the Secretary of State for War that he might to a certain extent bridge over the unusual period of nine years with the colours if he would extend the Reserve period of those who enlisted for twelve years for, say, two or three years, making the total with the colours fifteen years. That would remove a legitimate cause of anxiety as to the position of the Reserve in the future. What they did as regards the Reserve now would not operate for a considerable time, but when it did operate it would be quite beyond their control to alter it. When the three-years system had worked itself out they would find a shortage in the Reserve, and it would not be possible to fill it up until a considerable number of years had elapsed. The right hon. Gentleman might know reasons which would render the suggestion now made inadmissible, but he thought that, having regard to the condition of the Army Reserve, the Committee had a right to ask a fuller statement with regard to the future, and especially in reference to the obligations we had contracted towards India.
  *SIR A. HAYTERasked what was the calculation made by the experts of the War Office of the retardation of the rate of increase of the numbers going into the Reserve when the system of three years service was dropped and the system of nine years service adopted.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he had not anticipated that on the Supplementary Estimates the full policy of the Army would have been discussed, but as far as he could answer hon. Gentlemen opposite he would do so. To answer the question put by the right hon. Baronet it would be necessary to form an actuarial calculation, which would vary according to the period of time during which long-service recruiting was maintained. He could furnish it as accurately as these calculations could be made, but, of course, the contingency had been taken fully into account. The problem was to rehabilitate the infantry by introducing a number of men capable of furnishing the Indian drafts and performing the duties of their battalions. They were at present taking these men at the rate of about 500 a week, and at that rate they would have got some 30,000 men in addition in about ten months. They could not count with certainty upon that rate of recruiting throughout the whole year, for it depended to a certain extent upon the season and the demands upon other branches of the Army; but he though he was not putting the probability too high when he said that ten or twelve months would enable them, not to get the whole number they required, but so to stiffen the battalions that it would be possible to enter upon short-service recruiting. They could not, of course, eat their cake and have it. There must be a very small diminution of the Reserve in years to come in respect to these few months which were now passing; but he would remind hon. Members that chat would take effect, if at all, some eight years hence, and that the Reservists who were now going into the Reserve had nine, and in some cases ten years, to serve with the Reserve. Of course, it was perfectly obvious that, if short-service recruiting on the lines which he had recommended to the House were adopted, when the time came in the opinion of the Army Council to resume it they would, by means of the difference between the two and three years colour service, easily replace whatever deficit there might be eight or nine years hence arising from the intermission of the full entry into the Reserve during the next six months.

  637
  When hon. Members took this alarmist view of the ultimate condition of the Reserve he would remind them that, taking it at the very worst and were the present system permanent, which it was not intended to be, the difference would be very small compared with the result of the old system. He did not believe that there was any ground for apprehension in this matter. In any case the ultimate reduction in the Reserve would be very small, and he was confident that, so far as it was felt at all, it would be more than repaired by the short-service recruiting which must eventually be resorted to.
  MR. Mc KENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham in which reference was made to the arrangement with India. Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to that portion of the speech?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the War Office were fulfilling their obligations to India. They were sending to India men who under the old regulations would not have been allowed to go, but that had been done with the full concurrence of the India Office.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, not of men sent out in connection with the Reserve, but men going out under the regular age.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was not what he was referring to. The requirements of the Indian Government were that men should have a definite time of service, and they had now waived that point.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the point he had to put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether the Indian authorities were not led to believe that in return for the expenditure of £700,000 a year they would be provided in future with a Reserve at home of not less than 150,000 men, who would be at their disposal whenever necessity arose.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the question was whether the Indian
  638
  authorities were not led to believe that by the expenditure of £700,000 they would be provided with a Reserve of 150,000 which would be at the disposal of India whenever called upon, and whether, in that matter, faith had not been broken with India. It appeared to him that India had been unfairly dealt with.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member for Oldham had asked why thy period with the colours should be limited to twelve years. He would suggest to the Secretary of State for War that the example of the Saw should be followed in the Army in regard to the period of service. The Navy took a man for twenty-two or twenty-four years, and, at the end of the period, gave him a shilling a day. What a man who was going into the Army or the Navy wanted to know was that he was making provision for life. The question he himself wanted to raise went much more to the root of the matter. What was it that justified the right hon. Gentleman at this time in asking for the extra sum of money stated in the Supplementary Estimate? Why not provide for it in the original Estimates? What new emergency had driven the right hon. Gentleman to ask the money, thereby breaking the bargain made on the original statement as between the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the country. The Committee would observe that when this item for the expenses of the Reserve came before them last year on the original Estimate, there was an increase of no less than £210,000. That was a stupendous increase. The sum asked for and voted was £690,000. Unless it could be shown that there was something which prevented any possibility of knowing circumstances which had emerged since the original Estimate was made, and which had rendered the Supplementary Estimate necessary, he meant to vote against the Supplementary Estimate. Mr. Gladstone had said that if ever a Government desired to strike at the root of the control of Parliament it was by Supplementary Estimates that they could do it.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid many Members were surprised at what had fallen from the Secretary of State for

  639
  War on the question of the Reserve. They now heard for the first time that it was not proposed to continue the long-service Army, and they did not know what was to come in its place. As the hon. Member for King's Lynn had said, there were many great advantages in a long-service Army; but if they were really to have a short-service Army or to adopt the new method of enlisting the Militia for foreign service, what use was there in adopting another method of enlistment? It was very unwise to change the term of enlistment often, as it disturbed recruiting. Could the Secretary of State for War state whether the term was to be reduced from nine years to seven years, six years, or what? Many hon. Members were anxious to know what was to be done, so that they might not be constantly arguing in a circle.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that Lord Lansdowne had created in 1898 a special Reserve limited to 5,000 or 6,000 men who, in consideration of a slightly increased wage, were under liability to be called up for active service in small expeditions without the necessity of calling out the whole Reserve by Act of Parliament. Was that special Reserve in existence, and was it paid for out of any part of the Estimate the Committee were now discussing? He knew that the right hon. Gentleman said last year that we had not the power to send a single Reservist on foreign service without the sanction of an Act of Parliament, but the right hon. Gentleman overlooked this special Reserve of 5,000 or 6,000 men.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had said that owing to his having been obliged by the dearth of long-service men to send abroad a considerable number of short-service soldiers last year and this, consequently a much larger Reserve would be required this year than 150,000 men. He wanted some further explanation on the point.
  ME. O'MARAsaid he was not a miltary expert but he had been rather surprised to hear some talk of keeping a Reserve in this country of 150,000 men for India. What provision was made for sending these Reserves to
  640
  India in case of a war with Russia or a native rising, and how long would it take them to go to India?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. O'MARAsaid that if the Reservists were kept in this country of what use were they unless they could be sent——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That will come under another Vote.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that the only other use of a Reserve in this country was to defend our shores, and no one could regret any expense for that. He had been much relieved, however, when the First Lord of the Treasury said that there was no serious danger of an invasion of this country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to wander over the whole field of Army expenditure.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that if there were to be Reserves, he took it that they were to be Reserves for a certain class of work.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have warned the hon. Member more than once that he must be relevant.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he had always the greatest pleasure in carrying out the ruling of the Chairman, but, with all due respect, this was a Supplementary Estimate for £10,000 for the pay of the Reserve, and he took it that that £10,000 was required to increase the number of Reserves in this country. Consequently he might refer to the use to which these Reserves might be put. Therefore he said that the First Lord of the Treasury had relieved their minds to some extent when he said that the military authorities did not think there was any need to keep a Reserve in this country to repel foreign invasion. If this Vote was carried to a division he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was hardly fair to the Committee for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to allow all those questions to go unanswered.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that a similar question to that asked by the hon. Member for King's Lynn had been asked by another hon. Member, and he had answered it so far as he could. He would defy the hon. Gentleman, if he were in his position or in that of the military authorities, to be so wise as to be able to tell at the beginning of a year how many men would remain with the Colours and how many would go into the Reserve. The hon. Member for Oldham asked a question about the A Reserve. He believed that it had lately gone up and was now 84,000 in number. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had asked why not enlist men for a longer period of service, and he cited the Navy. The position of the two services was quite different. In the Army, above all things, they wanted a great power of expansion in case of war, while he should say that in case of war the accommodation for men on ship board would diminish. It was because of the necessity of creating in peace time a large Reserve that they had to take into consideration the terms of enlistment.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was one of the few Members in the House who was not prepared at a moment's notice to become Lord High Admiral of the Navy or Commander-in-chief of the Army. He knew little about the Vote under discussion, but observed that it was proposed to reduce it by £20. His great regret was that the
  reduction moved was not greater. He had one system in regard to these Votes under present circumstances. There was a difficulty in getting rid of this Government, and he would act on the old constitutional principle of doing his best to absolutely refuse Supply. He therefore intended to vote for the reduction of £20 or of £20,000,000. He had no confidence in the Government; he was not prepared to trust them in any shape or form, and he was not willing to give them, if he could help it, a shilling to be wasted and squandered.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for Lichfield would move the reduction of the Vote by £100 instead of £20.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had no objection whatever.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that in agreeing to increase the reduction from £20 to £100 he hoped they would not be told by the Secretary of State for War that they were endeavouring to keep the British soldier out of £100 of reserve pay.
  Question put, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head Y (Pay, etc., of Army Reserve) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 261. (Division List No. 28.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Asher, Alexander

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Dunn, Sir William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Edwards, Frank

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Elibank, Master of

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cheetham, John. Frederick

  Ellice, Cap. EC (St. Andrw's Bghs

  Barry, E. (Cork, S. )

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Emmott, Alfred

  Black, Alexander William

  Crean, Eugene

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Blake, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Boland, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Delany, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Ffrench, Peter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Field, William

  Burke, E. Havilald

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E. )

  Burns, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire).

  Gardon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hammond John

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Harwood, George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. )

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Tomkinson, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Toulmin, George

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Johnson, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S. )

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Mallcy, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshr)

  O'Mara, James

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Parrott, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Langley, Batty

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson. J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (H'ddersfi'ld

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Young, Samuel

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Lowis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lloyd-George, David

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Warner and Captain

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John

  Norton.

  Lundon, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Rathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Bigwood, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Chamberlain. Rt Hn. J A. (Wore

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bingham, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Bigot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Coatos, Edward Feetham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Boulnois, Edmund

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bowles, Lt. -Col. H F (Middlesex

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brigg, John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

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

  Bull, William James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Butcher, John George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A. (Glasgow

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  644

  645

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ratdiff, R. F.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kerr, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Keswick, William

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlet

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Laveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Samuel, Sri Henry S (Limehouse

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R,

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lueas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th.

  Spear John Ward

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes. )

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stock, James Henry

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stroyan, John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. )

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh,

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thomposn, Sir H. M.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thornton, Percy M

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Green, Walford D. Wednesbury

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Greene, Sir E W. (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Moore, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Morgan. D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tuff, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Vincent, Col. Sri C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernen-

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Myers, William Henry

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund Lyne

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords., N. W.

  Peel. Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wilson-Tedd, Sri W. H. (Yorks.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Horner, Frederick William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pym, C. Guy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Randles, John S.

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellows.

  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the Vote they were now discussing differed in some degree from
  646
  those which had already boon discussed, because, although it was put down as a Supplemental Estimate, it was really an

  647
  additional Estimate. It was a difficult Vote to examine, because at one time or another the India Office, the War Office, and the Foreign Office had been concerned with the events which made the Vote necessary. One curious feature of this Vote was that while it was a terminal charge for winding up events in Somali-land, it incidentally provided for a garrison which had almost become permanent. Last year there were two mentions of the Vote in the King's Speech, but no Vote; now they had the exact opposite, they had two Votes and no mention. In 1899 we were invited to take a military promenade in Somaliland. At the time this country was engaged in a military promenade in another part of Africa, and the Government did not propose to engage in two at the same time, but in 1901 we entered on our first campaign. In the campaign our arms were successful, the Mullah was defeated with considerable loss, and the local officer proposed that we should take over the local administrative control of the country. Lord Lansdowne refused to entertain any such proposition, but Colonel Sadler, the local officer, warned Lord Lansdowne that if he did not assume the administrative control he would not have seen the last of the Mullah. That was proved to be true in a very short; time. In 1902 we entered into our second campaign, when, unfortunately, the Mullah got the better of us. At this time the Foreign Office had the control, and becoming alarmed at the want of success of their military enterprise they handed over the whole thing to the War Office. The War Office immediately got hold of the services of an old Indian and Afghan fighter, General Manning, and sent him over to Somaliland with 8,000 men. But they also did another thing which had a very wide-reaching effect, and that was to invite the cooperation of the Italian nation.
  In 1903 the third campaign was commenced. On March 3rd the then Secretary of State for War declared that operations would probably last four months and cost £500,000 or £600,000. On April 11th the general officer was committed by one of his subordinates to a most unfortunate engagement in which he was overwhelmed, his force annihilated, and he himself killed, while the whole
  648
  expedition was endangered, disorganised, and had eventually to be withdrawn. About the time when the present Secretary of State entered upon his office, Sir Charles Egerton, an Indian officer of great experience and skill, was brought from India to take charge of the expedition, and to him was entrusted a force of about 10,000 men. So that this "military promenade" had developed into operations of considerable magnitude, involving an expenditure of some millions of money, and the employment of 500 or 600 officers, most of whom were on special employment. In December the expedition started afresh, and at the beginning of 1904 the Mullah was decisively defeated, his forces scattered, and apparently the War Office were in hopes that the whole campaign was coming to an end. The Secretary of State, however, used words of unusual caution, stating that the position was more favourable, but that if their anticipations were once more disappointed they would certainly be face to face with a campaign in the following year. In February operations ceased for the moment, but on March 10th they began again in a very desultory and unsatisfactory manner, and they came finally to an end on April 18th with the capture of Illig, a mud-hut town in Italian territory, entirely controlled by the Italian Government and of no sort of value whatever. To this obscure village we had to send a naval force, and in the course of the operations suffered loss of both men and officers, while the Italian ships and troops took no steps whatever to-expel the Mullah from the Italian territory. It was to be noted that the operations came to an end on April 18th. But if the Foreign Office and the War Office had paid attention to the original representations of their local advisers they would not have commenced operations until the middle of April, they would not have incurred one-half of the expenditure they had incurred, and they would not have been troubled with the difficulties of transport and lack of water which had brought the campaign to an end with such loss and suffering to the troops.
  In the middle of April the Secretary of State for War stated

