Sitting of 14 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ealing Corporation Bill [by Order]. Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to omit Clause 89 of the Bill. —(Sir Edward Strachey.)

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
Captain JESSEL reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills;
1356
That the parties opposing the Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. William Matthews, of 19, French Street, Southampton, Engineer, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. William Matthews do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Mr. William Matthews do attend the Committee on Group D of Private Bills to-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
1. "That, in the case of the Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit. "
2. "That, in the case of the Welling-borough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 are struck out of the Bill unless the consent of the Northamptonshire County Council and that of the Wellingborough Rural District Council are proved before the Committee on the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with. "
3. "That, in the case of the Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that all reference to the payment of the costs of the Bill for 1903 be omitted from the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with. "
4. "That, in the case of the Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That

1357
the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill unless the consent of the Corporation of Bexhill is proved before the Committee on the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
5. "That, in the case of the Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill. "
6. "That, in the case of the Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Trustees of the Will of the late Alexander Jones, ' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with. "
7. "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 'Portadown Urban District Council, ' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with. "
8. "That, in the case of the North East London Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Trustees of the Will of the late Alexander Jones, ' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with. "
First Five Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN CLUBS.
  Petition from Bradford, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Bolton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Report [presented 13th March] to be printed. [No. 83.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3328 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series. No. 631 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Inland Revenue Department (Estate Duty Office) Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents in the Department of the Inland Revenue (Estate Duty Office) which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

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

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

  Number of Learners appointed During the years 1902–4.

  1902

  1903

  1904

  By open competition

  By qualifying examination

  By open competition

  By qualifying examination

  By open competition

  By qualifying examination

  England and Wales:—

  (a) London

  254

  —

  181

  —

  93

  —

  (b) Provinces

  539

  1, 137

  415

  960

  158

  487

  Scotland

  125

  153

  76

  95

  58

  53

  Ireland

  104

  141

  91

  98

  29

  18

  Total

  1, 022

  1, 431

  763

  1, 153

  338

  558

  Postal Arrangements in Liscarroll and Churchtown Districts (County Cork).
  ME. FLYNN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the attention of the Department has been called to the unsatisfactory postal arrangements in Liscarroll and Churchtown districts, county Cork, and to the fact that the mails now arrive in Liscarroll about 8. 15 a. m., and are despatched from there about 5 p. m. ; and whether, in view of the fact that important fairs, petty sessions Courts, butter and produce markets are regularly held in this town, the Department will arrange that letters shall arrive at about 7 a. m. and be not despatched earlier than say 7 p. m., so as to provide adequate time for traders to conduct their correspondence.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is the fact that the mails now arrive at Liscarroll at 8. 10 a. m., but the despatch is made, except during the four winter months, at 6 p. m. A scheme for improving the service was considered some
  the nomination of the local postmaster respectively.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will furnish the hon. Member with a statement giving the information asked for, which could not conveniently be given in an Answer in the House.
  time ago; but, as it was then found that it could not be carried out without causing serious hardship to the postman, it was not proceeded with pending an alteration in the circumstances. I will, however, inquire whether any further steps can now be taken in the matter.

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

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

  Mid-day Delivery of Letters at Aghna cliffe.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N. ): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he could arrange for a mid-day delivery of letters to Aghnacliffe by bicycle from Granard or Ballinalee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

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

  Privacy of Telegrams.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 4th March a telegram was handed in at Clones Rail telegraph office in connection with the Postal Telegraph Conference at Dublin; that the
  1362
  attention of the postmaster to the contents of the message; and that the letter gentleman has caused inquiries to be made into the meaning of the message and the person who despatched it; and, if so, whether he can state what were the reasons for this action; whether such action is warranted by any rule of the service; and whether officials connected with service organisations are liable to be called to explain to their superiors their action in using the public telegraph service for the purpose of legitimate business.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The circumstance has not come under my notice, but I will inquire about it.

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

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

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

  Companies and the Medical and Dental Acts.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that evasions of the Medical Acts and the Dental Acts to the detriment of the public have been effected under the provisions of the Companies Acts: and, if so, whether he proposes to initiate legislation to preclude the possibility of such evasions being effected in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am aware of the cases, recently before the Courts, to which the hon. Member refers. I am not in a position to make any statement as to
  1364
  legislation, but I may say that the Lord President of the Council has been in communication with the General Medical Council and the Board of Trade on the subject of companies carrying on business as doctors and dentists; and the Board of Trade are, I understand, obtaining the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question of the registration of such companies under the Companies Acts.

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

  Gibraltar Harbour Works.
  MR. BILL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have taken into

  1365
  consideration the report of Admiral Rawson, dated 30th March, 1901, with reference to the harbour works of Gibraltar; and whether it is their intention to carry that report into effect, so far as regards the provision of a dock on the east side of the rock.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part of the Question, the Board of Admiralty decided, after full consideration of the report referred to, and of the further report by Captain T. H. Tizard, C. B., F. R. S., R. N., and Mr. William Shield, M. I. C. E., F. R. S. E., that the advantages to be gained by the construction of a dock and harbour on the eastern side of the rock were not sufficient to justify the expense that would thereby be incurred.

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

  Scheme for Purchase of Newtownforbes and Drumlish.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will direct that the Local Government Board Engineering Inspector will hold a second sitting in connection with the proposed scheme to purchase the villages of Newtownforbes and Drumlish, under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, with a view to getting over certain difficulties that arose at the last inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It will be necessary for the Board's Engineering Inspector to make a further inspection of the houses included in the proposed
  1366
  scheme before a loan can be sanctioned by the Board in this case.

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

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

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

  1367
  question of the future armament of Volunteer Artillery corps is under consideration.

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

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

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

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Whale Island—Officers' Accommodation.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how soon the new accommodation for officers undergoing training at Whale Island will be completed.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): It is expected that this accommodation will be completed by the end of August next.

  Brigade of Guards—Deficiency of Officers
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Brigade of Guards is short by thirty to forty of its full complement of officers; has any proposal been before the authorities to admit young officers on probation to fill up these vacancies without the usual entrance examination or military training; if so, on what reasons was that proposal based; and whether an undertaking will be given that officers shall not enter the Brigade of Guards in a manner different from the way in which other branches of the Army are entered.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W. ): The shortage of officers in the Foot Guards is forty-four. This deficiency is very serious and is receiving the careful consideration of the Army Council. I am not at present, in a position to give the hon. Member any further information on the subject.

  London's Defence
  *MR, BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for ordering the construction of military earthworks on the Surrey Hills; for what purpose they were constructed; whit has been the total expenditure upon them to date; whether the construction is still in progress; and, if not, who is responsible for ordering the discontinuance of the work.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to

  1369
  the mobilisation centres round London, some of which are in the form of redoubts. The responsibility for the initiation of these works, in 1889, rests with Mr. Stanhope, who was then Secretary of State for War, and the reasons for them are fully given in his speech on the introduction of the Army Estimates on Mar 11th, 1889. The total expenditure on the whole works amounted to £160, 700, and all expenditure has been completed.

  Crimean Veterans—Ex-Sergeant Martin's Claim.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received on behalf of ex-Sergeant Martin, of the Land Transport Corps, a solemn declaration, together with medical certificates, to prove that Martin has been for years, and is now, suffering from a shattered leg, due to the splinter of a shell during the Crimean War; and whether, in view of this man's age and circumstances, he will consider the advisability of increasing his present pension of ninepence per day.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This man's case has already been very carefully investigated. As there is no corroborative evidence either in this man's possession or in official records of his having been wounded or treated in hospital during the few months which he served in the Crimea, it is not possible to grant him the benefit of n higher rate of pension.
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that this man is seventy-five years old and quite destitute, cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his case?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid that the fact of age is not relevant. The allegations of the man as to his service cannot be substantiated.
  MR. FLAVIN: A warning to Irishmen to keep away from the British Army.

  Army Wastages.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that full inquiry has been made into each of the
  1370
  cases mentioned in pages 112 to 125, inclusive, and page 242 of the Appropriation Account, 1903–4 [Command 45], under which a sum of £201, 815 6s. 3d. has had to be written off as irrecoverable on account of losses consequent on fraud or otherwise during the war in South Africa.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War why it was not ascertained before the 59, 000 war medals, afterwards returned to the Mint and broken up, were struck for issue to natives in South Africa after the war, that the issue of these medals would involve, as stated on page 227 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General [Command 45] racial objections.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state where the ammunition referred to in the Ordinance Store Accounts Return from South Africa was manufactured, of which over 50, 000, 000 rounds were received in an imperfect or doubtful condition; and what steps have been taken in connection with this ammunition; and what is its total value.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These three Questions deal with matter arising from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the accounts for 1903–4. These matters will come before the Public Accounts Committee and I am not, therefore, prepared to discuss them at the present time.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not now before Parliament, and whether the final Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which we await, was not issued last year after Parliament rose?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not dispute the facts. But I say it is in accordance with precedent for these matters to be dealt with by a Committee of the House, and I must reserve anything I have to say upon them.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is not the War Office itself going to investigate these matters?
  MR ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, the War Office has already investigated them. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, with the complaints renewed, was received only a few days ago, but long anterior to that the War Office instituted an investigation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will there be an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General this session.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot give a more precise Answer. I am simply following the course dictated by precedent and the one I believe to be most acceptable to the House and most respectful to the House. The Public Accounts Committee investigated these matters, and they are now sub judice. It would be very wrong on my part to withdraw from the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee matters which are definitely referred to them by the custom and practice of the House.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be in order for me to ask the Prime Minister the Question which the Secretary of State says he cannot answer—whether any opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the finding of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister that Question yesterday.
  DR. MACNAMARA: With great respect, no, Sir. What I asked was whether the Prime Minister would give facilities for the discussion of the notice of Motion on the Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question is practically the same.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is it not a fact that seven months elapsed before there was any reply—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of any further Question. The right hon. Gentleman has stated, in
  1372
  reply to the Question on the Paper, he does not consider that under the circumstances he is justified in saying anything further. The hon. Member is not entitled to argue upon it.

  Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what were the strong Departmental reasons on which the Army Council decided to reduce the establishment of the small arms factory at Sparkbrook; by whom was the decision reversed; and was the Army Council consulted before its reversal.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Army Council's decision was based solely upon grounds of economy. The decision has not been reversed; but further action has been temporarily suspended pending the determination of a larger question which was indicated in an Answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield on February 27th. †
  MR. WHITLEY: My last Question has not been answered. Was the Army Council consulted?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Army Council was, of course, consulted. I have already informed the hon. Member that there was no reversal, and that under the circumstances I have described there was a postponement.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant the Return on the Paper relating to this matter and explaining the negotiations that have taken place?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.
  The Return referred to is as follows:—Small Arms Department (Sparkbrook). Address for Return of (1) the Minute of the Army Council relating to the reduction of the establishment at Sparkbrook; (2) the communications between the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division and the Secretary of State for War relating to
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1338.

  1373
  the same; (3) the communications between the hon. Member for West Birmingham and the First Lord of the Treasury relating to the same.

  Defence of Halifax and Esquimalt.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of the responsibility and the cost of the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt has been the subject of correspondence between the Imperial and the Dominion Governments; and. if so, by what Department of the Imperial Government has that correspondence been conducted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have been in correspondence with the Governor-General of Canada on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and, as I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Gloucester on the 2nd instant, †the correspondence will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is complete.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Which Government now bears the cost and responsibility of these defences?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Home Government.

  Coolie Wages in the Transvaal Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the minimum wage of the Chinese coolie is at the rate of one shilling a day, he proposes to take any steps to carry out the pledge he gave the House on June 22 nd, † 1904, to the effect that the minimum wage of the Chinese coolie would be, increased from thirty shillings to forty-five shillings a month after the first six months, if it should appear that the Chinese coolie was in any way undercutting the Kaffir labourer in the mines.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the provision in the contract for an increase in the minimum
  † See page 182.
  See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 821.
  1374
  wage from thirty shillings to forty-five shillings after six months in certain circumstances, which he will find at page 10 of Cd. 2183.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it proposed to take any steps in connection with this pledge?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I keep myself constantly informed on the matter.

  Cost of the Indian Garrison in Somaliland.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the estimated cost per annum of the Indian troops which it is proposed to leave as a garrison in the interior of Somaliland; and whether all the charges incurred in the transport of these troops together with the current rates of pay, allowances for foreign service, and debits due to pension accounts arising out of their employment in Somaliland, will be borne by the British Treasury.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: The estimated cost for one year of the Indian troops now in Somaliland is £53, 063, including initial and terminal charges as well as those mentioned by the hon. Member. All these charges will be borne by Imperial funds.

  Maritime States—Proposed Unification of Collision and Salvage Laws.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the British Minister at Brussels a report of the proceedings of the International Diplomatic Conference held at that city in February last to consider the proposed unification of the laws of the various Maritime States with respect to collision and salvage; and whether the draft treaties adopted by the Conference, when communicated, will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  EARL PERCY: A full report has not yet been received. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  Turkish Customs Duties and Macedonian Reforms.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has assented to the increase of the ad valorem Customs duty proposed by the Porte in consideration of the surplus being applied to the execution of reforms in Macedonia; if so, what further reforms, if any, have the Government stipulated for as a condition of their assent; and what security is there that she money obtained will actually be applied to the execution of reforms.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have not yet given their assent to the proposed increase. The conditions on which assent could be given are still under their consideration and that of the other Powers.

  Somaliland—The Defence of the Tribes.
  *MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, how many, British officers are to be appointed for the organisation and defence of the tribes in the Somaliland Protectorate with whom His Majesty's Government have entered into treaties of protection.
  EARL PERCY: There is no present intention of increasing the staff of British officers for the special purpose referred to.
  *MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether rifles are being supplied gratis to the protected tribes of Somaliland, and, if so, what description of rifles, and how many it is proposed to issue.
  EARL PERCY: I think the hon. Member will see on reflection that it is not desirable at the present juncture that a wider publicity than necessary should be given to the details for which he asks.
  *MR. LYELL: But the noble Lord, in describing this altered policy, said these tribes were to be armed with rifles. Surely it is within the competence of this House to inquire as to the nature of the rifle to be provided?
  [No Answers was returned.]

  The Protected Tribes in Somaliland.
  *MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been explained to the protected tribes of Somaliland that His Majesty's Government do not repudiate the general obligations into which they have entered with the tribes, but that the particular manner in which they interpreted these obligations depended on circumstances.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have instructed their Commissioner to explain to the tribes that they are expected to take advantage of the present opportunity to organise for their own protection, and that if they do not fulfil their engagements towards this country we shall consider ourselves at liberty to reconsider our relations with them.
  *MR. LYELL: What is the engagement of these tribes towards this country?
  EARL PERCY: Chiefly to keep the roads into the interior open.
  *MR. LYELL: On what occasion have they failed to do that?
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Has it been definitely decided to arm these tribes?
  EARL PERCY: Yes, Sir, it has been decided to issue a limited number of rifles to certain specially selected tribes.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: How many?
  EARL PERCY: I do not think it is advisable in the public interest to give that information.

  Post Office Savings Bank and the Commis sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt have not been summoned to meet on the business of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund since the establishment of the bank in 1861, he will now cause the Commissioners to be summoned

  1377
  for the purpose of taking their opinion as to the propriety of repealing so much of the Savings Bank Act, 1904, as relates to the release of the Postmaster-General and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt from the obligation of preparing balance-sheets of the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks respectively; and as to the desirability of informing the Treasury of the deficiency in the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank (present amount unknown, but £11, 033, 000 on December 31st, 1903), in order that such deficiency may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of the growing produce thereof, in accordance with the provisions of 24 and 25 Vict., c. 14, s. 6.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E. ): No, Sir. I see no reason for taking the unprecedented course proposed in the Question.

  Criminal Statistics.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the reason why the Criminal Statistics for 1903 were not published till December, 1904; and will he take steps to prevent such long delay in the corresponding publication for 1904.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. The Criminal Statistics for 1903, so far from being delayed, appeared at an earlier date than the statistics for any previous year since they assumed their present form. The Returns from which the statistics are compiled are not completely available until the middle of the year following, and the work of compilation and preparation of the introduction is extremely heavy. Perhaps I may add that the English statistics of crime are issued much earlier than those of most of the principal foreign countries.

  Island of Lewis Postal Arrangements.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters reaching
  1378
  Stornoway, Island of Lewis, on Tuesday forenoon are not delivered in the Bernera district of the island until Saturday afternoon; and, as this delay causes inconvenience to a number of inhabitants, will arrangements be made to provide Bernera with a mail three times a week instead of only twice a week, as at present.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, West-houghton): I find that since the question of the postal service at Bernera was last considered, a new public ferry has been established between Callanish and Miawaig and that it is now practicable to afford a service three times a week at Bernera. I have had pleasure, therefore, in giving instructions for carrying out that improvement.

  Learners in the Post Office.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of learners appointed to post offices in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, under open competition and under a qualifying examination on the nomination of the local postmaster respectively.
  LORD STANLEY: I will furnish the hon. Member with a statement giving the information asked for, which could not conveniently be given in an Answer in the House.

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

  1379
  Trade inspectors are now quite satisfied that the rails are sufficiently protected.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The Board of Trade are not prepared to say that the North Eastern has been guilty of any irregularity, and see no necessity, therefore, to call the attention of the companies generally to the course adopted by that railway. I understand that the length of that company's line which has been electrically equipped is thirty-three miles, and that electrical working was begun towards the end of last March. Up to the present time twenty-eight accidents have occurred from the use of electrical power on this railway; this number includes four fatal accidents, in addition to that mentioned by the hon. Member, resulting from contact with the electrically charged rail. The Board of Trade are not aware whether compensation has been paid by the railway company in each case. An inquiry has been held into the accident to Alice Maughan, but the Board of Trade have not yet received the inspecting officer's report. The railway company has carried out the recommendations of the inspecting officers in so far as they have been made at present.

  St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are fifty children in attendance at St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield, whilst the attendance at the Church school is only nineteen; and whether, in view of the fact that St. Joseph's School was fulfilling all the requirements and conditions of a public elementary school before the Act of 1902 came into operation, he can state in what respect it is now held not to fulfil those conditions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield, has never been recognised as a public elementary school. The Board have very carefully considered the circumstances under which application for recognition was made. In arriving at their decision
  1380
  they have proceeded in strict accordance with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act of 1902.

  Buckingham Palace Improvement Works.
  COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the circle, of which the architectural design at Buckingham Gate forms an are, is to be completed.
  *LORD BALCARRES: The reply is in the negative.
  COLONEL LEGGE: Then if the circle is not to be completed is it to be squared?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Parliament Buildings—Discomfort caused to Members.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the discomfort experienced by Members, especially in hot weather, crowded in the division lobbies after the outer doors of the Chamber have been locked; and whether he can see his way to recommending the appointment of a Committee to consider and report on suggestions for new exits to be used as soon as the outer doors are locked.
  *LORD BALCARRES: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner is unable to give any reply to the second paragraph; it appears to him to be a matter for the House. My hon. and gallant friend's suggestions might be discussed on the Estimate for Houses of Parliament Buildings.

  Ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the need for ventilation experienced in the Ladies' Gallery, especially when many are in it in hot weather; whether he will consider the possibility of piercing a window in the end wall to open to the outer air.
  *LORD BALCARRES: The ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery is part of the general scheme for the ventilation of the Chamber and its precincts; the works incidental to this are not yet completed. It is hoped that they will remove the defects which now exist, but until these works are finished, and tested during the Easter recess, it is impossible to give any undertaking as to making a window.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of removing the grating?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Railway Directors on Select Committees.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, whether his Committee was aware, when appointing the hon. Member for Wandsworth as Chairman of a Committee to consider Group 1 of Railway Bills, that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is Chairman of the South Indian Railway Company; whether it is the usual practice of the Committee of Selection to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and, if so, what action.
  MR. WODEHOUSE: I was not aware that the hon. Member for Wandsworth was Chairman of the South Indian Railway Company when he was appointed Chairman of the Committee to consider Group 1 of Railway Bills. As regards the question whether it is the usual practice of the Committee to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills, I would observe that the ordinary declaration of a Member serving on a Committee on a private Bill is that his constituents have no local interest in the Bill and that he himself has no personal interest in it. I view these conditions as sufficient safeguard against irregular practices, and I am of opinion that the fact that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is Chairman of an Indian railway company should not disqualify him from serving on a Committee on an English Railway
  1382
  Bill. I am therefore not prepared to take action on that ground.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Wandsworth is not only Chairman of an Indian railway company but Chairman of a second railway company, and the London agent of a third? [Cries of "Order!"] I would also ask whether, in view of the fact that there are no less than seventy-six railway directors in this House—["Order, order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond his Question. The hon. Member for Bath is entitled to notice of any such Question as that.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I recognise that, Sir, but in view of the fact that the Committee is probably to meet tomorrow, I ask whether the hon. Member is aware that when the Great Southern and Western Amalgamation Bill was to be considered the hon. Member for Wandsworth was nominated as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and that the Committee rejected him as Chairman on the ground, amongst others, that he was Chairman of an Indian railway company.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond his licence. He is now proceeding to enter into arguments why the hon. Member for Wandsworth should not be appointed.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Move the adjournment.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: My object is to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, for the reasons I have advanced, if he will not reconsider the matter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask whether the Chairman, if fresh facts are put before him, will again consider the matter, but he is not entitled to proceed to narrate those fresh facts.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the hon. Member whether it is the usual practice of the Committee of

  1383
  Selection to appoint railway directors to act on Committees on Railway Bills?
  MR. WODEHOUSE: I am not aware that it is the usual practice.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it usual to appoint a London agent?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN,later, asked whether the hon. Member for Wandsworth, under the circumstances, intended to serve as Chairman of the Committee on Railway Bills?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to put a Question to a private Member on a matter which is not on the Order Paper.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: It relates to the proceedings of the House, and I warned the hon. Gentleman of my intended action four days ago.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question in these terms is irregular.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The hon. Gentleman is willing to answer it, I think. I thought the hon. Member might as well answer the Question to-day as to-morrow. I do not intend to drop it. I beg to give notice that I will ask my hon. friend the Member for South Westmeath and other Members of this Select Committee if, under the circumstances, they are willing to serve under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wandsworth.

  Ness Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that the harbour at Ness, Island of Lewis, is choked with sand, will he state whether it is proposed to take any action to render it of service to the fishermen of the district.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,: I have nothing to add to the reply to a similar Question given by Mr. Graham Murray on February 17th† last year.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 6.
  MR. WEIR: Then I take it that this harbour is to remain choked up, and to-be absolutely useless for all time.

  Island of Lewis—Health Officer.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the Lewis District Committee, it was proposed that a medical officer of health should be appointed for the Island of Lewis; and, in the event of effect being given to the suggestion, will arrangements be made for the new officer to be responsible to the Local Government Board direct and not to the medical officer of health for the county.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Board have no information of the meeting referred to and are at present awaiting the action of the district committee, with whom any arrangements regarding the appointment and its conditions primarily rest. I may further refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on February 27th, † 1905.

  Cahirciveen River Navigation.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, seeing that the Congested Districts Board are now the constituted harbour authority of the estuary of the Cahirciveen River, they will take steps to erect perches on Leck-a-vallig and East Ballycarberry reef of rocks, so as to make the river navigable and safe for fishing and other boats.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N. ): The Congested Districts Board are recognised as a lighthouse authority for erecting and maintaining lights. The Board have undertaken to erect perches at the two places named, the county contributing a portion of the cost.

  Insurance of Irish Fishing Boats.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has come to a decision with reference to the scheme for the insurance of large fishing boats; and, if so, whether he can state the particulars of the scheme.
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1321.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir; arrangements have been completed for putting this scheme into operation. I have communicated printed particulars of the scheme to the hon. Member.

  Achill Island Pier.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland will he state the date on which the survey was made for the timber-pile extension of the pier at Darby's Point, Achill Island, and by whom it was made.
  MR. ATKINSON: The survey was made by the engineer's foreman on various dates between January 17th and February 7th. The engineer's assistant also inspected the place on January 23rd.
  DR. AMBROSE: I had a letter from the Congested Districts Board on March 7th saying their surveyor had not been there.

  Catholic Demonstration in Armagh.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether police facilities will be given to the Clovenden, Loughgall (county Armagh) band to traverse the by-road leading to the county road, seeing that the only house on the by-road is that of the Catholic clergyman, and that there is no danger of a breach of the peace.
  MR. ATKINSON: The police are of opinion that any attempt on the part of the band to proceed along the by-road in question would be calculated to provoke serious rioting and disturbance of the public peace. There is an alternative route by which the band has proceeded for some years past, and which is equally convenient. Under the circumstances the Government are unable to entertain the suggestion that the band should be allowed to traverse the road to which reference is made.
  MR. MACVEAGH: How could a disturbance occur along a road in which there is only one house?
  MR. ATKINSON: It might arise from the assembling of a large number of people.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Would not the better way to preserve the peace be to prevent people coming into the district at all?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Dr. Jennings' Farm at Skibbereen
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in a recent decision of the Sub-Commission, presided over by Mr. Crean, 25 per cent. was added to his value of a farm held by Dr. Jennings in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen on account of its proximity to the town; and, if so, whether he Will state the grounds of proximity on which this decision was based.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no information in this matter. Under the 38th Section of the Irish Land Act, 1903, any person aggrieved by an Order made under the Land Law Acts by a Sub-Commission may apply for a re-hearing to the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may confirm, modify, or reverse such Order.

  Irish Agricultural and Technical Instructors.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have in any instances sanctioned the appointment by the council of any county of natives of such county as male or female agricultural or technical instructors; and, if so, if he can explain why the Department has refused to sanction such appointments when made by the County Council of Donegal.
  MR. ATKINSON: Before the Department found it necessary to make the rule in question in 1903, certain instructors had been appointed in the counties of which they are natives; but there has been no departure from the rule since it was first inserted in the Department's schemes. The rule specially applies to agricultural schemes, and it was only adopted when the need for it had been demonstrated by experience.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a fully qualified person from Donegal was rejected simply because she was a native of the county and knew the locality?
  MR. HUGH LAW: And is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that a fully qualified person who was thus rejected had her appointment approved on several occasions by the county council?
  MR. ATKINSON: If so, it was done under the rule I have mentioned.

  Dungloe (Donegal) Evicted Tenant.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to secure the reinstatement of Mr. George Ward, of Tuberheen, Dungloe, county Donegal, in the holding from which he was evicted; or, failing such reinstatement, they can hold out any prospect of settling him in another holding on any unoccupied lands in the neighbourhood.
  MR. ATKINSON: The evicted holding is in the occupation of a new tenant. Ward has been so informed, and also that his application for reinstatement will be considered by the Commissioners should they acquire untenanted lands in the neighbourhood.

  Irish Prison Medical Officers.
  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 on what grounds the practice has been adopted in recent years of appointing temporary medical officers to Irish prisons, instead of appointing permanent medical officers as was formerly the practice.
  MR. ATKINSON: The arrangement referred to has been adopted in the Irish prison service in order to assimilate the system to that previously existing in the Scotch service. The question of pensions is not affected, as these officers did not devote their whole time to the service before the introduction of the change and consequently were not eligible for pensions.

  De La Salla College.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Sligo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many extra King's scholars were admitted into De La Salla (Carysfort Park, Blackrock) during session 1904–5, owing to the £5, 000 voted out of Development Grant last year.
  ME. ATKINSON: The certificate of this college has not been increased during the current session. Application was made by the principal of the college for an enlarged certificate, but the reports made to the Commissioners of National Education on the condition of the college by their chief inspectors were of such an unsatisfactory character as to preclude the Commissioners from recommending the application for sanction.

