I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a payment of £75 per annum has to be made in respect of each cadet at Osborne by the parent; whether, in addition, there are not charged to the parents term fees amounting to about £24 per annum; whether the parent has not in addition to face charges for examination fees on entry, travelling expenses, uniform, chest, book, sextant, and maintenance during holidays, which together bring up the cost to from £135 to £150 per annum, or from £540 to £600 for the four years' course; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will take steps to cut down the burden on the parents.

The Admiralty are not prepared to reduce the fees charged at Osborne, which are £75 per annum, except in the case of a limited number of cadets admitted at the reduced fee of £40 per annum. It is not known to what additional fees the hon. Member alludes. The expenses incurred on behalf of the cadets in respect of travelling to and from the college, renewals and repairs of clothing, instruments, books, drawing materials, washing, school stationery, sports fund, etc., average at Osborne about £22 a year. The first cost of the outfit, including sea chest and clothing, is about £40. No estimate can be given of the expenses incurred by the parents for clothing and maintenance during the holidays.

On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, E., I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of prisoners committed to military prisons at home and abroad (excluding India), as shown on page 8 of [Cd. 2699] the Report on Military Prisons, 1905; and if he will explain this increase, seeing that the number of committals has gone up from 6,655 in 1896, when the average Army strength at home and abroad (excluding India) was 139,305 to 19,461 in 1905, when the average strength was only 188,570; what action does he propose taking to stop an increase of 192 per cent. in committals to prison in the space of ten years during which the increase in the average strength has been only 35 per cent.

If my hon. friend will kindly refer to the footnote below the figures, which he mentions, he will find the explanation of a large portion of the increase. The increase in the number of men awarded sentences of imprisonment by the commanding officers is due to these men being committed to a military prison, instead of, as formerly, to provost or barrack cells. This explanation also applied to court martial sentences not exceeding forty-two days, which prior to 1902 were carried out in provost prisons, and as these are now classed as military prisons the figures for the latter have correspondingly increased.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the case of Witthauer, the compound manager of the Crœsus mine in the Transvaal, who admitted to the superintendent of foreign labour in the presence of witnesses that he was responsible for the flogging of Chinese coolies in the mines, criminal proceedings have been yet taken to vindicate the law; and, if not, will he explain why.

Lord Selborne has assured the Secretary of State that he is most anxious for the prosecution of Witthauer and that every effort is being made to obtain sufficient evidence on which to prosecute.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House what measures His Majesty's Government have decided to sanction for the protection of the inhabitants of the Transvaal from the outrages committed by the Chinese coolies imported by the gold mining companies.

I am not yet able to inform the House, as the question of the measures to be adopted is still under consideration.

asked whether one method of reducing the outrages would not be to alter the fugitive slave law, which made it a penal offence to give food, shelter, or employment to escaped Chinese coolies.

said he was not aware of the existence of any such law. Of course, the coolies had no right to be employed when they were absent from their regular employment. He thought the matter was one which must be taken into consideration in connection with the measures which Lord Selborne would recommend.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman would see whether the original Ordinance had been altered. Under that law, he repeated, the giving of shelter, food, or employment to an escaped Chinaman was prohibited, making outrage and murder inevitable unless the Chinaman was to die.

asked whether these coolies were treated as fugitive slaves.

said he did not quite know what the question meant. It was true that when caught fugitive coolies were sent back to the mines, but he had no knowledge whether any inhumanity was suggested.

, said he would probably be able to make a statement on this matter after Whitsuntide. It had already been decided that the proposals in regard to barbed wire fences should not be carried any further, and the question of the improvement of the police at the cost of the mineowners was now engaging attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that the British concession at Chinde is rapidly disappearing owing to erosion; and whether he will instruct the Commissioner to make early arrangements with the Portuguese representatives in Zambesia in order to protect British Trade.

I am aware that the British concession annually suffers considerable loss from erosion, but at the rate at which that erosion is going on it is computed that it will be many years before the concession ceases to be available, and the Secretary of State is of opinion that under these circumstances the arrangements which might be necessary for the protection of British Trade in the event of the complete disappearance of the concession ought to receive very careful and deliberate consideration.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the produce of the British Central Africa Protectorate is only allowed to enter the Transvaal Colony free of duty in return for permission to recruit native labour in the Protectorate for the Transvaal mines, and to the fact that owing to the mortality of such natives engaged in the mines the stoppage of such recruiting in the Protectorate is anticipated, the Colonial Office can arrange that the produce of the Protectorate shall continue to enter the Transvaal Colony free of duty; and whether the Colonial Office will consider the desirability of including the British Central Africa Protectorate in the projected South African Customs Union, so as to ensure the permanent free interchange of produce and merchandise between the Protectorate, the Transvaal, and other South African Colonies in order to the development of the said Protectorate.