  649
  that the Mullah had been routed, driven out of the protectorate and was practically without a following. He also added that in view of these circumstances it had been decided to discontinue the military operations, and to reduce the field force. That statement naturally led the House to believe that the campaign had been entirely successful, and that there was no necessity, from a military point of view, to continue the operations. But a telegram sent by General Egerton just before that date, and printed on page 48 of the Paper, showed that the real cause of the withdrawal was not success but necessity. Everybody would wish to hear willing testimonies to the valour and skill of the troops engaged, but it could not be denied that the hardships they endured with so much courage might have been mitigated, if not altogether prevented, if the advice of the people on the spot had been accepted. The country was indebted to the troops for their struggles in a thankless and arduous task, but there was not much gratitude due to the Government which directed the operations at the wrong season of the year. Then there was the question of the Italian co-operation, which, he submitted, had been expensive and was also unnecessary. From page 48 of the Paper it would be seen that the Mullah's following came from Italian and not British territory, though they raided both impartially, and representations ought to have been made to the Italian Government that it was their duty to keep their subjects under control. Had that course been taken our expenses would have been less, and our efforts lighter, while our success, he believed, would have been equally as great.
  He thought it was just as well to look at the expense of all these proceedings. The Secretary of State had given several answers as to the cost of this undertaking, and he had told them that the cost was £2,494,000, but he arrived at a larger figure than that, Up to October, 1902, the cost of operations as directed by the Foreign Office amounted to £90,000. Then the sum of £2,250,000 was voted to the War Office as expenditure upon the conduct of military affairs. The Secretary of State, in an answer he gave to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division
  650
  on February 29th last year, pointed out that £200,000 of this sum came from appropriations-in-aid, and therefore it was not necessary to reckon that amount in the sum spent. Then there was this Vote for £536,000 to-day, and apparently, in addition, grants-in-aid to the amount of £159,000. These figures made up a total of £3,035,000, which was a considerable increase upon the estimate made by the Secretary of State for War. That was the sum actually spent. Appropriations-in-aid ought not to be counted in the cost, but they ought to be devoted to reducing other expenditure. Then there was this year a large administrative Vote for £78,000. What had been the result of all this expenditure? There had been four campaigns, the trade of the country had been decreased, and the Mullah was still at large.
  What then was to be the future policy with regard to this country? It seemed to him that three courses were open to the Government. They could completely abandon the country, but he did not suppose they would do that; they could keep up a perpetual garrison, but economy would prevent that; or they could establish a system of administrative control of the protectorate. Having promised protection to the friendly tribes it would be a breach of national honour if they were now to withdraw it. It might be said that administrative control was a difficult thing in those wild parts, but this was not the only instance where our frontier was invested by tribes addicted to brigandage, and the whole of the Indian frontier consisted of a population of that character. In many cases those tribes were controlled by a single officer. They were all familiar with the case of Colonel Warburton, who kept the tribes in perfect order without any armed force, and when he was withdrawn the country broke out in rebellion. He believed such a system based on moral influence was possible in those regions. It had been successful in India, and was undoubtedly economical. In the King's Speech last year they were told that the Government had adopted three courses. They had dealt out rifles to the various tribesmen and put them under British officers; they had included Somaliland in the postal union, in order, he could only suppose, that the Mullah might more easily get

  651
  ammunition and arms; and they had issued an Order in Council which provided for the appointment of a Commissioner. That was a gloomy anticipation for the career of the administrator in Somaliland. There was another provision which seemed to have been tempered by prudence. It was that the demarcation of the boundaries of the country was to be by proclamation. It was quite clear that so long as the Mullah was alive and at large it would be quite impossible to delimit any part of this protectorate. So far as he understood, no officer had been appointed to carry on the; Government. In the words of the Prime Minister, the subject of Somaliland was interesting and embarrassing. It was more interesting and embarrassing because of a question put from the Opposition benches which had never been answered. The question was, Will the Mullah come back? Until that question could be answered nobody could say what would be the future of Somaliland. The latest information they had of the Mullah was that he had 2,000 rifles and 6,000 spears at his back. He did not know whether the Secretary of State could give any new information as to the whereabouts of this gentleman, but it was quite clear that he was in a state of power and still had sufficient force at his back to do a great deal of damage. It seemed to him that the situation required a certain amount of prudence, foresight, and resolution, none of which qualities had been conspicuously present in the past management of this country. This was particularly the sort of question which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always claimed that they could manage much better than the Liberals could. He had always been told that the Conservative Party could manage foreign affairs far better than the Liberal Party. The situation created in Somaliland was an actual contradiction of that assertion, for from its inception the matter had been mishandled and misconceived. He hoped that before this debate came to an end they might get an explanation from the Government without exaggeration and without reserve. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.
  MR. TREVELYANin seconding the Amendment, said they ought to ask the Government
  652
  for a clear declaration of what they thought they had won by the war in Somaliland. What results had they to show? It was the companion piece to the Tibetan Expedition. There they had some results. They had made some geographical discoveries, they had enabled some treatises to be written on an obscure Theocracy, and they had irritated Russia. In Somaliland they were not even dragging the Mad Mullah at the chariot wheels of the Secretary of State for War. The one tangible result was the expenditure of these millions. They had heard from the hon. Member for Bristol a calculation as to how much the Government had spent. How did the Secretary of State for War explain the figures which he gave to the House in the debate last year, when he stated that the expenditure up to that date was £3,000,000? The Government said they had accomplished their object. But where was the Mad Mullah? There was a curious confession during the debate last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who, when the expedition was commenced, was a member of the Government. Having left the Government, he said in the debate last year that he did not believe His Majesty's Ministers would have entered upon an expedition of that kind if they had dreamed for a moment that it was going to reach the present size. Was not that like our present rulers? At the beginning of the war they were ill-informed, hasty and over-sanguine, accepting the report of their representative on the spot without any real consideration as to whether he was exaggerating owing to the fact that naturally events occurring under his eye were of greater magnitude than they should be to the Ministry, which had to keep the whole Empire under its view. They accepted the word of comparatively obscure officials in Somaliland, and came to the conclusion that the Mullah was a serious danger and must be suppressed at all consequences. There had really been four expeditions—one British defeat, three disappearances of the Mad Mullah, and three reappearances of the same gentleman. Now what security had the Government that the Mad Mullah was not going to reappear? The stream had gone underground for a little while, but how did they

  653
  know that it was not going to re-appear? Last year he was still lighting the Mijzar-ten tribe, and the Government said that there was no date at which it could be declared that military operations would be terminated. And last year Lieutenant-Genera] Sir C. Egerton reported—
  "To actually capture a man whose whole range of movement extends from Cape Guardafui to the Equator, and from the sea to the Abyssinian border, is an almost hopeless task and could only be attained by an extraordinary piece of luck."
  The Government went into war as gamblers, in the hope of coming out with a streak of luck! They knew no relation between their means and the ends which they had in view. There were some things which it was worth while to do on the cheap, if they could really do them. The capture of a border raider might have been worth while undertaking if it could have been accomplished without enormous expense; but it was not worth while spending millions in hunting down a man who might be suppressed either by judicious defensive measures on the spot, or by cutting off his supplies. The Government had made no attempt to thus deal with this gentleman. On the word of the people in Somalilaud they sent out a large expedition, and the result had been an enormous loss of national money and another addition to the immense extravagance of which the Government was guilty and for which they cared so little.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head BB (Somaliland Expeditionary Force) be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
  MR. PEELsaid he thought that the hon. Member who seconded the reduction of this Vote had imported into the discussion rather a different sort of tone from that in which it had been started by the hon. Member for Bristol. It was rather unfortunate that some of his criticisms were directly contradictory of the criticisms of the hon. Member who moved the reduction, whose main charge was that the Government had not taken the advice of their representatives on the spot. A different view was taken by the hon. Member for Elland, whose whole complaint was that
  654
  the Government had accepted at once the opinions of their local representatives, and had landed this country in this very heavy and costly war. He could not help thinking that the strategical notion of the hon. Member for Elland were rather crude and elementary. Curiosity as to the movements of the Mullah was not confined to hon. Members on the other side of the House. He himself was anxious to obtain a full statement from the, Government as to the results of their policy, and, of what was more important, their future policy. They had the advantage of the combined presence of the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the latter of whom had something to do with controlling military expeditions. He could not help observing that it was a little curious that up to 1898 the Indian Government had had charge of Somali-laud, but all those disturbances had occurred in that country after its management was taken over by the Foreign Office. Of course, our position in Somaliland was strategical, and based on general policy; and therefore the Foreign Office wished to have it under their control. They had been told in another connection that the policy of the Indian Government was a portion of a general policy of this country, and that the Indian Government was only a department of the Foreign Office. Consequently, it did not much matter whether Somaliland was controlled by the Foreign Office or by the Indian Office. However, the Indian Government had already the control of Aden, which itself controlled Somaliland. He thought that the House ought to inquire more generally as to the policy which governed in this matter. These small wars should not be regarded as a piece of the providential order of this country, or as a portion of that necessary toll which we had to pay for the maintenance of our Empire.
  In all these cases it was necessary to examine with the greatest care what were the steps the necessity for which led this country into the war. The hon. Member opposite did not go into the beginnings of the case. He assumed that this country had undertaken obligations towards the tribes in Somaliland which, as a matter of honour, we should maintain.

  655
  It was, therefore, all the more necessary that the real measure of our obligations in the future should be ascertained. Were these obligations to continue binding for an indefinite number of years, or could any term be set to them? He understood that the obligations were not merely undertaken for the benefit of the Somaliland tribes, and it became of extreme importance how far our protectorate over these tribes should be extended, and whether the trade of the Hinterland should be considered a matter of vital importance. Hon. Members must remember that this was a vast country; it was 500 miles by 350, and to follow a man like the Mullah over such an enormous district as that was really an impossible task, as those who had been in that country on sporting expeditions knew. He would like to know whether a really smashing blow had been delivered against the Mullah, because this was a matter of prestige. The position of a man like the Mullah depended not on the size of the force which he commanded as much as upon his religious position. This particular Mullah obtained his position, not by success in war, but his success in what might be called revivalist meetings; the number of pilgrimages he had made to Mecca and the great receptions he had met with there. There was, 0and certainly must be, an immense difficulty connected with the maintenance of order and the protection of a country like this with a large hinterland behind it. It was extremely difficult to get proper information about the country in the way it was possible to obtain it in Egypt, and it was difficult to say when a rising would occur again. In this war itself we had to deal not with one Mullah but two. And the second also showed some; military pretensions. If we had to keep a force in the protectorate it must necessarily be an expensive one, because if we had to maintain a force ready to meet 3,000 or 4,000 mounted riflemen and 60,000 or 80,000 spearmen it must be a very large one.
  This brought him to the future policy of the Government with regard to this protectorate. He thought the duty of patrolling the coast so as to prevent arms being brought to the inland tribes should be divided between this country and Italy, because
  656
  a very large portion of the coast to be patrolled was in the Italian protectorate. The predecessor of the noble Lord, in answer to a question, stated that the number of troops it would be necessary to maintain in Somaliland in order to secure that there should be a cordon of military stations round our protectorate was estimated at 10,000 men. That was a preposterous force to maintain in such a part of the world. What was to be the composition of the force, if a force had to be maintained? They had had descriptions of the sort of men the Somalis were for this purpose. The testimony of the men who commanded them was that the Somalis had astonishing powers of endurance, but that in many other ways they were not desirable troops; that they were an extremely excitable people, and, though they were quick to learn the use of the rifle, we undoubtedly suffered very much from having so many men who lost their heads, and whom it was impossible to control when they got into the fighting line. Therefore, it became a question whether, if we were going to garrison the country and maintain a chain of posts round the protectorate, we should not have to station permanently in the country some of the East African, or bring over Indian troops to add that stiffening to the Somali levees which was absolutely necessary for the security of the county. Asked recently as to the number of troops it would be necessary to maintain in the protectorate, the noble Lord was unable to say, but he informed the House that there were then in that country two Indian regiments and two regiments of mounted infantry, which were kept there pending the organisation of a local force.
  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 to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  *MR. KENDAL O'BRIENsaid in moving the Resolution standing in his name he would confine himself almost exclusively to the genesis of that Resolution. He himself had the