  Railway Delays-Limerick Butter Case.
  ME. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a complaint as to a delay in the transit of butter, made by a Limerick merchant, on November 14th last, to the Irish Department of Agriculture was not answered until the 7th of this month; will he inquire into the cause of the delay, and take measures to prevent a recurrence of such delay in future.
  MR. ATKINSON: The complaint referred to was made to the Department on November 14th, and on the following day the Irish railway company concerned was communicated with. The Department was not placed in possession of the final information given by the English companies until the third instant, and on the 7th the result of the inquiry was communicated to the complainant. The Department are, therefore, in no way responsible for any delay that may have occurred.

  Irish Jury Laws.
  MR, MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the resolution unanimously adopted by the Banbridge (county Down) Urban District

  1389
  Council calling for an amendment of the jurors laws in Ireland and the payment of jurors; and whether the Government intend to introduce legislation on this subject.
  MR. ATKINSON: The resolution has been received. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the Royal Irish Constabulary has been reduced by 751 men and only two officers, and those district inspectors representing 96 men, he will see that a proportionate reduction is made in the number of officers, the cost to the country of a district inspector being five times, and of a county inspector ten times, that of an ordinary constable.
  MR. ATKINSON: The published Estimate for the Royal Irish Constabulary shows the number in each of the ranks mentioned for which provision is proposed in the next, as compared with the current, financial year. Owing to the statutory rights of county and district inspectors the scheme of reduction cannot have a proportionately large effect on them as on the rank and file.

  Irish Department of Agriculture— Official Salaries.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Treasury sanction was obtained for the increase of the maximum salary of the chief clerk of the Department of Agriculture from £700 to £850 per annum; and is he aware that while the Treasury sanction has been obtained for this and other increases of salary the Department has made unsuccessful recommendations to the Treasury for increases amounting to less than 1s. per week in the salaries of men with service under the Crown of from ten to thirteen years, whose pay is approximately £95 a year; and whether he will see that no further increase in the chief clerk's salary is proposed to the detriment of the humbler officials
  1390
  and until their claims have been suitably dealt with.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. There is no analogy between the case of an administrative officer of the position and standing of the chief clerk, who has completed over thirty-seven years service, and the cases of the junior clerks referred to in the Question. The latter are on the scale of salary determined by the Treasury for the grade of the service to which they belong.

  Kenmare Fever Case—Rev. Mr. Duggan's Action.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the application of the rural district councillors of Kenmare for an inquiry into the death of a fever patient named Cotter, and to the charges made against the Rev. Mr. Duggan for attending the patient, although he was not a qualified medical man, he will state what steps can be taken to prevent such practices in the future; and whether, seeing that the district was rendered liable to an outbreak of fever through the action of a gentleman not medically qualified, he will see that full inquiry is made into the whole circumstances of this case.
  MR. ATKINSON: I stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of Thursday last† that upon the information before the Local Government Board, the reverend gentleman had not contravened the law. The Board are not aware that there are any grounds for the statement in the second part of the Question. No cases of fever have been reported recently from this district other than that of the man Cotter.
  MR. BOLAND: What steps can be taken to prevent unqualified men in a district treating cases wrongfully, thereby creating danger of the spread of infection?
  MR. ATKINSON: None can be taken by the Local Government Board if the law is not broken.
  † See page 928.
  MR. BOLAND: Can the Crown take steps?
  MR. ATKINSON: There is no crime alleged in this case.

  Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the Limerick Technical Classes.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland in refusing to register the classes established by the Limerick Technical Education Committee, although repeatedly appealed to by the committee, who were willing to conform to any rules they would wish to lay down; and whether, seeing that expense has been incurred both in the matter of teaching staff and laboratory, he will ask the Pharmaceutical Society to reconsider their decision.
  MR. ATKINSON: My attention has not been directed to the matters alleged in the Question, nor has the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction been invited to intervene in the case.

  Distress in the West of Ireland.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg, in accordance with private notice, to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland: whether he can make any general statement as to the measures now in force for the relief of distress in the West of Ireland, giving, amongst other particulars, the names of counties which have adopted Clause 13 of the Local Government Act; the names of unions which have adopted Clause 13; the number and nature of the works sanctioned in each union which has adopted Clause 13, and the number sanctioned for employment in each electoral division; and the conditions under which the guardians have been; allowed to employ men on works sanctioned under Clause 13.
  MR. ATKINSON: The counties which have adopted Clause 13 are Galway, Mayo, and Cavan. The unions which have adopted the clause are Bawnboy, county Cavan; Oughterard, Galway, Clifden, county Galway; Swineford, Westport and Belmullet, county Mayo. The number of divisions for which works
  1392
  have been started is as follows:—In Bawnboy Union, 6; in Oughterard Union, 11; in Clifden Union, 9; in Galway Union, not yet stated; in Swineford Union, 15; in Westport Union, 6; in Belmullet Union, 15; The works consist of road construction and repairs, road fencing, clearing drains, etc. The numbers relieved by the operation of Section 13, apart from ordinary outdoor relief, according to the returns received last week were, in Bawnboy Union, 1, 099 persons; Belmullet Union, 1, 148 persons; Oughterard Union, 1, 781 persons. Works were only opened recently in Swineford and Clifden Unions, and information of the, numbers relieved has not yet been received. The schemes proposed in Galway Union have not so far been submitted to the Local Government Board. In reply to the concluding inquiry, each person employed is required to work for eight hours daily. The daily wage does not exceed one shilling, except in cases of very large families.

  Galway Mill-Stream.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amount of expenditure, by the Board of Works on the cleaning of the mill-stream at Galway.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W. ): The Board of Works have expended nothing on the cleaning of the mill-stream at Galway, the care of which is vested in trustees by the, Act 41 and 42 Vic., cap. 212.

  Railway Delays-Limerick Complaint.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a complaint made by Mr. Robert Gibson, butter merchant, Limerick, as to a delay of nine days in the delivery of a box of butter sent from Limerick to Newport, Essex, by passenger train, on which the highest rate is paid; and, if so, whether he will take steps to insist on the railway companies insuring prompt delivery so that Irish produce will have a fair chance of competing with foreign produce.
  MR. BONAR LAW: No complaint has been received by the Board of Trade of the delay of the consignment of butter referred to, but they have communicated with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and learn that the delay was due to the consignment having been by mistake conveyed in the, first instance to a place named Newport other than that for which it was intended.

  Dublin to North of Ireland Mail.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the latest hour for posting letters at the General Post Office, Dublin, for the North of Ireland is 6. 40 p. m., and with a late fee 7. 40 p. m. ; and, if so, whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to traders both in Dublin and the North of Ireland, he will take steps to have an alteration made in the present arrangement.
  LORD STANLEY: The latest hour for posting letters at the General Post Office, Dublin, for the night mail despatch to the North of Ireland is, as stated by the hon. Member, 6. 40 p. m., or with a late fee 7. 40 p. m. It would hardly be practicable with the present train service to afford any extension of time at the post office, but letters may be posted in the mail train at Amiens Street Station up to 8. 20 p. m. A letter which misses the despatch by the 8. 20 train will still be delivered in Belfast at 9. 30 next morning.

  Defence of the United Kingdom.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Imperial Defence Committee is of opinion that our Fleets can safeguard the United Kingdom, under all circumstances of war, against invasion by raiding or by larger forces; if not, what authoritative calculation they have arrived at of the number of troops, not liable to be serving abroad when such invasion may occur, necessary for defence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester. E. ): In answer to my hon. and gallant friend I have to say that, in the opinion of the Defence Com-
  1394
  mittee, invasion for the purposes of conquest of these islands is an impossibility. The question of raids is a less important one, and is also a more complicated one, and I should hardly like to give an opinion on the subject by way of Question and Answer across the floor of the House; but I think I may go the length of informing my hon. and gallant friend that they are not a source of serious anxiety to His Majesty's Government.
  COLONEL WELBY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to accept the figures supplied by the War Office to the Norfolk Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that in connection with the church dispute in Scotland the representatives of the Free Church have, in a large proportion of the cases in which Sir John Cheyne, the Government Commissioner, has issued recommendations, disregarded these recommendations, and are evicting the United Free Church ministers and congregations from the churches of which they are in possession; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the Government have learned, and learned with the very greatest regret, of the action which the Free Church of Scotland has taken in reference to one of the Commissions now sitting in respect of the ecclesiastical disputes in that country. With regard to the last clause of the Question we hope, as soon as we have received the Report of the Elgin Commission and have had time to consider it, to introduce legislation which will deal with the whole circumstances.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PROPOSAL TO EXPEDITE SUPPLY.
  ME. BRYCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Estimates he proposes to take on

  1395
  Wednesday and Thursday, and why has he altered the arrangement made to take Supplementary Estimates to-day.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It would also be a convenience if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what will be taken on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite true that I had hoped to be able to proceed with Supplementary Estimates to-day. Subsequent to the announcement which I made to that effect yesterday the adjournment was moved and the order of business was to that extent upset, and we did not make as much progress as was expected. We therefore continue discussion with Vote 1 to-day. I think it probable that on Thursday we shall go on with the Supplementary Estimates, and on Monday with the Vote on Account. As regards to-morrow, I have to give notice that I have been carefully examining the condition of Supply in reference to the legal obligation under which the Government and the House lie to deal with certain financial matters before the end of the financial year, and I have come to the conclusion that without taking special measures there is no possibility of attaining that object. I propose to move a Resolution to-morrow with the view of attaining that object. I cannot at the moment give the terms of the Resolution which I shall move, though I hope to announce them to-night before the adjournment of the House. I may say generally that the lines on which I shall proceed are those which govern the final stages of ordinary Supply.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he seriously expected yesterday to take Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in a single sitting of the House. Has he ever known such a thing?
  MR. BRYCE: Is the House to understand by what the right hon. Gentleman has just told it that it is proposed to suspend the 12 o'clock rule to-morrow? Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate more specifically what he means?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may judge from some informal interruptions, my meaning is perfectly apprehended by most of those opposite. The procedure contemplated is not precisely identical with, but is analogous to, that by which we close the annual Supply of the year.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put this new guillotine rule down for discussion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to put it down to-morrow for discussion.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the limitation of discussion to which the House is to be made to submit is not really due to the late summoning of Parliament and the late presentation of the Estimates?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not relate to the course of business?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of this important announcement of a new, important, and far-reaching rule, the right hon. Gentleman does not think longer notice should be given, inasmuch as it will be impossible for hon. Members to put on the Paper the Amendments they will desire to move.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understand objection being taken to the principle of the proposal I shall make, and no doubt exception will be so taken; but I do not think that longer notice is required, nor is it in accordance with the ordinary practice of this House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: There is no precedent for such a Motion at this date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are precedents, unfortunately, for the state of business in this House instantly requiring the taking of exceptional measures.

  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Never.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Not before March 31st.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may be allowed to say so, I have looked into this matter, and I have expressed my opinion. To-morrow I shall be glad to enter into this question.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest there is a single precedent for a guillotine Resolution before March 31st.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never suggested anything of that kind.
  MR. BRYCE: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for putting down a Motion of this kind without an opportunity to hon. Members of moving Amendments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly there is plenty of opportunity. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this question at the proper time.
  *MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask whether the object of bringing the guillotine into operation is to close the Parliamentary session by March 31st.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The object of the process the hon. Gentleman describes is to enable the House to obey the law of the land.
  MR. LOUGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us one day's notice and allow the Resolution to be taken on Thursday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I honestly think that the course I have suggested will be for the general convenience of the House.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  Mr. WODEHOUSEreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Trades Unions and Trades Disputes Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wrightson, Mr. Duke, Sir William Tomlinson, Colonel Pilkington, Sir Charles Renshaw, Mr. Galloway, Mr. John Burns,
  1398
  Mr. Bell, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Paulton, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Randles, and Mr. Pemberton.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  "To provide for the prevention of Juvenile Smoking," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. John Mums, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Crooks, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Lloyd-George, Major Seely, Dr. Shipman, Sir John Tuke, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Mr. George White; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
  SALE OF WHISKY BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Sale of Whisky, and to provide for the marking of casks and other vessels containing whisky," presented by Sir Herbert Maxwell; supported by Mr. Grenfell, Captain Donelan, Colonel McCalmont, and Mr. Kilbride; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 12th April, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

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

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 672, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906. "
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that this money Vote afforded the Committee a fitting opportunity of discussing the financial aspect of the new distribution scheme which the Secretary

  1399
  to the Admiralty had placed before the House. They had had considerable debate as to the financial control of the House, and he would like to point out that, apart from any new measure of control, the Government were not really adhering to the ordinary rules which ought to govern the discussion of Supply. Last year they had on the Army Estimates a statement that those Estimates did not apply to the scheme then to be adopted by the War Office, and now in regard to the Navy they had Estimates which certainly had been framed in accordance with the new scheme of distribution, but they had not had from the official in charge any statement as to what reduction was due to the scheme which had been proposed by the naval authorities. If that new scheme had involved an increase of expenditure they would have had from the Admiralty a statement as to how that increase was made up, and the mere fact that the scheme showed a reduction surely was no excuse for information being withheld. He had no doubt there was a considerable saving as the result of the new proposals. They had the Estimate before them and it showed the considerable reduction as compared with last year of £3, 500, 000. Of course they had to deduct from that £1, 000, 000 which was in the Estimate of last year for the two Chilian war vessels. That reduced the net reduction to £2, 500, 000. What the House was entitled to know was what proportion of that reduction of £2, 500, 000 was due to the new scheme of redistribution. That it would amount to a considerable sum was shown by the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty issued on December 6th last. The noble Lord concluded that Memorandum by saying that the scheme would greatly increase the fighting efficiency of the Fleet, and he was happy to say would also result in very considerable economy on the Naval Estimates. Surely they were entitled to know what that "considerable economy" was.
  He gathered from the speech which the Prime Minister delivered in Glasgow on January 12th last, that a very large saving was anticipated, for, in speaking of the ships which were to be discarded, the right hon. Gentle-
  1400
  man said they had abolished 130 vessels which figured on the list of the British Navy, and in so doing had made certain economies. They had not depleted the Navy for the mere sake of saving a few hundred thousands or millions; they had not sacrificed the strength of the force on which the well-being of the country depended. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the cost of their maintenance and repairs—he did not go into figures—was very big, and that had been struck off the Navy Estimates. That went to show that, unless the Prime Minister was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, he had the figures before him, and it he had them, why should they be withheld from the Committee? They were entitled to an answer to that question. The Admiralty must have considered the financial effect of their distribution scheme before they launched it on the country, and, according to the First Lord's Statement, and according also to the statement of the Prime Minister, those figures were available. If they were not, surely it would be a most extraordinary thing on the part of the Admiralty to come to a decision in regard to a great scheme of redistribution without taking into consideration what the financial effect of their proposal was likely to be.
  There had been some confusion in regard to the figures connected with the scheme. The First Lord told them that 130 vessels were to be abolished, the Secretary to the Admiralty said there were to be no fewer than 160, and later on the hon. Gentleman qualified that statement by saying that only eighty-four were to go on the scrap heap for three years, and on the previous day he gave a still further qualification. Now the hon. Gentleman had been exceedingly fair to the Committee, he had given them all the information in his power, and therefore he was not to be blamed. The Department, however, was to be blamed for withholding figures, or, in the alternative, for producing a scheme of that magnitude without considering what its financial result would be. An excuse, and probably a justification, for the reduction of the Estimates was to be found in the great increase which had

  1401
  occurred in those Estimates in the last few years, an increase which had amounted in two years to £9, 000, 000. They had treated the Secretary to the Admiralty fairly and had admitted that, so far as the information was available, the scheme proposed was based on sound principles, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman should be equally fair to the Committee and should give them the figures on which the scheme was based, and should show what saving it was expected to effect. He told them the other day that a certain saving had been effected from the fact that they had been making up leeway, and that ships were in better repair, and that, therefore, it was possible to slacken expenditure to a certain extent. Well, a certain amount of the saving might be due to that, but he thought that before proceeding further with the discussion they ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a statement as to what was to be the economy consequent on the adoption of the distribution scheme.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid he wished to touch on one part of the policy announced by the Admiralty, and that was in connection with the change of arrangements in the Northern Pacific and Northern Atlantic as to the disposition of our squadrons there. He quite realised that when we obtained undisputed supremacy of the seas it became our duty to be the police of the ocean, but now that other nations had come to the front and were prepared to take their share in policing arrangements, it surely was our duty to concentrate our Fleets, not to scatter our vessels all over the ocean simply as police but to utilise them as military units for fighting purposes. He held that the concentration of our vessels into a fighting organisation must prove a decided advantage, but before we decided to do away with certain bases, and with our occupation of certain seas, it was necessary we should consider whether that in itself was the best thing to do, and whether it was a suitable policy at the present moment. He would take first the case of the Northern Pacific. When we were at war with Russia we decided to attack Petropavlovsk, and then we found we had absolutely no bases
  1402
  whatever in the Pacific Ocean except certain harbours in Peru and Chili. It was, therefore, necessary to establish some form of naval base, and we consequently occupied a point of land where the Hudson Bay Company was then established, and we decided to use it simply as a place to which to carry our wounded after the attack on Petropavlovsk. It never was a dockyard establishment or a naval yard. It was now proposed to withdraw our squadron from the Northern Pacific and to close our base at Vancouver Island, but it would be well to remember that there might come a time in which we should not be in the position we now were in the Pacific, when we should not have certain allies to whom we could turn, and then our only base would be the secondary one at Hong-Kong. There was, at the present time, a coast line of a growing country under the British flag—he referred to Canada—and he would ask was it wise that we should absolutely abandon the only position on that coast line from which we could exercise any control in the Northern Pacific. It was perfectly true that we did not intend to give up our yards, but what was the use of keeping yards if they were to be stripped of all their stores, and if the buildings were simply to be put in the charge of caretakers.
  A Question was asked that afternoon in the House to which no definite answer was given, but in the House of Commons of Canada within the last few days the Minister of Militia had announced that after July it was the intention of the Canadian Government to take over the garrisons of Esquimalt and Halifax and to maintain the fortifications there at the expense of the Canadian Government. So far, so good, but what were the garrisons to defend unless they were to protect the naval bases. Surely they were not going only to protect some old sheds in charge of caretakers. Knowing what he did of the country, he was aware that to place these buildings merely in charge of caretakers would not be sufficient. It would involve the keeping up of a large body to labourers and mechanics to maintain them in proper repair, and surely it would be a much better plan—it was one he had suggested to the late First Lord

  1403
  of the Admiralty—that these yards should be handed over to the Dominion Government, that they should take charge of the garrisons and fortifications, and of the naval yards as well, and that they should hold those yards available for our Navy whenever we wished to use them. That applied especially to Esquimalt.
  Now he came to the Atlantic coast. He wished to know where the Commander-in-Chief of the North American Squadron was to have his official residence. Was it to be at Plymouth, or the Bermudas, or Halifax, or Jamaica? The proposed closing of the station at Halifax was a very serious matter. We had a large and important property there, in fact, the Imperial Government owned one-third of the whole water frontage, and thus prevented the commercial development of the town. Were we going to put that property in charge of a caretaker and not allow it to be devoted to any useful purpose? Such a policy would not redound to the credit of the Imperial Government. Attached to the Admiralty House were large grounds, a fine naval hospital, and magazines. Would it not be better that they should be utilised for some purpose by the Dominion Government, in return for keeping them in good order? Again, he would like to point out that if we were to keep cruisers in the West Indies all the year round there would be a great deal of sickness. There must be a base on the coast of British North America to which these vessels could go for supplies, and consequently, instead of closing this station altogether let them hand it over to the Dominion Government on the conditions he had suggested.
  *MR. BLACKsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty had persistently declined to make any statement as to the policy which had actuated the Government in putting forward the new redistribution scheme, and surely there was no better or more appropriate and available time for making such a statement than the present. Unless that statement was made, all their discussions must necessarily be in large measure futile. He supposed the thought originally in the mind of the Admiralty
  1404
  was that of concentration, but the question was whether they had not stopped short of full concentration. The idea, he supposed, was that the Fleet should remain at home for the purpose of home defence; and the next step, he presumed, was that there should be a good strong Fleet in being, preponderating in strength compared with any other fleet, a possible concentration of fleets, so as to be itself sufficient protection of our shores, our mercantile marine, our Colonies, and our dependencies, and if this concentrated fleet was strong enough in itself it was almost equally useful for purposes of mercantile and colonial defence, that it should have its main base in the British Islands as compared with its being permanently based in whole or in part out of these Islands. Had he, in this, correctly stated the underlying idea of the Admiralty? If this were their underlying idea why did they still retain two bases outside the United Kingdom; why did they abandon the base in the Firth of Forth which they originally put forward? And why did they continue, apparently, to base two divisions of the fleet at Gibraltar and Malta respectively, away ever so far from the true base of the fleet, viz., these islands, which it was their main function to defend? When we considered the necessity of concentration, we had only to put to ourselves what a hostile fleet would do. Supposing it was advancing to the attack of our fleets, would not its first object be to throw itself between the Fleet at Gibraltar and Malta and the Home Fleet before they could concentrate? It was difficult to understand, if concentration was the main object of the Government, why they had not followed it out further and so have afforded accommodation in the British Islands for the battleships they had properly built and put into commission. He again urged the necessity of the Committee being put in possession of full information which would enable it to deal with the large objects of policy raised, and upon which the financial aspects of the whole scheme so largely depended.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that on the previous day several speakers protested against so

  1405
  much ship construction being given to private yards, and asserted that it would be cheaper to have it done in the Government dockyards. He utterly protested against that idea, and he was borne out in that by the Memorandum of the First Lord, in which it was stated that experience had shown that new construction could certainly be more cheaply executed in private yards than in the Royal dockyards. He trusted that the Secretary to the Admiralty would not give way to the pressure brought to bear on him and go back on the Statement of the First Lord. There was nothing unreasonable in the position which the Admiralty had taken up in this matter. Experience proved that private firms, working for profit, were able to put an energy into their work which was not the case in Government yards, however well managed. Apart from that, even if it cost more to build in private than in Government yards, it was to the advantage of the State that these private firms should be encouraged; for in times of stress it would be very unfortunate if the Government could only work in their own yards, and unless something was done to keep the private yards going in ordinary times it would be impossible for them to maintain their establishments in a state of efficiency for times of stress. In regard to the general policy of the Admiralty, he did not complain so much of the large number of ships written off the fighting list of the Fleet; but he thought it was rather a question whether some of those left on the list were of full fighting efficiency, so far as armour was concerned. He called the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to three classes of ships, which, he suggested were not up to the full standard of efficiency—the "Canopus," the "Majestic," and the "Royal Sovereign" classes. The first contained six, the second nine, and the third eight battleships. With the view of putting these vessels in a state of full fighting efficiency, he suggested that they should be re-armoured throughout. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give an answer to his suggestion when the Construction Vote came on for discussion in detail.
  *MR. LYELLsaid that they must all feel grateful for the somewhat wide and general discussion which had been given to Vote I., for it seemed extremely likely that before many other Votes were reached the guillotine would come down. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would therefore give the Committee answers to some questions that hardly appeared to be covered by the present Vote. Had anything been done in the way of continuing the experiments in the use of liquid fuel on board His Majesty's ships? That might be brought up under the Stoker Vote, but there was a general hope that even the largest ships in the Navy would be equipped with apparatus for using liquid fuel on account of its enormous convenience and saving in storage space. Last year he asked a Question as to the naval chaplains and naval instructors carried on board ship. The answer was that in twenty-one ships the offices of chaplain and instructor were held by the same individual; and that in twenty-seven ships the offices were duplicated. If it was possible to duplicate them in some, there was no reason why the two offices should not be held by the same individual in all ships, and a considerable saving in cabin space be thereby effected.
  The hon. Member for Donegal had raised the question of flogging in the Navy. He (Mr. Lyell), had one qualification for speaking on the subject, for probably he was one of the last Members who had left school. When the hon. Member for South Donegal was speaking it was evident that every word came from the heart, and that every sentence was winged with conviction. And yet it was a speech with some of which he found himself in profound disagreement. There was one sentence which he was sorry to hear cheered from these benches; and that was that this was a punishment inflicted by the rich on the children of the poor, and a punishment to which the children of the rich were not subjected. He ventured to traverse that statement. Many hon. Members had been at a public school, and they knew, from painful experience, how discipline was maintained there. He knew also that if a master in a Board school used that form of punishment he

  1407
  was likely to find an action at law on his hands. The public feeling on the matter was now keener than it used to be. He happened to be the possessor of an Eton birch. His interest in it was purely academic, and not personal. The hon. Member for South Donegal had made an appeal to the House because the Navy birch weighed nine ounces, and the police birch only four and a-half ounces. He had had the curiosity to weigh the Eton birch, and found that, although there had been considerable loss of weight due to attrition and ordinary wear and tear, it still weighed fourteen ounces, or more than the police and the Navy birch put together. He thought that the general sense of the House was that it would be a mistake to abolish either birching or caning in the Navy. It was an appropriate punishment for boys, but only as long as they were boys. As long as a boy was a boy it was the best punishment for him, and very much less cruel than the alternative of confinement in cells; but the moment he began to fancy himself a man there was a danger of inflicting a serious blow to his self-respect, and doing injury to his character by inflicting the birch or cane. Why should there not be an inquiry with a view to making the limit of age very rigid. Such punishment should only be inflicted on boys; not on young men, although they might be technically rated as boys. Another point on which he desired to lay stress was the question of publicity. He believed that a majority of hon. Members deplored these public birchings. He hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty would assent to the suggestion of his hon. friend and introduce a reform in the matter both of publicity and severity of the punishments.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that as regards the analogy of school boys he had always thought that birching, on the whole, would be better, because it was more satisfactory to a boy than to have some of those irritating punishments and unhealthy detentions indoors, which certainly did him no good, and as an alternative to which the more salutary principle of whipping was beneficial. He felt that there was no occasion for a layman to apologise in discussing naval matters. In his opinion it was a great misfortune to the country that laymen
  1408
  took such little interest in naval matters. Englishmen were prone to look upon the Navy as a religion and take everything that concerned it for granted. An admiral in the position of Sir John Fisher seemed to occupy a post analogous to that of the Pope, for to speak disrespectfully of the First Sea Lord was, as it were, to speak disrespectfully of a Pope. He had no object in speaking disrespectfully of the First Sea Lord because he did not know him, but it was not wise for any man, be he who he might, to be in a position to say whatever he liked and always be supposed to be right. He entered a caveat against anybody occupying that position in the British Navy, and that was why laymen should take an interest in these matters. The right hon. Member for Ealing entered a plea yesterday for the further employment of Marines in places and positions where they could be more effectively used. There was no branch of the service more rightly admired by those who knew anything about them. He was persuaded that in many instances they were not treated quite as well as the other branches of the service. He gave illustrations of the disadvantage as regards status under which Marine Officers suffered as compared with Naval Officers, and hoped that the Admiralty might see their way to arrive at some readjustment, the more so inasmuch as the status of paymasters and others had lately been improved. There was a variety of questions which hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies desired to bring forward. He did not propose to take any such course. He would suggest to his hon. friend that it would be more convenient that these matters should be arranged by private conference; and he hoped the Board of Admiralty would be willing to meet the dockyard Members and discuss matters which they would represent to the Board to the best of their ability.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid after listening to the arguments he was not at all convinced that birching was a useful discipline in the Navy. All hon. Members were agreed that it should not be applied to men; but men were "only children of a larger growth." Discipline which was good for men would be