I hope that it will be possible to arrange that the present free importation shall continue. The necessary provision has been retained in the draft Customs Convention. By the General Act of the Conference of Berlin, and a Declaration of 2nd July, 1890, made under the General Act of the Brussels Conference, it is not permitted in the British Central Africa Protectorate to impose an import duty higher than 10 per cent, ad valorem. So long, therefore, as Great Britain remains a party to these Acts, and the South African Union Tariff exceeds 10 per cent, ad valorem, it is impossible to include the Protectorate in the South African Customs Union.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any action has been taken or is in contemplation by His Majesty's Government in regard to the case of Silvanus Jones, a British subject of Lagos, sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the appeal court at Boma, Congo Free State, on 15th March, 1904, for alleged complicity in the murder of a woman; if His Majesty's Government are aware that the accused denied the charges against him, that he was unprovided with counsel, and was not given the opportunity of securing such; and if His Majesty's Government will take steps to remove British subjects in the Congo from the position in which they stand towards the Congo executive and judiciary.

Consul Nightingale has recently reported that Silvanus Jones died in hospital last March. He did deny the charges against him, but it does not appear that they were unfounded or false, and the result of the inquiry made by my Predecessor, referred to in the answer to the hon. Member's question of May 18th, 1904 † was to show that Jones must have been aware that criminal proceedings were to be taken against him, and that ho might have engaged counsel if he had desired to do so. He was asked at the trial on appeal whether he had applied I for the assistance of counsel, and replied in the negative. This case is not one which would justify the action suggested in the last part of the Question, for the reason given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his speech in 1904.‡

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consular authorities in the Congo State have reported upon the case of John Alfred Brown, a coloured British subject of Freetown, sentenced, on July 19th, 1904, by the appeal court at Boma, to three years'

† See (4) Debates, exxxv., 178.

‡ See (4) Debates, exxxv., 1276 et seq.

imprisonment; if he is aware that Brown was arrested and seized in his own house by the executive official of the district, who figures as his prosecutor in the records; that an inquiry was held on the spot by the prosecutor subsequent to Brown's arrest and after his removal, and that the charges brought against him at his first trial at Stanleyville were entirely different to those which were held to justify his arrest; that he was kept in prison for four months without trial; that he was unprovided with counsel at Stanleyville, unable to call witnesses for his defence, and consequently unable to defend himself against the charges made; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

Consul Nightingale reported this casein 1904, when he was Acting Consul at Boma. John Brown admitted having on several occasions beaten the natives under him, and I see no reason to complain of the punishment inflicted on him. I may add that the final sentence would have been heavier if the Court of Appeal had not taken the view that compulsion is necessary in order to induce the natives to work. I have not sufficient information to enable me to answer all the hon. Member's Questions in detail, but I have come to the conclusion that, with the exception of the delay in bringing Brown to trial, he was not on the whole unfairly treated. John Brown was released on March 5th, 1905. I ought to add that, in both this and the previous case, the accused were punished for having taken part in the ill-treatment of natives, which has been the ground of such general complaint in the Congo State. They are, therefore, in a quite different category from other matters which have formed the subject of representations on the part of His Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has yet been received from the Chinese Government to the request of His Majesty's Government for more definite assurances in regard to the Imperial edict placing the Maritime Customs under the control of a Chinese administrator.

A telegram has been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking to the effect that he was yesterday given a definite promise by the Foreign Board that the Chinese Government would send him a note in a few days, formally recapitulating and reaffirming the specific engagement contained in Articles 7 and 6 of the 1896 and 1898 Loan Agreements that the administration of the Maritime Customs shall continue as at present constitued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement made on April 28th in the Dorchester police court by Captain Gravener, the chairman of the bench, in dismissing an application for exemption under the Vaccination Acts, that he would never grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination; and if he will take into consideration the advisability of making representations with a view to the removal of Captain Gravener from the bench.

I am at the present time in communication with the Lord Chancellor upon this subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the requirements of The Companies Acts, 1900, especially of Section 12, have been complied with by the following limited liability companies: Rhodesia, Limited (New Company), Gwanda Consolidated Development, Austro-Rhodesia Development, South Africa Gold Dredging, Town Properties Bulawayo, Criterion Development Company, Empress Mines, and Eastern Queen's; if any of these companies are registered in Rhodesia and not in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether they are exempt from the responsibilities of the Companies' Acts.