  657
  honour on two occasions to be evicted from his holding, and on that account he sympathised with the present Government, whose eviction from office was impending The writ of ejectment was out, and whether they waited until the end of the septennial period or went to the country in the near future, they would have to surrender their holding, but he hoped for certain reasons that the evicting forces would not be pro-portionably as great as they were in, at least, one of his evictions. On that occasion it was thought necessary to send a company of soldiers and 150 Constabulary men to protect the sheriff in the execution of his duty, though there, was only himself and his two farm servants on the other side. He had almost forgotten to mention that there was an ambulance wagon to take away the wounded had the expected battle taken place. The rent of the farm from which he was evicted had since been reduced by legislation of this House by no less than 60 or 70 per cent., Which he contended fully justified him in the position he took up in refusing to pay his landlord more than could be produced out of the land. The second time he was evicted was in 1895, and by that eviction his landlord confiscated all the improvements he had made, which were more than three times the value of the farm. He had never been an insolvent tenant and could always pay his rent, but not out of what the soil produced, and therefore he had thought it right for the sake of the other tenants in Ireland to take the stand he had taken.
  The relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland were not the same as, he had been given to understand, they were in this country. The relationship there was that of master and slave; of a despotic ruler and his subjects. If a man failed to pay his rent he was regarded as a man might be who was guilty of high treason; no compromise was possible; no concessions could be made because, of the failure of crop; or mortality in cattle or other good reason. Writs we e issued, the eviction proceeded with, and the man and his family thrown out on the roadside. Then the landlord, after he had got rid of a tenant whose family had perhaps for generations paid a certain rent, would
  658
  hand over that farm to a stranger for 30 or 40 or 50 per cent. less. One tenant of whom he could speak paid a rent of £56 a year; he was at one time unable to pay; there was no reduction made to him; he was evicted and the farm was at once handed over to another man at a rental of £35. His point was why did not the original tenant get the first chance of the reduction, or of some reduction? It was the practice of one landlord in his own immediate neighbourhood to drop into his tenants' houses at dinner time and lift the lid of the pot on the fire, and if he saw as much as a piece of bacon in the pot he increased the rent immediately, and if he found a new overcoat on any of his tenants he did the same thing. The tenants of that landlord were perhaps the most industrious and hard working men in the whole county of Tipperary. They were evicted in 1882, and twelve years after were in negotiation with their old landlord to purchase their holdings, which they succeeded in doing. Any one looking at those farms now would think that a benevolent fairy had by a touch of her wand transformed a desolate waste into a veritable Garden of Eden. Stone houses and buildings had replaced the original hovels in which these people lived, and twice the value could be obtained from the land than could be obtained under the old system. Surely that was a benefit not only to Ireland but the whole world. One or two more examples and he would have done. The landlord of the Glenbane Estate, near Lattin in the county of Tipperary took it into his head to raise the rents of his tenants by 10s. an acre every half gale. This went on till the rent reached the figure of £6 10s. At this point two tenants broke down and were evicted. But at this point also the landlord, who resided in this country, found refuge in a lunatic asylum and had not since been heard of. His (the speaker's) point was that under English land laws in Ireland even A lunatic could create evicted tenants. He would mention one other kind of landlord. Tom Dowling of Tipperary was an auctioneer. He went into the Encumbered Estates Court and purchased the Cappawhite Estate in his (Mr. O'Brien's) constituency without a penny in his pocket. He paid for it by a mortgage on

  659
  the estate itself, and his intention was to set up as a country gentleman on the margin between the difference payable as interest on the mortgage, and the amount he could screw out of the tenants by raising the rent. But unfortunately for him the Land League stepped in at the time, and poor Tom was bowled over. He might mention that all the examples he had given were from within a circle of twelve miles diameter, and he assumed it was much the same throughout Ireland. He had not much hope that immediate benefit to the evicted tenants would follow this discussion, because the great English Parties had much larger fish to fry, but whether the Svengali of Birmingham continued to hypnotise the Government Trilby, or the Unionist hairs at the tip of the tail continued to wag the Tory dog, or whether the indefinite incoherent homogeneity on the Government side was replaced by the definite coherent heterogeneity on the Opposition side, including some Tories in Liberal overcoats, the House might rest assured that the Irish people would not forget the sacrifice of the evicted tenants, and the voice of Ireland would be heard, in season and out of season, until the last evicted tenant was reinstated.
  *MR. ROCHEsaid he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion of his hon. friend; and he hoped to show the House that, on this question, the Government had broken faith, not only with the evicted tenants, but also with the Irish Party. At the time the Land Bill was being introduced, and long before it, the Irish Members, yes, and the Irish people, were led to believe that the conciliatory and friendly spirit displayed at the Land Conference would be loyally observed by the landlords; and that the Bill would be the means of establishing permanent peace in Ireland. Everyone who knew anything about Ireland would admit that it would be impossible to establish that peace without a settlement of the evicted tenants' question: and it was on the strength of such representations that the Government were allowed to pass the Bill in its present form. In support of that contention he desired to give to the House a few quotations from speeches delivered on this question by the right hon. Gentleman the
  660
  late Chief Secretary and other not less influential members of the Government. Speaking on the introduction of the Bill, the late Chief Secretary stated that he believed that the Irish landlords and tenants would continue to act in the charitable and reasonable spirit of the Land Conference Report and he concluded that speech in the following words—
  "All interests landlord and tenant, Nationalist and Unionist, British and Irish, can hope for no tolerable issue to any view constitutional, political, or economic, which they severally may cherish until by settling the Irish land question we achieve social reconciliation in Ireland."
  On a later occasion, in discussing Clause 11 of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman stated—
  "That the words of the clause were strong enough to cover all the powers at present possessed by the Congested Districts Board, including the power to buy out the interest of an existing tenant in order to put another tenant on the holding. The power is ample for all the purposes that the hon. Member has in mind, and recognising as I do the great desirability of making a final settlement which shall leave no bitter memories behind I fully intend that these powers shall be used."
  Had that settlement been carried out, or had those powers been used? He would ask the House to consider what the Land Conference recommended in connection with the evicted tenants' question. In his judgment it was little when compared with the sacrifices made by those men. "The Report declared that any project for the solution of the Irish land question should be accompanied by a settlement of the evicted tenants' question on an equitable basis." Mild as that recommendation undoubtedly was, the Government practically ignored it. Lord Lansdowne, speaking in the House of Lords, stated—
  "That the one recommendation in the Bill which commended itself to him was that he saw in it the restoration of lasting peace and good-will between landlord and tenants in Ireland.
  "Lord Barrymore" he added "expressed his regret that the question of the evicted tenants had been brought into the Bill; but, surely, if the noble Lord had followed, as no doubt he did, the discussions which took place elsewhere, he must know that this provision, which contemplated the possibility of the restoration of the evicted tenants to their holdings, was an essential element in the compromise, and if that element had been excluded, it was possible that the Bill would not at that I moment be before their Lordships' House."

  661
  The Prime Minister, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said that—
  "It was intended to take away one of those sores which festered and aggravated every political movement which might otherwise be innocuous."
  He submitted that there was no sore in Ireland to-day that festered or corroded more than that of the evicted tenants; and therefore the Government stood convicted of having obtained the Land Act under false pretences.
  He desired to refer to two estates in the county of Galway, with which he was intimately acquainted—namely, the Clanricarde Estate and the Lewis Estate. They were typical of many other estate in Ireland on which evicted tenants were to be found. He asked the late Chief Secretary a week ago how many applications the Commissioners had received from evicted tenants on those estates, and also now many tenants had been reinstated. The reply was that 122 applications had been received from the Clanricarde Estate, but that only two tenants had been provided with farms elsewhere. Twenty applications were received from the Lewis Estate, but not one tenant had been reinstated or otherwise provided for. There they had 140 families on those two estates practically in the same position to-day as if the Bill had never been passed. He did not complain so much of the administration of the Act as of its defects; for he was aware that, no matter how sympathetically it might be administered, it would not have the slightest effect on such estates as he had mentioned. Last August Mr. Stewart, an inspector under the Estates Commissioners, called on a son of Mrs. Lewis, who managed the estate, with reference to the evicted tenants. Immediately afterwards a letter appeared in the Dublin Daily Express from that gentleman complaining that Mr. Stewart had used intimidatory language towards him in connection with the matter. Mr. Stewart denied it. The result of that correspondence had been to put a stop to further advances on the part of the Estates Commissioners. I believe Lord Clanricarde's agent was also approached and that certain inducements were held out to him if he would co-operate in bringing about a settlement upon the estate.
  662
  There were at the present moment in the parish in which he lived, viz., Wood-ford, five tenants under notice to quit, not for non-payment of rent, no they had paid up to the day, they did not owe one penny, but for daring to exercise their legal right in refusing to allow a cattle dealer, named Rathcliffe, from Meath to shoot over their land, because he had grabbed the farm of an evicted tenant. The only remedy for dealing with such men as Lord Clanricarde was compulsion, and he believed that if the Government would adopt that course they would find many supporters on their own side. To support that assertion he would just for a moment refer to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, immediately after the evictions on the Clanricarde Estate in 1886, he sent for the then agent, Mr. Joyce, who by the way, subsequently took an action for libel against Lord Clanricarde, as did also the wife of a former agent, Mr. Blake, who was shot in his service. The right hon. Gentleman suggested to Mr. Joyce that he should advise Lord Clanricarde to act towards his tenants in the same spirit as other and poorer landlords hid done, and he might add, that there were eight landlords that had property in the Woodford district, all of whom, with the exception of Lord Clanricarde and Mrs. Lewis, gave reductions from 25 to 30 per cent, with the result that friendly relations between tenants and landlords were maintained.
  Mr. Joyce did act on the suggestion made to him with the result that Lord Clanricarde wrote the following letter to the right hon. Gentleman—
  "The Albany, C. 5. Piccadilly, W.C.,
  "October 20th, 1886.
  "Sir.—Mr. Francis Joyce, my agent, informs me that you sent for him and desired him to inform me that the Government would not carry out another eviction on my property until I gave back to the tenants an allowance on payment of their rent.
  Of course I at first concluded my agent must have invented so incredible a message, and was playing into the hands of the Land League, and I need hardly point out to you that the message is far too grave a one to Impossible that I can accept it as authentic conveyed thus as merely a verbal message of second hand, and I must therefore ask you to be good enough to let me know (1) if my

  663
  agent's statement in question is correct; and (2) As I have every wish to facilitate as far as I can reasonably the Government's (I fear feeble) attempts to govern Ireland, while on the other hand I cannot give further reductions to more tenants whose rents have been already reduced under the Land Court. Can I count on the Government's support in carrying out even evictions (should they be necessary) if I give back 20 per cent, on the rents due 1st November to those tenants who pay their rents due up to that date, and who had not had their rents reduced in the Land Court?
  "I think your intimation should have been conveyed to myself directly, and at a considerably earlier date, so as to have enabled me to act before the Land League acted, as they now, of course, will claim all the thanks for any reduction I may make, and to have crushed the law and Government.
  "I am, etc.,
  "CLANRICARDE."
  "The Right Honourable Sir
  Michael Hicks-Beach."
  In reply to which the right hon. Gentleman wrote—
  "Viceregal Lodge,
  "October 25th, 1886.
  "My Lord.—I think my best reply to your letter will be to give a more complete account of the interview between Mr. Joyce and myself than you appear to have as yet received.
  "Being anxious to obtain full information on the condition of that part of Ireland in which your Lordship's property is situated, I requested Mr. Joyce (amongst others) to call upon me.
  "After some conversation on matters not directly affecting the subject of your letter, I referred to the great cost and trouble which had been incurred in carrying out the evictions on your Lordship's estate at Woodford. I pointed out that this was a proof of the determination of the Government to enforce the law, and they were entitled to expect in return reasonable action on the part of the landlords. I stated to Mr. Joyce, as I have to many others, my strong objection to anything like wholesale evictions, and my opinion that where it became necessary to proceed to eviction in order to obtain the rights of property, the proper way was to select a few leading cases in which the tenants were able, but declined to pay, some person being, of course, present at the eviction with full authority from the landlord to accept a settlement at the last moment, if such should be proposed.
  "I pressed this rather more with regard to the possible future than on account of anything that had already occurred at Woodford, and I understood Mr. Joyce to undertake that this course should, if necessary, be pursued. I then questioned him as to the ability of your Lordship's tenants to pay their rents. He replied (that he thought some could do so, but on pressure from me he admitted that he had advised you to make considerable reductions to others (he specified the Portumna district), though so far without success. I requested
  664
  him to inform your Lordship that if you adhered to that decision against the advice of your own agent, and, contrary to the general action of the Irish landlords, the responsibility would be solely yours; that you might find such procedure costly and ineffective, and that in the event of application to the Government, for the services of constabulary and military on such occasions, compliance with the request would certainly be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties, and would most probably be postponed to the utmost extent permitted by law.
  "You ask whether in my opinion a reduction of 20 per cent, on rents due in November from tenants not holding under judicial rents would be sufficient.
  "No one but a person intimately acquainted with the condition of your tenants could measure what would be a just and fair reduction, or decide as to the classes of tenants who should to a greater or less extent be given the benefit of it.
  "I do not myself know enough of the circumstances to be able to judge; but I have heard that where your tenants have applied to the Land Courts, the old rents were, in many cases, reduced by a larger percentage than you name, and Mr. Joyce will doubtless inform you how far any causes, such as the sessions, or the price of produce, or the recent floods in the Shannon valley, have injuriously affected your property since that time.
  "You complain that I did not communicate directly with yourself, and at a considerable earlier date. If your Lordship resided in Ireland, I should certainly have sought an interview with you, but I admit that I thought your agent would be better acquainted than your Lordship with the condition of a property which you have not even visited for years, and that I supposed that in such circumstances you would have acted on his advice in making any necessary reductions to your tenants.
  "In your opinion, 'the law and the Government' will be crushed if you now do this. In my opinion you will only be following, though late, an example sat to you not only by other great and wealthy Irish landlords, but by very many men who, though struggling and in difficulties, have felt bound by their position, no matter how great the inconvenience to themselves and their families, to proceed with generosity and furtherance in the exaction of their legal rights,
  "I remain, etc.,
  "M. E. HICKS BEACH."
  "The Marquess of Clanricarde."
  Moreover, he was confident that in the settlement of this question the Government would have the sympathy and support of many exalted and influential persons. For instance, the position of the Archbishop of Tuam might be illustrated by a letter which his Lordship sent to The Times. The Archbishop in his