  1409
  also good for boys. Birching was a barbarous punishment, and was very disgraceful; discipline could easily be maintained otherwise. Flogging was abolished in the Army twenty years ago, and no complaint followed. Its abolition in the Navy was a concession to the growth of decency and civilisation which would have to be granted some day. Why not now?
  He desired to call attention to what was described as a "revolution" in the policy of the Admiralty. Revolution was a large word—it was used in the First Lord's Statement, but he was inclined to deprecate it. Nothing particularly fresh had occurred in recent years, especially as far as new construction by foreign nations was concerned. Experiments were, of course, in progress; but they did not justify the use of the word "revolution." It was merely an attempt by the Admiralty to cover a retreat from a position they could not sustain. For ten years he had steadily protested against the increase in the Navy Votes, and had maintained that a too rapid increase would lead to a too rapid decrease. That position had been justified. Ten years ago the Navy Estimates were £18, 000, 000; but since then there had been a total increase over that amount of £110, 000, 000. If instead of that gigantic increase there had been a steady increase of £500, 000 a year, there would have been a saving of £83, 000, 000 in ten years and that would have been a great advantage both to the nation and to the Navy. He supposed we were only at the beginning of these years of economy. We had a reduction of £3, 500, 000 this year, and no doubt we should have a reduction of £3, 000, 000 next year, but he must enter his protest against these great jumps up and down in our expenditure, which were not good for the country.
  Dealing with the new cruisers which were to be such an important part of the Fleet, the Statement of the First Lord said they were to be capable of such speed that they could overtake everything and that nothing could catch them, and then it proceeded to speak of the cruisers which had been built within the last ten years, and said that with such vessels as the new
  1410
  cruisers the so-called protected cruisers would engage at considerable disadvantage; that their armour would not be sufficient to keep them safe, and their speed would not be sufficiently great to allow them to run away. A more sweeping condemnation of the policy of the Admiralty had never been heard in the House. It was a great mistake to suppose that those cruisers which were not struck off the active list retained their old position in the Fleet. They did nothing of the kind. They were not struck off, but very soon would be, and their position for useful fighting had been much changed. In that list, in which there was no vessel more than ten years old, there were twenty-one first-class, forty-six second-class, and twenty-one third-class cruisers. Eighty-eight cruisers in all, built during the last ten years at a total cost of £24, 500, 000. Practically this large fleet, built at so great a cost, was now condemned as useless. That was a most significant statement. At the present moment these ships were manned with 34, 000 men, and if they were of no use why was it necessary to keep their crews up to the full complement. So much had been said about the 166 ships that were to be struck off the list that he need not refer further to them except to say that the number to be struck off was not 166 but 254, because these cruisers would have to be added. Many of the 166 had also been built within the last ten years; indeed it appeared to him from the Estimates of the present year that some of the ships listed in both categories were not yet finished, and on others large sums were being expended for repairs. He would emphasise the application already made to the Secretary to the Admiralty to fulfil the promise made at Glasgow and show the Committee what was the economy resulting from this great change of policy.
  Another revolution was with regard to the destroyers, which was also a great condemnation of the policy of the Admiralty. So far as the destroyers were concerned, till that moment everybody thought we were up to date. They took the place of the old gun-boats and the torpedo boats, but the destroyers which we had did not appear to be strong enough to go to sea, and were apparently

  1411
  of not much use close inshore. Therefore we were to have two new classes, one was to be for work inshore and in harbours, and then there was to be a sea-going destroyer of a more expensive character. But what, he asked, was to become of the great fleet of destroyers we had at present? Had they no function? Were they completely superannuated? Were we to have a third list of vessels nearly knocked up and thrown aside? It was a most remarkable state of things. For ten years we had been spending money on vessels now declared to be useless. The destroyers had gone and the first, second, and third-class cruisers had gone. He did not suggest that experiments should not be made, but he thought they should be made upon a far more economical scale. It was perfectly monstrous that so many of these ships should be built during these years for experimental purposes. The experiments would have been equally well made with only six cruisers. This point went to the bottom of the whole of the Estimates during recent years. There was a large new Vote for submarines, which were being ordered by the dozen. Why could not we go economically to work? There had been some dreadful accidents with submarines, and before we ordered so many to be built we should see whether they would be useful. After all, real economy in the Navy lay with the House of Commons, and when the laxity of the House in dealing with these Estimates disappeared they would see the end of all this extravagance. He supported his hon. friend the Member for Dundee in the application he had made for a full Return, and he suggested that the Committee should warn the Admiralty that they would not enter into this discussion again without full information. Some attempt would, no doubt, be made to correct the two Returns which had been made with regard to the overlapping of the ships. Sixteen ships appeared both in the list of those to be struck off the effective list and in the list of those which were to be retained.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge)said that under Head 1, ships were included in both lists. Head I
  1412
  was "combatant ships." He admitted, that it was somewhat confusing.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the explanation made it somewhat more intelligible, but these vessels should not appear in both lists. The Government ought to give a Return showing all the ships which wore to be struck off the list, and where the economy came in by striking them off, and then no one could complain? If the Committee approved this new policy of a smaller and more effective Navy then they must condemn the reckless extravagance in the past. But the real reason for this economy must be looked for outside the House. The Government might be in search of a deathbed repentance, but they had to acknowledge a force against which they were powerless, which was resolved to deliver the country from this intolerable burden.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid the hon. Member for West Islington, in asserting that some £80, 000, 000 might have been saved had the Government pursued a different policy, overlooked the fact that the country would not then have been in possession of a Navy which would have enabled her to hold her own in recent crises. It was only the possession of an overpowering Navy which brought us safely through the Fashoda crisis, or enabled us to keep the ring during the South African War. If the hon. Member had had his way, that Navy would not have been in existence, the country would have had to give way, and the probabilities were that expenditure in. other directions would have had to be incurred far in excess of the amount which had been spent on the Navy. He thought, therefore, the country ought to congratulate themselves that the naval policy had not been under the control of the hon. Member and his friends. The debate had afforded remarkable testimony to the success of Lord Selborne's administration. There had been attacks on details, but there had been no attack on his policy n general, so that in laying down his threat trust the late First Lord might feel that he had discharged it to the general satisfaction of the House and the country. He approached the consideration of these Estimates from an entirely different standpoint from that of the

  1413
  last speaker. The first thought of the hon. Member was as to the bill we had to pay and whether anything had been saved to the country. On the other hand, the first question he put to himself, as everything depended on the Navy, was whether the Estimates as presented were such as would put us in possession of such a Navy as was essential for the safety of the country. When the Estimates were looked at from that point of view, two considerations at once presented themselves, viz., was the Navy strong enough for the duties it had to perform, and was that Navy ready for war? Recent experience had shown that one of the first essential attributes of a navy was readiness for instant action. Great Britain could not afford an initial disaster; she must be in a position to strike at once with overpowering force. Various steps had been taken by the Admiralty to place the Navy in a position to strike such a blow should necessity arise. There had been eliminated a large number of vessels supposed to be either too weak for action in the fighting line or too slow to run away. He and many of his friends on that side of the House had repeatedly urged upon the Admiralty the advisability of getting rid of the weaker and slower of those ships.
  *MR. LOUGH: But we are building them still.
  MR. YERBURGH (continuing)submitted that the result of such a policy must be to increase the efficiency of the Fleet by making it more ready for action. The next point was as to the crews. Had anything been done to increase their efficiency? After studying the Memorandum of the First Lord, he had come to the conclusion that the Admiralty had largely increased the efficiency of the Fleet in that direction. The old system under which the crews of the Home and Channel Squadrons were replenished as to 25 per cent. of their number every twenty-six months had been abandoned, and there was now only one description of service, while the term of commission was two years. As a result of that change, the officers of the Navy were constantly exercised in their duties for a period of two years, and that meant a great advance
  1414
  in efficiency. If the Fleet was to be in fighting order, it was necessary that the reserve ships should be prepared to go to sea with their machinery free from alt chance of breaking down, and with their crews thoroughly exercised in gunnery. What were the Admiralty doing in this direction? They were crowding at these ports the Reserve Fleets, the captains and seconds in command of which were to be on board, and also a large proportion of their war complement. Those ships would be more ready for action; and they were to go out periodically for gunnery practice, so that the crews would lie efficient in gunnery and practised in the art of seamanship. All that tended to efficiency. Moreover, these reserve ships were to be under the command of an officer directly responsible for their efficiency. The Admiralty were to be warmly congratulated with having done so much to increase the strength of the Fleet, but it was necessary to go a step further. They might have the Fleets ready for action, and the crews ready to join them, but that would be of no avail in the day of battle unless the men behind the guns were efficient. Not very long ago it was the custom in this country to regard gunnery practice as altogether unnecessary, and it was a common habit for ships of war to throw practice ammunition overboard. That had been entirely altered. Year after year Lord Selborne had called attention to the vital importance of gunnery, and, according to the last statements, the gunnery was still improving. He was delighted that an Inspector of Target Practice had been appointed, as an officer in that position could render great service to the gunnery efficiency of the Fleet. He held in his hand an account of some wonderful target practice on the "Narcissus," in the course of which a man named Hollingshurst made seven hits out of ten on a target 6 feet by 8 feet, at a distance of from 1, 500 to 1, 600 yards. The value of that record was not so much the individual performance as the fact that it set a standard for the whole Fleet. He desired to know whether it was the intention of the authorities to retain the services of these expert gun layers?
  As to the distribution of the Fleet, he could not conceive why the Committee should not be told the reason for the

  1415
  alterations which had been made. In the German and the French Legislatures the position of other countries was openly discussed. In a recent speech in the French Chamber, the Minister of Marine compared the strength of the French fleet with the German fleet, showing what an enormous disproportion of force had arisen in the growth of the German fleet. It was perfectly well known that the real reason for the redistribution of the Fleet was the very great growth of naval power in the North Sea. The French Minister said that in 1871 the French fleet was superior to the combined fleet of the Triple Alliance, and had a crushing superiority over the German fleet, but that in 1908 the German fleet would be three-fourths as strong as the French fleet, and that in 1917, the German programme having been completed, the German fleet would be stronger than the French fleet, in the proportion of five to four. That showed how much the German fleet had grown as compared with the French fleet, and afforded a reason for the redistribution of the British Fleet for strategical purposes. In 1917 the German fleet would amount to thirty-eight first-class battleships, fourteen large cruisers, thirty-eight small cruisers, and fourteen torpedo boat divisions. That was a very large and powerful fleet, which, it must be remembered, was concentrated in the North Sea, and the officers and men of which were constantly exercised in manœuvres. A matter of that kind could not possibly be overlooked. It would have been altogether unwise for those responsible for the naval policy of the country to have allowed distribution based upon other considerations of naval strength to continue in being. It would probably be said that to make such a statement was not consonant with a proper understanding of the relations between this and other countries. He would remind the Committee, however, that such reticence was not observed in other Chambers. It had been pointed out in the Reichstag that this increase in the fleet could not be intended for the purpose of a war with the United States, France, or Russia, and he had come to the conclusion that this increase in the German navy could only be meant as a menace to Great Britain. That was a German politician speaking
  1416
  in his own Chamber. He noted with regret the very small programme of new construction which the Admiralty had thought fit to adopt, for it included only one battleship. In view of the possible combinations of foreign fleets against our own, he did not think the Government were justified in adopting such a small programme of new construction. For the past seven years they had not been building up to the two-Power standard, and he was bound to say that he did not think the Admiralty had been well advised in the course they had taken.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was perfectly evident that any calculation of the saving on the present distribution of the Fleet would have to take into account the amount which would have been spent on those ships had they been retained in the service. That calculation could not be made in pounds, shillings, and pence without a good deal of unnecessary trouble.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid the Prime Minister led a Glasgow audience to believe that he had those figures in his possession.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the £500, 000 saved upon repairs was largely due to the particular policy.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that surely the hon. Member could give them a round sum. The Government claimed a reduction of £2, 500, 000, and all that had been shown was about £100, 000.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he had indicated the saving that was attributable to these particular ships not having to be repaired. There were other savings in regard to stores and naval bases. To make a calculation as to what would have been spent had they not adopted the new scheme would be a most unusual course, and it would give no corresponding advantage for the trouble it would give to the Department. As to the question of the care and maintenance of the naval base at Halifax and Esquimalt, that had not been lost sight of, and he was sure that the Government would be prepared to negotiate with the Canadian Government upon the subject. The squadron.

  1417
  at Devonport would make two cruises every year and would be mainly a training squadron. It would visit Bermuda, Halifax, and other ports, training boys for the Navy. Two vessels would be kept in the West Indies, and they would visit Halifax at the proper season of the year. One of the advantages of this arrangement would be that they would have the excellent winter climate in the West Indies and the excellent summer climate on the North American station for the development of growing lads on board. With regard to the North Pacific, the immediate local danger they had to guard against at present did not appear to warrant the maintenance of a naval base at Esquimalt. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth that the Pacific had been fully considered. The hon. and gallant Member also raised the question of future possibilities in the Pacific, but he thought it would be realised that distribution was a shifting problem, and because the needs of the present day demanded the distribution now submitted it did not follow that in two or three years time fresh considerations might not arise, and the Admiralty did not bind themselves to maintain in the future exactly the same distribution as to-day. Should circumstances require the presence of a stronger force in the Pacific the Admiralty were perfectly ready to deal with them.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the point he raised was not the present distribution so much as the power of repairing and even of producing ships and the necessity of a primary base in the near future in the Pacific.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that in considering the question of Fleet bases one of the possibilities of the future was that they could rely upon auxiliary vessels for supplies, and that ought to be taken into account. The policy adopted was to spend the money at places which it was practically certain would remain as permanent and necessary bases for the Fleet, and rely more upon mobile ships and auxiliaries in other parts. He thought that was more satisfactory from the point of view of economy and the actual necessities of the Fleet. If his hon. and gallant friend
  1418
  meant that they should be able to build ships abroad he did not think there was any possibility of that policy being adopted, and they were not prepared to deal with it now as a matter of practical politics.
  The hon. Member for South Donegal had spoken upon the question of birching and caning in the Navy. There were one or two points which he thought should be cleared up. They had been repeatedly told that there ought to be no birching in the Navy, because there was none in the Army and none in foreign navies. The simple reason for this was that there were no boys in the Army or in foreign navies, and birching was clearly a form of punishment applicable to boys but not to men. The only reason for birching or caning being retained in the Navy was because in the opinion of the Admiralty that was a better form of punishment for boys than confinement. He thought that would be generally accepted as a fact. While he recognised the absolute sincerity of the speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal last week, it really was not an attack on the system, but it amounted to an attack on the alleged misuse of the system in the Navy. The hon. Member had read out extracts from various letters, but there were no dates or names given, and he could not help thinking that some old shellbacks had been getting at the hon. Member. He had made most careful personal inquiry in order to ascertain whether there had really been the slightest foundation in recent years for any of the allegations which the hon. Member made, and he could honestly assure the Committee that he had found none. If chapter and verse were given of any case where there had been a misuse of the power of birching boys it would be inquired into. The punishment of birching was intended to be applied in the Navy in exactly the same way as it was applied in the public schools. The hon. Member for South Donegal was mistaken in saying that one system obtained in the ''Britannia" and another in the training ships. The boys in both cases were equally liable to be punished by birching. He thought he need not say any more in defence of a

  1419
  system which was admitted to be universal. He believed it was beneficial. He could only repeat that if any case of undue severity were brought to the notice of the Admiralty it would be investigated as the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had suggested.
  MR. LYELL: Would you give publicity to the birching?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he would. [An HON. MEMBER: It's brutal.] It might sound brutal, but he thought that what might seem very terrible here had no brutality attached to it if carried out in the free atmosphere of a man-of-war. Hon. Members here could hold up their heads and say that they had never felt any demoralisation or inferiority as the result of similar treatment which they had received in their school days. As to publicity, he would remind the hon. Member that there was only the choice between publicity and privacy. The objection to publicity he understood and appreciated. On the other hand, objection might equally be made to privacy. They would be told that if they were to whip a boy in private all sorts of cruelties might be practised. Under the present system, if there really were undue severity, evidence of it could be obtained, because it was done under the public eye. Another matter which should be remembered was that the punishment of birching could only be inflicted by the authority of the senior officer in charge of a training ship. The training ships were all in charge of a Rear-Admiral, and no boys could be birched without the authority of the Rear-Admiral himself.
  MR. LYELL: The hon. Member says there is nothing between privacy and publicity. There is a difference between masses of boys and a few selected.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: I think it is rather invidious to select certain boys to witness the punishment. I think a half-way house would be rather difficult to obtain.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there might be a certain number of boys on board ship selected to witness the punishment, and to secure that everything was done decently and in order. It was absurd
  1420
  to suggest that there was no alternative between absolute publicity and absolute privacy.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he had put his view before the Committee. The hon. Member for Islington raised one or two points with which he thought he need not deal in detail. The hon. Member for Dundee last year prophesied solemnly that the Navy Estimates would gradually grow to £50, 000, 000, and now the hon. Member for Islington prophesied a steady annual reduction of £3, 000, 000. He did not think that either prophecy had a sure foundation. The Navy Estimates were dealt with by the Board of Admiralty on the needs of the year, and if the needs of the next year required a greater effort he was perfectly certain that the country would find the money and that the Admiralty would not hesitate to ask for it. They believed that the naval requirements for the year enabled them to ask £3, 500, 000 less. Whether there would be a reduction next year was a matter for the future, and they could riot at present say what would be done. He thought prophecies were beside the mark.
  *MR. McCRAEasked whether the Admiralty could not even give a round sum to show what reduction would be effected by the new policy.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was impossible to state a sum without showing what the Estimates would have been if there had been no change of policy. In order to give the estimate which the hon. Member desired it would be necessary to enter into an elaborate calculation, and he doubted whether such a calculation would be worth making when they had got it. The hon. Member for Islington had stated that Lord Selborne's Memorandum contained the names of combatant ships which were no longer equal to the latest ships, and that certain vessels had been condemned to the scrap heap which were still of fighting value. That was a criticism which would invariably be applied to naval administration. In all ships which were built the latest discoveries, inventions of science, and arrangements best adapted to give

  1421
  effect to naval experience were introduced. Each ship was an advance upon its predecessors and therefore the question required careful consideration from time to time whether ships of older types should be retained in the fighting line or relegated to the scrap heap. That was a problem which in the past had perhaps been insufficiently dealt with. One of the features of the scheme of the present year was the careful investigation which had been given to that problem. Every year that problem was to be re-examined, the ships which were added to the Fleet being weighed against the curlier built ships. There would always be a procession of ships passing from She fighting line into the llama class and thence to the sale list. As to destroyers, the present 25½ knot vessels were efficient and equal to any they were likely to meet with. To say that the destroyers we had now were out of date was not the fact. We had some which had not sufficient strength for ocean work and others in which speed had been to some extent sacrificed to increase their strength, but they were both excellent classes of vessels. By postponing the construction of the new destroyers for a short time the Admiralty were able to get a better type.
  The question of oil fuel was a most important one. The use of oil fuel had now passed the experimental stage, and had reached the stage when not only individual ships but squadrons were able to burn oil combined with coal. There was a difficulty in the storage of oil on existing ships. The ships required for that purpose an expensive method of construction. The oil was stored in the ordinary water-tight compartments in the double bottoms, but the ordinary construction which resisted water was not sufficiently close to forbid the passage of oil. Therefore considerable expense had to be incurred in fitting up existing ships which were not constructed for the purpose of carrying oil. Every ship built in future would be, constructed to carry oil as well as coal. The principle adopted was to burn oil in combination with coal. The oil was sprayed on the coal. He did not wish to go into particulars. Nothing would be gained by that. There was a difficulty in obtaining a sufficient supply of oil.
  1422
  One advantage which oil had over coal was that it did not deteriorate by keeping. They had to go for their oil outside the British Islands, but that was to some extent compensated for by their being able to store it in large quantities without its suffering deterioration. The question of supply was one which he hoped the Committee would not wish him to go into in detail. Every step was being taken to give the British Navy the greatest possible area of supply.
  *MR. BLACK: What position does Rosyth occupy in this new scheme of distribution?
  MR. WHITLEY: Is it true that the Report of the Boiler Committee has been thrown over, and a return made solely to the tubular boilers?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: All boilers are now tubular.
  MR. WHITLEY: Have cylindrical boilers been discarded against the recommendation of the Boiler Committee?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Boiler Committee issued two or three Reports, and in one of them, pending the completion of investigations and the issue of their final Report, they recommended that the Admiralty should adopt the system of one-fifth cylindrical boilers and four-fifths tubular boilers for the ships then under construction. That recommendation was adopted and ships were now coming into commission with an installation of one-fifth cylindrical boilers. The Committee, having completed their investigation and made their final Report, recommended that as the Yarrow and the Babcock and Wilcox type of boilers were so efficient they should be used without any proportion of cylindrical boilers. The ships which were now being laid down would receive the Babcock and Wilcox or the Yarrow type of boilers.
  MR. EUGENE WASONasked whether the hon. Gentleman could inform the Committee approximately the difference of cost between oil and coal.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the cost varied very much according to where

  1423
  the oil or the coal was taken on board. If oil was wanted in the Far East it was found close at hand at Borneo; but if coal was wanted it had to be sent from England. The cost of oil here was £2 per ton against about half that for coal. That, however, did not represent the relative value; because the value of a ton of oil, not vaporised in internal combustion engines, where the value was much higher, but burnt for steam-raising purposes, was not the same as that of a ton of coal. The Admiralty experience was that a ton of oil represented from one and a quarter to a ton and a half of coal—rather better than a ton and a quarter, and not so good as a ton and a half.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Are we to understand that the Admiralty are not contemplating any return whatever to the Belleville boiler?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Admiralty did not contemplate a return to the Belleville boiler. The great difficulty with the Belleville boiler was the burning of the casings and not so much that of coal consumption. As to Rosyth, he had already stated that what was to be done there could only be announced when the Loan Bill was introduced. But as to the value of Rosyth as a naval base in the future, the Board of Admiralty were convinced that their estimate of the value of the site for the purpose for which it was purchased was fully justified.
  *MR. BLACK: What is to be its place as one of the bases of the Fleet in the future?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that until they reached the Loan Bill no positive statement could be made. As to the value of Rosyth as a naval base, the opinion of the Admiralty was that the purchase was justified. At present, however, there was no base at Rosyth, and the new scheme had been framed on the bases which actually existed.
  *MR. BLACK: We want to know exactly how the new scheme of distribution is to work out in the future in
  1424
  view of the use of Rosyth as a principal base.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that he could encourage the hon. Gentleman to look forward to receiving that information in the future but could not give it at the present time.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the Committee would no doubt be gratified to hear that he had nor risen with any intention to discourse on naval tactics or naval construction. He did not pretend to be an authority on these matters. His knowledge was not so profound as that of the hon. Member for Chester, or the hon. Member for Islington, or even that of the late Lord. Nelson. His ambition was a far more humble one. He wished to contribute some little thing towards a saving to the taxpayers of the country who were being eaten out of house and home by having to pay a huge insurance against; the inroads of impossible invaders. He had put down an Amendment to the last Vote to reduce the number of men voted for the Navy by 10, 000. Unfortunately his intention had been frustrated by the application of the closure. His friends perpetually told him not to get up, as he would interrupt the debate then going on, and, therefore, he had waited too long. He was not going to be cut out twice in the same way; hence he now moved an Amendment to reduce the sum in the Vote now before the Committee by £600, 000. He believed that, roughly speaking, that amounted to a reduction of 10, 000 sailors from the Fleet. He had been told on previous occasions that it was monstrous, after the men had been voted, to refuse them their pay. That would be monstrous if the men were employed; but if no pay were voted there would be no men to pay. It had been said that there was a reduction in the Naval Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty had been congratulated on all sides on that reduction. But in looking into the matter, though the lads in the Navy, who were still to be subjected to the birch, were fewer, the number of men remained the same. The Government had boasted that they were going to put 160 vessels out of commission. He supposed that these ships had crews in them; and it was

  1425
  obvious that if 160 ships were to be put out of commission there would be so many sailors the less, unless they were to be kept on land in the hope that they would be employed when a war occurred.
  He was one of those who had always been in favour of a strong Navy; but he wanted it to be both a strong and efficient Navy. He, however, did not want it to exceed the needs of the country. He was not one of those who believed that this wondrous world Empire of ours should be the absolute mistress of the seas. And for this reason: that the world would never allow it. This country might have an entente cordiale with one other country, or possibly two, but the great Powers of the world would always object to one Power having the others and their colonies at their mercy. When they talked of policing the seas, that might be a very good idea with the Archangel Gabriel coming down from Heaven to take command. But we were fallible, and to talk of policing the seas might be to take an excellent British view, but it was not one which would be always in accord with that of the other great Powers. Napoleon attempted to establish his empire over Europe, and declared that he would inaugurate an era of peace. However, nobody believed him, and he was sent to die in a small island in the South Atlantic. He believed that from the first moment when the Government set up a standard of nicely calculating building ships equal to those built by two or three other Powers, they encouraged other countries to go on building more ships. This was not a mere question of bravery or courage, but of the longest purse. This was a very rich nation; he trusted it would always remain so; but it was not richer than the rest of the world, and if we continued playing the game of "beggar my neighbour" the rest of the world would beat us.
  Six years ago Lord Goschen stated, when 100, 000 men were voted for the Navy, that we had then reached the extreme limit of what was possible for us to provide with our means. That number had gone up to 129, 000 at the present time. In ten or twelve years the cost of the Navy had been almost
  1426
  doubled, and who paid for it? It was said to be for the benefit of the Empire, and particularly for the benefit of the Colonies. We told the Colonies how thankful they ought to be that we took the burden of their defence on our shoulders. We had no idea of taking any burden on our shoulders, fiscal, military, or naval. What they had to consider was the total amount which was being spent on armaments. The other day The Times stated—and it was good enough for him—that the total demand for military purposes exceeded that of last year by £913, 000. Therefore they had this position, that while they were asked to pay enormous sums for the Navy, they were also asked to pay more for the Army. When the increase in the Navy Votes began, hon. Members were attacked not only on the sentimental side, but also on the practical side. It was said that the cost of the Army would be reduced, and he said to himself that he did not care whether the money was spent on the Army or the Navy so long as the total amount was reduced If they wanted to get on in this world they must, in large matters as in small, cut their coat according to their cloth. He believed he himself was one of the best friends of the Army and Navy in this House. The reason was this. There was already a reaction against excessive expenditure; that reaction would increase, and unless expenditure were cut down it would gain such force that the country would grant less money than was absolutely necessary for its requirements. The total amount now spent on the Army and Navy was double what it was twelve years ago. Hon. Gentlemen seemed inclined to discuss small details; but he remarked that when Gentlemen complained of expenditure in one direction they usually advocated it in another. He himself did not look to minor details, but to the general sum, and he struck at the whole matter by moving an Amendment to reduce it. They had been termed "Little Englanders. "They were not "Little Englanders," but "Englanders," and followers of Gladstone and Peel. They did not conceal their view with reference to the Boer War; they disapproved of it, and said so; and

