Chiswickite - formerly The Croydonian

Mr. GINNELL asked if the hon. Gentleman would inform the House of the result of the trial of the chief British accountant of the Canton-Kaulung Railway on a charge of embezzlement?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD According to telegrams in the Press the accused has been sentenced to two years' hard labour, but I have no official information on the subject at present.

Mr. CATHCART WASON  asked when the whale stations in the north of Norway were burned down by the fishermen and what was the reason adduced, and when the Act prohibiting landing of whales in Norway was passed by the Storthing?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD  I have no information in regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, paragraph I of the Norwegian Law of 7th January, 1904, prohibits the landing of whales in the provinces of Nordland, Tromso, and Finmarken. (That's the entire upper half of the country.  C) This Act was passed by the Storthing on 11th December, 1903, and came into force on 1st February, 1904.

Mr. CATHCART WASON In view of the fact that whale stations were burned down in Norway, will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information that I ask for, namely, any particulars he can get with regard to the occurrence?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD  I cannot make a promise on the subject, but I will consider the matter.

Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state, with regard to the Kinlea police hut, the cost of erection of the hut, the rent, if anything, paid to James Griffin, J.P., the total annual cost of the maintenance of the police stationed there, including their pay and all incidental expenses?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell) The erection of the police but cost £122, and the cost of the maintenance of the police there amounts in round figures to £485 a year. A rent of one shilling a year is paid to Mr. Griffin for the site.

Mr. REES  asked whether the Secretary of State for India has any information which he can impart to the House regarding the steps taken by the Maharaja of Patiala to stamp out sedition in his State?

The MASTER of ELIBANK The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, but he expects to be furnished with a report in due course. When it is received I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

If the hon. Member will allow me, I will quote two or three lines from the Report, and at the same time I regret to have to refer to certain characteristics of the Indian people:— Neither do the Commission forget that much may be said in excuse for the misconduct of the police in the generally indifferent attitude of the people in respect of crime; in the encouragement of corruption by the readiness with which the people offer illegal gratifications; and in the low pay and poor prospects of tihe police service. 

Mr. LUPTON May I ask as to his remark about the character of the Indian people whether other people would not be liable to corrupt influences when they are willing to be corrupted?

Mr. SPEAKER That is a general question on which hon. Members can form their own opinion.

Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH (on behalf of Mr. Hooper) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could inform the House of the number of foreign firms or companies carrying on business within the United Kingdom; and whether he could give an estimate of the capital employed therein?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr Tennant)   I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department to answer the question of the hon. Member. There is no information in the possession of the Board of Trade as to the number of foreign firms carrying on business in this country. The number of foreign companies incorporated outside the United Kingdom (including Colonial companies) which have established a place of business in the United Kingdom and have effected registration with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is 889. I am, however, unable to give the hon. Member an estimate of the capital employed by such foreign companies in the United Kingdom.

Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has been recently promoted to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna) The reply is in the negative

Captain CRAIG  asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the reasons why the recent appointments of organising inspector of musical instruction and assistant organising inspector of musical instruction under the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, were not thrown open to competition by examination so as to give all the teachers under the Commissioners of National Education an equal opportunity of competing; whether applicants for the position were required to state their religious views; and, if so, for what reason?

Mr. BIRRELL I am informed by the Commissioners of National. Education that the appointments in question were advertised in the public Press, and that it was open to any national teacher who felt qualified for either position to apply for it. The Commissioners consider that the course pursued by them in the selection of candidates secures the appointment of the most suitable officers. All candidates for appointments under the Board are required to give particulars as to their age, qualifications, and religious denomination, the information being required for administrative purposes.

Captain CRAIG What is the necessity for stating one's religious views in connection with the teaching of music?

Mr. BIRRELL For administrative purposes it is stated that in Ireland it is sometimes desirable to know. These things, to me, I confess, are inexplicable.

Captain CRAIGWill the right hon. Gentleman in future confine these appointments to those under the administration of the Board, so as to encourage a teacher to qualify for such examinations?

Mr. BIRRELL I will communicate that to the Commissioners of National Education.

Captain CRAIG It would be much appreciated.

Mr Claude Hay....The Bill proposes to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1884, and I would like to know why they have not proposed to remove what I consider as the biggest blot in that Act, namely, the provision with regard to flogging. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the case for or against flogging. Flogging was abolished in the Army in the early eighties, thanks very largely to the efforts of Mr. Parnell and the Irish party.

§ Although the provisions with regard to flogging still remain in the Naval Discipline Act, it has been suspended for a considerable number of years. It has been so suspended, not by Act of Parliament, but merely by Admiralty Regulation. There is no security or guarantee whatever that the regulation may not be withdrawn to-morrow by a stroke of the pen. If it has been abolished in the Army I should like to know why the opportunity of this measure has not been taken to abolish it in the Navy as well. Is the Navy more criminal than the Army? Why are the sailors of this Empire to be subjected to a degradation to which the soldiers in the Army are not subjected? I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill what is the justification for the retention of these Clauses in the Naval Discipline Act? Why is flogging retained in it as a legal punishment? Is the liability to flogging to which sailors are subject a good recruiting argument for the Navy? You are building more "Dreadnoughts" at the present time. You will want men to man them, and I do not believe that the fact that you deliberately reserve the right to flog these men will help you to man those ships.  

Labels: a thousand years ago, Parliament

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm. You can skip to the end and leave a response.