  665
  endeavours to arrange a settlement of the question had several interviews with the agent, to whom he put the following questions:—How much rent would be required all round in view of a settlement; would a certain sum assessed on the tenants according to the value of their holdings be accepted in regard to costs; did he propose to remit or not to enforce the payment of arrears; and, lastly, would he admit all the tenants in the parish and immediate neighbourhood who had asked for the intervention of the Archbishop. The replies were that all tenants restored would be liable to all costs and arrears, even those which had accrued while they were not in possession of the farms; that payment of three years rent and costs would be demanded; that no guarantee would be given that the balance should not be demanded at any time; that the tenants would not be restored generally, but that each case would be considered on its merits; and that all tenants except those against whom legal proceedings were pending could have the same terms. On receipt of those replies the Archbishop of Tuam wrote to The Times, asking that the questions and the answers thereto might be published as they showed Lord Clanricarde in his true light as a landlord, and stating that he had made many attempts to effect a settlement of agrarian disputes in the district, and that these replies showed the spirit in which his efforts had been seconded. I will now read for the House the Archbishop's letter—
  "Sir.— A short time ago a large number of Lord Clanriearde' s tenants signed a document in which they requested me to mediate for them with a view of procuring their restoration to their homes and farms on the best term I could secure from the agent. I therefore submitted four written questions to the agent, Mr. Tener, and afterwards I had an interview with him at the bank of Portumna. I request you will be good enough to publish my questions and the answers given by Mr. Tener. They were taken down to-day verbatim by the bank manager in the presence of the county Inspector. Mr. O'Brien and myself. After the document was written and copied, Mr. Tener added that in some cases he would take two instead of three years rents as one of the conditions of retaining or returning to the farms.
  "This document speaks for itself and shows Clanricarde in his true light as a landlord. Observe for instance that Mr. Tener would require payment of rent even for the time that the evicted tenants were not in possession of lands or houses at all, when in many cases Mr.
  666
  Tenor's emergency men had carried off the crops of the tenants and had grazed the landlord's cattle on those evicted farms. It is well known that I have always disapproved of the plan of campaign and that I have always counselled my flock here in Portumna and elsewhere to respect the law and abstain from every kind of outrage. I have made several attempts to effect a settlement of the agrarian, dispute in this district. This document of Mr. Teller's shows the spirit in which my efforts have been seconded. I think before God and man I am justified in declining to open my lips on this subject in future and let those who are responsible for this state of things bear the consequences,
  "Yours, etc.,
  "JOHN HEALY, D.D.,
  "Coadjutor Bishop of Clonfert,
  Palmerstown House Portumna,
  "County Galway."
  "January 28th, 1891.
  There was also considerable correspondence between the Archbishop and Sir West Ridgeway, the then Under-Secretary, from which it was evident that the Under-Secretary was sympathetic on this question. He submitted that the Act had failed entirely to deal with such cases as that of Lord Clanricarde, and that the only remedy was compulsory powers. He felt the sufferings and the plight of these evicted tenants so keenly that he would adopt any method or weapon the use of which might suggest itself to him as a means calculated to bring about their restoration to their old homes. The Act could not succeed in its great object of establishing permanent peace in Ireland while it left this question in its present unsettled condition. That being so, how could the British Government expect the Irish people to be loyal, and how could those who had been identified with the land struggle for the last thirty years and had been, closely connected with the evicted tenants, be satisfied with an Act from the operation of which the men who had risked and lost everything were practically excluded? There would never be peace or contentment in Ireland until justice was done to the evicted tenants. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House learns with the deepest concern that the expectations held out by Ministers during the debates on the Land Act of 1903 in reference to the reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in

  667
  Ireland have been disappointed; and is of opinion that the powers given to the Estates Commissioners by the Act of 1903 should be without further delay put into active operation so as to determine whether further legislation is required to achieve an object admitted by the Irish Government to be of vital importance for the peace and contentment of Ireland."—(Mr. Kendal O'Brien.)
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he desired to express the view of the landlords with reference to the general question dealt with in this Resolution. In the two speeches just delivered, though there had not been any general attack on the landlords, or any general statement of their position, it might be inferred that the landlords had done something to prevent the Act operating as favourably to the evicted tenants as it might have done. He ventured to say that that was not the case. At the present time the landlords had no animosity what so ever towards the evicted tenants. Years ago, when the land war was being carried on, there undoubtedly was animosity; to claim that there was not would be to claim for the landlords an almost angelic disposition, and he did not know that he was bound to make any such claim for them. There was admittedly a war going on between landlords and tenants, and neither party looked with any great favour on the other. The landlords regarded the evicted tenants as the main champions of a cause to which they objected, and which if successful was likely to lead to their ruin, and naturally they had an animosity against them. But the years which had passed had obliterated that feeling from the minds of the landlords. ["Clanricarde."] Everyone would admit that the Clanricarde was a special case; he was speaking of the landlords as a body. They had one interest which, doubtless, hon. Members opposite would in their hearts approve. Hon. Members sometimes expressed their determination to support their soldiers who had been wounded in the struggle. The landlords, too, had their wounded soldiers—those who were placed in occupation of the vacant farms, and they intended to see that no injustice was done to them. If the landlords deserted
  668
  their "wounded soldiers" at the present time they would be blamed by nobody I more than by hon. Members opposite. That was really the interest of the landlords in this question, and they had no animosity against the evicted tenants. Nevertheless, they had the firmest intention of standing by those tenants who came forward to their assistance in their struggle. It was admitted that when the Land Bill was before the House that these tenants could not be dispossessed, because that would only be creating another cause of strife in Ireland. The landlords held that view very strongly, and in so doing, they were holding a view which would be approved of by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The hon. Member for East Galway had dealt with the case of Lord Clanricarde, but he did not intend going into that case. [NATIONALIST cries of "Hear, hear!"] He had never defended the action of Lord Clanricarde, but nobody would contend that every landlord in Ireland was a good landlord; and, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not hold that every tenant in Ireland was a good tenant. When the Land Bill was before the House a proposal was made to insert clauses in the Bill, because they wanted this question of the evicted tenants settled. They admitted the great difficulty of dealing with this question, and that difficulty was to find the land upon which to place the evicted tenants, because they could not oust those who were actually in possession of the land from which the other tenants had been evicted. He had not yet heard any suggestion as to how the Act could be amended to meet this difficulty. To his mind the Land Act had not yet been long enough in operation to enable them to judge. They did not know how it would operate after it had been in force some considerable time, and to hurry it on too much would be detrimental to the cause which hon. Gentlemen opposite had at heart. If there happened to be too much favouritism they might stop the sales on the part of landlords, and he was sure that even Nationalist Members did not want that. He had only risen for the purpose of stating the real position of the landlords towards the evicted tenants.

  669
  He assured the House that the landlords had no animosity towards them, but they were determined that those tenants who came forward to assist them in time of need should not be injured by any action on their part.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he rose for the purpose of putting to the Attorney-General certain practical considerations and certain questions. He would not dwell upon the importance and urgency of the question. It was a matter of common agreement amongst all sections of the House when the Bill was passed that there could be no settlement of the Irish land question, no ending of the Irish land war, which did not provide for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants in Ireland. Even in the House of Lords, when Lord Barrymore took some exception to the evicted tenants' clauses, he was answered by Lord Lans-downe, on behalf of the Government, who said that the provisions dealing with evicted tenants were an essential portion of the scheme, and that without that it would be impossible to hope for any great settlement of the Irish land question, Had the Act been successful so far in its working? The hon. Member opposite said the Act had not been long enough in operation, but with great respect, he submitted that that was nonsense. It had been in operation for a year and a half, and they must judge of the success of the Act by what had happened. The difficulty the Nationalists were in was that they had no information on the question. He made, in the first place, a serious complaint of the fact that information was being deliberately with-held from them and from the House as to how the Act was working. When the Bill was under discussion they were promised that there should be periodical Reports by the Estates Commissioners. They had had no Report whatever. Last May an Interim Report was issued, but it gave them no practical information as to what was being done with reference to the evicted tenants. When they had asked for information they were told that n Report would be issued shortly giving information up to December 31st; but at the present moment they were without any information whatever as to how the Act was working, and they were
  670
  denied the information when they asked for it across the floor of the House.
  They had asked for information upon two most essential and vital questions. One was with reference to the regulations, instructions, and orders which had been issued by the Government to the Estates Commissioners as to the working of the evicted tenants clauses of the Land Act. Enormous powers were placed in the Estates Commissioner's hands to deal with evicted tenants under the Land Act, and those powers ought to have enabled them to have advanced the evicted tenants' question very near to a settlement. The other day the hon. Member for East Mayo asked for information as to the number of evicted tenants, the names of the estates from which they had been evicted, whether the tenants had been reinstated on the farms from which they had been evicted, or provided with new farms, etc. What was the answer he got, on the eve of the debate, on this question, when no Report had been put in the hands of the House? The, Attorney-General said a Report would be issued shortly of the proceedings of the Commission up to December 31st last, but that pending the publication of the Report the Government was not prepared to impose on the Commissioners the preparation of a supplementary Return. Was this refusal to impose these labours on the Commissioners due to any representation from the Commissioners protesting against these labours being put upon them? If they had not refused, he hoped the Attorney-General would let the House know, in justice to them, that the refusal to give the information was not due to any protest on their part. When the Attorney-General refused to give the information he (Mr. Redmond) pressed the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then telegraphed and got some of the information. Would the House allow him to read the extraordinary figures with which he had been supplied. The Act had been in operation a year and a half. The Commissioners had enormous powers. Everybody knew that their most urgent and pressing duty was to endeavour to grapple with the evicted tenants' question. And what did they find (The number of applications received by the Estates Commissioners

  671
  from persons claiming to be reinstated was 4,550. The total number of evicted tenants reinstated by the Commissioners was forty-six. The total number of evicted tenants reinstated by landlords was ninety-one. That was about 130 evicted tenants had been restored under the Act of 1891, either by the Commissioners or landlords themselves, out of a total of 4,550. He asserted, therefore, that the Act had been in this respect a complete failure. Why was it? Was it the fault of the Commissioners? He did not know; he asked for information.
  A question was asked the other day as to whether any regulations, orders, or instructions had been issued by the Executive Government to the Commissioners with reference to the exercise of their power to restore evicted tenants, and the Attorney-General replied that nothing that could be properly called regulations had been issued, but that there had been correspondence upon the subject which was confidential. He asked further whether that correspondence contained orders or instructions, and the right hon. Gentleman did not deny it. He claimed they were entitled to information as to these orders and instructions. They could not criticise the action of the Commissioners unless they knew what they were. It was possible that these gentlemen had been behaving in a negligent and improper manner. On the other hand, they might be most anxious to carry out their duties and have been hampered and prevented by instructions from the Government. He believed the Act could be accelerated if the Commissioners were to inquire into the circumstances of the evicted tenants, and see if the landlords were willing to sell. If they were not willing, then it should be the duty of the Commissioners to find farms for the tenants elsewhere. Had this initiative been set in motion, or were the Commissioners declining to consider any case of evicted tenants except when the estate on which they were was being sold, and, if they were declining, was it due to their own desire or was it prompted by the Government? In consequence of the delay which had marked the working of inquiry into the case of the evicted tenants in the past the United Irish League felt itself bound to take very vigorous action.
  672
  They sent inspectors to every district of Ireland to make inquiries, and they had obtained information from North-East Cork, North and South Louth, North Tipperary, Limerick, and Clare, which they had sent to the Estates Commissioners. In reply they had received a letter stating that local inquiries would be made as soon as possible into the circumstances of each case by inspectors who would report. That was a most satisfactory letter, because it showed that the Commissioners were willing to investigate any cases sent to them. Was that practice still going on? Were the inspectors going through the country and making investigation? He was informed that they were not. He wished to know why. What had happened? Had any orders been given to the Commissioners to change their practice? He noticed that some of the Unionist Members raised an outcry because the secretary of the Estates Commissioners wrote a similar letter to the United Irish League. That was, of course, an unpardonable crime in the eyes of some people, and he was not sure that the unfortunate secretary who sent it would not be called upon to resign. He did not denounce the Act as incapable of settling the evicted tenants' question, but all he wished for now was information.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)confessed that the complaint of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford at not having information was to a great degree well founded. It was much to be regretted that the Report of the Estates Commissioners was not published at an earlier date so as to be available for this debate. Though the hon. Member's information was scanty it was almost as full as his own. He would give the House all the information in his power to enable hon. Members to form a conclusion upon the Motion that had been made. He would endeavour to point out what was the problem they had to deal with. Looking to the state of the evicted tenant question in Ireland at present, he did not at all think they could assume that the 4,550 applications from all over the country were all genuine. He thought it was most unfair to contrast the number

  673
  of applications that came from the whole of Ireland with the sales which had taken place in the small portion of the country where the Land Act had come into operation, and to say that because these applications had not been dealt with the Act was therefore a failure. They were dealing in the one case with all the evicted tenants who were sending in applications from the whole of Ireland, and they were dealing in the other case with a small portion of the land. This was, so far as he could ascertain, how matters stood. The evicted tenants to be dealt with were those connected with the seventeen estates known as the "Plan of Campaign" estates, on which combinations against the payment of rent had been entered into. The total number of evicted holdings on these estates in February, 1893, when the Matthew Commission inquired into the subject, was 1,350. The old tenants were reinstated in 414 cases, and new tenants were settled with the old tenants in fifteen cases, making together 429. There were in the hands of "planters" as purchasers twenty, in all 235 holdings held by 102 new tenants. There were also in the hands of landlords, land corporations, and similar bodies 482 holdings, and there were lying derelict 204. In May, 1903, the information given under the above heads was brought down to date, and the following state of things was disclosed. The number of evicted tenants on the seventeen estates had increased from 1,350 to 1,451; the number of holdings reoccupied by the old tenants and by new tenants with the approval of the old tenants had increased from 429 to 1,082; the number of holdings occupied by new tenants had increased from 235 to 288; and the number of derelict farms had decreased from 204 to sixteen. That showed, he thought, very satisfactory progress in the economical arrangement of things on these estates.
  In reference to evicted farms in Ireland generally, matters stood thus. Unfortunately, there were no statistics which went further back than January 1st, 1889, but on that date the total number of such farms throughout Ireland which were unlet was 2,750. Of these 1,405 were lying derelict, and the remainder, 1,345, were either cultivated
  674
  by the landlords or the land corporations. Between 1889 and 1894 there was an increase in these figures, the total number of unlet evicted farms having risen to 3,582, of which 2,067 were in the hands of landlords and land corporations, while 1,515 were derelict. But since 1894 there had been a continuous and progressive decrease, both in respect of the total number of un-let evicted farms and of the number lying derelict. On January 1st, 1905, the number of evicted farms unlet had dropped to 1,616, a reduction of 54 per cent. as compared with 1894. The derelict farms had fallen in the same period from 1,515 to 625. The area of the latter was 22,365 acres, which bore to the entire cultivable area of Ireland the proportion of 1 to 681 acres. He thought it was a happy thing that Parties on all sides could congratulate themselves that steady progress was being made in arranging these matters in a way to meet the wants and wishes of the persons concerned. It was interesting to see what had been done during the years 1901 to 1904 in respect to evictions and reinstatements. In 1901 there were 314 evictions and 211 reinstatements, so that really the balance that remained outstanding was very small. In 1902 the number of evictions was 288, and the number of reinstatements 280; in 1903 the number of evictions was 319, and the number of reinstatements was 242; and in 1904 the number of evictions was 226, and the number of reinstatements was 203. [An HON. MEMBER: How many farms were let on the eleven months system?] He could not tell at present, but probably he would be able to give the information later on. It was quite true, as the Member for Waterford had said, that the number of applications made to the Estates Commissioners since the Act came into operation in November, 1903, was 4,550. Of those 106 were outside the Act altogether, inasmuch as the eviction took place more than twenty-five years ago. Of 130 others, eighty-six of the applicants were in America, five in Australia, one in Africa, and forty-one in Great Britain. Of those evicted farms 3,156 were in the occupation of tenants commonly called planters; of 1,394 which were in the hands of landlords many of them were let for grazing. In 210 cases where lands were let to graziers