  1427
  many hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who did not then agree with them now admitted that they were the only people who knew anything about it. These hon. Gentlemen would agree with them also when they found later that there Would be a difficulty in getting adequate money to provide an insurance against war dangers. They would agree that he was wiser in advocating a generous expenditure, but by no means an excessive expenditure. It ought to be the first object of every hon. Gentleman to prevent annexation in every quarter of the globe, and quarrels with other countries, and to endeavour to better the position of the people of this country. He believed that that condition would never be bettered until taxation was reduced, and until the money devoted to armaments was spent in a more practical manner. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £600, 000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 072, 000, be granted for the said Service. "—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid that the hon. Gentleman had expressed a view with reference to the Navy which he thought had been exploded. If they lost all the Colonies and had no Empire, they would still have to maintain their sea power and expend as much on it as they did at present. The Navy discharged very different and very much more important functions now than it did a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago the Navy was maintained as a security against invasion and as a protection for trade and the Empire. Since then they had almost imperceptibly glided into a position in which four-fifths of the population of the country depended upon seaborne food. So long as they were in that position they must maintain the command of the sea not with any desire to offend foreign nations, but because the very existence of this country depended upon it. Incidentally that gave this country power which naturally excited jealousy on the part of other nations, who saw an immense trade accruing to the country which had command of the sea. Foreign nations could not indulge in large seaborne commerce or
  1428
  in large over-sea empire without giving hostages to the Power which had command of the sea. That, of course, created much jealousy and ill-feeling; but so long as four-fifths of the population of this country depended on seaborne supplies, they could not afford to let any other Power compete for the command of the sea. It was not a question of a two-Power or a three-Power standard, it was a question as to the exigencies which might arise in any part of the world. He thought if it were made plain to foreign nations that it was not because of ambition or of any desire to be aggressive, but because our very existence depended upon it, that this country maintained such a vast expense in order to secure the command of the sea, and that no effort would be spared to retain it, it would do away with some of the misunderstanding and jealousy which was excited when statesmen in England discussed the needs of the Navy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to be satisfied with the present fiscal system, and with the manner in which this country obtained its food. He therefore could not understand why they deprecated the maintenance of our sea power. Cobden himself said that he would sooner spend £70, 000, 000 on a strong Navy than see it sink to an inferior position. He did not share the fiscal views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he recognised that they could never hope in this country to supply anything like half of the population with food except from abroad. As long as that was the position, he hoped that only a very small minority of the House would agree with the views which had been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. BEIGHTsaid in venturing to address the Committee on this subject he desired to express the view that there was a great difference between size and quality. They might have an overwhelming Navy in numbers; but it did not follow that it would be efficient. Efficiency was very often the opposite to size, and he thought the rapid expenditure on the Navy, so far from being a source of additional strength, was rather the contrary. Everyone who was accustomed to business knew that rapid growth of expenditure did not bring with it an

  1429
  equal growth of efficiency. The Navy was not in any sense a means of adding to the productiveness and wealth of the country. It was merely a question of insurance; and if they over insured they would only be weakening their own position, because the money would have to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. Therefore, the Navy which was beyond the needs of the time, far from being a source of strength, was a source, of weakness. The hon. Gentleman spoke if having a greater standard than the three-Power standard, but there must be a limit somewhere, or they would all be ruined. There was one thing connected with the new naval scheme which was very unfortunate. They were putting a number of ships on the scrap heap, but they were not obtaining an equal reduction of expenditure. The Estimates showed a reduction of
  £3, 500, 000; but that was entirely obtained by a decrease in the amount spent on building and armaments. The actual cost of the Navy itself had increased by £168, 000. There were, two battleships, the "Hero" and the "Conqueror," which were practically unseaworthy, and that being so he would like to know why they were kept on the list at all? They should be put upon the scrap heap. He was bound to say he thought this programme was a very disappointing one, because whilst 155 ships were taken off the effective list there was no equivalent saving obtained. He hoped in the future some attempt would be made to reduce the cost of the maintenance of the Navy.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 262. (Division List No. 46)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. )

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. )

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N. )

  Ambrose, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N. )

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Blake, Edward

  Johnson, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennedy V. P. (Cavan, W. )

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett J. Compton

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Langley, Batty

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W. )

  Roche John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Scott Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan Daniel Daniel

  Devlin, J. (Kilkenny, N. )

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duffy, William J,

  M'Crae, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  M'Kean, John

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. )

  Newnes, Sir George

  Toulmin, George

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, James F. X (Cork)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid. )

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, P. (Meath, North)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R. )

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W. )

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Young, Samuel

  Labouchere and Mr. Black.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. )

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kerr, John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lambert, George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balcarres, Lord

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Maeonochie, A. W.

  Bigwood, James

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. )

  M'Arthur, Charles Liverpool)

  Bill, Charles

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bingham, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE. (Wigt'n

  Brassey, Albert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dunfriesshire)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bull, William James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. )

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry SEdm'nds

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Campbell Rt. Hn. J. A(Glasgow)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. )

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S. )

  Hope, J. F. (Sliefneld, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Crooks, William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Howard, J. Midd., (Tottenham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Denny, Colonel

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  1432

  1433

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Remnant, James Earquharson

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Smith. Abel H (Hertford, East)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Smith, Rt Hn. J Parker (Lanarks)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  White, Luke (York. E. R.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rose Charles Day

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Royds, Clements Molyneux

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Runeiman, Walter

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson. J. W. (Woreestersh. N.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Strutt, Hon Charles Hedley

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Thornburn, Sir Walter

  Yorburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. )

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Viscount Valentia.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tuff, Charles

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty on the question of flogging in the Navy was not at all satisfactory. Flogging had been abolished by statute in the mercantile marine of this country, in which a far greater number of boys were employed than in the Royal Navy. Why had it not been similarly abolished in the Navy? He objected to any system under which there was the least possibility of a man with all the rights of freedom and independence of manhood being subjected to punishment by a cat-o'-nine-tails. According to the present law no King's ship could go out of port without carrying the cat-o'-nine-tails as part of her equipment. By the Naval Act of 1884 flogging in the Navy was not abolished; it was merely suspended by an Order of the Queen in Council, which could be revoked at any moment by a stroke of the pen. He altogether objected to the shameful penalty of the lash; by the very nature of the system the power was bound to be abused. Personally he had had great difficulty in believing that things as they were really existed. The punishment as denned by Article 759 of the King's Regulations was an outrage not only on the victim, but also upon the boys who were compelled to witness it. He read extracts from letters from naval officers and others describing the punishment and the "devilish skill" with which various strokes were invented with a view to
  1434
  making the pain more lasting. In one case two Australian naval officers who were on board were invited to witness a flogging, but they were so disgusted with what they saw that they at once left the ship. Dockyard Members might well take into consideration what boys who enlisted in the Navy from their constituencies were liable to. The frequent outrages on training ships, the attempts to burn the ships, and so on, were the result solely of this horrible system which degraded the boys and produced the feeling that they had been forsaken by God and man. It was not the case that flogging was inflicted only in rare instances. The cane was really the punishment for all offences. Last year there were 350 floggings by birch ordered by commanders in proprio motu and six by courts-martial, making 356 in all. But in the Royal Navy one could be caned for every minor offence, and caning was the punishment of the day. There were about 10, 000 minor offences, and he was not exaggerating when he said that at least 8, 000 of those were visited by the punishment of caning.
  The hon. Gentleman had said lie would make inquiries. What was wanted was an inquiry into the whole system. For months he had been trying to get information from the Secretary to the Admiralty, and he had only succeeded after a cross-examination which was like taking so many drops of blood from him, and he would not now tell them what punishments were visited by the cane and the birch. The Admiralty had gone so far

  1435
  as to post notices in the dockyards stating that anyone who gave information on this question would be dismissed. He had asked to be allowed to see the birches, cat-o'-nine-tails, and the lashes, but he wits not allowed to see them, although they were bought with public money and used upon the sons of our people. The sons of the rich were allowed to inflict this degrading punishment upon the sons of the poor, and the people of England would not stand it when they knew the facts which were being so carefully concealed. He should continue to denounce this system of flogging until it was abolished. The hon. Member said that he had not heard of a single hard case, but he knew of many cases within the last few months. He was sure they were all ready to defend poor little boys who had their lives tyrannised over by an atrocious and villainous system. A case had occurred on board the "Victory." That children should be subject to abominations of that kind was an outrage. A few weeks ago, on the "Victory," a boy was brought up for an assault upon the commanding officer, committed whilst he was witnessing one of his comrades being birched. In that case a number of boys were brought up to witness another boy receive twenty strokes with a birch rod. In an excess of emotion for his comrade who was being birched, one of the boys rushed out of the ranks and assaulted the commanding officer. That was outrageous conduct on the part of the boy, but it would not have occurred if the boys had not been brought up to see this outrageous scene. This boy was given twenty-four lashes, and that illustrated the horrors of the system. This information he got from a paragraph in The Times.
  There could be no palliation for this system, and there was nothing in the Royal Navy which made flogging necessary. He would take precious good care to make this a public question at the coming election, and candidates would be asked whether they approved of a system whereby boys in the Navy were liable to such punishments. He had been asked by the hon. Member for King's Lynn what the offences were. He was by no means a humanitarian, and he was not opposed to the lash for abominable crimes. Men who assaulted
  1436
  women and committed highway robberies were proper subjects for the lash, bat he did not think innocent boys, between fourteen and eighteen years of age, who happened under exceptional circumstances to irritate a commanding officer, should be subjected to this punishment, and such an infliction could not be justified. These boys were guilty of offences which were largely due to their surroundings, and they were the victims of society. Those in authority should try the effects of gentleness and kindness, and those who were not susceptible to those influences should not remain in the King's service. He was quite content to place this matter before the public in its present light. At the present time boys could be caned for almost any offence, such as smoking, having soiled tunics, not being able to swim and being disrespectful to superiors, and boys had been known to attempt suicide for fear of these punishments. Those were everyday occurrences in the Navy. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "Oh, oh!"] On one of His Majesty's ships flogging took place upon every day in the year, and in one year there were 8, 000 callings in the Navy. This system was not for the good of the boys, and commanders adopted this system of terrorism because it was easier than taking the trouble to achieve the same end by kindness and discipline. On each ship with 1, 000 men on board there were frequently two or three boys in punishment cells below water-mark, where they were fed for twenty-four hours on bread and water to prepare them for punishment. If that system was not an abuse of everything that savoured of humanity or Christian principles then he was certainly mistaken.
  He could not believe that every one of those who had been corresponding with him and writing to The Times and other newspapers about things which they had seen and heard were stating things which were not true. The system at present in existence ought not to be allowed to exist for one moment. He believed that these poor little mites were subjected to this torture and degrading ordeal for offences in respect of which a boy at school would get some trivial punishment. The question the Committee had to consider was whether

  1437
  they were not allowing children to have their whole lives destroyed by this treatment. He had in his hand a letter from a man who described what he had seen in the Navy. He stated that the birch used was two-and-a-half pounds in weight, that the man who applied it practised on a hammock, or anything convenient, and that flossing had been brought up to a fine art. The writer stated that he had been employed on a training ship as a messenger. On board that ship there was a big chap who used to make it a brag, when a birching was coming off, that he could with twelve strokes knock the victim insensible, and he generally did it. He further stated—
  "I would sooner see anyone belonging to me a cripple or under the earth than in the Navy, and I strongly advise all parents to keep their sons as far from it as they possibly can. Put them to anything but the Navy, for to the end of my days I will never forget those terrible times of my life in the training ship."
  The hon. Member read a recruiting officer's advertisement for boys for the Navy, in which it was stated that they could be received with or without the parents' consent. Was that man still occupying the same position? He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him, and he also expressed his gratitude to the Press for the support given to his protest against flogging in the Navy. He hoped the people of England would take up this matter. So far as Ireland was concerned, they would take good care that their boys did not go into the Navy. Flogging in the Army had been abolished, and he appealed to hon. Members to help in putting it flown in the Navy. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 571. 500, be granted for the said Service. "—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal that he never was either birched or caned in his youth. If he had been it would have been better.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I was both.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid at all events it was quite evident that the
  1438
  hon. Member had never been on board a warship, and that he did not know in the least what he was talking about. He wished to refer to a point of very important detail in connection with the Mediterranean Fleet.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is out of order in discussing the general question until we have dealt with this.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid it would be a disgrace to English Members of the House were they not to join in this solemn protest against the continued infliction of those cruelties in connection with one of the highest branches of the public service. There was no service which in his estimation was more honourable and more necessary than the Navy. In speaking thus he did not limit his remark in any degree to the superior officers. Every boy on board a fighting vessel was part of the fighting sytem, and was entitled to the same consideration and honour, and the same immunity from cruelty and oppression, as any officer or man. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth created merriment by stating that the hon. Member for South Donegal could not have received chastisement in his youth. Let him assure the Committee that never since he possessed a leg and a foot and a pair of boots did any man living ever offer punishment to him without receiving his reward. Notwithstanding that, he submitted that he should have made a moderately efficient sailor if it had been his fortune in his youth to have had his life directed into that channel. He had no confidence whatever in punishment producing efficiency. To draw a parallel between public-school flogging and flogging in the Navy was to his mind nonsense. Every boy entering a public school went there with the knowledge that if he committed a breach of discipline punishment of some kind or another would follow. Boys were not told when they were sworn into the Navy that the cat-o'-nine-tails, birches or canes were awaiting them.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: There is no
  cat-o'-nine-tails.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There is.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the cat-o'-nine-tails was a suspended, and not an abolished, instrument. The Secretary to the Admiralty should face the facts as they were. He would gain no strength by trying to evade the main point at issue. A boy at a public school could be recalled at any moment on complaint by his parents if they thought he was being unjustly and too severely punished. A boy in the Navy could not be withdrawn on complaint by the parents if they thought he was being unjustly and too severely punished. To say that the two positions were similar was to talk cheap nonsense calculated to appeal to the frivolity of hon. Members, and not to deal with a serious matter in a proper way. While the boys of the poor were subjected to these degrading operations boys of the superior class in the ship were not so treated. Was there a man there who dared stand up and say that boys of the superior class Were not as capable of, and as much inclined for, mischief as the others? What were the records of the Army which had brought disgrace on that branch of the service? His complaint was that the very class of boys who were subjected to this torture and indignity, the shame of which sometimes lasted through the life of a poor wretched creature, was the class least capable of making their complaints heard or bringing them under public notice. [Interruption.] This debate should really be carried on seriously; and, so far as he was concerned, he would support every effort to put an end to this degrading torture.
  The Secretary to the Admiralty occupied a post of great distinction which any man might be proud to hold, but could he occupy it with analloyed pride when he knew that he was at the head of a Department which submitted weak and tender children to the mercy of incapable, ill-tempered, inefficient officers in charge of a ship? Naval officers should possess, besides fighting and flogging qualities, those of management of human nature. They should be humane, just, and capable of treating those under them as God-made human creatures entitled to the same rights and treatment as they themselves were. A man of that kind could manage a ship and its crew, including the boys, without
  1440
  submitting them to this degradation. Until this system of punishment was abolished, and discipline and order maintained by kindness on the part of the commanders, they would not have a Navy which carried satisfaction and pride into the cottage homes of England. [Interruption and laughter.] He had not seen a more degrading exhibition of merriment in the House for the last quarter of a century; and he was amazed that any constituency could send a Member to the House who was capable of such levity on such a serious matter. He knew he spoke with feeling, but that was because he belonged to the class from which the ships of the Navy were manned. During the last fifteen years he had signed many scores of papers swearing in the youth of his neighbourhood into the service of the British Navy. When so engaged he had always done his best to impress on the lads the virtues of discipline and sobriety. Well, he had always exercised that power to the best of his ability, and he hoped it had not been without fruit in after life if he was to judge by the progress of many of those lads who in later years visited him to report their life's work in the Navy. If the parents or guardians of boys who desired to enlist in the Navy realised that the tender flesh of their precious ones was to be subjected to laceration, either through the passionate temper or inefficiency of the ship's commander, they would hesitate a long time before they consented or encouraged their boys to enter the service. In conclusion he made are earnest appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty to report to his superiors the full and strong feeling which existed amongst the people's representatives against the continuance of this brutality of flogging. The infamous system could be destroyed at once and for ever without the least possible danger to the discipline and efficiency of the British Navy. He believed that the Secretary to the Admiralty was himself a kind-hearted man, who lived in that part of the country which supplied some of the finest seamen in the world to the Navy and the merchant service. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit the fishing and rural villages of his own county he would find that the feeling against flogging was as strong there as

  1441
  he had attempted to express; and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would mark the tenure of his office by securing the abolition of this degrading punishment in the Royal Navy.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he had already dealt with the subject, and it would be merely wasting the time of the House if he repeated his statement. If there were any proof of undue severity, or anything approaching cruelty, there would be just as much indignation on his side of the House as on the other; and it would be the manifest duty of the Board of Admiralty immediately to put an end to it. But the essential thing missing in the whole structure of vehement denunciation to which the House had listened was that there had not been a single definite authenticated case brought forward of any undue severity or any cruelty. There was neither chapter nor verse. As far as the Admiralty were aware, the punishment which took place in the Navy was exactly similar to that which took place at school. One point made was as to the weight of the birch, and an hon. Member opposite, happened to possess an Eton birch, and had said that the weight of the Eton birch was equal to the combined weight of the Home Office birch and the Navy birch, even after it had suffered some loss of weight by attrition. He did not want to make a joke on a serious subject, but his point was that this was not a serious subject. It would be a serious subject if there were any undue severity or cruelty in the infliction of the punishment, but there was not, it being, in fact, but a part of the ordinary system of dealing with the youth of the country.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this complaint was in any sense or in any degree a waste of the time of the House. It was a serious subject well deserving of different consideration to that which had been given it by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The real question was whether the system of punishing boys, which now prevailed in the Navy, was a good system or not; and to arrive at a conclusion the Committee should be told exactly what the system was. There
  1442
  were two classes of boys in the Navy—the officer class from the "Britannia" and the seamen class from Greenwich. The discrimination between these two classes of boys in the Navy was now more strict, and therefore more indefensible, than it used to be. When he was at the Admiralty he had the opportunities of comparing the two classes of boys with respect to attainments and manners, and he declared solemnly that he could make no discrimination at all between them. He, therefore, put the Question, did the same system of corporal punishment prevail with respect to both classes of boys?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Yes. The boys from the "Britannia" are liable to the same corporal punishment as the boys from Greenwich. The system is exactly the same as it was when the hon. Gentleman was at the Admiralty.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was a long time since he was a lad and the question was not raised in his time. That Answer was quite unworthy of the Question, and quite unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. The system was not to be justified or condemned because it was or was not the system in vogue ten years ago. His second Question was: by what authority, and after what sort of inquiry, was this violence administered to the boys?
  MR. HUNTsaid, in his opinion the hon. Member for Donegal had brought some very serious charges against the management of boys in the Navy. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but they did not laugh at such things when they were at school. He had been swished several times and no doubt it had done him good, but that was quite another matter if it was as the hon. Gentleman opposite had said. He had not the slightest doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty believed that it was not, but the question was did he really know? He could remember very well seeing boys in private schools flogged very cruelly indeed, and he thought it was not a good way of getting out of this by saying that no case had been properly found out and proved. How was it going to be proved, who was

  1443
  going to see it, and who would dare to give it away? He thought they might fairly ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to make absolutely certain that nothing of the sort could possibly occur, and to see that boys should only be flogged for certain very serious offences.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)said the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down went to the root of the question. Nobody suggested that when the Secretary to the Admiralty denied the accuracy of the charges made he was trying to mislead the House, or questioned the truthfulness of his statement. He was quite certain that what the hon. Gentleman stated he thoroughly believed. The question was whether a case had been made out for a full and impartial inquiry into the system of flogging in the Navy. They were very much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question forward. The hon. Member had performed a useful public service in so doing. It was perfectly idle for hon. Gentlemen to shut their eyes to the fact that there was a feeling growing up in the country that this system of flogging in the Navy was carried on to an unjustifiable extent. He had no desire to go into the merits or the details of this particular case, but merely to refer to the general aspect. His sympathy was against this form of punishment altogether, and to compare the swishings which boys received in schools with the form of punishment inflicted upon boys in the Navy was absolutely absurd. The form of punishment inflicted in the Navy was more severe than the punishment meted out to those sentenced by the magistrates under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and it was idle and absurd to say that that punishment was the same as that inflicted on boys in our public schools.
  There was one other question. The hon. Member for South Donegal had said that when he had endeavoured to see the instruments which were used for inflicting this form of punishment he was refused permission to see them. If that was so it was a very serious thing. If the hon. Member was not allowed to see these instruments he would
  1444
  like to know why. If, as the Secretary to the Admiralty stated, this was a proper form of punishment, why was this concealment resorted to? One would have thought that if the authorities had such an excellent case for the continuance of this form of punishment, they would have, instead of concealing it, given every possible facility to his hon. friend for seeing the instruments with which it was inflicted. Speaking upon this question, he had in his mind the flogging of boys from sixteen to eighteen years of age. He believed the age up to which a boy could be flogged in the Navy was eighteen; he thought it ought to be sixteen, but what he desired to draw attention to in speaking upon this question was that the whole tendency of our legislation was against this form of punishment. He was not going to say that for boys up to the age of sixteen it ought to be eliminated altogether. He would not for a moment put it so high as that. He remembered some years ago an hon. Member introducing a Bill into this House to legalise the punishment of flogging for men guilty of offences towards women and children. [Cheers.] Hon. Members cheered, but the House refused to accept that Bill. A full debate was held upon it, and the late Lord Ridley, then Home Secretary, said that it was a form of punishment that all official experience was against, and so far as he was concerned he would not be able to support it. Three or four years ago there was introduced a Bill dealing with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and containing a clause by which magistrates were to have further powers to order sentences of birching for boys for certain offences. That was a Government measure, but after the debate the Government of the day had to withdraw the birching clause because the opinion of the House and of people experienced in such matters was against that form of punishment. If, therefore, it had been shown that the general tendency of legislation and of public opinion was against this form of punishment, did not the hon. Gentleman think a case had been made out for a full and impartial inquiry as to what was actually going on in the Navy? While not agreeing with everything that had been said in the debate, he thought a strong case for

  1445
  inquiry had been made out, and he suggested that the Secretary to the Admiralty would be rendering a great public service and doing good to the Navy by promising an impartial investigation into this matter.
  MR. MAJENDIEsaid there were two sides to this question. In the course of his speech the other day, the hon. Member for South Donegal made certain observations to which he, as representing a naval constituency, felt bound to take exception. He said that everybody who joined the Navy was liable to be flogged whether he deserved it or not. That was a very great aspersion to cast upon naval officers. He supposed that the hon. Member was quite aware that birching might not be administered without a warrant and that, by Clause 759 of the King's Regulations, Section 20, the punishment was to be awarded by warrant, and that on a ship currying a flag or broad pennant the approval of the flag officer or commodore in command had to be obtained. So that the hon. Member cast aspersions, not only on other naval officers, but also on the commodores and admirals in making that statement. The hon. Member illustrated his point by one or two stories. The first was about a boy who was flogged on board the "Lion," and he said that boy fainted during the course of castigation, was brought to, and flogged again.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That did not occur. I did not give any samples of specific flogging on board the "Lion," The case to which the hon. Member refers I repeated from a letter. I said that the boys were birched and caned for not being able to swim properly.
  MR. MAJENDIEthought, at any rate, that in one ship the hon. Member said birching took place, that the boy fainted, and was brought to and flogged again. He wished to point out that by the Regulations it was essential that a medical officer should be present, and if the hon. Member's statement was correct it would be perfectly easy to verify it and bring that medical officer to Court-martial. He believed that the letter in which this was stated was anonymous.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I know the name of the writer and could give it. As far as I am concerned the letter was given to me by a clergyman of the Anglican Church, who thoroughly believed in its authenticity.
  MR. MAJENDIEconsidered that if the clergyman were a humane man no doubt he would publish the letter and get the doctor tried by Court-martial. The hon. Member also stated that lie knew of another boy who was birched for stealing a postal order. He thought he remembered that case. The boy stole a postal order from another poor boy on the ship. If he remembered aright the hon. Member expressed some indignation because the boy was dismissed from the service and then flogged. He thought the hon. Member was putting the cart before the horse. The probability was that the boy was first flogged and then dismissed. He would like to point out what the alternative might have been. That boy might perfectly well have been sent to prison for a term of one or two years with hard labour. Which was the more humane—to flog him there and then and to dismiss him from the ship, or to blight his life by imprisonment? As regarded caning in the Navy, hon. Members opposite said that midshipmen and naval cadets were not punished. Not long ago there was a certain amount of bullying on board the "Britannia" which was put down by the captain, who was now a distinguished admiral, instituting a system by which cadets were flogged in public before the other boys. Caning went on on board the training ship "Isis" when necessary, and he did not think the statement that it was the case of the rich flogging the poor applied at all, as flogging was administered to the rich as well as to the poor, Since last week he had had the opportunity of talking to a great many sailors of all grades in the service upon this subject, and he had not come across one who had a word to say against flogging or caning in the British Navy. They all admitted that it was necessary, and that it was far better that a boy should receive caning as a punishment than be confined to the ship, or have his leave stopped. As he had

  1447
  the honour of representing a naval constituency, he felt strongly that in bringing this matter forward the hon. Member had cast very serious aspersious indeed upon the honour and humanity of the Bristish naval officer, and he thoroughly and entirely repudiated them.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid the hon. Member opposite had avoided the main point of the indictment of the hon. Member for South Donegal, and had attempted to ride off on a side issue. The question at issue was not the humanity or reputation of naval officers, but whether there existed in the Navy at the present time a practice which was abhorrent to every instinct of humanity, and discreditable to the authorities who permitted it. The Secretary to the Admiralty had not treated the matter in a manner worthy of his high office. A paymaster of the Royal Navy had written a letter declaring that it was a hateful and an abominable thing that these lads should be flogged, and stating that when he witnessed this degrading punishment he was ashamed of the uniform he wore. He contended that a conclusive case had been made out for investigation, and he hoped the hon. Member would do something to signalise the administration of his high office by granting an inquiry which would put an end to the public feeling which had been aroused. The Irish Members regarded this subject with great interest, because it recalled the early days of Mr. Parnell and the great and successful fight ho made in abolishing flogging in the British Army. At that time Mr. Parnell was accused of trying to bring discredit upon the British Army and the British Empire, but he stuck to his contention, and he had the satisfaction of securing the, alliance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and between them the fight for the abolition of flogging in the Army was brought to a successful issue, and one of the greatest reproaches to the British Army was removed. He was perfectly satisfied that they were now only at the beginning of this great struggle, and however much hon. Member
  opposite might laugh and sneer, this fight would go on until this scandal was put an end to. At the end of this fight his hon. friend the Member for South Donegal would be looked up to as a man who had rendered a very valuable service to the cause of humanity in this country.
  When the question of flogging in the Army was being considered in the House, hon. Members were given an opportunity of seeing in the House the instruments used for flogging, and he could not see why similar facilities should not be given at the present time in regard to flogging in the Navy. His hon. and learned friend the Member for South Donegal had asked that a sample of the cat-o'-nine-tails should be brought to the House for hon. Members to inspect. Why was a distinction to be made in allowing hon. Members to see the instruments used for punishment in the Army and not those used in the Navy? As far as Irishmen were concerned, the Irish Catholic bishops had issued a warning against Irish boys joining the British Navy, and the result of this debate would be to increase the determination of the Irish people to see that none of their children should enter the British Navy.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid that if the Secretary to the Admiralty would rise and state that in accordance with the demand from all parts of the House he would grant such an inquiry as had been asked for, he would give way and not continue the discussion.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Admiralty would be quite ready to investigate any case the particulars of which were submitted, but he could not admit that any case for public inquiry had been made out. He moved that the Question be now put.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put. "
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes. 161. (Division List No. 47. )

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invern'ss B'ghs

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. )

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow)

  Ba carres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Garfit, William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goschen, Hon. (George Joachim

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Myers, William Henry

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Bigwood, James

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bill, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bingham, Lord

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Blundel, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Bond, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bull, William James

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Purvis, Robert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Randles, John S.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. )

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby shire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bright side

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Horner, Frederick William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robinson, Brooke

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Kerr, John

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Keswick, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. )

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sackvilie, Col. S. G. Stop ford

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Crossley, Rt, Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR)

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. )

  Gust, Henry John C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. )

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stroyan, John

  Doughty, Sir George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tuff, Charles

  Followes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  1450

  1451

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. )

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parrott, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rea, Russell

  Ambrose, Robert

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Reddy, M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Bell, Richard

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roche, John

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runciman, Walter

  Boland, John

  Jones William (Carnarvonshire

  Russell, T. W.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Gavan, W

  Shackleton, David James

  Burns, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

  Lambert, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W. )

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cromer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crooks, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. )

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin George

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  M'Crae, George

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, Frank

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Ellis, John Edward(Notts)

  Murphy, John

  white George(Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  white Luke (York, E. R. )

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R. )

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. )

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. )

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. )

  Young, Samuel

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N. )

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. )

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  MacNeill and Mr. Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Devlin.