Of the companies named in the question Rhodesia, Limited (New Company), Criterion Development Company, and Eastern Queen's are not registered in the United Kingdom. I am unable to say whether they are registered in Rhodesia. Speaking generally, companies registered outside the United Kingdom are not subject to the Companies Acts; but any company, wherever registered, is liable to be ordered by the Court to be wound up, if it possessess assets within the Court's jurisdiction. The remaining companies mentioned in the Question are registered in the United Kingdom, but of them the South African Gold Dredging Company, Limited, alone was registered after January 1st, 1901, and consequently would be the only one to which Section 12 of the Companies Act, 1900, applied. It did make a return under that section, but is now winding up.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the form of inquiry he proposes as to the lighting of the British and Irish coasts.

It is proposed that the inquiry should be by Royal Commission, and should extend to the constitution and administration of the three general lighthouse authorities, but not to the incidence of light dues.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Blackburn Board of Guardians on the 5th instant, in the course of which the question of advertising for a foster-mother of the Catholic religion was rejected, in spite of a favourable report to this effect from the Cottage Homes Committee; and whether, in view of the fact that forty-nine of the children in the cottage homes are Catholic, whilst only thirty-eight are Protestant, and that the result of adopting this recommendation would be that the Catholic and Protestant foster-mothers would be equal in number, he will cause an inquiry to be made, so that justice shall be done in this matter to the Catholics of Blackburn.

I have made inquiry on this subject, and understand that the post to be filled up is that of foster-mother in a home in which all the children are Protestants. It seems right, therefore, that she should be a Protestant also. It appears, however, that there are two homes in which both Roman Catholic and Protestant children are received. In both of these the foster-mother is a Protestant. It has been suggested that the foster-mother of one of these homes should be transferred to the post now vacant, and that she should be replaced by a Roman Catholic foster-mother. I have asked the Guardians to consider the matter further from this point of view.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Camberwell I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say, respecting the working of the Local Government Order of April 27th, 1905, empowering boards of guardians in certain cases to assist in the feeding of hungry children, in how many cases the Order has been put into operation; in how many cases are children now being assisted under it; what is the record of its operations in London; and whether he has received any information bearing generally upon the efficacy or otherwise of the Order in question.

The information I have received on this subject is not sufficiently complete to enable me to give the precise particulars asked for by my hon. friend, but I gather from it that, except in some of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Unions, the applications under the Order have not been numerous.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his correspondence with the Chairman of the Central (Unemployed) Body has satisfied, him that the reply to his letter of May 11th will be received by the date suggested, namely June 1st; and whether any delay occurring in the receipt of this reply would cause a corresponding delay in the introduction of the proposed Bill to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.

I find that I shall not receive the Preliminary Report of the Central (Unemployed) Body by June 1st. I understand that it will be submitted to a special meeting of the body on the 8th of that month, and I have every reason to expect that I shall receive the Report within a few days of that date. If this expectation is fulfilled I do not think that the matter referred to in the last part of the Question would be materially affected.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are three schools in Handsworth, near Sheffield, and that whilst the head teacher in the Church of England school draws a salary of £160, the salary of the head teacher in St. Joseph's Catholic School has been cut down to £90, although the number of children in each of these schools is practically the same; and will he have an inquiry made into the action of the local education committee, with a view to equalising their salaries.

I find that the matter referred to came before the Board of Education a year ago and a letter was then written on the subject. Since then nothing has been heard of it, and the Board supposed the matter had been settled. If the managers renew the subject, I will see that it is carefully investigated.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the British delegates to the Postal Congress at Rome have been successful in obtaining any reductions or improvements in the postal rates to foreign countries.

I am glad to be able to announce that, although the British delegates failed to obtain a reduction in the initial postage rate of 2½d. to foreign countries, they were successful in persuading the congress to adopt two considerable concessions to the public; the one as regards the initial weight allowed for foreign letters, and the other as regards the charges on; heavier letters. In reference to the first, point, when the new Postal Union Convention of Rome takes effect next year, the unit of weight will be doubled, so that the existing postage of 2½d. to foreign countries will prepay a letter weighing up to one ounce instead of up to only half an ounce as at present. This concession will embrace also letters sent under the Imperial penny post to any part of the British Empire and to Egypt, which letters at present must not exceed half an ounce in weight for a penny. Thus a letter (say) to France weighing one ounce, will in future cost for postage 2½d. instead of 5d.; and a similar letter to India and the Colonies will cost 1d. instead of 2d. As regards the second point, at present an additional 2½d. is charged for every additional half ounce after the first. In future the postage on foreign letters exceeding an ounce in. weight will be reduced to 1½d. for each additional ounce, after the initial rate of 2½d. on the first ounce has been paid. Thus a letter to France, weighing two ounces will be chargeable with a postage rate of 4d. (that is 2½d. plus 1½d.) instead of 10d. as at present. Similarly a two-ounce letter to India, the Colonies and. Egypt will cost only 2d. instead of 4d. A further useful postal reform, which; was adopted on the motion of the British, delegates, was the introduction of a reply coupon, a little postal order to bearer exchangeable in any country for a Union postage stamp. Further, the transit rates have been reduced and simplified. I think the British delegates are to be congratulated on the general success that has attended their efforts.