  675
  the Estates Commissioners solicited landlords to sell those holdings separately from their estates for the purpose of facilitating reinstatement. The landlords objected to do that. They were quite willing to put no difficulty in the way of reinstating tenants where lands from which those tenants had been evicted were in the landlords' hands or in the hands of grazing tenants. But they had refused—and, in his opinion, rightly and justly refused—to evict the planters who did not desire to go.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have the Estates Commissioners discontinued the practice of asking landlords to sell separately?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would come to that in due order. In dealing with applications inspectors were directed to go down to each estate. They were supplied with a list of all the tenants who had been evicted from the estate inspected, and they were directed to supply to the Estates Commissioners all the information they could in reference to those evicted tenants, their condition of life, and the possibility of reinstatement. If the estate contained untenanted land, they also got further a list of tenants evicted from estates other than those sold with instructions to inquire into the condition of those tenants and recommend such of them as might be desirable to plant upon the untenanted land that had been so acquired. In the sales of estates direct from landlord to tenant the Commissioners endeavoured, with the consent of the owner, to arrange for reinstatement, and in each such case to make grants of money to enable the reinstated tenant to build and stock his farm. In sales to the Commissioners direct they reinstated the evicted tenants on their previous holdings where possible, and endeavoured, if they could not reinstate them on their previous holdings, to put them in positions on some other land, whether on that estate or on untenanted land which they might had purchased in different parts. Now they had reinstated forty-six tenants, and they had got grants of money which they would never have to repay, and which did not add to the price of the farms, amounting to £3,311. Where possible they reinstated on the farm
  676
  from which a man had been evicted, and when that was not possible, if they had any untenanted land which they had obtained by separate purchase they put the evicted tenant on that portion, giving preference, of course, to those who came from the immediate locality.
  MR. JOHN MORLE Y: Is this the practice of the Commission or the orders of the Castle.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is the practice of the Commission.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the practice founded on a rule or a regulation?
  MR. ATKINSON: I will deal with that when I come to it.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Is it their own account or their practice
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was their practice. The principle on which they dealt with the matter was this. On the sale of any estate they reinstated the tenants evicted from that estate. On a "Plan of Campaign" estate, and such others where the question was in a more acute stage, the landlords were approached confidentially by the Commissioners to endeavour to arrive at some arrangement for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. As a general rule, where ordinary estates were sold they did not approach the tenants previously to the negotiation for the sale of the estate. They also endeavoured to obtain untenanted land wherever possible, and the first purpose to which they devoted it was enlarging uneconomic holdings; the second, the reinstatement of evicted tenants, the preference being given to the tenants in the neighbourhood. Those were the principles on which they acted.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has that been the practice all through? Was it not the practice to initiate proceedings on other than the "campaign" estates?
  MR. ATKINSON: said that, so far as his information went, that was so. The Commissioners endeavoured to obtain untenanted land wherever it could be got,

  677
  first, to increase the size of the uneconomic holdings, and secondly, to reinstate the evicted tenants. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to the sections of the Act he would see that it was only upon a sale that their power of reinstating began. They could not reinstate until there was a sale of an estate.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does not that apply to the "Campaign" estates also?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that no doubt it would, but the only way they could get land was by buying untenanted land or waiting until the sale of an estate was effected. It was quite possible to take the initiative if so desired, and they did take the initiative in the congested districts where the matter was more acute, and where it was more desirable to put an end to the unpleasant feelings that existed in the locality. [An HON. MEMBER: Have they done it on Lord Lansdowne's estate?] He could not answer as to whether they had done it on any particular estate. It appeared that the number of actual reinstatements which had taken place was ninety-one by the landlords and forty-six by the Land Commission. There were, he was happy to say, sixty-seven others who, it was hoped, would be reinstated in a very short time, but the arrangements were not yet complete. The figures he was about to give would show how really unfair it was to test the working of the Act by what had occurred in the very short period since it came into operation in November, 1903. The Commissioners had acquired by purchase 6,076 acres of untenanted land; they had offers made to purchase 7,663 acres and negotiations were pending in respect of a very large tract indeed—28,063 acres. So that if those negotiations were successfully carried through they would have 41,802 acres of untenanted land to operate upon. And it was but reasonable to suppose that the process of reinstatement would go on at a much more rapid rate in the future than it had proceeded at up to the present time. That was shortly the condition of the problem, the statistics showing how matters stood, the practice adopted by the Commissioners in dealing with it, and the principles upon which they
  678
  acted. The Motion stated that there had been disappointment caused by the representations of those in charge of the Bill not having been carried out. He did not think that really there was any foundation for that statement, because it never was represented that the Estates Commissioners could secure the reinstatement of tenants unless the estates were sold, or unless untenanted land was procured, and that had been the rule up to this. He would recall to the hon. Gentleman's recollection an answer given by his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. The question put to him was: "Can the Estates Commissioners make any advance for the purpose of compensating a tenant for leaving his holding." He replied—
  "That raises several issues which in reality are distinct. In the case of a holding forming part of an estate which is not purchased or proposed to be purchased, no advance can be made Such a case is outside the scope of the 12th Section of the Act. In the case of a holding forming part of an estate purchased or proposed to be purchased compensation may be paid under Sections 12 and 13 for the benefit or improvement of that estate or generally for the purposes of this Act one of which is the restoration of the evicted tenants."
  So that when there was no sale of an estate there could be no reinstatement, unless there was untenanted land to be offered for the purpose. The only other question which the hon. Gentleman put to him was, "What regulations have been made for the Estates Commissioners?"
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he asked what instructions had been given.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he was not laying stress on particular words. Those hon. Members who pressed this question too strongly seemed to forget what had occurred when the Act was passed through the House. The 23rd Section, Sub-section 8, of the Act provided that the Commissioners in carrying out the foregoing provisions of the Act should be under the general control of the Lord-Lieutenant, and should act in accordance with such regulations as might be made by him from time to time. It had been suggested in Committee that these regulations should be printed and laid on the Table of the House. That suggestion was immediately objected to, and accordingly it was not pressed, and the Act

  679
  passed without any provision stating that the regulations guiding the Commissioners should be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They were promised to us, in answer to a question put by myself.
  MR. ATKINSON: Promised to be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am surprised, for my recollection does not agree with the hon. Member's.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: My recollection agrees with that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman quote from Hansard the passage showing whether the claim was made by us and objected to by the Government?
  MR. ATKINSON: I remember now the suggestion being made on the Report stage, and that I saw no objection. But an objection was raised, and the provision was purposely omitted from the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he remembered the circumstances perfectly well. The discussion took the shape that he and his hon. friends pressed for the regulations to be laid on the Table. The Government declined to put them in the Bill, but they absolutely promised that the regulations should be open to Members and laid on the Table.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that this was not his recollection, and he was very much surprised that if hon. Members desired the regulations to be laid on the Table they should have been willing to rest content with an assurance instead of insisting that it should be put in the Bill. The Estates Commissioners were in the same position as other executive officers of the Government. It was insisted again and again during the progress of the Bill that they should not be put in an independent position without the control of the Government and taking their own view as to the course they ought to pursue, but that they should be under
  680
  the control of the Government, to obey the orders of the Government. If that was so he was unable to see why communications that passed between the Government and them should be disclosed when they were not disclosed in other cases.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Our whole contention was that these gentlemen should not be judicial officers, that their proceedings should be open for the discussion and control of the House. We never thought of the Government.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not contend that their proceedings should not be under the control of the House in the same way as the action of any Executive Government should be controlled. He meant in the sense that their action could be discussed here, and the member of the Government here be made responsible. But he contended that being officers of the Government, and the House having deliberately said that the regulations should not be laid on the Table, the House was no more entitled to have communications passing between them and the Government laid before it than in the case of communications between the Government and the Inspector-General of Police. No formal regulations had been made; but he was informed that communications had passed between his right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the Commissioners, not of a formal character, but such communications as would pass between the Government and executive officers. It would be quite unreasonable to require that these officers should be judged by what they did when they were responsible to the Government, and therefore the Government was responsible to Parliament. If they were in a judicial position the Government would not have that responsibility. It was just because they were in a dependent position, bound to act upon orders they received, that the Government was responsible and should be censured when they did wrong. That was the position. It would be unreasonable to require that confidential communications passing between the Government and executive officers should be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked what was the use of the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that these Estates Commissioners were under the control of the Executive, and under the control indirectly of the House of Commons, when the House was not in possession of the Report of the proceedings of these Estates Commissioners on the part of the transactions in which the House took the greatest interest? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, he would not say wrangled, but had had a dispute with the hon. Members for South Tyrone and Waterford as to whether it was understood that these regulations, directions, or instructions were or were not to be within the cognisance of Parliament, and he said hon. Members had forgotten the proceedings during the passage of the Act; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be reminded of the language used by Lord Lansdowne in another place when an Amendment was moved by a Conservative Peer who was an opponent of the Bill. In rebutting the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Lansdowne said, upon the point whether planters would be intimidated or not, that there need be no fear of intimidation or oppression, because all the proceedings would first of all be under the control of the Land Commissioners, and, secondly, the Estates Commissioners would be under the control and supervision of the Irish Government, who would certainly have something to say, and if the Irish Government did not put a check on such proceedings, no doubt attention would be drawn to the matter in Parliament. But what was the use of drawing attention to the matter in Parliament if Members were met by the Irish Government, or what remained of the wreck of the Irish Government, with the statement that the regulations or instructions were in the nature of private or informal communications? What were they about, these communications which were withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament? They had never been presented, and they were now discussing these three sections of the Act of 1903 without knowing the facts, which were vital. This was a regular illustration of the way in which the Government of Ireland was carried on. In the House, both sides, with the best intentions towards Ireland, united in
  682
  passing an Act for the benefit of Ireland, and, as had been said a hundred times of such Acts, when it crossed the Channel and went to the Castle or the Courts the whole intention of Parliament was balked and frustrated. How could they get over that?
  He had listened with the keenest interest to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, more especially for the reason that he himself was responsible ten or eleven years ago for an elaborate attempt to settle this enormous mischief in Ireland. But what was the use of reading out to the House figures which they could not check, and which they could barely follow? Why were not those figures given to them at a time and in a shape in which they would really be of use to the House in forming a judgment on these proceedings? [An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH Benches: "They do not want that."] The hon. and learned Member for Hackney talked about the andlords being as well justified as hon. Gentlemen below the gangway in defending their soldiers, the planters. He for one had never denied that. The measure for which he was responsible safeguarded the interests of the planters as much as any measure that could be brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a passage from a speech of his which showed that he was under obligation to the Irish Members, but that he and his Government were not at all afraid of saying that they would be no parties to any injustice to the planters. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman presented to the House in any way any case as it stood? The Government had admitted that this was a case of the utmost importance for the social well-being of Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman had not given them any material whatever for forming a judgment as to how far the intention of Parliament in the Act of 1903 had been carried out. Moreover, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had evaded another point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that the clauses for the reinstatement of evicted tenants were one of the great objects of the Act of 1903?
  MR. ATKINSON: I admit it.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid it was on that very account very expressly stated; and although it was admitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as by Lord Lansdowne, that that was the central object of that legislation, yet they now found Gentlemen from Ireland drawing the attention of Parliament to the fact that that central object was practically a failure. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny from these wretched, starved, meagre figures he had produced, that that part of the policy of the Act had been practically a failure.
  What was the explanation? The explanation given in Ireland was that instructions were given from Dublin Castle to the Estates Commissioners which curtailed their freedom of action. He had listened with the greatest care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he had not the least idea whether that was a true charge or not. If it was a sound charge, if there was a basis for it, if it was in consequence of any instruction from the Executive Government to the Estates Commissioners that that important part of the Act of 1903 was practically a failure, then the Government had added one more to the long list of Executive failures in Ireland—a most serious failure, a failure which would bring plenty of trouble to those who, at some future date, would become responsible for peace and order in Ireland. He had listened with satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman's figures as to the reduction in the number of derelict farms, and to all those other statistics with which those who had been responsible for Irish government were only too familiar. But so long as the evicted tenants were not reinstated, or transferred to other farms, so long would there remain an open sore, and it would be impossible for any Irish Government to think that they had solved one of the central difficulties in the Irish situation. It was idle to test the operation of the Act by figures given to them across the Table, and, therefore, he should, with great confidence, support the Motion. He believed that the hon. Gentleman had discovered a great mischief in Irish administration. Was this the ordinary case where the intention of Parliament had been baffled by the operation of the law-room
  684
  in Dublin Castle? If not, he presumed the lawyers were consulted. If they were not consulted, then the Chief Secretary, the Irish Government, acted on the construction of the sections of an Act of Parliament without taking legal opinion upon them. The whole thing exposed once more the imposture of this Parliament passing an Act for the benefit of Ireland and then, once passed, its administration, its operation, passing entirely out of any effective supervision of that House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that this, though a very quiet debate in regard to Ireland, had been very instructive. He did not think any speech made that evening had been more instructive than that of the Attorney-General for Ireland. He wished, however, to make this preliminary observation, that every single Irish Member who had spoken from those benches had declared that if they had had their choice between accepting the Land Bill and abandoning the evicted tenants they would rather have rejected the Land Bill than have deserted the evicted tenants. Indeed, that was practically the point of view of every section in the House. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the landlords of Ireland—he hoped the hon. Member did not include Lord Clanricarde among his clients—said that the landlords of Ireland had no objection whatever to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants; and, far beyond that was the reiterated assertion of every supporter of the Government. The statement had been made over and over again that the restoration of the evicted tenants was an essential, vital, and supreme part of the Land Act, and, as a matter of fact, the Bill would never have received the cordial and active support it had done from all parts of the House, if the House had not been convinced that they were dealing with a measure which would finally settle this great and vexed question. Here was the situation. They had the Ministry, the Opposition and the Irish Members; they had the House of Commons and the House of Lords all agreed in the desire and hope and certainty that the evicted tenants were going to be restored, and then they had Dublin