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 671, 500, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 235. (Division List No. 48)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. )

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Parrott, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Ambrose, Robert

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Black, Alexander William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roche, John

  Boland, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Russell, T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Cldwell, James

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  shackleton, David James

  Campbell, John(Armagh, S. )

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy David

  Chinning, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith Samuel (Flint)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Soares Ernest J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. )

  Sullivan Donal

  Crooks, William

  Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Cullinan, J.

  Layland-Barratt Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. )

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Tomkinson James

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin George

  Dovlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N. )

  M'Arthur, William (Gornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Wallace Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Warner, Thomas Countenay T.

  Edwards Frank

  Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  white, Luke (York, E. R. )

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whiteley, George, (York W. R)

  Evans, Samuel, T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph(Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick Charles

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co. )

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. )

  Young, Samuel

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. )

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farness, Sir Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Gurddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N. )

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  MacNeill and Mr. Broad-

  Harwood, George

  O'Mara, James

  hurst.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chiristch. )

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. )

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Bigwood, James

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bill, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Myers, William Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hamiton Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq of (Lond'nderry)

  Percy, Earl

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins Frederick

  Bull, William James

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. )

  Pym, C. Guy

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyahire)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Randles, John S.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

  Remnant, James (Farquharson)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ridley S. Forde

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

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Keswick, William

  Robinson, Brooke

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Corbett T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Laurence Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. )

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Spear, John Ward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. )

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stroyan, John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Maclver, David(Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv. )

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ. (Manch'r

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finlay, Sir RB. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H E. (Wigt'n)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Welby, Lt. -Col. AC. E. (Taunton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. )

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

  Garfit, William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gibbs. Hon. A. G. H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow)

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  1456

  1457

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Viscount Valentia.

  Mr. PRETYMANclaimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 672, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and
  Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending March 31st, 1906, "put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 49.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Haslam, Sir Alfred, S.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, Sir. James (Staffords. NW)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Crooks, William

  Helder Augustus

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. )

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hope, JF. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Arroll, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Horner, Frederick William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kerr, John

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Charles. M. (Lanark)

  Keswick, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Egerton, Hon A. de Tatton

  Lambert, George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone)

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Bigwood, James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Bill, Charles

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Bingham, Lord

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

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Bond, Edward

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Bowles, Lt-Col. HF. (Middlesex)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bull, William James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwoord, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Butcher, John George

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Caldwell, James

  Gibbs. Hon. A. G. H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs. )

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Gretton, John

  Majendia, James A. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clive, Captain Percy A

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x)

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. )

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E, (Chiehester)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robinson, Brooke

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tuff, Charles

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Runciman, Walter

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Welby, Sir Charles GE. (Notts. )

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

  White, Luke (York E. R. )

  Partington, Oswald

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. )

  Williams. Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Percy, Earl

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, H C. (North'mbTynside)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks. )

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Smith, Samuel(Flint)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Pym, C. Guy

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Randles, John S.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs. )

  Viscount Valentia.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stroyan, John

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E. )

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Malley, William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Mara, James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Parrott, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reddy, M.

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs. )

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John

  Burns, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Sheehy, David

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theordore C. (Radcliffe

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Ure, Alexander

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Davies, Alfred(Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wallace, Robert

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway

  M'Kean, John

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N. )

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Duffy, William J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R. )

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murphy, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts. )

  Nannetti, Joseph, P.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Noian, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. )

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Young, Samuel

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N. E

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Sir

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. )

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N. )

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    THE CITY OF LONDON (ESCAPE FROM FIRE) BILL. (BY ORDER).
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time. "
    MR. JOHN BURNSstated that an arrangement had been come to by which this measure was to receive a Second Reading that night. The opponents of the other Bill, which was promoted by the London County Council, had agreed not to object to the Second Reading of this measure on condition that the Council, on whose behalf he spoke, withdrew all except a certain portion of it. Both parties, however, reserved full rights before the Committee which would consider the Bills. In these circumstances he did not move the rejection of the City of London Bill.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITHon behalf of the Metropolitan Unionist Members, agreed to the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member for Battersea. Part 8 of the County Council Bill would not be opposed by the London Unionist Members, who agreed that that part of the Bill, together with the City of London Bill, should be read a second time.
    MR. BIGWOODsaid that this arrangement also had the consent of the other opponents of the Bill.

    LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT BILL). (BY ORDER).
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time. "
    SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEremarked that on the distinct understanding that the whole of the clauses of the Bill were expunged with the exception of Part 8, Clauses 95 to 109, he did not oppose the Second Reading. The City Corporation reserved to themselves the right to take what course they deemed proper when the Bill came before a Committee of the House.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have nothing to add to the statements already made.

    DISTRESS IN WEST OF IRELAND.
    MR. HAYDENrose to call attention to the distress in the West of Ireland; and to move, "That this House is of opinion that the Government has failed in its duty in not anticipating the distress which is so prevalent in the West of Ireland, ample warning of which was given by the condition of the crops during the past two years; that the methods adopted to cope with the distress were proved by previous experience to be ineffective, demoralising, and wasteful, and that the enforcement of Clause 13 of the Local Government Act inflicts a great in justice on the poorest counties in Ireland; and that it considers it one of the first duties of any Government to make suitable provision for meeting such visitations; and that it declares that the present distress is of a preventable character, and due entirely to the unnatural conditions prevailing in the West of Ireland by which the agricultural population is banished from the good lands and compelled to live on holdings incapable of providing a decent

    1463
    maintenance for a family; and that it calls upon the Government at once to take all necessary action, whether of an administrative or a legislative character, permanently to remove the causes which have led to the present and previous periods of distress and famine in that part of Ireland. "The hon. Member said his Amendment dealt with the state of chronic poverty to be found in Connaught and similarly situated districts, and their contention was that no such distress ought to exist; that it was unnatural, and artificial and the result of a social system which had been encouraged by the Government of this country, and was a direct result of its maladministration. To Irishmen, and particularly to those who came from the Province of Connaught, it was most humiliating to have to bring before Parliament the woes and sorrows of their people, and to have to speak of them before those who in the main knew absolutely nothing and, he feared, cared almost as little about the people. Whilst unquestionably the name of Connaught had been identified in that House, and, indeed, throughout the world, with distress, poverty, and famine, it was not because the district was poor, but it was because the people were separated from the land which by right belonged to them, and because they were driven from it by cruel laws passed by this country and by a garrison which was kept in Ireland for its subjugation.
    He would first say a few words as to the present distress which, after all, was merely a little aggravation of what was chronic in the district. Two years ago there was an abnormal rainfall in the western part of Ireland, and such was its effect on the crops in the district that everybody acquainted with the facts were well aware that serious consequences to the poor must follow. The potato was the staple article of diet; it was the food on which most of the people lived, and it was almost the only article of food that had escaped the clutches of the tax-gatherer. Well, to such an extent did the rainfall affect the potato crop that many of the boards of guardians in the West of Ireland called the attention of the Irish Local Government Board to the matter and asked that power should be given to the local authorities to distribute seed potatoes in the following spring.
    1464
    On examining The Parliamentary Debates for last year it would be found that the very first Question put in the House of Commons that session was one asked by the hon. Member for North Roscommon, and addressed to the Government requesting it to take this very matter into consideration. But at that time it was an Englishman who was ruling Ireland—and he professed to know more about Ireland and more about Connaught than the inhabitants themselves, or than those who in Parliament represented the people who were suffering. Consequently they were told that the failure of the potato crop was a little figment of their imagination. It was not then suggested by boards of guardians that there was such a failure as would result in distress, but it was stated that there was such a failure as would bring about a scarcity and poverty of seed in the following spring. That prediction was justified by results, and, early in the autumn of last year, resolutions were passed by boards of guardians and other public bodies in the West of Ireland calling attention to the fact. Representations were also made to the Chief Secretary and to the Local Government Board to the effect that there was a prospect of a period of very serious distress which might almost amount to a famine in that district. Yet nothing whatever was done, and no action was taken until notice was given of a meeting of the Irish Parliamentary Party, to be held in Dublin in December last, to take the matter into consideration. On the very eve of that meeting, and not until then, a circular was issued by the Local Government Board stating that power would be conferred upon local authorities and boards of guardians to provide seed potatoes for the people in the spring. To the mind of the Irish Members and of the people of the district that was not the proper way to meet the difficulty. In the first place the money for the seed potatoes had, afterwards, to be refunded by these very poor people, and not only had it to be refunded, but interest had to be paid upon it. That was contrary to all precedent set on previous similar occasions.
    Some slight steps had since been taken by the Government, under pressure from local public bodies, to provide for the

    1465
    temporary distress, but they were scarcely worth speaking of. One of the proposals was to put Clause 13 of the Local Government Act into operation. This was the first occasion on which it had been proposed to put it in force. The effect of the clause was to extend the powers of outdoor relief, and to extend the area of charge from the union in which the relief was paid to the entire county. It ought to be borne in mind that these districts, at the very best of times and in the most prosperous years, were poverty-stricken, and that the people found it hard even then to pay the local rates. There was plenty of evidence of that in the Blue-books, and one of the things of which the poorer parts of Ireland most strongly complained was that the rates constituted a heavy and crushing burden. Yet, in order to meet an alarming state of distress, the rates were to be added to; the people were to be called upon to repay the money which might be lent for the purchase of seed potatoes so as to prevent the inhabitants perishing from starvation, and, in addition, the Treasury were to receive full interest on the advances. Another proposal of the Government was to set up under the direction of local boards certain relief works, on which no more than one member of a family was allowed to be employed, and the maximum amount of wage which he was to be permitted to earn was one shilling for a working day of eight hours. Those were the entire proposals of the Government for meeting the distress. They were paltry in the extreme, and only had to be described in order to prove how absurd they were. After all, hon. Members on his side of the House did not feel that this distress was anything more than temporary. But they held that unless proper steps were taken such distress would recur every few years, for it was merely a step from the chronic poverty of the best of times to the misery and starvation of these extraordinary periods of trouble.
    What was the real cause of this distress? It was not the rainfall that drove the people almost to the verge of famine, it was not the failure of the potato crop, for Connaught was a province richly endowed by nature. But it was the fact that the people
    1466
    had been banished from the land; it was the fact that the agricultural industry was carried on under such conditions that it was impossible for it to prosper. He would give one or two illustrations. In his own constituency there was one district, the western portion of the Castlereagh Union, the laud valuation of which was £25, 000. Upon that no fewer than 5, 000 families were seated while adjoining it was another district, with a similar valuation, which had only 500 families upon it. Every one of the 5, 000 families was engaged in the agricultural industry, while in the case of the 500 families at least one-third were herds and cottiers employed by the rich graziers. In the poorer portion of Connaught land was valued at 3s. 6d. per acre, and there were settled upon it twenty-four families per mile, whilst on the better lands, which were valued at 17s. per acre, there were only eight families to the mile. The same tale could be told of other counties in the province—60 per cent. of the agricultural population had to live upon holdings with a valuation of under £5, while 900 families had holdings valued at over £50 and comprising an area of 160, 000 acres. These figures alone would show the importance of this subject—the importance of getting the people back to the land from which they had been banished by English law, and that alone was the remedy for the distress, poverty, and famine, which had been artificially created not merely by the law, but by bad administration of it. He would urge upon the members of the present Irish Government, the chief of whom he understood was over in Ireland studying for the first time the social condition of the country of which in a few days he would be as absolute a ruler as the Czar of all the Russias—he would appeal, he said, to the Irish Government to deal sariously and sympathetically with this matter. They were not asking for doles to be given out to the poor people; they were not asking for charity. All they were asking was that the land which was now almost all left to waste, the best of the land of the province, should be given back to the people and that they should have some little chance of securing a return for their industry upon their own land.

    1467
    He did not propose that night to speak on the land question generally, or to go into it as it affected the western province. But it was impossible to deal with this matter of distress in the West of Ireland without referring to the causes of it as suggested in the Amendment. The existence of evil conditions had been admitted by successive Governments, and some years ago, in order to bring about an improved state of affairs, the Congested Districts Board was set up. He did not wish to find fault with the work of that Board so far as it had gone; on the contrary, the fault they had to find with it was not that its work had been bad but that there had not been enough of it. No doubt in the beginning it was reasonable enough that the Board should proceed cautiously and experimentally. But admittedly the period of experiment had long passed, and what they now asked was that the operations of the Board should go on on a larger scale and that it should not be content with merely buying small untenanted farms here and there and splitting them up, but that it should buy up large estates in the province and resettle the people upon them by taking the occupiers off their bog holdings and bringing them back to the land which could be usefully cultivated, and which would be far more beneficial to the country than having it merely occupied by cattle and sheep.
    Now, the object of his Motion that night was principally to suggest a real remedy for the chronic poverty that existed, and to urge upon the Government to see that the Congested Districts Board worked more quickly than it now did. They complained that when exceptional periods of distress occurred merely old methods were adopted to meet them. They complained further that something was not done by the Congested Districts Board to purchase more land and to utilise it for the purpose of abolishing existing conditions, instead of throwing the burden upon boards of guardians who were not really a suitable authority to carry out this work. In former years when boards of guardians were called upon to do this work they were the only public bodies in existence, but now, under the Congested Districts Board, they had parish committees, while under the Agricultural Department there were
    1468
    county committees, and surely administrative work of this kind should be undertaken by one or other or both of those bodies. They also complained that the Agricultural Department, which was started first and foremost for the purpose of improving the agricultural industry had, although it had now been five or six years in existence, done absolutely nothing to improve or to experiment upon the potato, which was the chief article of diet of the people. While they had been carrying out all kinds of experiments and schemes with regard to cattle, horses, poultry, and pigs, they had not done one single thing to place before the people an improved seed potato. Thus they had failed in the very first duty for which they were constituted. He was there that night to indict the Agricultural Department for I having failed in what was their bounden duty towards the people, and he would urge upon it that if it wished to justify its existence in the future it must devote some of its attention to this article of diet which was of so much importance to all classes of the people. That was a matter of vital necessity, and he again appealed to the Government to deal seriously, sympathetically, and quickly I with this problem, not only in its temporary but in its permanent aspect, to do its best, in a broader and more generous spirit than it had adopted up to the present, to relieve the temporary distress, and, above all, to take care that, in the future, by its administration of the Land Act of two years ago, and especially by its administration of that portion of the Act which dealt with congested districts, there should be no recurrence of these periods of distress. After all, this was a matter which rested entirely with the Government; these periods of distress were not the result of bad weather, they were not the visitation of Providence, but they were the direct result of British maladministration of the country, and it was in order to prevent them that the Irish Members asked that the Land Act and the Congested Districts Boards should, in future, be administered in a wider and more generous spirit.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the chances of the ballot which enabled his hon. friend to move this

    1469
    Resolution were welcomed by him and all his colleagues of the Irish Party, not only because they knew from past experience that his hon. friend would be able to place his case ably and forcibly before the House, but because they recognised no more suitable man to move the Motion which he had now the pleasure of seconding. His hon. friend was not only a Connaught man, intimately conversant with the affairs of Connaught, but was Member for the county over a large portion of which the present distress existed, and he was therefore able to speak with authority on the matter. He had risen to second the Motion because he was anxious to emphasise this one point—that this was not merely a Connaught question. It was not merely a western or a north-western question. The distress of which his hon. friend complained affected other parts of the country. The problem with which his hon. friend had been dealing in his speech, and to which his Motion referred, was one which affected the whole country. This was the real Irish question. This was the problem which had made the Irish land wars in the past. It was this problem which had been the cause of all the strife and turmoil, the misery, crime, and bloodshed which had marked the history of the land question in Ireland, and until this problem was settled it was vain to hope that the Irish land question could be disposed of. When his hon. friend was speaking, bearing in mind the real nature of his case, knowing that the problem he was dealing with was the peace and content of Ireland, he looked round the House and counted, on both sides of the House, exactly five British Members who had considered this question serious enough for them to come and be present at the discussion. Ah, Mr. Speaker, it was the old story. When the Irish land question blazed into semi-revolt, crime, and bloodshed, then the benches of the House were crowded with Members of various Parties who came ready to denounce the violence of Irish agitators and the Irish people. But when, in a time of peace, the representatives of the Irish people came there to place in a serious and moderate spirit before the House of Commons the appalling facts of the situation, and to ask the Government of the country to take some steps
    1470
    to prevent starvation and famine in certain portions of Ireland, then they had an example of the knowledge of Irish affairs and of the sympathy with Ireland in the emptiness of those benches! Aye, the emptiness of the Liberal benches was as disgraceful as the emptiness of the Government benches. He maintained that this was the real Irish land question, and that until this problem was solved it was vain to hope for a settlement of the Irish land question or a general appeasement in Ireland. Until the unnatural and inhuman conditions of life amongst the peasantry of Ireland were changed, there would not be and ought not to be an end to the Irish land war.
    If the Irish Land Act of 1903 failed in Connaught, it failed in Ireland. No number of sales of land to comparatively prosperous tenants in other parts of Ireland could by any possibility settle the Irish land question as long as the real seat of the disease remained untouched. Now, in 1903 when the House of Commons was seriously considering the Irish land question, no one disputed that fact. The Land Act of 1903 would never have passed, would never have been allowed by Members on these benches to be passed, except for the promises and hopes held out on the question of the restoration of the evicted tenants and the settlement of Connaught. They now knew that so far as the restoration of the evicted tenants was concerned—whether from defects in the Act, or maladministration of the Commissioners, or the action of the Executive in tying the hands of the Commissioners—the Act had failed. He was there to-night to say that so far as the western problem of chronic poverty was concerned, the Act had failed in even a more lamentable manner. The true inducements on which the Act was accepted, and on which alone the bonus of £12, 000, 000 was agreed to by the Irish Members had, for the time being, disappeared, and in all seriousness he said that unless steps were speedily taken by the Irish Government to remedy this condition of things they would look in vain for a settlement of the land question through the working of the Land Act of 1903. Unless a remedy was found

    1471
    there would not be, and there ought not to be, peace.
    What was the particular complaint brought before the House by his hon. friend? Acute distress, amounting in some cases to famine, in many cases to a state of things which would lead to famine, had arisen in various parts along the western seaboard of Ireland. Now, the central fact of the situation was that that distress was not exceptional. Anyone acquainted with the West, and the North-West and the far South of Ireland knew that dire poverty was chronic in those districts and that famine was periodic. Since 1821 there had been in those districts twelve famines large and small. Millions of people had perished, through starvation and fever, millions had emigrated as a consequence of these famines, and yet, after all the experiences of a century, they had still the horrible certainty that these periods of distress and famine would recur. What was the meaning of this? Some people in this country imagined that the reason was to be found in the fact that Connaught was a desert, a barren region unfit for the habitation of man. Nothing was further from the truth. Connaught was a rich province. There was in Connaught plenty of rich land sufficient to maintain more than the present population in decency and comfort. But the rich lands of Connaught looked as if some terrible visitation of nature had swept over them, and cleared them of all population. He had driven through these lands for miles and miles and miles—over rich undulating plains, showing in many parts the ancient marks of the plough-furrows, with the ruins of little villages, and of what were once happy homesteads, and so far as the eye could reach there was no single human habitation except now and again the cottage of a herd. But all round these rich grass lands of Connaught there were fringes of bog, and mountain morass and barren sea shore; and, here, on these wretched patches of land which never did and never could produce an economic rent, which were entirely unfitted for human habitation, were to be found—in full view of the rich lands from which they and their fathers had been driven in the past—a population huddled together in misery and in squalor. Three-fifths of
    1472
    the population of Ireland was settled on one-fourth of the land of Ireland, and that one-fourth was the poorest of the soil of the island.
    How did these people live? Well, they gained a precarious livelihood by doing a little fishing and by migratory labour. These poor Irish hodmen, with which English farmers and employers were familiar, came over here to earn a few pounds and go back to their native country to pay rent for land which never did, and never could, produce an economic rent, while they trusted to the little potato patch, very often made up of soil carried on their backs for a long distance, and strewn over rock and bog, to produce their food. Why, there was in Connaught, side by side, the bane and the antidote. So long as these conditions existed, distress and poverty would be chronic, and famine would be periodic, because nothing stood between these people and famine except the potato crop, and when that happened to fail, as this last year it had, and the earnings on English fields and in English towns had fallen off, was it any wonder that all along the western seaboard there were large numbers of people suffering from acute famine? To his mind no more awful condemnation of any government was to be found in history than the fact that these conditions had been known for the last century; that the result of these conditions had been evidenced since 1821 by twelve distinct famines; and yet from that day to this no great constructive measure of statesmanship had ever been passed to remedy them, unless they spoke of the Land Act of 1903, which had proved absolutely inoperative in these districts.
    To talk of these poor people purchasing land was an absolute mockery. He remembered an eloquent and sympathetic speech made by the late Chief Secretary in which that right hon. Gentleman said that for these poor people to purchase their holdings would be to stereotype agricultural slums, and that his ambition was to build up an agricultural situation in these districts on enlarged holdings which would enable the people to pay an economic rent, or, at any rate, to live in decency and comfort. The remedy was not denied by anybody. The non-economic holdings in the West of Ireland

    1473
    must disappear, and a redistribution be made of the land to the people. All this was recognised when they were discussing the Land Act of 1903; but they who represented those poor people were overborne by the House and the Government when they declared that the provisions of that Act were not sufficient to deal with the conditions of the western problem. They were told by the Chief Secretary that the Act of 1903 would supply a remedy, and not only was the opinion of the Irish representatives overborne, but that of the Catholic Bishops in Connaught, who, by solemn resolution, advocated more extensive powers being conferred on the Congested Districts Board, similar to those exercised by the Crofters Commission in Scotland. That advice had been entirely disregarded by the Government and the House of Commons, and he and his colleagues were there that day to tell the House, a year and a half after the Act had been passed, that it was entirely inoperative all through the western portions of Ireland. If the Laud Act were working in those districts there would be no necessity for having recourse to the horrible, wretched, wasteful, and demoralising Poor Law system of outdoor relief and relief works, because there would be ample employment provided for the people in the drainage and enlargement of holdings under the schemes of settlement provided in the Act. But practically nothing had been done. Within the last few days it was said that the De Freyne Estate had been purchased by the Congested Districts Board, but apparently either that piece of good news was not capable of confirmation, or they were left entirely in the dark as to what had taken place on that estate.
    He hoped the House would bear with him a few moments while he read a declaration made on this subject on March 5th by Lord Dudley, the Irish Viceroy, in order to show that the malady was understood by the Irish Government, and that the remedy was also understood. It was surely a lamentable state of things that, when the remedy was recognised, the Government still fell back in order to meet the distress on the wasteful and demoralising system of outdoor relief
    1474
    to keep the poor people alive. Lord Dudley said—
    "There are some parts of Ireland which, I regret to say, are at the present time very far from being in a satisfactory condition. I allude to those parts of the country lying principally along the western seaboard, where the potato crop has largely failed, and where, in consequence, the population has been reduced to a state of very acute suffering and distress. Such a state of things, however, is unfortunately no new feature in the life of Western Ireland. Again and again occurrences of a similar kind have been experienced in the past, the only variation being the extent of the areas affected and the degree of the distress obtaining. But that fact only increases our anxiety at the present time. For, although we may feel assued that in the present instance, as in the past, relief in some form or another will be found for these unfortunate people, yet with every recurrence of experiences of this kind the truth is brought home more forcibly to our minds that the conditions of life in certain areas of this country are radically wrong, and that unless some great change takes place the population of these areas will be always liable to hunger and want. Now what are those conditions? I think they are, shortly speaking, these. You have in many districts of the West and North-West in this country a great number of people living on farms of very small extent and composed principally of bad land. In good years, aided by certain subsidiary sources of income, like fishing and weaving and the proceeds of migratory labour, it is just possible for the western peasant to maintain himself and his family, and to pay fixed charges on the land. But the struggle is always a very severe one, and the result is that the standard of living is always necessarily very low, indeed, more so than with any similar body of householders in Western Europe. It is impossible for these people to do any more than live a hand-to-mouth existence. They cannot practically create any reserve in cash or in kind; and consequently, when a bad year comes, they have no reserve whatever to fall back upon, and they are driven at once into a position of helplessness and dependence. Well, it is obvious that that is a state of things that cannot be allowed to go on. "
    Lord Dudley went on, and would the House listen to those words—
    "No Government worthy of the name can shirk its responsibility in this matter, nor avoid taking action to remedy the conditions under which so many of the Irish people live. And I would remind you that temporary measures are by no means sufficient. They may stave off the difficulty for a short time, and may prevent the people actually starving, but spasmodic alleviation deals with the result and not with the cause. The root evil remains unchecked by it, and something more, something much more drastic than money grants or relief works, is required if the condition of the western peasant is to be permanently benefited. What that should be is, of course, a question on which the people of this country hold very divergent views. There are some who think that the problem is