  685
  Castle defeating the whole intention of Parliament. That was the case in a nutshell. The House could understand how Sir Antony MacDonnell found that state of things a little unsatisfactory, and why the late Chief Secretary should have called in the aid of a strong man like Sir Antony MacDonnell to deal with Dublin Castle. The Attorney-General for Ireland had read out a list of the applications made for reinstatement. Some of them came from people in America, and some from people in Great Britain. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman make a point of that?
  MR. ATKINSON: I merely stated the fact.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would make a point of it, and it was this. He went up and down amongst his countrymen in Great Britain, and many and many a time he had been grieved to find a man wandering in search of work in Liverpool or Glasgow, glad to take the worst and the lowest paid job he could get—employment in gasworks or in chemical works. Such a man, he learned, had an evicted farm in Ireland, and was hoping year after year that he might be restored to it. Was there a single man with a particle of the sense of humanity in him who ought not to rejoice that an Act of Parliament had been passed which was meant to bring such people back from their exile to their native homes. If such could be accomplished, would not every country benefit—Ireland by regaining her lost population, and England by changing enmity into friendship. Therefore, the case was strengthened in favour of the rapid, prompt, and courageous work of the restoration of the evicted tenants. What had been the result? Only 131 evicted tenants had been restored to their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General was entitled to say that of the 4,550 applications some of them were absurd, some of them out of date, and some of them bogus; but it was a miserable result that only 131 had been restored, out of 4,550 applications. They all knew the cause. The Attorney-General might disclaim responsibility on the part of the Law Officers. He knew nothing about it; but it might be that
  686
  the right hon. Gentleman had joined his powerful voice to the voice of reaction, which had resulted in the resignation of the late Chief Secretary. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was about to join the reactionaries in connection with the evicted tenants also. Certainly the question would have advanced more rapidly were it not for Dublin Castle. What was the answer of the Attorney-General? He said that the Estates Commissioners were merely executive officers, and must, therefore, act under the control of the Government generally, the Government being responsible to this House. He accepted that; but what was the right hon. Gentleman's next position? It was that the Government, who were responsible to this House, were not bound to give the House material for forming a judgment; and the right hon. Gentleman was daring enough to say that the House of Commons had no right to get information as to the action and instructions of the Government in this matter.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he regretted very much that the Report was not in the hands of Members. The House, however, was not entitled to get confidential communications which the Government might have issued.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the position, then, was that the House was not entitled to get the instructions which were issued under the sections of the Act in order that the will of Parliament might be carried out. Was ever a more monstrous proposition laid down? The right hon. Gentleman had evaded the point. He did not complain that the Estates Commissioners had not sent in their Report. His complaint was that the House of Commons was not supplied, and that the Attorney-General dared to tell the House it would not be supplied, with the instructions given to the Estates Commissioners by the Government. He never heard such an extraordinary doctrine laid down in the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] He did not know why he excited the hilarity of the Scotch Gentleman opposite, who so eloquently but

  687
  silently represented his constituency. He dared say that the feeling he showed in this matter did not commend itself to the hon. Gentleman, but he should be obliged if instead of inarticulate interruption the hon. Gentleman got up and answered him. Here were the Estates Commissioners entrusted with the restoration of the evicted tenants; and he had not the smallest doubt but that they were anxious to carry out their work. But they were impeded in their work; and when he asked what instructions were given to them the answer of the Attorney-General was that they were confidential communications. It was another glimpse into the manner in which Ireland was governed. As his right hon. friend had said the House might pass any Act it liked, every section of the House might desire to do justice to and confer benefits on Ireland, they might want to close up a running sore in Irish life, but Dublin Castle stood there to defeat them, and the right hon. Gentleman was prepared by means of an unconstitutional and absurd doctrine to prevent the House of Commons from seeing the inner springs of action by which the best intentions of Parliament had been frustrated.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he wished to put a plain, categorical question to the Attorney-General. Here was an Act of Parliament, one of the greatest measures passed by this House, but one of the most complicated and difficult to administer. Did the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of Commons that the Estates Commissioners could administer that Act without a set of rules, regulations, and instructions. Did he mean to convey that the Chief Secretary or the Lord-Lieutenant were to address private letters to public officials, giving them direction as to the manner in which the Act was to be administered, for the purpose of burking the control of Parliament? He asked the right hon. Gentleman deliberately if a set of rules had not been sanctioned by the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid as far as he was aware no such instructions had been issued.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he would put the question again; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to get the information. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman because he had very little information on any subject. He further wanted to know were the Estates Commissioners to blame for the Report not having been ready for presentation to the House? Was it not a fact known to everyone that the general work of the Commission, the purchase and sale of ordinary estates, had been slowed down for lack of money? That was well known. It was also well known that another important duty of the Estates Commissioners, namely the sale and purchase of towns, was also slowed down. Had the machinery also been stopped in regard to the evicted tenants? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House now if the inspectors were at work in Ireland on the question of the evicted tenants?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he understood so.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman did not imply that he had any information he could give to the House. Supposing he himself said that he understood they were not.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he should contradict that.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was not very sure that he would not be able to contradict the right hon. Gentleman. Were the inspectors at work, and, if so, how many? There was plenty of money and plenty of inspectors, yet only the magnificent total of forty-six tenants had been restored to their holdings. Parliament was in earnest or it was not when it passed the Bill. If they made a mistake at all it was in trusting too much to the speeches of the late Chief Secretary and in not thinking a great deal more of the Bill. Everyone knew, the right hon. Gentleman knew, that this burning question must be dealt with and this running sore healed and stopped; yet only forty-six tenants were restored to

  689
  their holdings after eighteen month work, although the funds were sufficient to have dealt with nearly all the evictee tenants. No one had made any charge against the landlords of being unwilling to restore the evicted tenants. That was not the case now. He knew a case in his own constituency where a man was evicted not for the non-payment of rent, but because in the struggle for the representation of Tyrone he voted against one of the Hamiltons. The widow of that man was still living, and had kept an eye on the farm. She claimed to be restored. Did the landlord object? Not a bit of it. He did his level best to get her back, but the hitch was in Dublin Castle, and in the instructions of the Government. It was not the landlords who were blocking the way. He took no account of the Clanricardes or the Lewises. No one would expect them to facilitate affairs in Ireland. They would only act when they were compelled. The majority of the landlords, however were now only concerned in getting as much money as they could. It was Dublin Castle that was standing in the way of the evicted tenants; and it was a great pity that the Attorney-General was in the position he was and not able to give the House any information. He hoped that the Report, when it was issued, would not be a mere column of figures. He hoped it would be a Report dealing with the working of the Act, and giving a picture of what was going on during the last eighteen months. Why such hesitation in presenting the Report? He entirely agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Montrose Burghs that one lived and learned in Ireland. One thing was borne in upon him. He had never doubted the intention or capacity of this House, though he might be wrong.
  690
  He had seen great Acts of Parliament passed and sent across to Dublin only to be mauled almost out of existence. All this came from a band of hostile men encamped in Ireland as the real governors of the country; and until that system was taken by the throat and overthrown the best intentions of the House would be brought to nothing by that band of officials, who were not only mercenaries, but overpaid mercenaries as well.
  MR. DUFFYsaid he desired to intervene in the debate because he represented a constituency that contained more evicted tenants than any other constituency in Ireland. The question of the evicted tenants was one of primary importance; and the neglect of it tended not only to impede the progress of the Land Act, but to prolong that state of turmoil and strife which unfortunately existed. When the Land Bill was being passed through the House of Commons it was made abundantly clear that the rights of the evicted tenants would be safeguarded, and that the Estates Commissioners would be clothed with great powers, which would enable them to deal with the question of the evicted tenants in a satisfactory manner. A number of hon. Members on his side, although they held certain views in regard to the Bill, acquiesced in its passing for that very reason. Indeed, the late Chief Secretary expressed the wish that as far as the evicted tenants were concerned landlords and tenants should draw a sponge over the bitter and evil memories of the past. Although the evicted tenants in Ireland were numerically small, still the question was a very large one indeed; and unless an effort were made by the Irish Government to restore these tenants to their holdings, or to give them

  691
  an equivalent amount of land elsewhere, the Government need not expect anything except turmoil, disturbance, and confusion. Hon. Gentlemen from time to time might have read of disturbances in the Loughrea district; but they were due entirely to the fact that Lord Clanricarde and Mrs. Lewis had absolutely declined to allow the Act to be put into operation. One hundred and twenty-two tenants had filed applications from the Clanricarde Estate with the Estates Commissioners; and twenty-two tenants from the Lewis Estate. There were no complications, as the lands were still derelict. He wished to ask the Government now what they intended to do with reference to the Loughrea district? Were they going to take the matter lying down, were they going to prosecute war against the evicted tenants, or would they try and induce Lord Clanricarde, Mrs.
  Lewis, and others to enable the evicted tenants to be put back to their holdings.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the House would excuse him, as the matter was of such importance, if he said that he had looked into this question about the promise of the publication of these regulations, and he found that on July 1st, 1903, a debate took place on the question, and the Chief Secretary used these words:—"He had not yet decided on the exact form of publication, but he agreed that the regulations should come before the House in some way." He would not comment on that, but thought that it should be read.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 29.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Delany, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Johnson, John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Benn, John Williams

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Black, Alexander William

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshr.

  Boland, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brigg, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Field, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Langley, Batty

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Burns, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Caldwell, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Gilhooly, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Levy, Maurice

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Condon, Thomas Joesph

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lough, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lundon, W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Hammond, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Crooks, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cullinan, J.

  Harwood, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  M'Crae, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  M'Kean, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Sullivan, Donal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tennant, Harold John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr.)

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Toulmin, George

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roche, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Norman, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Russell, T. W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Young, Samuel

  O'Dowd, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  O'Malley, William

  Slack, John Bamford

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  O'Mara, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Patrick O'Brien.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gretton, John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn, John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Helder, Augustus

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson Charles Scott

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bigwood, James

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Bill, Charles

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

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Bingham, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kerr, John

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Keswick, William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bull, William James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)

  Butcher, John George

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S,

  Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Gordon J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  694

  695

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stroyan, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Purvis Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Renwick, George

  Tuff, Charles

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshr.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E.(Taunton

  Moore, William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R(Bath)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, H C(North'mb Tyneside)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stock, James Henry

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Room in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broad-hurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel, Sir Horatio Davies, Sir Thomas Firbank, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Jacoby, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lonsdale, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Pier-point, Mr. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Sir Harry Samuel.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
  MR. SOARESasked whether the Government intended to-morrow in any way to interfere so as to prevent the House from giving an opinion, aye or no, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)thought it would have been courteous on the part of the hon. Gentleman to have given him notice of the question. The Government certainly intended to give a decision on that question, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would discover that decision when the time came.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Darien Gold Mining Company—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Darien Gold Mining Company—(Petition for Bill). Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
Barrymore Estate Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read 1a.
Marylebone Chapels Bill [H.L.]; Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. The Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on
530
the 27th of February, last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Hammersmith, City, and North-East London Railway Bill. The order of Friday last referring the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Dearne Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L.]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

E. Lauderdale (chairman),

E. Beauchamp,

V. Hill,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Kilmarnock (E. Erroll);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 21st instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.] Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

D. Bedford (chairman),

E. Carnwath,

E. Northesk,

L. Monson,

L. Hylton;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on

531
Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act. viz.:—

L. Torphichen,

L. Killanin;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 3rd March, 1905, declaring that William Eaton, rural postman, Wellingborough Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That they have added the Lord Monk Bretton to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READINC.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD DUNBOYNE: My Lords, this Bill is identical in its terms with the Bill which passed your Lordships' House last year, but which failed unfortunately to get through the other House owing to the state of business there. It is intended to remove a defect which experience has shown to exist in the original Act. By that Act, if a servant of a licensee serves a child with intoxicating drink contrary to the provisions of the statute, the
  532
  licensee cannot be held liable for the act of his servant unless it can be shown that he, knowingly, permitted the child so to be served; and as the Act makes no provision whatever for the punishment of the servant, it follows that unless the knowledge of the licensee is proved, he cannot be made liable to the penalties which are imposed by the original Act for that offence, and the law can be broken without anyone being responsible. This Bill is intended to remedy that defect. It will impose no fresh liability whatever upon the licensee, but it proposes to make the servant liable to the same penalty as the licensee is now liable to for a similar offence. It will not in any way add to the responsibility of the publican; it will rather be a protection to him, for when the servant knows that he will be personally liable for his own acts he will be more careful not to infringe the provisions of the law, and will thereby protect himself and his master's interests at the same time. The Bill was fully discussed when it passed through your Lordships' House last session, and I do not think it is necessary now to make any further observations in moving the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Dunboyne)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next