    1475
    insoluble, and I have been told by men of some experience that in their view wholesale emigration is the only cure for the poverty and congestion of the West. "
    Really he might adopt this speech as his own, and deliver it in his own name in the House of Commons. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represented a few seats in Ireland, and who differed so widely from him and his colleagues on Irish questions, would not make that speech the subject of an attack on the Viceroy, and demand his recall, because he had shown statemanship, ability, and a real desire to relieve the poverty-stricken people in the West of Ireland.
    Lord Dudley went on to say—
    "Those who advocate such a plan have certainly never recognised the first duties of statesmanship—nor can they, I think, have ever recognised what really constitutes a country's wealth. There are others who hold the view that by the development of the fishing and cottage industries a solution of this difficult question is to be found and permanent prosperity secured. But valuable as these things are as auxiliaries, I do not believe personally that they can ever be made the central means of subsistence for any more than a mere handful of the population. The great majority of these people, in my opinion, must always live upon the land, and by the land. …"
    "… Any remedy, therefore, which in to be permanent and effective must have, in my opinion, agriculture as its basis, and this involves inevitably a redistribution of the existing holdings. In other words, you must seek to cure the Chronic poverty of the West by enlarging the holdings in the congested districts to an extent and size which will return a profit in good years over and above the ordinary necessities of existence, and you must obtain the space necessary for that operation by migrating numbers of families from the existing holdings in those districts to lands which are at present untenanted. "
    If that speech, proceeding from the Viceroy of Ireland, were an expression of the views of the Irish Government, or perhaps he ought to say the Government as a whole, for they had two Governments in Ireland, the western problem would be very easily and quickly settled. But while they had these sympathetic speeches they had also the stern fact that nothing had been done under the Land Act of 1903 to apply a permanent remedy to the evil in the West of Ireland, and that the only remedy suggested for the present distress by the Government was the old wretched recourse to Poor Law relief and Poor Law relief works, the cost of which, by a strange irony, was thrown upon the very
    1476
    same people for whose benefit they were started. There was one phrase in the Viceroy's speech with which he disagreed. Lord Dudley went on to say he did not think the delay in the working of the Land Act in Connaught was due to the action of the landlords; in his opinion, the Irish landlords were really willing to sell the grass lands. He was greatly amused to read an article in the landlord organ in Dublin, the Daily Express, next day in which the Viceroy was denounced in a most vigorous manner for the speech he had made.
    The first alarm of the threatened distress was raised by some English and American newspapers, and after a thorough investigation into the truth of the allegations the Irish Party held a meeting in Dublin in December and laid before the Government their proposals for a remedy both immediate and permanent. They called on the Government to apply the provisions of the Land Act to the West of Ireland, so far as that was possible without further legislation, and pending further legislation—because they all recognised further legislation would be necessary in order to break up the grass-lands of Connaught—they recorded their conviction that the proper remedy for the immediate needs of the people was not charity, but the starting of works of permanent utility to the district. They recommended that the Estates Commissioners should have power to pick out estates in the West of Ireland and give them priority in sales, and also that they should be allowed to go on buying those congested estates in the West no matter how much money was engaged for purchase in other parts of Ireland. The third suggestion was that money should be placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for remunerative works. Until these recommendations were taken up by the Irish Party, the Government did not stir a hand. But as soon as the Irish Party called attention to the matter a proposal was made by the Government, not to adopt any of these recommendations, but to have recourse once more to the system of charitable doles and of relief works. But the Irish people did not ask for charitable doles; they asked that they should be given useful and remunerative work. They believed that this system

    1477
    of Poor Law relief was wasteful, extravagant, and intensely demoralising; and as to the relief works, the Irish Times had aptly reminded them of the roads leading nowhere, and the piers that gave no protection which had been constructed in the past. The whole affair had been muddled and mismanaged. Instead of entrusting the work of immediate relief to the Congested Districts Board, which was able to deal with it, the Government had entrusted it to four different boards—the Congested Districts Board, the Local Government Board, the Agricultural Board, and the Board of Works. The result had been, as always in the past, general confusion, the over-lapping of duties, waste, extravagance, and inefficiency. No greater proof could be adduced of the breakdown of Irish Government. To-day, for the twelfth time since 1821, famine had reappeared in Ireland; and the Government had nothing to offer except the old hateful, demoralising system of out door relief, to be paid back in better times by the very people who received it. This state of things was cruel and infamous, and showed that British rule in Ireland was not only unconstitutional, but was abhorrent to humanity.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House is of opinion that the Government has failed in its duty in not anticipating the distress which is so prevalent in the West of Ireland, ample warning of which was given by the condition of the crops during the past two years; that the methods adopted to cope with the distress were proved by previous experience to be ineffective, demoralising, and wasteful, and that the enforcement of Clause 13 of the Local Government Act inflicts a great injustice on the poorest counties in Ireland; and that it considers it one one of the first duties of any Government to make suitable provision for meeting such visitations; and that it declares that the present distress is of a preventable character and due entirely to the unnatural conditions prevailing in the West of Ireland by which the agricultural population is banished from the good lands and compelled to live on holdings incapable of providing a decent maintenance for a family; and that it calls upon
    1478
    the Government at once to take all necessary action, whether of an administrative or a legislative character, permanently to remove the causes which have led to the present and previous periods of distress and famine in that part of Ireland. "—(Mr. Hayden.)
    *MR. O'MALLEYsaid his hon. friend in introducing his Motion remarked that it was humiliating for Irish Members to be referring so constantly to Irish distress, but he ventured to say that the humiliation should be altogether on the other side—on the side of those who were responsible for the management and control of Irish government and administration. For undoubtedly the distress to which they drew attention was the direct result of the British government of Ireland. His hon. and learned friend who seconded the Motion had dwelt so ably and exhaustively with this aspect of the question that he should not dwell upon it to any extent. It was true that they on those benches and their people at home, and indeed throughout the world, had a deep sense of humiliation whenever they raised this question of Irish poverty and distress; but they also felt the strongest resentment and indignation when they remembered that all this poverty and distress was directly due to British misgovernment. The state of affairs in the West of Ireland to-day sketched out by his hon. friends was the greatest condemnation of the Act of Union and a vindication and justification for their efforts to obtain the management of their own affairs in an Irish Parliament. "Distress in the West!" Why, it was the regular thing! There was always distress there, and distress would ever be there so long as England ruled Ireland in opposition to the will and aspirations of the Irish people, and, at all events, so long as the conditions that caused distress remained. It was to appeal to the House once more to hearken to the cry of these poor people and to urge upon hon. Members the necessity and the wisdom of taking the earliest opportunity to grapple with this western problem that they had brought this Motion forward to-night.

    1479
    The conditions under which, the people on the Western sea-board of Ireland lived were a disgrace to humanity, a disgrace to our Christian civilisation, a disgrace and a condemnation of British rule. What were these conditions? He could speak for the people of Connemara with absolute knowledge, for he had known every spot of it from his boyhood. There were some 50, 000 or 60, 000 human beings in his constituency, and these poor people had a constant struggle from childhood to the grave—with absolute want and privation. But this House heard their cry, and heard that imperfectly, only when the potato crop had failed, as it did last year. He was well aware of the kindly and indeed sympathetic feeling that animated many Englishmen with what they were pleased to call the "Sister-Country," and he was convinced that if the British people thoroughly understood the actual condition of these western people they would support any Government that would thoroughly tackle the problem and mid a solution for it. But the English people were ignorant of the causes of Irish discontent, and Party politics in this House and this country did not tend towards a radical cure of Irish ills. They and their cause were made the shuttlecock of British political Parties and nothing was ever done by way of remedial legislation until they had a seething agitation in Ireland, or until it suited the exigencies of Party warfare to do something—something always ineffective—for Ireland. He should like to know how many of their rulers—how many Unionist statesmen, or Liberal statesmen for the matter of that, visited Ireland and studied the conditions of the people for whom they undertook to legislate? Except the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General, what man on that front bench had gone over to see for himself how the people lived? Ireland might be 5, 000 miles away as far as any of these Gentlemen on either side of the House cared. Although his hon. friend had proved the existence of distress and dealt with its cause and cure he would like, with the indulgence of the House, to read an extract or two from an article which appeared last month in the Daily Mail from the pen of the hon.
    1480
    Member for Southwark, who, in company, I believe, with the Lord-Lieutenant, paid a visit to Connemara some few months ago. The hon. Gentleman, who sat on the Unionist side of the House described the character of the people and their wretched dwellings. He wrote—
    "Imagine uncountable rocks and stones, stones and rocks without colour and without pity. Imagine immeasurable acres of bog, the red bog where the snipe congregate, as for public worship, at the full of the moon. And imagine somewhere away and beyond these things, above kindly or angry meres, and beyond the sound of running waters, the most tender and gentle blue mountains you ever saw.
    "This is Connemara, very seeming-sad and very poor among the nations. She often veils her face, she often weeps. But sometimes she smiles; and that light of her smile is as the light in the eyes of the dark Rosaleen.
    "And as with the mother earth, so with her children. In the unceasing melancholy and almost agony of their outward life, you shall still find the magic and the mystery and the smile of the soul. You shall find tired beings, starving bodies, and minds illiterate, legend-lore.
    "Come with me into the first cabin of the first village. "There is no window. There may or may not be a chimney. There is no floor but hollowed mud. There may or may not be a heap which forlornly calls itself a bed. What you would call tables or chairs are improbable. But your fellow-creatures and your fellow-subjects, within twenty-four hours of your London house—these at least will not fail you, two or four or eight or ten or twelve or more of them, excluding the livestock. One or two or three, it is true, may be sick of mind or body, but there they are, your ten or twelve, in a foulness of squalor indescribable, and answerable, not to their fault, but yours, and branding upon your soul a horror and a terror and a shame for yourself and your country which you shall never till you die forget.
    "And this is neither exaggeration nor exception. In many districts of the West you will find hundreds of one-room cabins with from one to more than twelve inhabitants. You will find their dwellers courteous and welcoming, children not of this world, almost happy.
    "But I pray to God that you will be as utterly ashamed of yourself as I was when find them you do. And the sorrow and pathos of it is that the fault is not theirs. Emigration is the uttermost extravagance that any nation can commit, and we have emigrated half Ireland in fifty years. That is, we have bred and given away to others the very stuff that makes both wealth and wars.
    "But I am not writing politically. It were the veriest impertinence for a tourist, however sympathetic, to seek to solve the so-long insoluble. Remedies uncountable are marketed on platforms and in council chambers. Shall the great and profitable grass lands of Ireland

    1481
    be broken into small holdings to house a people who have never had the chance to till?
    The House will forgive me for quoting at such length, but I was anxious that the views of a Unionist Member, who has recently been in the West of Ireland, should be expressed in this debate. His graphic description of the conditions of life in Connemara is not exaggerated, and the House will perceive that he throws the blame for this state of affairs on the right shoulders, namely, upon the English people and upon this House.
    One word in conclusion. He would like to refer to the method adopted by the Government to deal with this distress in the West, which was admitted on all hands. Indeed, he really believed it would be better for these poor people had they not been relieved than that they should be relieved by the methods at present adopted. In reply to a Question of his on the Paper he was supplied by the Attorney-General with a table showing the number of persons relieved in the Clifden and Oughterard Unions in his constituency. What was the position in Clifden? 157 persons at 1s. a day making £7 17s. per day, while four supervisors, four paymasters, and ten gangers or timekeepers received £15 per week—an altogether disproportionate amount. In Clifden 394 men were employed on works at 1s. a day or £19 14s., while five supervisors, two paymasters, and sixteen gangers received £19 per week. Fancy 1s. a day, 6s. a week, to a poor family of eight or ten persons, as described by his hon. friend the Member for South-wark, while the supervisors and day masters were paid £'2 and £3 per week for their work of selecting the deserving cases. The whole thing was a fraud and a sham, and he was convinced that the net result of this generous and magnanimous attempt on the part of the Irish Government was that the people would be demoralised, and their last condition would be worse than their first. What was the modus operandi? The supervisor, paid £2 or £3 a week and travelling expenses, visited the hovels of these people—counted how many hens they had, how many beasts they possessed, how many potatoes they had left from last year's crop, and so on, and if they found any hens, cattle, pigs, or potatoes, they were excluded from the privilege of
    1482
    earning 6s. a week on these works intended for their relief. The thing was a farce, and the only persons who benefited from this "relief" were the supervisors, paymasters, and gangers, who were not in distress at all. This process of differentiation between the deserving and the, undeserving cases was utterly unreliable, and was calculated to do great unjustice to many of the most deserving. The fact that a man had some cattle and sheep was no evidence whatever that he was not starving or on the verge, of starvation, because he (Mr. O'Malley) was aware from actual knowledge that in almost every case in Counemara, the cattle and sheep and even the eggs to be laid were mortgaged to the shopkeeper who gave credit and thus enabled the poor people to pull through in those exceptionally trying times; and therefore he submitted that this counting of cattle, pigs, or hens was misleading and fallacious in the extreme.
    The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had laid great stress, and properly so, on the failure of the Land Act of 1903 to deal with the western problem. He (Mr. O'Malley) was one of those who had such hopes of the beneficent effects likely to accrue from that Act that in public meetings in his constituency, after the passing of that Act, he urged, as strongly as he could, the advisability of the young girls and young men remaining at home rather than emigrating to America or other countries, He hoped that the Estates Commissioners would take steps to purchase the properties in Connemara and create economic holdings by the enlargement of the present wretched uneconomic holdings. But his hopes and the hopes of his constituency were not destined to be realised, and to-night, eighteen months after the passing of that Act, they were discussing the distress, and the young people were still flying the land. In conclusion, he appealed to the Government and to the Unionist Party, who claimed to be able to remove Irish grievances, seriously to consider this question, to make a speedy and generous effort to settle once for all this western problem, and thus to change a poverty-stricken, discontented, and much wronged peasantry into a happy, prosperous, and contented people.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,said the Resolution dealt with the West of Ireland, but the speeches which had been delivered had ranged far afield. The congestion of the West of Ireland was no new question. Everybody admitted it. But everybody who tried to find a practical means of solving the problem must almost be appalled by the difficulty of carrying out any scheme in practice. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that the first person who attempted practically to remedy the congestion was the present Prime Minister. With all their connection with the Liberal Party from 1832 downwards, and with all their control of the Liberal Party in modern times, it was not until 1891 that a practical means was provided for the relief of the misery which he admitted existed, and that means was provided without the aid and despite the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not intend to go back and discuss the historical causes or reasons for the existing condition of affairs. To a great degree that would be a waste of time. It was a practical matter which invited and necessitated practical treatment. Things being what they were, it was not within the power of man to devise a sudden remedy. That proposition could be proved by reference to the Report of the Congested Districts Board, which was not a Government Department, which had abundant funds at its disposal and ample credit, and he would call attention to what that Board said as to the advances it had made and the enormous difficulty of dealing with the problem. He could not at all accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford as to the possibility of their having been able to bring about since the passing of the Land Act a state of things which would have rendered the recurrence of famine impossible, nor could he agree that if a famine did occur the Government should be relieved of the responsibility of providing temporary relief as well as a permanent remedy.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had made neither of the suggestions referred to.
    MR. ATKINSON: I understood the hon. Member—
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am not responsible for your understanding; I simply state the fact.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he understood the hon. and learned Member to say that temporary measures were desirable. But no matter at what rate the Congested Districts Board or the Government proceeded in the matters of migration and the redistribution of land, it would be necessary to provide for the relief of temporary distress whenever it might occur.
    But to come to the actual condition of affairs. He traversed the assertion that the Government had neither anticipated the distress nor taken means to ascertain its character and the remedies by which to meet it. Up to 1891 the periodical famines were met solely by doles, grants, or loans, which did not permanently affect the condition of the people, but were, in themselves, demoralising and, to a great extent, useless. In 1891, for the first time, the Prime Minister devised means which, whether adequate or not, were designed to do a great deal for the permanent improvement of the people. The Congested Districts Board was created to deal with congested districts, and the distress was now confined to congested districts, or counties containing congested districts. During that period £1, 200, 000 had been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the congested districts, principally in Mayo, Galway, Kerry, and Donegal. In addition to that there was the great scheme of railway construction which his right hon. friend instituted, under which railways were made in Connemara, Donegal, and other parts of Ireland, thus opening up the country and providing means of bringing the produce to market. In addition to that, attempts were made to improve the breed of cattle and pigs, to assist the fisheries, and to establish home industries. In Clifden alone the spring fishing last year realised £6, 000. The happy result of all these efforts to give the people employment and make them self-supporting was that in 1891 twenty-three unions were affected by famine, in 1895 fourteen

    1485
    unions, in 1889 only eleven unions, and this year only six unions. Surely that was a vast and encouraging progress in twelve years. Moreover, the Congested Districts Board, between 1893 and 1903, had purchased altogether for the enlargement of holdings 193, 212 acres of land. During the past twelve months they had purchased 45, 611 acres and were in treaty for the purchase of fifteen other properties, containing about 35, 000 acres. If those purchases were carried out it would mean that 80, 000 acres would have been purchased in the two years since the passing of the Land Act.
    MR. ROCHEasked how much of that land had been distributed amongst the people.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that on page 13 of the Report of the Congested Districts Board would be found a table giving particulars of the farms and the migration which had been effected. Then, too, 17, 871 acres of untenanted land had been purchased in the year, which compared even more favourably with the results of the previous eleven years, during which only 40, 000 were bought. He submitted, therefore, that it could not with any fairness be said that, so far as the Congested Districts Board was concerned, the Land Act had been a failure. At all events, under the two heads, nearly 250, 000 acres of land had been acquired for apportioning out amongst the people, and that must have tended to improve the condition and increase the comfort of the classes affected.
    AN HON. MEMBERasked how much of the 45, 000 acres purchased last year had been apportioned amongst the people.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he had simply quoted from the Report. The land was for distribution, whether they had yet succeeded in distributing it or not. On page 15 there was a full statement showing that 647 holdings had been enlarged and 166 new holdings created.
    AN HON. MEMBER: That land was not purchased within the last twelve months.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the Report was for the year ending March, 1904.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is before the Act was passed.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the Report dealt also with a matter which hon. Gentlemen opposite had not fairly considered, in connection with the consolidation of holdings and migration. The Board pointed out that it was enormously difficult to induce a man to give up any of his land in order to enlarge the holding of his neighbour, and that it was equally difficult to get a man to migrate to another district and to go among strangers, who very often received him with anything but welcome. That Report was open to other hon. Members as well as himself if it was thought he had not put the proper construction upon it.
    Complaint had also been made that the Local Government Board had not taken adequate measures to relieve the distress. The Local Government Board, as the authority which had to put into force the Act for the relief of distress, could not be expected to bring about a state of things in which persons in distress would be as well off as they were before the distress occurred. To do so would destroy all self-reliance and would debauch and debase the whole population. The practice of the Board was to obtain half-yearly accounts of the agricultural outlook of the country, and of the state of the crops in each district. In June it appeared from the ordinary normal report that the crops along the western seaboard were somewhat in arrears, and two inspectors were immediately appointed. Each district was examined, and special reports were forwarded in October. The Local Government Board at once proceeded to deal with the condition of things revealed in those reports, and the Treasury made a loan, estimated at the time at £60, 000, to provide seeds. Hither to the interest of 3½ per cent. on such loans had been paid out of the Church surplus; but that surplus had recently been transferred to the Board of Agriculture The interest would not amount to more than £5, 000, because the loan would only last for a couple of years; but the Board made a grant out of its own funds of

    1487
    £10, 000, so that the seed fund this year would be richer by £5, 000 than it would have been had the old method been followed. As to the relief of distress in the six districts affected, Section 13 of the Act of 1898 provided that where a board of guardians satisfied the county council that exceptional distress existed in a district and the council applied to the Local Government Board that body might, if it thought fit, authorise the guardians, subject to prescribed conditions, to administer relief. Under that Act seven unions communicated with the Local Government Board. They were not left to bear the burden themselves. On the contrary, in six of the seven districts the Government would bear a large proportion of the rate—in five cases amounting to 75 per cent. Consequently, only 25 per cent, of the amount necessary to relieve distress would fall on the county and union combined, that was, 12½ per cent. upon the county, and 12½ per cent. upon the union. Therefore, the Government were taking upon themselves three-fourths of the relief, leaving only one-fourth to be borne by the county at large and the district. It might be asked why the Government should not bear the whole expense. The answer was that when relief was given entirely out of Government funds everybody sought to exaggerate the distress and obtain as large a sum as possible. It had also been said that it would be more rational if money were given to these men to improve their own holdings; but in dealing with public money that could not be done. It was necessary to undertake work which would be for the general benefit of the community. To pay a man one shilling per day to improve his own holding was making him a present at the expense of his neighbours, and they could not pursue a plan of that kind with money provided on the principle of the Poor Law. There was a general idea in the country, and it had found expression in this House, that it was the duty of the Local Government Board to give one shilling per day to every man who was willing to come and work.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why do you think that idea is prevalent?
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that he was informed that that was the idea prevalent in the country, but the Government were obliged to apply some test.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: You are fighting shadows.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid they were obliged to make inquiries to find out whether a man really was in poor circumstances. The amount he had mentioned was by no means too heavy a burden to be thrown on the rates, which in the different districts only amounted to from 2s. 7d. to 3s. 6d. in the pound. He thought it was only fair and right to endeavour to defend a Government Department who were doing their very best in these most difficult circumstances to meet this passing and exceptional distress.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is not exceptional.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid it was three or four years since it happened before. He agreed that in regard to the help given to industries such as fishing and improvement of stock much good had been done in the congested districts. Undoubtedly it had been recognised from the very first that the permanent remedy was to endeavour to put agriculturists in farms large enough to maintain them out of their own industry; but he did not think the enormous difficulties in the way were fully appreciated. For instance, in the case of Belmullet, there was no land near which was suitable for the purpose of migration. [A NATIONALIST Member: There are thousands of acres there.] That was not the information which had been conveyed to him. He was informed that near Belmullet there was not sufficient land suitable for the migration of these poor people. But assuming that there was, the difficulty was that, in the first place, if they succeeded in getting land they must be prepared to transport the families, set them up, and give them a considerable grant to build a house and farmstead, and he understood that the Congested Districts Board found they could not put a man into a holding at a less cost than £400 odd. He was sure everybody would admit that

    1489
    the Board were doing their utmost to cope with the problem. This was not a problem which could be solved very quickly, and it must be approached with great patience and energy. It required time, and it was absurd to expect that this evil could be cured in a few years.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: You have had 100 years at it.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid it was said that the solution was to be found in giving the Board compulsory powers. That remedy had been discussed over and over again. It was proposed during the passage of the Land Act of 1903, but he could not remember that any great effort was made to secure it, and no Amendments in this direction were insisted upon or pressed.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that Amendments to secure compulsory powers were not pressed because the Chief Secretary declared that they would not be necessary under the Bill.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that no doubt his right hon. friend thoroughly believed that.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the Attorney-General's memory on that point must be extremely short. Upon the First Reading, the Second Reading, and the Third Reading of the Land Bill he himself declared that the Bill would be a failure without a clause providing for compulsory powers. They proposed Amendments to that effect, and they only withdrew them because the Chief Secretary assured them that in his belief they would be unnecessary, and if the late Chief Secretary had been present, he presumed that he would now take up the position that apparently they were necessary at the present time.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that at any rate the Amendments upon that point were not pressed.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: They were not divided upon.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he called pressed being divided upon. The late Chief
    1490
    Secretary did say that he thought they would be unnecessary, and no doubt he thought so still. The fair inference from what had gone on during the last few years was that such Amendments would be unnecessary. Considering the short time the Land Act had been in operation and the large quantity of land that had been acquired in that short period, it was unreasonable to conclude that compulsory powers were necessary to carry out a policy which everybody desired to carry out and everybody recognised to be a sound and real remedy. He denied that the Government were to be blamed for not coming forward with legislation to confer compulsory powers to do what could be done by the provisions of a Land Act already in force.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid they had been raising this question of the consested districts for the last quarter of a century, during which period he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and although he admitted many of the things which the Attorney-General had said, he still believed that, even according to the Attorney-General's own sanguine anticipations, half a century would have to elapse before, at his own rate of progress, the problem now being discussed was adequately dealt with. The Nationalist Members and the Attorney-General for Ireland were at issue as to the facts concerning the availability of land. The Attorney-General said that there was no land available in Belmullet, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an Irishman well acquainted with the condition of his country. But his hon. friend the Member for Mayo declared that there were thousands of acres of land available at Belmullet, and that he himself had walked over the land. Here they were at issue upon a direct and momentous question of fact. Who was to judge between the Attorney-General and the Irish Members? Why, the English Members, about twenty of whom had entered the House within the last hour, and about five of whom had honoured them with their presence during the whole debate. It was upon the ignorance of English Members that this question would have to be decided. English Members who were ignorant of the facts, and most of

    1491
    whom had been absent during the debate, would have to decide between them. This was a state of things which filled Irishmen with disgust and despair. When the Attorney-General for Ireland claimed for the Prime Minister the credit for being the first to deal with the congested districts problem, it was characteristic of the whole method in which Irish politicians were treated. The Irish representatives conducted an agitation for years, and in some cases they were condemned to penal servitude or long terms of imprisonment. When the terms of penal servitude had expired the gentlemen who had suffered were removed from the plank bed to these benches, and then an English politician got up and proposed a measure which he passed into an Act of Parliament. They had a Land Act called the Ashbourne Act, but it ought to be called the Parnell Act. Now they had an Act called the Balfour Act, forgetful of the many Irishmen who had suffered in order to make it easy for an English representative to pass that Act.
    The Irish Members complained of the slowness with which the problem in the West was being carried forward. The hon. Member for Waterford had pointed out that when the Land Bill of 1903 was going through there were two main conditions on which they based their support of it. The first was the restoration of the evicted tenants, and they knew how that had been dealt with. The second was the settlement of the problem of the West, and so far as that was concerned the Land Act had been a flagrant and a shameful failure. The Attorney-General had stated that there were actually 647 new holdings. He acquitted the Attorney-General of any desire to deceive the House, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that these new holdings had been created since the passing of the 1903 Act—in the course of the twelve months which had elapsed since that Act came into operation. Their complaint was that the Government were not applying to the distress and congestion the proper remedy—the remedy on the promise of which they got their Land Act, namely, the enlargement of holdings. So long as this remedy was not applied, distress in Ireland would recur with
    1492
    almost the same regularity as in time past. Of the 647 holdings to which the Attorney-General had referred, 416 were on the Dillon Estate which was purchased by the Congested Districts Board six years ago. There was no exceptional distress on the Dillon Estate now. Neither the union in which it was situated, nor the British Treasury, was called on to give a penny in order to relieve distress there. That was because the estate had been sold to the tenants, and because holdings had been enlarged there. This beneficient result had occurred on an estate where, up to six years ago, there was almost typical example of distress and poverty in Ireland. The representatives of Ireland wanted other estates in Ireland treated in the same way as the Dillon Estate. The Attorney-General had stated that a great deal had been done during the past twelve months in the way of enlarging holdings. Here was a question of fact on which Gentlemen who were absent from the House would vote when the division bell rang, although they were absolutely ignorant of the condition of Ireland. The Motion before the House declared—
    "That the methods adopted to cope with the distress were proved by previous experience to be ineffective, demoralising, and wasteful. "
    Was there a single man acquainted with the realities of Irish life who did not believe that to be true? The Irish Times had only stated what every Irishman knew when it said that Ireland was covered with monuments of British folly in connection with attempts to deal with the problem of distress. Of course, if they deprived Irishmen of the full responsibility they ought to have in the expenditure of their own money they would have wasteful and demoralising results. The present system of government in Ireland was as bad for England as it was for Ireland. It threw a burden on England which ought to be borne by Ireland and which Ireland was willing to bear. Was it not plain and palpable to any man who approached this question with anything like an open mind that these Irish problems could only be dealt with by Irish intelligence and by Irishmen themselves?
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that after the characteristic speech of the hon. Member for the Liverpool Division it was well to recall the House to the actual terms of the Motion they were discussing. It begun with the following statement—
    "That this House is of opinion that the Government has failed in its duty in not anticipating the distress which is so prevalent in the West of Ireland, ample warning of which was given by the condition of the crops during the past two years; that the methods adopted to cope with the distress were proved by previous experience to be ineffective, demoralising, and wasteful, and that the enforcement of Clause 13 of the Local Government Act inflicts a great injustice on the poorest counties in Ireland."
    What were the facts in regard to this alleged prevalent distress? Out of all the unions in the West of Ireland only fifteen had suggested that there was anything unusual in the condition of the people owing to distress existing; and, of these fifteen, in only seven cases had the county councils, in response to representations from the guardians of the different unions, asked the Local Government Board to put into operation the provisions of Section 13 of the Local Government Act of 1898. He would like hon. Members to clearly understand what was the position in regard to this matter before the passing of the Act of 1898. Prior to the passing of that Act there had been what they all knew with pain and regret, recurrent periods of distress in the congested districts on the west coast of Ireland, and successive Governments had tried to meet it in a temporary way by what might be called charitable doles. These had turned out to be ineffective. They gave temporary relief, but led to wasteful administration, and they also led to a great temptation to exaggerate any recurrence of distress. In the first place funds were provided freely by the Government, and as the local authorities paid no interest on the money they had a direct interest in having these funds for relief periods as large as possible.
    MR. FLAVINsaid that interest was charged in his constituency at the rate of 5 per cent. per month, which amounted to 60 per cent. per annum. The money received from the Treasury was paid back.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was not speaking of loans. He was talking of relief by free grants from the Treasury. These were undoubtedly open to two objections. In the first place the administration was wasteful, and in the second place they were a direct incentive and a direct temptation to the inhabitants of those districts to raise the cry of famine in subsequent years. Experience showed that some remedy was required which would operate by way of a check in promoting, so far as possible, wise administration in the locality, and also, so far as possible, preventing the recurrence of this demand every few years. In 1898, antecedent to the passing of the Local Government Act of that year, the Government of the day restricted the free grant to 75 per cent. of the total amount required. That was to say, of the total amount required 75 per cent. was given as a free grant, and the balance had to be provided for by loan at interest, and that experiment was of such, a character that in the Act of 1898 Section 13 was inserted with the approval of all Parties in the House. The object was that in future years in cases of exceptional distress the guardians in the district where the distress existed were to make a representation to the county Council, which was then at liberty to put in action the special powers of this section on the terms that one-half of the burden was to be defrayed by the county council out of the county rates, and the other half defrayed by the district where the distress existed. Prior to December last year, the Local Government Board, through its inspectors, were led to anticipate that there would possibly be a failure, partial or total, of the potato crop in the congested districts, and remedies were adopted for the purpose of meeting the distress. If the Government had rested content with the provisions of the Act of 1898 it would have been left to the county council, and the district in which the distress existed, to provide out of their own resources the entire amount necessary to deal with this distress. Supposing that in the county of Mayo £10, 000 was required to meet the anticipated distress, one-half of that would have to be provided by the county at large, and the other half by the union in which the distress actually existed. But so far from relying on the provisions of Section

    1495
    13, the Government went out of their way in December last to inform county councils that notwithstanding that provision they would in every county in which there was exceptional distress pay up to 75 per cent. of the total expenditure, leaving only 25 per cent. to be divided between the county at large and the particular district. But they did not stop there. The Government also said in December last, "We are going to introduce a Bill to enable loans to be raised to procure seed in those districts which, owing to the failure of the potato crop, may in 1905 have a difficulty in providing seed for themselves; and we will allow you to anticipate, in view of the passing of a Bill which we are going to introduce this session, by borrowing to the extent of £60, 000 at 3½ per cent. interest, such interest to be provided by a free grant of £10, 000, from the Agricultural Department, which is a sum
    more than twice sufficient to repay it. "He therefore submitted that the terms of the Motion were not justified in so far as they described this as "prevalent distress" in the West of Ireland, it being only distress partially caused when the early spring crops of potatoes were damaged by severe weather. Apart from that question he submitted with great confidence that the Government, had taken large and generous steps to remedy the evil; that it was not guilty of the indictment contained in the strong terms of the Motion, terms which contrasted with the very temperate and moderate language used by the hon. Member who introduced it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 50. )

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Crae, George

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Allen, Charles P.