  THE INDIAN FOREST SERVICE.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON,who had given notice—"To call attention to the scheme at present under the consideration of the India Office for the removal of the Forest Department, now at Coopers Hill, to the University of Oxford; and to move to resolve, 'That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Forest Service should be open to all the Universities of the United Kingdom,'" said: My Lords, although the subject which I

  533
  am raising this afternoon has not as yet been brought very prominently before the public, it is, nevertheless, a matter involving a Very important principle, and one which is vital to the interests of all the Universities in this country. That principle, my Lords, is this, whether the right of admission to an important branch of the public service shall be confined to one University, that University endowed out of public funds for the purpose, or whether, as has always been the case in other branches of the public service up to now, the service shall be thrown open to candidates of all Universities alike on equal terms.
  I think it would be best if I at once explain to your Lordships the proposals which are at present under the consideration of the India Office, and which involve the endowment of a school of forestry at Oxford to the exclusion of all other educational establishments, and, having done that, indicate an alternative scheme under which fairer terms would be given to all Universities alike. The Royal Indian Engineering College at Coopers Hill is, as your Lordships are probably aware, shortly to be abolished. The matter, therefore, which the Indian Council has to consider is, What is to be done with the forestry school at present carried on there? The proposals they have made are, in the first place, to transfer the forestry school from Coopers Hill to Oxford, and, out of funds provided by the Indian Government, provide there the necessary laboratory accommodation and establish and maintain a forest garden. It is further suggested that an examination should be held of all students at the end of their first year at the University—an examination which, presumably, will be of a very elementary kind, and that those who have qualified shall then be transferred to Oxford, where they will undergo, in the laboratories, the necessary scientific education which they require, ending up with a course of practical forestry in one of the scientifically-managed forests of France or Germany.
  As soon as these proposals came to be known they aroused a good deal of hostility on the part of the authorities of other Universities, who believed that they would be shut out altogether from providing candidates for the India and
  534
  Colonial Forest Service. I may say here that the Colonial Forest Service is equal in importance in the minds of those who have considered this question to that of the Forest Service of India, because the Colonial Forest Service at this moment is a large and growing one, and one which will have a very great deal of importance in the future. It is not, therefore, merely a matter of the ten students or so who now present themselves for the Indian Forest Service, but we must also consider those who may present themselves in the future for both the Colonial and Indian Forest Services. The protest was put forward most emphatically by the authorities of Cambridge University. Letters were exchanged between those authorities and the Secretary of State, and a deputation waited on the Secretary of State in order to set forth some of the objections which were felt to the proposals of the India Office. In answer to those objections the Secretary of State said "that it was considered essential that the Professor and the Assistant Professor of Forestry who have hitherto been entrusted with the training of forest students at Coopers Hill should be placed in charge of the training which probationers will in future undergo at the University, and in these circumstances it was inevitable that one University, and not more than one, should be selected for the purpose of affording the necessary education.
  Now, my Lords, in that last sentence is contained the whole matter at issue—namely, whether or not it really is essential that the necessary training for the Forest Service should be confined to one University, and to one alone. Obviously this is not the place in which to discuss the relative educational merits of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, nor indeed their relative facilities for such training as would be required for this service. Reasons have been put forward by the authorities at Cambridge for preferring their own University in this matter—reasons which have a great deal to be said in their favour—and I may also point out that two Departmental Committees which have been appointed to inquire into the whole matter have reported in favour of Cambridge rather than of Oxford. But all these are matters which, of course, have been before the

  535
  Indian Council, and have doubtless been taken into consideration by them. I do not stand here as the champion of Cambridge as against Oxford; I do not desire to challenge a division between those of your Lordships who belong to the University of Cambridge and those who belong to the University of Oxford. The protest which I enter is not directed against the selection of Oxford University, but to the selection of any one establishment to the exclusion of all others, and to the granting to that one establishment of a monopoly of admission into an important branch of the public service. That, in main outline, is the scheme which has been put forward by the India Office—a scheme which, as I have shown, leads to exclusions and limitations of rather an objectionable kind.
  The other alternative which has been suggested has none of these objections, and is an alternative which involves free and open competition from all educational establishments alike. It is that, in the first place, students should be free to choose their own University; that, when there, instead of under-going an examination at the end of their first year, they should go through the usual three years University course and take their degree at the end of that period; and that, having taken their degree, they should then undergo an examination of a much more important kind, and should finish up, as in the case of the proposals of the India Office, by an eighteen months or two years course of practical forestry in one of the important Continental forests. By this scheme the public money from the Indian Revenue would not be spent at any one institution. It would go to providing an adequate training staff for carrying out that final two years course in forests abroad; and I think it will be admitted that that course of practical forestry in the Continental forests will be by far the most important period in the whole training.
  We, in this country, have not got forests in which the science, of forestry is carried out on anything like the same scientific scale that it is abroad, and as regards the proximity of the two great Universities to any particular forest, I think the one stands in very much the
  536
  same relation as the other. There are no important forests easily accessible to either University. There are, however, woods which have been placed at the disposal of the University authorities, and which would be accessible to a certain extent while the scientific training was going on to both Universities alike. But the point is that it is the final course which will be the most important, and that course could be entrusted to the present Professor and Assistant Professor of Forestry now at Coopers Hill, to be carried out under their supervision. I do not intend to enter into the details of either of these schemes or to dwell on their relative merits from an educational point of view, through I think I am right in saying that all existing higher grade public services are at this moment filled by open competition from those who have gone through their complete University training and taken their degree. Therefore, if these proposals are insisted upon, this will be the first and only branch of the public service in which men will be taken after one year at the University or, in other words, almost directly after they have left school. The details, of course, must be settled by some competent body, and I only mention this alternative proposal on the present occasion in order to show that it is quite possible to devise a scheme which will be more in the interest of the service itself than one confined to a University which can in no sense be said to have at this moment a large or important scientific school, and which, apart from the considerations of the service, will be very much fairer to all the Universities in the United Kingdom.
  That is the case which I desire to lay before your Lordships, and I would urge upon the noble Marquess the Undersecretary of State for India the importance of not coming to any hasty decision on this matter. I would ask him whether, in view of the considerable resentment which the proposals of the India Office have created, it would not be possible to submit the whole matter to an independent expert Committee—a Committee, that is to say, which would be composed of men of science of both Universities, or of all Universities in the country, as well as of officials of the India Office, with a

  537
  view to coming to some more equitable arrangement. I should also like to lay stress upon this one point, that if any of the revenues of India are spent in providing scientific laboratories at Oxford, or at any other institution, whether for one, two, or three years, the very fact of public money being so spent would necessarily tend to render such a settlement of a permanent kind. The college at Coopers Hill will not be closed until July of next year; it does, therefore, seem that there is no immediate need for settling this question, and that it would be quite possible to postpone the decision. I would urge, further, that no public money should be spent, either at Oxford or anywhere else, pending the consideration of the matter by, and decision of, such a Committee if the Government see fit to appoint one.
  I have not waited for the final decision of the Council of India upon this matter, because I felt it was of the utmost importance that some public expression should be made of the strong resentment and hostility that is felt to their proposal. If the noble Duke the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the Duke of Devonshire, had been here this evening he would have put the case very much more forcibly than I have been able to do, and for that reason I very much regret his absence. In conclusion, I would respectfully assure the noble Marquess who will probably reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the feeling of hostility to these proposals is not confined to Cambridge but is shared by representatives of every University in the country, and that it is a very strong feeling. If the noble Marquess can give me any assurance that this matter will be postponed, and that a full inquiry will be held into it. I need hardly say I shall be entirely satisfied. If, however, he is unable to give me some assurance of this kind the feeling is likely to increase and is sure to find forcible expression. Whatever opportunities are afforded for the discussion of this matter in Parliament will be used to the full, and I feel convinced that when once the facts of the case have been put before it, Parliament will refuse to sanction a scheme which is so unprecedented in its character, and which in its operation will be so manifestly unfair.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Forest Service should be open to all the Universities of the United Kingdom."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this subject. The proceedings at the India Office with respect to Coopers Hill College have been of a most extraordinary character. I happen to live near the college, and therefore have known everything that has been going on there for years. I admit that years ago the college required some improvement in its management. This improvement was effected, and year after year the college was praised by those who visited it and was lauded as being one of the most important institutions for supporting the Indian Empire. A great sum of money has been spent by the Government, on improving its laboratories, and no human being can deny that it is extremely well managed and that everything in the college is satisfactory. Yet at this moment the India Office propose to abolish it and transmit the Forestry Department to the University of Oxford. It is absurd to say that the change of locality will improve, the opportunities of forest education; indeed, there are less opportunities in the neighbourhood of Oxford than in the neighbourhood of Coopers Hill. Coopers Hill College is now at the very highest pitch of discipline and management, and, if it be possible, I trust that a Committee may be formed to again consider whether it would not, be, to the advantage of this country, if we are to have a college at all for forestry, that it should remain at Coopers Hill. Why on earth we should remove the Forest Department from a college which is extremely well adapted for it to the University of Oxford I fail to understand, and I hope the matter will be further considered.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH): My Lords, the subject of the Motion which my noble friend has put upon the Paper is one with regard to which I am regretfully aware there is a good deal of feeling, and I cannot help thinking that

  539
  there is also a good deal of misapprehension both as to the reasons which influenced the Secretary of State in Council in formulating the scheme now under discussion in your Lordship's House and as to the results which will ensue from it. The noble Lord who spoke last alluded to the decision which has been arrived at to close Coopers Hill College at a certain date. I need not trouble the House this evening, for the matter is well within your Lordships' knowledge, with the reasons for the original establishment of this institution, but I will state, shortly, the principal and guiding reason which, I believe, influenced the authorities in coming to their present decision.
  We found that there had grown up throughout the United Kingdom a number of excellent institutions which were fully capable of carrying on that engineering instruction which it had been the object of the founders of Coopers Hill to afford, and whose diplomas and degrees the Indian Government were prepared to accept. Now, my Lords, that affected the very large majority of the men who were educated at Coopers Hill. I must further remind the House that the establishment of a forestry school at that college was no part of the original scheme. At first our forestry students were educated entirely abroad, at the schools in Germany and at the French school at Nancy. For certain reasons it was found that that system did not work well, and at that time it happened that there were vacancies in the accommodation at what was known, more correctly, as the Royal Indian Engineering College, of which advantage was taken, and the forestry school was, therefore, established there. That was about the year 1885. When the decision was arrived at, not long ago, to close Coopers Hill, the case was very different with regard to the forestry students from what it was with regard to the rest. We found, as my noble friend has very truly said, that there was no organisation in the United Kingdom capable of providing the necessary instruction in forestry for our candidates for that department in India, and, unless we were prepared to revert to the old foreign system, which, in our opinion, had proved unsatisfactory, it was necessary
  540
  to provide for a continuance of this school in its entirety at some other place.
  I should like to emphasise that the scheme which is now under discussion is, and has always been intended to be, of a temporary nature. There were several considerations which influenced the Secretary of State in Council in coming to a decision, and, perhaps, I shall not be wrong in reminding your Lordships that in a matter such as this, where expenditure of Indian Revenue is concerned, the Secretary of State is powerless unless he carries with him the consent of the majority of his council. In this matter the Secretary of State was guided by the very strong representations that were made to him by the experts who were consulted. They represented that the number of men engaged in the study of forestry was very small; there are only ten a year, or, in other words, only twenty under training in this country at one time. It was considered most necessary that they should continue to be educated all together in one place, and should receive their instruction, owing to the peculiar nature of that instruction, from their own teachers, who are themselves men of great experience in Indian forestry.
  And, my Lords, there was a fourth consideration, which I do not think was an unimportant one. It was felt that as the change was to be made it was most desirable, if possible, that a residential University should be found—a University which provides rooms and disciplinary supervision for its students, and where they could be brought into contact with their contemporaries who were at the same time studying for other professions and other walks of life. It was also felt that another advantage in this suggestion would be that the forestry students would obtain the benefit of instruction in the ancillary sciences, and that they would also have the opportunity of obtaining University degrees or diplomas. I had hoped that the principle upon which the Secretary of State had worked would have met with general approbation from what, I am bound to confess, seems to me its very great advantages.
  The Secretary of State in coming to this decision had in consequence to consider the question as to where this