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

    Barran, Rowland Hirst.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John

    Bell, Richard

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Black, Alexander William

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. )

    Blake, Edward

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Boland, John

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Brigg, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. )

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. )

    Burns, John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Caldwell, James

    Higham, John Sharpe

    O'Dowd, John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S. )

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Kelly, Conor, Mayo, N. )

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Johnson, John

    O'Malley, William

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jones Leif (Appleby)

    O'Mara, James

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Parrott, William

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Joyce, Michael

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent, P. (Cavan, W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride Denis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Kitson, Sir James

    Priestley, Arthur

    Cremer, William Randal

    Labouchere, Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Crooks, William

    Lamont, Norman

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    Langley, Batty

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. )

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roche, John

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N. )

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Doogan, P. C.

    Levy, Maurice

    Rose, Charles Day

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lough, Thomas

    Runciman, Walter

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, W.

    Russell, T. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, Frank

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Schwann, Charles E.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Shackleton, David James

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. )

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Tomkinson, James

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset)

    Sheehy, David

    Toulmin, George

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. )

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Trevclyan, Charles Philips

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Ure, Alexander

    Young, Samuel

    Slack, John Bamford

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Thomas Esmoude and Mr.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    White, Luke (York, E. R. )

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Sullivan, Donal

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Egerton. Hon. A. de Tatton

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailuyn Edward

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

    M'Arthur, Charles Liverpool

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fison, Frederick William

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Forster, Henry William

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Balcarres, Lord

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants. )

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

    Garfit, William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. )

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bill, Charles

    Gretton, John

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bingham, Lord

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hall, Edward Masrhall

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Bond, Edward

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'ndery

    Percy, Earl

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

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pierpoint. Robert

    Brassey, Albert

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Heath, Sir James (Stalfords. N W

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Butcher, John George

    Helder, Augustus

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. )

    Pretyman, Frnest George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Randles, John S.

    Chapman, Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Rankin, Sir James

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Howard, John (Kent, F'Versham

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ratcliff, R. F.

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

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

    Kerr, John

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Keswick, William

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

    Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R.

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Spear, John Ward

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Willam Hart

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    1498

    1499

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

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

    Stroyan, John

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Viscount Valentia.

    Tuff, Charles

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

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    PEACE COMMISSIONERS IN IRELAND.
    MR. P. A. McHUGHmoved for a Return setting forth the names and addresses of all persons who have been committed to unlimited terms of imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Ireland to the 31st day of December, 1904; the names of the Judges who issued the orders of attachment; the charges against the persons attached; and the duration of imprisonment in each case in which the order for attachment was executed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 145, of session 1902).
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENobjected.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Does not the hon. Member require to state the ground of his objection?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker Peel, and myself have several times stated that objections ought not to be taken to Motions for Returns simply on the ground that it is after twelve o'clock. In every case in which we have, said that, the advice we have given has been acquiesced in, and no division has been challenged. But the other evening there was an evident intention, when an objection was taken, to challenge a division. If a division is challenged I can do no more—the matter must be postponed because a division upon it cannot be taken after twelve o'clock. If a division is challenged I am powerless. I desire to express my extreme regret, if the House will allow me, in the interests of the House, and in particular in the interests of the Opposition of the day, that objection should be taken to the Government's giving information which it is ready to give at the request of hon. Members, to Members for the benefit of the whole House.
    1500
    I should be very glad to find there was a cessation of objections of this kind, and a return to that spirit of toleration and good sense that has hitherto characterised the proceedings of the House in matters of this kind.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: May I ask the representative of the Irish Government, i there is a representative of the Irish Government in the House, whether they object to this Return?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that it is an unopposed Return so far as the Government is concerned, but that does not prevent any hon. Member from objecting as I have explained.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Under the circumstances I am bound to insist on my objection, and, if necessary, I shall be obliged to divide.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his objection.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I cannot help thinking that if there was a mutual understanding on both sides in regard to Motions for unopposed Returns there would be no objection to allow them to pass after twelve o'clock.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I may be allowed to say that where a Return is asked for and is not opposed by the Government I do not think objection ought to be taken, and so far as I and my colleagues are concerned we take no objection to any unopposed Return.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I do not wish to take any unreasonable objection. An objection was taken a few nights

    1501
    ago to an unopposed Return from the other side. Now there must be a mutual understanding that, if the objection to this particular Return is withdrawn, unopposed Returns are not to be objected to after twelve o'clock on other occasions.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It must be understood that in what I have said I have only spoken for my friends and myself.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It would be a great pity, after Mr. Speaker has given advice to the House at large, if the House did not arrive at a mutual understanding. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party opposite has made a declaration on behalf of his Party; I am prepared, as far as I am entitled to speak, to give a similar undertaking on the part of the Government's supporters, and I hope the right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite will make a similar statement on behalf of the English Opposition.
    MR. BRYCE: I have not had time to communicate with my friends on this matter, but I feel strongly that it is in the interest of both sides of the House that no objection should be raised to the giving of all information possible in regard to the public service, and I think the objection taken on the other side is very much to be regretted. I hope this will be regarded as closed, and that in future no obstacle will be placed in the way of getting every possible information.
    MR. WHITLEY: I was interested in the matter the other night which has given rise to this discussion. The objection taken was due to the fact that the notice of Motion for the Return had only appeared on the Paper that day. There had been no time to consider it, and that was why the objection was taken. I have no desire to block any information. My only desire was to get more complete information than was asked for in that particular Return.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I presume that nothing in any understanding come to will invalidate your ruling as to the right of an hon. Member to object to unopposed Returns if he wishes to do so.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to what I have already said.
    Return ordered, "setting forth the names and addresses of all persons who have been committed to unlimited terms of imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Ireland to the 31st day of December, 1904; the names of the Judges who issued the orders of attachment; the charges against the persons attached; and the duration of imprisonment in each case in which the order for attachment was executed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 145, of session 1902). "—(Mr. P. A. McHugh.)

    COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (IRELAND.)
    Returns ordered, "for each county, city, and borough in Ireland of the names of the persons holding the Commission of the Peace, and giving the date of appointment of each such Justice, and, so far as can be ascertained, the designation, profession, or occupation of each such person at the time of his appointment to the Commission of the Peace, stating at the foot of the Return for each county, city, and borough, so far as can be ascertained, and with such accuracy as is possible, in the absence of any official record, the aggregate number of such persons that are Protestants, specifying their denominations, the number that are Roman Catholics, and the number that are members of any other religious denomination, and the number of such persons that are of each such designation, profession, or occupation, so far as the same can be ascertained."
    "For the whole of Ireland, of the number of such persons of each religious denomination that are of each such designation, profession, or occupation, so far as the same can be ascertained."
    "And of the number of such persons usually resident in such county, city,

    1503
    or borough (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 336, of Session 1902). "—(Mr. P. A. McHugh.)

    JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (DUBLIN).
    Return ordered, "of the Joint Stock Companies and Limited Liability Companies registered in accordance with the Acts thereunto provided in the municipal district of the City of Dublin, showing their capital as registered, whether ordinary, preference, or debenture."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
    JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, ETC. (DUBLIN) (RATEABLE VALUE).
    Return ordered, "of the Rateable Valuation as it now stands on the books of the Chief Commissioners for Valuation in Ireland, of the tenements, holdings, and hereditaments in respect of which Limited Liability Companies and Joint Stock Companies carrying on business in the municipal district of the city of Dublin are rated for, and upon which rates and taxes are actually levied. "—(Mr. Nannetti.)

    THE CLOSURE OF SUPPLY.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In moving that we do now adjourn I may perhaps say to the House, in pursuance of the pledge I gave them earlier in the afternoon, that the Motion I propose to move to-morrow consists essentially in providing that every Vote necessary by law to finish the financial business of the year shall be closured at the latest date which makes it possible to fulfil the law. It provides, also, that no Government business other than Supply shall be taken until the close of the financial year; it leaves the rights of private Members at the evening sittings and on Fridays undisturbed, and it will not, I hope, lead to any late sittings of the House.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman indicates very clearly the important and complicated nature of the Motion of which he
    1504
    has given notice. I desire to renew the appeal I made to him at Question time that he should postpone the consideration of this Motion until such time as it has appeared on the Notice Paper sufficiently long to enable Members thoroughly to master it and to put down such Amendments as they desire to move. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would read to us the terms of the Motion. I rather gather from what he has said that if he did read the terms the House would see that the Motion from its character was one which it would be improper to ask the House to enter on the discussion of to-morrow when it had not been on the Notice Paper a single day. It is against the Rules of the House to ask a Question unless that Question has been in print on the Notice Paper twenty-four hours, and yet we are asked to embark on the discussion of this long, unprecedented, and complicated Motion without seeing it until the morning of the day on which the discussion is to be inaugurated. In the interest of the proper conduct of public business I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more notice of this absolutely unprecedented Motion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Motion is a long one [cries of "Read"], but it is not complicated. [Cries of "Why not read?"] I do not think anything would be gained by reading it. It is only long because it deals with each separate piece of business that we have to finish in order to comply with the law.
    MR. BRYCE: I would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has given no instance in which such a proposal has ever been moved without notice. This Motion relates to the guillotine closure of the discussion on the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has the ordinary closure in his hand, and therefore he could have gone on with the Estimates in the ordinary way and have accelerated the progress with the ordinary closure. This would have given the House an opportunity to amend this extremely revolutionary proposal. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that he is not justified by anything that has occurred in proposing this revolutionary

    1505
    Motion. It is entirely due to the late period at which the House has been called together.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have thought that this was not the proper time to debate whether the Motion was necessary. I think I can prove to the House conclusively to-morrow that the ordinary closure of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke is totally inadequate to meet the legal necessities of the case, and until I have attempted to make my case, I hope that the House will not try to prejudge it.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my appeal about further notice?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Time is going on. What pledge can I get in return with regard to the management of business.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that this attempt to drive the House without any notice will not result in the saving of time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no desire to drive the House more than is absolutely necessary. [Cries of "You are driving it, "and "It is intolerable. "] The hon. Gentleman can give no pledge as to the course—
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Prime Minister has made a rather pointed appeal to me, and I submit that I am entitled to answer that appeal. [Interruptions from the MINISTERIAL side.] The unmannerly interruptions ought not to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman will follow the precedent of previous years, and if necessary suspend the twelve o'clock rule on one or two nights, as he has done for the last ten or twelve years, I have no doubt that the House of Commons will get through the necessary business. But what I protest against is an entire innovation and the creation of a totally new precedent.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentle-
    1506
    man whether the Motion which he will move is in the following terms—
    "That, in order to comply with the Law the proceedings necessary to dispose of any Supplementary Estimates and Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy, and of the Ways and Means Resolutions consequential thereon, shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the manner hereinafter mentioned. "
    "At half-past Five of the clock on the 21st day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the total amount of the outstanding Votes for the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates be granted for the services defined in those Estimates, and shall also forthwith put every other Question necessary to dispose of those Votes."
    "As soon as the Resolutions so disposed of are reported to the House, the House shall forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of any Resolutions proposed in that Committee."
    "At Ten of the clock on the 23rd day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the Question that the House doth agree with the Committee in all I Resolutions reported in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and shall then put a like Question on the Resolution reported with respect to the Supplementary Estimates for the Army, and on the Resolutions reported with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Estimates for the Navy."
    "On the consideration of the Report from the Committee of Ways and Means, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question that the House do agree with the Committee in the Resolutions reported."
    And that at half-past Eleven of the clock on the 27th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put any Question necessary to dispose of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; and at Seven of the clock on the 30th day of March next the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Third Reading of that Bill."
    "And that the proceedings on going into Supply on the Army Estimates, and in Committee, and on Report, of Vote A and Vote 1 of those Estimates shall, if not previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion in the following manner."
    "At half-past Six of the clock on the 28th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair on going into Supply on the Army Estimates."
    "At halfpast Six of the clock on the 29th day of March next, the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates in Committee."
    At Eleven of the clock on the 30th day of March next, the Speaker shall forthwith put

    1507
    every Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates."
    "Until the Business to which this Order relates is concluded the consideration of the Business of Supply at any sitting at which Government Business has precedence shall not be anticipated by a Motion for Adjournment, and no dilatory Motion shall be received on proceedings on that Business, and the Business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order."
    "Until the business to which this Order relates is concluded no Business other than Business of Supply shall be taken at any Sitting at which Government Business has precedence."
    I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that is a proper Resolution to give the House only a few hours notice of?
    *MR. JOHN ELLIS: I think the right hon. Gentleman should give a reply to that Question. If the right hon. Gentleman has no right to reply surely the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury who is sitting beside him can answer. Thanks to the enterprise of my hon. friend, we are now in possession of the terms of the Motion. This is an absolutely unprecedented Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman will find his task cut out to prove the contrary when he comes to move it. I suppose, Mr. Speaker you cannot even have seen such a Motion as this before. Times have been when Speakers would have intimated pretty strongly [Cries of "Order"] to the Leader of the House of Commons [Renewed cries of "Order"]—
    *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to make any reflections upon the Chair. The Resolution is not one which has been drafted by me in any shape; and the hon. Gentleman is now making suggestions which he has no right to make.
    *MR. JOHN ELLIS: If, Sir, anything I said conveyed, in the slightest degree, any reflection against the Speaker I withdraw it absolutely. Nothing was further from my thoughts than to make any suggestion as to the conduct of the present occupant of the Chair in this matter. I was only referring to what may perhaps be called ancient history, rather
    1508
    too ancient history, in my opinion, as to such matters as these. Of course you did not see the Resolution, and are in no way responsible for it. I am entitled to say that this is a most unprecedented Resolution which has been brought forward. I presume that we shall be allowed ample time free from any application of closure to discuss it. I protest against such a Motion in the strongest possible way in the name of the rights of the House of Commons, and of the rights of the minority, in which position, at some time, perhaps, before long, it will be the lot of hon. Members opposite to be.
    MR. LOUGH: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again, as I did at Question time, to consider whether the whole thing cannot be postponed till Thursday. It is a most complicated Resolution, and how can it be possible for us to hand in our Amendments when the matter is to be dealt with to-morrow? We are obliged to hand in every Amendment, and I know nothing more inconvenient to the House, and to you, Sir, than the adoption of the course now proposed to be taken. I would submit that nothing would be lost by discussing the Resolution on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman could take the Supplementary Estimates to-morrow. It is most unfair that a complicated Resolution like this should be taken for discussion a few hours after notice has been given of it.
    MAJOR SEELY: I think that probably the right hon. Gentleman, in giving notice of the Motion, has forgotten the very special circumstances under which the most important Estimates are to be presented this year. I cannot speak with long knowledge of the House, but I believe it is unprecedented to bring the discussion on the Army Estimates to a close in this summary fashion. The Army Estimates this year are in a position that they have never been in before. Last year certain Estimates were presented to the House for an unprecedently large sum of money. The Secretary of State for War stated that they were only presented to the House on,

    1509
    the understanding that certain great alterations were to be made by him and by the Cabinet in connection with an entirely new scheme. As far as we can understand, that new scheme is not now to be proceeded with. It cannot be denied that this House was quite unwillingly deceived, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, into passing the Army Estimates last year without the least discussion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to say that there will be a subsequent occasion when it will be possible to give the Army proposals adequate discussion.
    MAJOR SEELY: I am sure we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he has given. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that we are not put in the position of voting money and parting with our control for the second time in successive years. This is, of course, essentially no Party matter. We have been induced to pass Army Estimates on a certain basis, and the promises given have not been fulfilled for reasons which may be good or bad. Now, in the following year, the same difficulty arises, and for the first time in the history of Parliament we are asked to curtail the discussion of these Estimates in an exceptional degree. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that as soon as the new year begins he will give us the opportunity of discussing the Army. I should very much doubt whether he will be able to give that opportunity, and I would press him to reconsider the Resolution, if only with regard to the Army Estimates. With the best will in the world he will admit that it may be impossible, after the money has been voted, to discuss this matter, which is of transcendent importance to the Empire.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had never known any Government gain anything by "snap" Resolutions. When the right hon. Gentleman proposed this Resolution the House would discuss the whole matter in order to get time to put Amendments on the Paper.
    1510
    He believed, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would gain more by coming to some arrangement by which they would have an opportunity of putting their Amendments on the Paper before the discussion came on.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the Prime Minister was alone responsible for the conduct of the business of the House. The present difficulty would have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had called the House together a fortnight earlier. The special responsibility rested upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister of maintaining the tradition, rights, and privileges of this House, and he ought not to closure debate in the way he had been doing recently.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed the hope that no further appeals would be made to the Prime Minister from his side of the House. This was a matter which must be fought out. Everybody knew that these appeals were not going to have the least effect. He had seen in the last few minutes an incident which was unprecedented, and, to his mind, shocking. When he came into the House the feeling of respect towards the House was so great that every Member was compelled to read the words of a Resolution. He had lived to see the day when the Leader of the House declined to give to the public the information which had already been given to the clerks. He understood that the Prime Minister gave a distinct pledge that the terms of the Resolution should be given to the House that day. The manner in which the right hon. Gentleman fulfilled that pledge was to say that the Resolution would be presented with the Parliamentary Papers in the morning. Was it not intolerable that at ten minutes to one o'clock— [Laughter and interruption on the MINISTERIAL side.] He knew that the right hon. Gentleman could offer no insult to the House of Commons which would not be condoned and approved by Gentlemen on the other side. He put it to every Member of the House who still had some respect for the functions of this Assembly whether it was tolerable that the Leader of the House should decline

    1511
    to put the House in possession of the Resolution the terms of which were in the hands of the clerks at the Table. So far as he could trace, it was part of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to flout and insult this Assembly on every possible occasion. Under the régime of the right hon. Gentleman, in every session of Parliament for years, millions of money had been voted without, one word of discussion on the part of those who were mainly sent there to watch the interests of the ratepayers. That was a system which in time would make this nation a by-word for its extravagance among the nations of the world. He had one suggestion to make. The right hon.
    1512
    Gentleman should relieve the House and the country of a Premiership of which the country, at least, had shown itself weary; and he should transfer to Russia and the Tsar his eminent services in gagging discussion.
    On the Question, "That the House do now adjourn," being put, there were cries of "Yes" and "No. "
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to declare that the Ayes have it, and to say that the House now stands adjourned.
    Adjourned at six minutes before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Sheffield University Bill [H. L.]: Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H. L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on Thursday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) 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 Lord Abinger be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Romilly; read, and agreed to.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H. L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H. L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H. L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H. L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H. L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H. L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H. L.]; Central Electric Supply Bill [H. L.]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [H. L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Romilly be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in
1334
the place of the Lord Estcourt; read and, agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOP) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of persons signing; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council; and members of Baptist Church, Dudley, Worcestershire. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS; MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 631. Coal Industry of the United States, 1903. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.] (No. 27); MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.] (No. 28).
  Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment to each Bill. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bills to be printed as amended.
SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I have the honour to present a petition in favour of this Bill signed, as I am informed, by over 83, 000 persons. The object of this Bill is to stop Sunday trading with some necessary exceptions. Sunday trading is indeed illegal even now, and so far we do not propose to alter the present law, but only to make it effective. At present the law is inoperative, because the fine is nominal. Any one who chooses to pay from £12 to £15 a year can snap his ringers at the law, set it at defiance and open every Sunday. This is surely an anomalous and very unsatisfactory state of things. The result is that Sunday Trading is greatly on the increase. Shopkeepers assure me that unless something

  1335
  is done, many more shops will soon be open. Even now in Leeds the number is estimated at over 2, 000; in Glasgow, over 3, 000; in Liverpool nearly 5, 000; in Manchester and Salford 8, 000; and in London, I am told, some 20, 000.
  The Bill is a very simple one. Clause 1 prohibits Sunday trading. Clause 2 specifies the fines, which are 5s. for the first offence, 20s. for the second, and £5 for the third and subsequent convictions. These are the fines proposed by the Government in their Shop Hours Act of last year. Clause 3 refers to the exemptions which are specified in the schedule. It also gives a certain latitude to local authorities, but perhaps your Lordships may think this unnecessary, in which case I should not press it. Clause 4 deals with machinery, adopting that in the Shop Hours Act, of last year.
  I now come to the schedules. We believe that any possible inconvenience to the poor will be obviated by the provision that perishable articles of food may be sold up to nine in the morning, arid milk again in the afternoon. The Bill does not deal with public-houses or refreshment rooms. Last year we proposed to repeal the Sunday Act of Charles II. This was objected to and we have dropped the suggestion. No objection was made to the repeal of parts of the Bread Acts, but if the Government wish them retained I may say at once that we shall be guided by their views in the matter. With some regret we have excluded tobacconists, because they mainly compete with the public-house. The Lord's Day Rest Association, which strongly supports the Bill, and has issued an admirable statement in its favour, think that tobacconists might be included. This, as well as one or two other exemptions, will be questions for Committee.
  The Bill, therefore, is simple, but its effects would be very far-reaching. It would profoundly influence the conditions of our great cities, and is enthusiastically supported by those concerned. I had hoped, after the passing of the Shop Hours Bill, that my work in this direction was over, but have found it impossible to resist the appeal made by shopkeepers and assistants all over the country. Last year my noble friend
  1336
  Lord Belper pointed out that the law is enforced at present in very few places, and he argued tint either, therefore, it is broken in few places, or the local authorities do not care to put it into operation. Now, I think I can convince your Lordships that this argument will not hold water.
  Take Manchester. The law is infringed to a great extent. Is it that the local authority and local feeling are against Sunday closing? Not, at all. Last year the Lord Mayor himself coiled a conference of Manchester shopkeepers at the Town Hall to consider the question. In his opening remarks the Lord Mayor stated that Sunday opening was on the increase. He expressed his own opinion that, retail traders ought to have their Sundays to themselves, and that—
  It is desirable that steps should be taken to prevent a continuance of the present state of things. "
  The meeting was large and representative. Mr. Kendall, the able secretary of the Manchester and District Grocers Association, moved, and Mr. Openshaw, president of the Manchester and District Meat Retailers Association, seconded a resolution declaring—
  "That this meeting of representatives of retail traders carrying on business in the city of Manchester regrets the alarming amount of Sunday trading conducted in Manchester, as shown by the recent canvass and fully borne out by the report presented to the Watch Committee by the Chief Constable, and in expressing their disapproval of trading on the Lord's Day (Sunday), appeal to all traders to close their business promises and cease to trade on Sundays. "
  This was carried almost unanimously. In Liverpool also the law is at present nugatory. But this is not because the local authority are unwilling to intervene. The town council have resolved—
  " That having regard to the large amount of Sunday trading in Liverpool, such being prejudicial to the best interests of the community, the Council petition the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in support of Lord Avebury's Bill for the suppression of Sunday trading, and requesting that it be made a Government measure. "
  Our Bill, moreover, is strongly supported by the Liverpool Tradesmen's Associations. It is clear, therefore, that my noble friend's idea is untenable. I could, in fact, go through others of our greatest cities in the same way, but will only mention one