  541
  instruction should be carried on. Now, I venture to suggest that if the residential advantages of a University and the supplementary teaching to be obtained there had not been considered so important, if the school had been established, say, at Reading or at Abingdon, or had been continued at Coopers Hill, no one would have complained, and no one would have had the right to complain; but in searching for a University of this character, and one not too far from London, the choice naturally lay between the two great Universities whose names are familiar to your Lordships. May I be permitted to say that throughout the whole of the conferences and negotiations that have taken place there has been no idea in the minds of the Indian authorities of preferring one University as against another; so much so, that attention was first drawn some two years ago, I think, to Cambridge as likely to be most suitable, and, indeed, the Committee of 1903 actually recommended the University of Cambridge. But the experts who have advised us include such men as Sir Dietrich Brandis, who was the organiser and founder of the Indian Forestry School; Dr. Schlich, the head of Coopers Hill Forestry School, and Sir John Ottley, the president of the college; and I venture to suggest that recommendations coming from such gentlemen are worthy of weighty consideration in your Lordships' House.
  It was strongly urged upon the authorities at the India Office that practical teaching and visits to existing woods must go hand in hand with the theoretical instruction, and while the experts were satisfied—and I do not mind acknowledging it myself, as an Oxford man—that the teaching of science at Cambridge is more advanced than it is at the sister University, they represented most strongly that the standard required by Oxford was amply sufficient for the purposes of Indian forestry, and that, in addition, the situation of Oxford with regard to neighbouring woods and forests far outweighed the natural advantages of the other University. I do not want to labour the point, but I would remind the House that the Cambridge authorities themselves recognised at one time that it was scarcely practicable to place at
  542
  Cambridge a forest school, which ought to be in or near woods, as Cambridge was so unfavourably situated for that purpose.
  There is another misapprehension to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. There seems to be a general idea that admission into the forestry school, as it is proposed, will be of a close nature. We propose to transfer the forestry school, exactly as it exists at present at Coopers Hill, to the University of Oxford. The competition will be just as open as hitherto, and the examinations will be carried out by the Civil Service Commissioners. The one thing that we require is that these men, when they have been selected, shall continue their training at this University for two years, and spend the last year of their training in Germany. My noble friend urged in his alternative scheme, as I understood it, that the students should be allowed to settle where they liked throughout the educational centres of the United Kingdom, and that they should go for their practical course at the end of their career, as now, abroad. I have already mentioned to the House the objection which our experts entertained to that proposal. They considered it absolutely necessary that from the beginning the practical side, in fact what I may call the nature-study side, of the training should go pari passu with the theoretical and scientific teaching. It is of small comfort, perhaps, but I can assure my noble friend and those who think with him that so far from the decision being in any way the fault of Cambridge University, it is solely and entirely her misfortune that she is not better situated for the practical study of forestry. I would further venture to remind your Lordships that Cambridge University is not hurt by the proposal which is being put forward by the Indian Office. It is true that by this decision Oxford may be benefited to the extent of ten men a year for two years, but, as I have said, we had no idea in our minds of favouring that University at the expense of another.
  My noble friend alluded also to the question of endowment. The proposal is to transfer the school bodily, teachers and all, to Oxford. The Indian Government will continue as before to pay

  543
  those teachers, and there is a small contribution that will be made to one professorship in recognition of the fact that on the scientific side forestry students will receive instruction from the University authorities. But I desire again to emphasise the fact that this is merely a temporary measure; and I cannot help feeling that my noble friend was under some slight misapprehension when he said there was no precedent for such a course; for in the case of the Indian Civil Service, probationers pursue their studies at certain Universities, and those Universities receive grants or endowments from Indian revenues for services rendered.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: A number of Universities, not one University only.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Yes. Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Dublin, but not all Universities. That, my Lords, is a limited form of endowment, and if there is any objection to the course we now propose, it might equally be taken in the case of the Indian Civil Service probationers by the universities left out in the cold. I can undertake that the revenues of India will not be spent upon a permanent establishment at Oxford or anywhere else until the matter has been fully considered in the light of the experience that we shall gain and with the advice of the best opinion we can get. And if it will meet in any way the objections that are felt to this scheme, I can undertake that an inquiry, which shall include outside authorities, will be held before the close of the experimental term to consider and report on our experiment. If it is considered best, we are prepared to reduce the experimental term from five years to three, but I am afraid that we cannot with advantage to the experiment reduce it below that number of years. If you adopt my noble friend's suggestion you cannot stop at these two Universities. You must extend the residential permission to all the principal teaching centres of the United Kingdom, and, in view of the experience we have had at Coopers Hill, wherever two or three students, indeed, wherever one student, may be settled, you will have to provide him with his own teacher of Indian
  544
  experience, at, I need not point out to your Lordship, considerable expense to the revenues of India.
  There are constant applications made to India from the Colonies for forest officers—applications which are satisfied so far as it lies in her power. It is not a pleasant admission to make that there exists, at the present time, no centre in this country from which such officers can be drawn. I cannot help expressing the hope that the interest which has been aroused on this question and the debate which has taken place in your Lordships' House will result in the establishment of institutions whose teaching in forestry will be of so efficient a nature that it will be possible in the near future to accept their degrees and diplomas. I am convinced that in such a movement, if it does take place, the great sister University will take, as she always has done in the past, a leading and honourable part. It has been in our minds that we may be able in future to select our forestry candidates in this manner. But in view of the highly technical nature of the instruction that we have to impart, and the fact that we are bound to specialise our teaching, I think we are entitled to ask at the hands of Parliament that we shall be allowed to conduct that teaching in the manner which we consider best in the interests of India.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to offer a few remarks upon this subject, which I think is one of considerable importance. The noble Earl who introduced it did so in a most admirable manner. He came forward, as we thought, principally to represent Cambridge, but he argued his case on general grounds of policy. I entirely agree with him as to that. It seems to me that if we are not to maintain with regard to this question of forestry the general rule which has been hitherto adopted, that all places of education should be able to send up candidates for the great Civil Services, we shall be creating a bad precedent. I speak not only as a Cambridge man, but also as representing other Universities, of one of which, a northern University, I have the honour to be Chancellor. I cannot see that the noble

  545
  Marquess, in his clear and able statement, has furnished any argument why this difference should be made, with regard to forestry. As far as I can gather, the Royal Indian Engineering School at Coopers Hill is being practically done away with, because it is found that in many places of education all over the country admirable teaching is given in the various subjects taught at Coopers Hill. I cannot understand, however, why it is necessary to require that the pupil students in forestry should all be instructed by one teacher. Why is it necessary that they should all be obliged to reside at a particular University? Why are these requirements more necessary for forestry students than for the other students at Coopers Hill?
  The noble Marquess the Under-Secretary of State for India has stated that this is a temporary affair. I do not understand that. The noble Marquess is quite ready to promise that there shall be a Committee to inquire into the working of the experiment at the end of five, or even three years. But I think that what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said is perfectly true, that if you once establish this school at a particular University it will be exceedingly difficult to remove it, and therefore an injustice will be done to a great many places of education. I cannot understand, exactly, the comparison between Oxford and Cambridge with regard to special advantages in this matter. Although not an Oxford man, I have not infrequently passed Oxford, and it has never occurred to me that it was situated in the centre of a great forest; and Cambridge, like Oxford, has within easy reach very large woods—in Bedfordshire, and even Northamptonshire, for instance. I do not understand, therefore, why Cambridge should be placed at a disadvantage in this respect. Moreover, Cambridge University can hold its own for scientific teaching with any place of education. I hope your Lordships will agree to the Resolution, as it is of great importance that we should not give an advantage to one particular University over another. I sincerely hope the Government will not commit us to the new proposal adumbrated with regard to the Civil Service, to which there is such great opposition.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, when the two old Universities compete with one another there is always a certain amount of animated rivalry. It is, I am happy to think, invariably of a friendly description, and I trust that in this species of tug-of-war which is proceeding between Oxford and Cambridge for the possession of the Coopers Hill forestry students the rivalry will continue to be friendly. I cannot help thinking that the amount of resentment which we are told has been provoked by these proposals is of a somewhat exaggerated character. For, my Lords, what, after all, is the case? Coopers Hill College, for reasons into which I will not enter, because the question is not now before the House, has been put an end to; and it becomes necessary to consider what is to be done with that small portion of students who have hitherto attended there for the purpose of studying forestry. They must be sent somewhere, and, on the whole, the Indian authorities have come to the conclusion that the University of Oxford offers the greatest facilities for the purpose. One thing seems to me obvious—namely, that this small handful of students could not possibly be scattered about over a number of different educational establishments. The noble Earl opposite seemed to think that the process of scattering might be accomplished without difficulty.
  EARL SPENCER: There are Colonial as well as Indian sudents.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The point is this. The study of forestry is a highly specialised study and can only be pursued at places where particular educational facilities are forthcoming. It was for the authorities to consider, and they did so with a perfectly open mind, whether they should send these students to Oxford or Cambridge. My noble friend the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong, but I am given to understand that when the proposal was put before the University of Cambridge the University authorities themselves admitted that they possessed no particular facilities for encouraging the study of forestry. I did not understand that that was merely

  547
  due to the fact, although it is a fact, that the neighbourhood of Cambridge does not abound in those woodlands which are supposed to be desirable for the purpose of practical study. The result is this: that it has been decided to send this little body of some twenty students to study for a two years course at the University of Oxford. The noble Earl is horrified, because he sees in this arrangement a blow at the practice of open competition. I am able to reassure the noble Earl on that point. These students will be allowed to come up from any school or college, and they will gain admission to this forestry class by open competition, and open competition only. Therefore, your Lordships need not be in the least afraid that this proposal strikes an insidious blow at the practice of open competition. Then it is suggested that this is a dangerous discrimination in favour of one University at the expense of another. But what is the financial magnitude of this tremendous innovation? The whole expense of these forestry classes is to be borne, as it is now, out of Indian funds, and the only new financial element introduced into the calculation is a modest grant of £200 a year to the Professor of Entomology in order that he may deliver a special course to the forestry students. This is an experiment which is to be tried for, I understand, three years, and if the result falls short of expectation the whole question will be reviewed and an effort will be made to find some better arrangement. In these circumstances it would be somewhat violent for the House to take it upon itself to record, as my noble friend proposes, its solemn disapproval of the proposals of the Secretary of State.
  *VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I desire, as a representative of Oxford, to address a few remarks to your Lordships on this subject, though I cannot add much to what has been stated by the noble Marquess the Under-Secretary. I hope I may be permitted to congratulate the noble Marquess, as an old friend of mine, on his appointment, and on the able manner in which he stated the views of the India Office this evening. The real difficulty, it seems to me, is the smallness of the whole operation. If there
  548
  were fifty or sixty students, they could fitly be divided amongst several Universities. It is desirable that these students should receive technical education at an early period of their careers, and by getting them together the necessity of duplicating the teaching establishment is avoided. The scheme of my noble friend behind me practically comes to this: that there is to be no school of forestry at all, but that special studies shall be relegated to the close of the full University course. The choice lies between keeping the school in one place and scattering the students so widely as to have no professorial teaching in forestry at any University. Supposing that Cambridge were to get some of these students. Are they going to appoint a special professor? No. The whole quarrel turns on the possession of some ten men a year. Is it worth while to set up teaching establishments everywhere? That seems to me the real difficulty, and I think that in this matter, at all events for three years, the general principle must be sacrificed for the sake of the practical result of keeping the school together. For the next three years there will be forestry teachers at Oxford, and Oxford will endow a professorship connected with a kindred subject for the purpose of strengthening the teaching of forestry. Far from gaining by this arrangement Oxford will contribute a notable sum to the teaching of forestry in the University. In these circumstances Cambridge cannot feel that resentment which my noble friend has described. Nothing can be more deplorable than that a feeling of jealousy or resentment between the two great Universities should be aroused over this small question. Coopers Hill contains some fifty students, forty of them engineering, and ten of them forestry students. Of those forty engineering students, Oxford cannot expect to get any proportion worth having Cambridge is the proper place for the engineering students, and Cambridge will capture the greater number of those students. On the other hand, Oxford might well be permitted to capture the much smaller number of forestry students. I hope your Lordships will see that in the interests of practical

  549
  education in forestry the scheme of the Government is better adapted, so far as we can judge at present, to the needs of the case than the scheme which was sketched by my noble friend behind me.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I only intervene to say that the question is much larger than a dispute for the possession of ten men a year. It means that in the future all forestry appointments over an enormous area in India and the Colonies will be filled by Oxford men. Of this great influence Cambridge is entitled by its equipments and ability to have its full share.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a few remarks in reply to some of the speeches which have been delivered, and especially to some points raised by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount said that Cambridge would capture the very much larger number of engineering students, and that Oxford might therefore be allowed to capture the forestry students; but I would point out to your Lordships that if Cambridge is to make any such capture as that, it will be in the open market.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: So shall we capture the forestry students in the open market.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON: Well, I think not. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also stated that we were going to have open competition under the scheme put forward by the India Office. But if that is so, the noble Marquess can have no objection to the Motion, because I protest against nothing. All I ask is that equal facilities should be given to all Universities, and it is because equal facilities will not be given to all Universities that the noble Marquess will find it impossible to vote for this Motion. Students will have to leave whatever University they are in to go to Oxford to continue their course, and is it likely that any student destined for a course of forestry will go to one college and at the end of the year leave it and go to Oxford? In practice, of course, it will mean that all the forestry students
  550
  in the future will be drawn from Oxford. I entirely disagree with the noble Viscount who said that it was a quarrel for the possession of ten men. This question is not merely one of ten students a year. If the Colonial Forestry School grows as it is promising to grow, in a few years the number of students will come nearer the fifty or sixty a year, which he says might fitly be divided among several Universities. The noble Marquess the Under-Secretary of State for India devoted the whole of his speech to proving that if it was a question, which he took for granted, of one of the two Universities, Oxford was the more fitted, and the only reasons he brought forward for objecting to the scheme I suggested of throwing competition open to all Universities alike was that it would be inconvenient if the ten students were not kept together.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I said it was necessary, in our opinion, that they should be kept together.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, necessary on the ground that they must have teehnical training in forestry while carrying out their scientific education; and, finally, the noble Marquess said that if the students were scattered over the Universities of the country the provision of teachers for them out of the revenues of India would be, a very serious matter. I entirely deny that it would be necessary for the Indian Government to provide teachers of forestry in each University. I think you could leave it to the Universities to provide their own teachers and to give the necessary technical as well as scientific education in forestry. The necessary technical instruction can be given just as easily in Cambridge as in Oxford. Many of the landowners around Cambridge are ready to co-operate and place their woods and forests at the disposal of the authorities if this forestry scheme is placed in such a position that the University of Cambridge is allowed to participate. I am grateful to the noble Marquess for saying that there will be an inquiry into this matter, but I insist again on the point I made just now, that if money is going to be spent on the scheme at Oxford it is futile to describe it as temporary. I am

  551
  afraid a protected interest will arise which is always found, in the long run, extremely difficult to remove.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: What money is going to be spent at Oxford?
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think that under the proposals of the India Office the sum of £200 a year is to be given to the Professor of Entomology at Oxford. I say that if any sum is to be

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Esher, V.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Falkland, V.

  Denman, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Beauchamp, E,

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  St. Levan, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lytton, E. [Teller.]

  Thring, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Burghclere, L. [Teller.]

  Wandsworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Feversham, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Weatmeath, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Killanin, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Hill, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Bath, M.

  Tennyson, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Windsor, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.