  1337
  other case—that of Hull. The corporation, to their honour, are anxious to put down the opening of shops on Sunday. They prosecute the shops which open, but the only result is a fine of 5s. The Chief Constable writes to me that the present law is not sufficient to cope with the evil, but that in his judgment our Bill would meet the case.
  I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that the shopkeeping community are really and keenly anxious for this Bill. I am speaking in the presence of several noble Lords who were members of the Committee on Early Closing. They will, I am sure, confirm me when I say—indeed it is so stated in our unanimous Report—that though it was not comprised in our inquiry, many of the witnesses impressed on us very strongly the necessity for some such measure as that now before your Lordships. It is supported, as regards the grocery trade, by the Grocers Federation, by the Northern Councils of Grocers Associations, by the Grocers Associations of Bath, Belfast, Blackburn, Bristol, Cardiff, Darlington, Exeter, Leeds, Liverpool, Oldham, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Swansea, Swindon, and Torquay. As regards butchers, I may mention the Butchers Associations of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and Yorkshire. Among other trades I may mention, for instance, the Federated Association of Fruiterers and Florists, and the National Federation of Hairdressers, with their affiliated branches all over the kingdom too numerous to mention. It is under the auspices of their energetic secretary, Mr. Judson, that the monster petition has been prepared which is on your Lordships' Table. Then there are a number of local general Tradesmen's Associations which support us, including the National Chamber of Trade, a very important organisation; the Tradesmen's Associations of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Bootle; the Council of Irish Traders, the Oldham Chamber of Trade, the Manchester Retail Traders' Association, and the Mid-Rhondda Chamber of Trade. Last, but not least, the Scottish shopkeepers are organised as a whole rather than in separate trades, and their two great associations, the Scottish Shopkeepers and Shop Assistants' Union and
  1338
  the Scottish Traders Defence Association, are giving us their strongest possible support.
  Your Lordships will see, therefore, that so far as the shopkeeping community is concerned the consensus of opinion is very great, and there are two circumstances which render it even more overwhelming. The measure has, as your Lordships see, been considered by shopkeepers, associations all over the country; yet so far as I am aware there is not one which opposes the Bill; and, secondly, in almost every case the resolution in its favour has been unanimous. Moreover, I would ask your Lordships to consider how unfairly the law works at present. The majority of shopkeepers conform to it, but a large minority set it at defiance. Of these, again, the majority would gladly close if all did so, but consider themselves compelled to open because their rivals do so. Those who really wish to open are, I believe, a very small minority. Now it is obvious that this state of things places the shopkeepers who obey the law at an unfair disadvantage.
  Now, my Lords, you will perhaps ask how it is that so many shops open if they desire to close. Some of my noble friends who were on the Early Closing Committee asked many questions on this point, and the answer always was that if any open, those who are doing the same class of business are compelled to open also. I may give an illustration. One of my correspondents writes to me that being much opposed to Sunday trading he determined to keep closed. In a short time he lost most of his little capital, and then he opened and made money. When he thought he had made enough he closed again, and now he writes me word that he is nearly ruined again, and compelled once more to open; and he ends his letter, "I am a hatter." If I do not dwell on the assistants it is because the measure is so obviously in their interest that I believe I may say they support it unanimously. I do not, therefore, weary your Lordships by going into detail to show this, but I would strongly urge that the extreme importance of the Sunday closing to the health, happiness, and charaćter of shop

  1339
  assistants must, and I feel sure will, commend the Bill to your favourable consideration.
  I now pass to another class of evidence: local authorities often abstain from resolutions which may seem to be of a political character. Nevertheless, as I have already shown, we are supported by several authorities, and perhaps in this category it will be sufficient to mention the Liverpool Town Council and the council of the Urban District Councils Association, which comprises 480 district councils.
  Now, my Lords, you will naturally ask whether the measure would inconvenience working men. We think we have sufficiently provided for this by allowing the sale of perishable articles up to nine o'clock in the morning. But what do the working men themselves say? The London Trades Council has passed a resolution that in their judgment all shops should be shut on one day in the week. They add, "not necessarily Sunday," but of course it must obviously be Sunday. The Irish Trades Council have passed a resolution in our support, and so have the trades councils of several districts—I may mention those of Hull, Bristol, Walsall, Nottingham—and the National Union of Enginemen and Tramwaymen. As regards Scotland, Mr. Cooper, secretary to the Trades Defence Association, writes me word that he has seen the secretary of the Scottish Trades Council, and that they also are in favour of the measure. As regards the general public, I may refer to the petitions in favour of the measure presented both last year and this, especially the monster petition with more than 83, 300 signatures. On the other hand, though this proposal has been for several years under consideration, there is, so far, practically no opposition.
  The importance, I might almost add the necessity, of a day's rest cannot be overestimated. As Macaulay well said—
  "While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the wealth of the nation as any process which is performed on more busy days. Man, the machine of machines, is repairing, winding up, so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits, with renewed corporeal vigour. "
  1340
  My Lords, I have commended this measure to you so far on grounds of health and happiness. But it appeals also to the religious feeling of the country. In the presence of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and other reverend Prelates, it is not for me to speak of the Church of England, but I may say that I have had numerous resolutions from Nonconformist congregations all over the country supporting the Bill. We were advised last year to let sleeping dogs lie. But, my Lords, the dogs are not sleeping, and are not disposed to let things lie as they are. I have shown your Lordships that the law is in an anomalous, unsatisfactory, and even absurd position; that to render it effective, as we propose, would create no serious inconvenience; that the working men approve; that those immediately concerned, ardently, enthusiastically, and by an overwhelming majority, support the proposal; that it would greatly promote the health, happiness, and character of the community; and, lastly, I believe that it appeals to, and is approved by, the conscience of the nation. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Avebury.)
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' leave to say a few words in support of the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord opposite, who has identified himself with so many efforts of this kind for the public good and advantage. I hope that your Lordships will consent to give a Second Reading to this Bill, although that would be, if my wish were followed, with certain conditions and restrictions which I will refer to in a few moments. I do not think that there is any subject that can come before your Lordships, of a practical kind concerning the ordinary welfare of the people at large, which is more difficult to handle than this particular subject.
  Last year, when the noble Lord introduced a Bill similar in some respects to the measure which is before you now, I ventured to plead for a period of delay during which we might make further inquiry into the actual need that exists

  1341
  for our intervention. The public, as it seemed to me, were not at that time really aware of what the proposition was which was being submitted, and it seemed to me as if we might almost inadvertently slip into the taking of some important step which we might afterwards find had been taken without due deliberation. But since that time I at least, and I doubt not many other noble Lords, have received abundant evidence showing that the interest in the question has grown, and that, as Lord Avebury has truly said, it is no use remarking, "Let sleeping dogs lie," because the question is awake. It is being stirred, and the time, it seems to me, has come when some forward action on our part is practically necessary. I at least desire that we should courage and make some definite step in the direction which the noble Lord advocates.
  The correspondence which I have had upon this subject, and not a few of the interviews with which I have been favoured by those who are interested in it, have shown me how widespread still is the general misunderstanding and confusion as to what is at this moment the actual position of the law on these Sunday questions. In this House your Lordships are no doubt familiar with the facts, but I am quite sure that is not so in the country at large. Sunday observance has caused a great deal of controversy, and has been the subject of enactments of different sorts, ecclesiastical and civil, through every period of English history.
  Legislators, civil and ecclesiastical, have again and again tried to decide about the recreations which ought to be legitimate, morally and legally, on Sunday, and strange stories come to us from the past as to how that question was dealt with. In the "Book of Sports" of James I., which took the form of law in the first year of Charles I., elaborate rules were laid down to what recreations might be indulged in on Sunday and what recreations ought to be peremptorily forbidden. Then came a tremendous reaction, and the restraints of the years that followed form a strange episode in English history, both religious and secular. There were restrictions on
  1342
  actual physical movement, as, for example, that no man should be allowed to go faster than a walk on Sunday. This restriction was modified indeed, as your Lordships may remember, by one peculiar clause dealing with the episode when a man's hat might be blown off on Sunday. The question then arose, what, should the man do in such a case as that? It was enacted, as perhaps some of your Lordships may remember, that he might run after his hat if he ran "reverently." Such was the mode in which these matters were dealt with in the Puritan period.
  In the following century the subject was again tackled with considerable resolution, particularly as to the nature of the entertainments which might be given, and the places of amusement that might be open; and that branch of the subject was dealt with nine years ago with great care by your Lordships, who referred the matter to a Select Committee, on which I had the honour of sitting. A very elaborate Report was presented to this House, which I need not refer to further because it culminated in a final Resolution, which received the approval of the House, stating that, while the phraseology of the earlier Act was now inappropriate, and the alteration of such phraseology would be expedient, the existing law as laid down in the statutes corresponded substantially with the wishes and sentiments of the English people, and that, any material change in its general provisions would be harmful rather than advantageous.
  Therefore, we can leave out of sight legislation and attempted legislation dealing with recreation and amusement, and fall back on the far graver question of the legislation dealing with the branches of trade and labour which may be properly sanctioned on Sunday. Upon that point the main statute that exists is, of course, the statute of Charles II, which definitely enacts that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose for sale any wares or merchandise on the Lord's Day, or any part thereof, upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit the goods exposed. That was subsequently so far amended that an infraction of the Act is met by the trumpery tine to which the noble Lord

  1343
  has referred—a fine which in the case of any lucrative branch of trade is absolutely ineffectual. The old law has further been restricted in its operation by the Act passed some thirty years ago, that no prosecution shall be instituted except by, and with the consent in writing of, the chief officer of police of the district, of two justices of the peace, or of a stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where such offence is committed.
  The law at this moment, therefore, is that all trading on Sunday is practically forbidden; but the law has become in many places a dead letter, and in very large branches of trade a quite futile enactment, because of the double restriction that the fine must not exceed 5s., and that a prosecution shall not be instituted without the sanction I have quoted. I do not in the least find fault with the second restriction, because obviously there should be something to prevent frivolous or trumpery prosecutions. But the fact that the Act has become inoperative in practice has encouraged those who in our own day have desired, to go forward in the direction of an increase of Sunday trading to step forward boldly without much fear of harmful consequences. The testimony is, so far as I know, quite universal that, as regards our great towns, there is an immense increase of Sunday trading, and that the increase is going rapidly forward. That is due mainly to two causes—at least, so it seems to me. The first is the very large increase of the barrow or costermonger trade, which is conducted in the open street and has now reached dimensions so formidable that it is practically impossible for the small shopkeeper to compete with the costermonger or the vendor from a barrow or stall, if he is obliged to have his shop closed on Sunday while the barrow-trade may still go on. The other reason is that in London, and in the East End particularly, the increase of the foreign element of the population, and especially the Jewish element, has operated in the same direction, and complicates the problem considerably when we try to deal with it. Anyhow, the opinion has, I can say for certain, found expression among the vast number of those who are really best qualified, in
  1344
  the widest spirit, to look at this matter all round, that we can no longer let the matter alone, and that the time has now come when it must be dealt with in some way or other. That opinion, so far as I know, has the general consent of all those who have the best interests of the people at heart.
  In many regions—I can speak for parts of London—an endeavour has been made to ascertain, not merely through the associations to which the noble Lord has referred, but by taking a census from shop to shop, what shopkeepers themselves feel on this matter. I have here a list of such a census taken in a large district in East London, and it shows that the proportion of shopkeepers anxious to have Sunday trading put an end to compared to those who were prepared to allow it to go on was 541 to 137, and I have reason to believe that that is a sample of the statistics which might be procured from any district in which the difficulty at present exists. But I entirely admit that we must proceed with the greatest caution and care if we are to go forward at all. It is by no means plain sailing; our action needs to be safeguarded lest we inadvertently do an injustice.
  The views of shopkeepers and tradesmen, important as they are, constitute only one element, and perhaps not the most important element, in the consideration of a question of tins kind. The noble Marquess who for so many years led this House, and who spoke more than once upon this subject with all the weight which attached to him personally as well as to the office he held, used to be constantly reminding us that what we had to consider in these matters was not merely the wishes of the shopkeepers or sellers, but those of the general public, the purchasers who gave the demand for such trade, either in evenings or on Sundays, as we were trying to restrain. I believe that to be absolutely true; but, of course, the task is a very difficult one of ascertaining in any quite clear and concrete form what is the opinion of those classes who are affected as purchasers in a problem of this sort. However, we have tried to ascertain it in such ways as seem to be possible.

  1345
  The noble Lord has referred to what has been said by trades unions—not trades unions composed of the shop-keeping community, but of the people who themselves, or through their families, are purchasers. That is, as far as I know, as good a criterion as is readily available for discovering what the popular opinion on this subject is. I have also had inquiries made at large gatherings of working women and among girls' clubs and the like, attended by the class of people who would be the ordinary purchasers in the kind of shops which would be affected by this Bill. Although there is not a unanimous opinion on the subject—it is exceedingly difficult, in a constituency of that kind, to get an exact or statistical answer to a question—yet there can be no doubt at all, and I challenge inquiry about it, that there is a very large preponderance of opinion on the part of those best entitled to be listened to among the working classes that there is no real necessity for anything like the amount of Sunday trading which is going on at this moment. Such is also the opinion of some of the best of the leaders and spokesmen of the working classes Mr. John Burns and many more have spoken to the effect that Sunday observance is a vital matter in the interests of the working class. At the same time I admit to the full that it is the duty of those who advocate a measure of this kind to show that it not only pleases the shopkeepers, who might be accused of caring mainly for their own respite, and being careless as to the public convenience, but also that it is in no respect unfair to those whom we may call the purchasing public.
  There is a variety of view about the details of what ought to be done, but there is, as far as I can see, a practical consensus of opinion on the principle which underlies the Bill now before your Lordships. It is, indeed, one of those measures which very largely turns, as regards its practicability and effectiveness, upon the exceptions in the schedules, upon the way in which the rule is to be modified in practice in favour of certain branches of trade and merchandise, and for that reason it seems to me that some further inquiry, with the formal taking of evidence from the spokesmen of those who would be affected by it, is eminently
  1346
  desirable before the measure takes legislative effect. My great hope is that your Lordships will, by reading the Bill a second time to-night, assert the principle that some measure of the kind is wanted, and will then refer it to a Select Committee, who shall inquire particularly into the kind of points I have referred to with a view to making the measure a workable one. After such an inquiry we should be in a better position to go forward than we are now.
  There are a great many points which will have to be much further considered before a Bill like this can actually become law—I refer to such points as the purchase of perishable provisions, and especially the purchase of meat in summer weather by families who live in only one room. Then, again, in express terms, the Bill exempts from exemption, if I may use such a phrase, hairdressers and barbers. Now, I confess that, though no section of the community has approached me on this subject with anything like the volume of unanimity that the hairdressers of England have, I yet remain to some little degree unconverted as to the absolute necessity of closing barbers' shops on Sunday morning. I admit that the Sunday business is so heavy that it inflicts hardship upon those who have adopted that honourable profession, but none the less, the needs of the public do seem to me to be met in that particular respect in a way which I should not like to see curtailed without further and formal inquiry as to the feeling of the customers who would mainly be affected. But if you look at the nature of the articles which are sold in most of the large London markets on Sunday—in East Street, Walworth; in Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and elsewhere—you will find that, far from their being solely perishable articles meeting the special wants of the moment, there are ten times as many things on sale which are not in that sense perishable at all. Crockery, birds and rabbits, and pets of different kinds, flowers and plants, and clothing, old and new, form the very large preponderance of the marketable articles. It is the trade in these articles, and not in the perishable necessities to which I have referred, that we must endeavour to curtail and I am certain that inquiry would

  1347
  elicit the fact that it could be done without any genuine hardship being inflicted upon the purchasing public.
  I am perfectly well aware that dealing with this subject at all is an action fraught with peril. There is danger lest when we begin to handle it we may find we are led on, against our will perhaps, into the repeal of wholesome existing enactments, or into a general treatment of the subject which would lead in a direction opposite to what most of us would desire. But I think the time has come when that risk must be run, because not only is the evil great but it is steadily crowing, and when that is the case, the kind of consideration I have referred to loses a great deal of its force. The evil has reached that stage that if we are ever to step in we ought to step in now, lest it increase to a degree which will place it altogether beyond our control. I believe that at this moment we are face to face in our great towns with the prospect of that Sunday relaxation, that rest from work on Sunday, which has been so long a marked characteristic of English life, being seriously imperilled.
  Of course, I need not say that, in my own case, and in the case of those who act specially with me in a matter of this kind, the religious element of the question is predominant in our minds. But I want to emphasise the fact that it is not upon that ground that I am arguing the matter to-night. There are other places and other occasions upon which that line of argument may be more suitably followed. But I am supporting the Bill to-night on the wider, more popular, and less controverted line that the general well-being of the people as a whole requires the day of rest and the day of recreation, in the true sense of the word, which Sunday ought to be and happily is, in most parts of England, from the ceaseless grind and worry of modern life. That is what I desire to safeguard and protect, and that is what I believe may be imperilled unless we step in and take some action for its protection. Hitherto it has been possible in our great cities for the denizens to have one day out of seven during which there can be some respite from the clamour and whirl which goes on throughout the week, but we are in some danger lest that day of rest should
  1348
  become a day of labour without any commensurate good to the public at large. As I have said, I think careful inquiry is necessary as to the manner in which the proposed legislation should take effect. Therefore, I hope the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I believe we should then find that we could amend the existing law with practically the unanimous consent of all those who, from different points of view, have truly at heart the best interests of the English people.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, although this is practically the same Bill as the noble Lord brought forward last session, I fully recognise that there has been since then some progress with regard to this I question. The speech which has just been addressed to the House by the most reverend Primate marks a distinct step in that direction which cannot be ignored. I do not, therefore, in the least complain that the noble Lord has again brought the Bill forward, for I fully recognise that the question, having got to this point, requires the fullest consideration. I do not wish for a moment to enter into any controversy with my noble friend in charge of the Bill as to the facts which he has laid before us in regard to the views of the shopkeeping community, but I may remind him that I opposed the Bill last year, not so much with regard to its details, but because I ventured to think that there were other considerations which must have the greatest weight in dealing with this question; and I can appeal to no stronger argument in support of this view than that used last year by the most reverend Primate, who said then, as he has said to-night, that this was a question of the utmost delicacy and difficulty, and one which he deprecated touching without fuller information than we have before us.
  The Motion which has been moved by my noble friend is that the Bill should be read a second time, and the suggestion has been thrown out by the most reverend Primate that, after having been read a second time, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I desire to point out that if the Bill is read a second time before being referred to a Select Committee, it would not only be practically admitting the principle

  1349
  of the Bill, but would prevent the Select Committee from going into the whole question of Sunday trading by restricting them within the four corners of this small measure. My suggestion, therefore, on behalf of His Majesty Government, is that there should be an inquiry, but an inquiry before reading the Bill a second time, so that the House shall have full information on all the facts of the case before it attempts legislation. As the most reverend Primate has said, it is necessary to approach this question with great care and caution. The matter does call for further inquiry, and it is impossible for the House to ignore the arguments which have been brought forward. In these circumstances I ask your Lordships not to read the Bill the second time, but to assent to Amendment which I am authorised to move, namely—
  "That this House is not prepared to legislate on this subject without further information as to the facts of the case; and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which Sunday trading is now permitted by law. "
  I think that even my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill will recognise that if a Committee of that sort is appointed it will mark a distinct step foward in this matter, and he will be able to congratulate himself that he has at least taken the first step to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out all the words after the word That' for the purpose of inserting the following words 'This House is not prepared to legislate on this subject without further information as to the facts of the case; and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which Sunday trading is now permitted by law. '"—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Avebury will be disposed to accept the Amendment proposed to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I am inclined to hope that if he has the prospect of sufficient support to carry it, he will adhere to the Motion. I think it was clear from the able speech of the most reverend Primate that there would be a good deal for the Committee to do even if they were restricted to the consideration of the provisions of this
  1350
  Bill. The noble Lord who spoke for His Majesty's Government says that the whole question of Sunday trading should be dealt with. To a great extent we may that the Bill as it stands does deal with what is generally included in the expression Sunday trading. As to the provisions of the Bill it is quite evident, from the measure itself, and especially after the explanation of the noble mover, that it is not intended to prevent people from doing any business on Sunday which they wish to do, but to protect people from being compelled to do business on Sunday which they do not want to do. It has been said that any one who desires to do so can close his business on Sunday, but, human nature being what it is, we can easily understand that it is felt to be intolerable by a shopkeeper that others who take advantage of his adherence to the general custom of the country by observing the Sabbath should be allowed to carry on business to his detriment.
  It is quite clear also that this proposed legislation cannot be described as puritanical. As the most reverend Primate has truly said, the Bill proceeds mainly on the principle of the general welfare, and it would be a little late in the day to object to the Bill on the ground that it interferes with the liberty of the individual, since Parliament has already recognised in kindred legislation that it is in the general interest that there should be certain restrictions on liberty of action. The Bill is sufficiently on the lines of what has already been sanctioned by Parliament to prevent its being described as the thin end of the wedge, or as importing a new principle into our legislation. As to the details, I cannot help thinking that my noble friend has been very tender to one class of trader, namely the tobacconist. Smoking requisites can easily be laid in beforehand. It may be true that a man cannot lay in a stock of draught beer to last over Sunday, but I have observed that smokers exercise wonderful forethought in the matter of their supply of tobacco, and it cannot be said that any hardship would result from closing tobacconists' shops on Sunday. In Scotland public-houses are closed all day on Sunday, except to travelers, and if it is possible in Scotland for public-houses to be closed on Sunday,

  1351
  I cannot see why, in England, tobacconists should be, allowed to keep their shops open during the whole of that day. Tobacconists, like other people, should be spared the annoyance of having to keep open during the whole of Sunday. The most reverend Primate referred to the views of working-men's wives, who largely form the purchasers on Sunday, and indicated that the majority of that class are in favour of Sunday closing. We can easily understand that when they know that shops will be open on Sunday, husbands of a certain class will not take the trouble to give their wives the requisite money for purchases until Sunday morning, but if they know that the shops will be closed they will, for their own sake, take care to provide their wives with the necessary money on the Saturday. That difficulty would, therefore, be removed. I do not know whether my noble friend will accept the Amendment, but if he does not, and goes to a division, I shall certainly support him.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter, particularly in view of the stage at which it has now arrived. My noble friend behind me has made a very clear statement on the subject, and has spoken strongly in favour of the Second Reading. He was followed by the most rev. Primate, who has peculiar means of knowing the opinions of the people concerned, and who strongly supported the general principle of the Bill, though he thought some of its details ought to be further considered. I have been very much struck by the arguments which have been used, and I consider that the case for a Bill of this sort has been abundantly proved. There is a strong consensus of opinion in favour of closing earlier on Sunday, and it is also considered that exceptions should be made. There is a view of the religious necessities which may be put forward. I am not, however, going to argue that; but, certainly, from another point of view, it is of enormous importance for the country that we should maintain, if possible, the greater part, if not the whole, of the Sunday holiday. It is not good, I am convinced, for any man, however industrious and energetic he may be, to work during the whole seven days in the week.
  1352
  I protest against the subject being at once sent to a Select Committee. I think it is most important that your Lordships should give an opinion on the general principle of the Bill. If the Motion for the Second Reading is agreed to the Bill might then be sent, as the most rev. Primate has suggested, to a Select Committee. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government said he objected to the House agreeing to the general principle of the Bill. I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but I maintain that no new principle will be established by parsing the Second Reading, since the principle of stopping Sunday trading exists in the present law. I sincerely hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment, but will vote for the Second Reading and let the Bill then be submitted to a Select Committee.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I desire to associate myself very heartily with this Bill, and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. The necessity for remedying the evil to which the noble Lord called attention is felt very deeply in our large towns, and the larger the town is the stronger, I believe, is that feeling. In those great towns where the population is for the most part exceedingly poor, such legislation is acutely needed. I hold that legislation in this direction, instead of adding to the restrictions of the people, will very largely add to their liberty. The small trader, who has to exert himself throughout the week, finds himself compelled, through the excess of competition, to choose between complying with the law and shutting his shop on Sunday, or infringing the law and opening it. The loyal man who shuts his shop finds himself at a disadvantage in comparison with his neighbour who does not, and he feels sore at heart that because he is loyal to the law he should suffer by the diversion of custom to his less conscientious competitor. This Bill is, I am sure, welcomed by a very large portion, of the retail traders throughout the country. In places like Liverpool and Portsmouth the evil is very great, and especially in regard to the hawkers' trade carried on in the streets. This Bill will remedy what is felt to be a cruel

  1353
  disability on small traders. I am also convinced that anything that can be done by Parliament to give the working classes greater liberty for relaxation and rest on Sunday will be heartily welcomed by the country at large. The working classes look hopefully and anxiously for this extension of their freedom, and I am sure the parsing of the Hill will be heartly welcomed in our large towns.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I wish to say, at the outset, that I think an injustice was done to the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the suggestion of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that he (Lord Belper)objected to the principle of the Bill. Lord Belper said nothing of the sort. What the noble Lord stated was, that if the Select Committee were confined to this particular Bill they could not enter into the whole subject of Sunday trading. I am sure the noble Earl unconsciously misrepresented my noble friend. The subject is of a much more complicated character than has been assumed. I think that some of the proposals of the Bill are intended obviously more for the accommodation of those who are well of than for those who are poor. One of the exempted trades is the tobacco trade. Will anyone give me a reason why that trade should be exempted from the prohibition? Again I observe that newsagents are exempted. This is another trade the carrying on of which on Sunday is especially agreeable to the rich. On the other hand, I find a special section prohibiting barbers from carrying on business on Sunday. Can anyone give a good and substantial reason why barbers should be specially mentioned for prohibition? I know that some years ago, when there was a very violent effort on the part of those who took a stricter view of Sunday observance, an attempt was made to bring the whole law on the subject into contempt and ridicule by a series of prosecutions which, I believe were only stopped by the magistrates declining to convict; but why this particular trade of the barber should be selected for special prohibition I am wholly unable to conjecture.
  The whole subject is an extremely difficult one. In my opinion the Bill is
  1354
  very imperfect, and I confess that I would have liked to have a more general inquiry than is possible by a Select Committee on a particular measure. So far I agree with my noble friend Lord Belper; but I recognize that it seems to be the view of your Lordships generally that there should be an inquiry, and rather than appear to impose any difficulty in the way of such an inquiry I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to be read a second time. At the same time, I think that one must recognise how serous and important the question is. Take the religious question. A great deal of the trading in the East End to which the most rev. Primate has referred is conducted by persons who are not Christians and who do not recognise the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath. Yet these people, who are prohibited by their own religion from trading on Saturday, will be prohibited by the Bill from trading on Sunday also.
  Again, there is the question whether this is not a case of the smaller traders against the costermongers, who undoubtedly have established an enormous trade in the poorer districts. If the Bill were passed in its present form the whole of that class of traders, who are a great accommodation to the poorest classes, would be prevented, from carrying on their business. I hope that it will not be supposed that I make light of the Christian obligation to observe the Sunday. I was for some years chairman of the Lord's Day Observance Society, and I am certainly not inclined to suggest in the smallest degree that the observance of the Sabbath is not important; but, at the sane time, one cannot but feel that in our complex civilisation it is sometimes very inexpedient to try to draw the string too tight. If you do so it snaps. I think that the importance of keeping the Sunday as a day of rest is being gradually recognised by mankind to such an extent that it does not require the stimulus of legislation. By driving that feeling too hard we are apt to hinder rather than to assist the movement. Rather than run counter to the desire of the House, however, in regard to this particular Bill, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I need hardly say that I have listened with great satisfaction to the conclusion of the speech of the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may explain that the reason why tobacconists were excluded from the operation of the Bill was that they alleged that the public houses came into competition with them, and that it was not fair that they should be compelled to close when public houses were allowed to remain open. As to the special mention of barbers, that was due to the fact that the Barbers' Associations throughout the country were most anxious to come under the Bill, and they were afraid that they would not do so unless they were specially mentioned.
  LORD BELPER: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.