asked if the proposals had been accepted by the United States.

I think the United States specifically agreed to them. But, in any case, the arrangement is binding on all the countries in the Postal Union.

wished to know when the new regulations would come into operation.

Next year, It has always been the custom of the Postal Union to give a year's notice in order that preparations and postal arrangements may be made accordingly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the nature of the declaration that has to be made by ex-Ministers before they can receive a political pension.

The declaration must state that the applicant's total income is inadequate to maintain his station in life as required by the Act 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 24, Section 6, re-enacted by the Civil Offices (Pensions) Act, 1869.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has yet received the Report of Sheriff Fleming and Mr. A. B. Millar in regard to local taxation in the parishes in the western islands of Scotland; and if the Report is to be published.

The Report has been received and will be laid upon the Table presently.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the ratepayers in the parish of Barra have refused to pay the parish rates amounting to 17s. 11d. in the pound; that the school board requisition has not been handed over, and that the clerk to the parish council has had to give his personal guarantee to the bank for certain necessary expenditure; whether he is aware that the whole parish council has resigned; and what he proposes to do to meet this deadlock and to relieve a parish where the rates are 17s. 11d. in the pound.

I understand the facts are as stated. Although several attempts have been made to recover the rates aud the collector has made a door to door visit, the ratepayers refuse to pay, and prosecutions have, I understand, been ordered. The parish council, with two exceptions, have now resigned and the Local Government Board are considering the terms of an Order which they propose to issue under the powers conferred upon them by Section 18 of the Act of 1894.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Hore of Killadysert, whose husband was laid up with illness, applied to the Board of Guardians of Killadysert for outdoor relief for her husband and four children, who refused it; and whether he will inquire why outdoor relief was refused to this family, and who was responsible for their not getting it.

The Local Government Board have referred this Question to the officials of the Killadysert Union, who have reported that Mrs. Hore has not at any time applied to the guardians for outdoor relief.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state what has been the amount unexpended each year since the formation of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland, out of the moneys voted by Parliament, excluding the sum of £18,000 per annum voted as a grant in aid, and which last year amounted to £190,406, to what fund does this unexpended balance go, under what section of the Act of 1899 is this money so diverted; and in view of the fact that the Department has repeatedly refused grants for objects which, if encouraged, would tend to the development of agriculture and kindred subjects, on the grounds that the Department had no money, he will take steps to ensure that money voted by Parliament will be expended on the specific objects for which it has been voted, and not diverted for the formation of reserve funds which were not contemplated by Parliament.

The unexpended balances out of the moneys voted by Parliament in respect of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for each year since April 1st, 1900, are as follows—

asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that in the public balance-sheet of the Department the figures for 1904–5 were not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House, and also whether in view of the complicated way the accounts were presented he would direct that the balance-sheet should be issued yearly, so that it might be shown how the money was spent.

I have not the Report before me and cannot compare the figures I have just given; these figures may be assumed to be the most authentic.

asked whether it was to be assumed that the Department issued a balance-sheet before they knew the real state of their affairs.

Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the system by which a reserve fund is created?

said he could hardly say that without looking at the Act. That Act presented a great many things.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman see that the unexpended money went into such a fund, for instance, as that required for the financing of the Labourers Bill?

was understood to say he must look at the Act before he could answer that Question.

asked whether these matters would be considered by the Committee at present investigating the constitution of the Department.

said it certainly would cover part of the financial arrangements of the Department; whether it would cover all the matters referred to was another thing.

Is the financial management included in what is called the Horace Plunkett category?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who has control of the duties of sub-sheriffs in Ireland; and, if it is permissible for such officials to act as land agents or auctioneers while in the public service.

the appointment of under or sub-sheriffs in Ireland is vested in the high sheriff of each county for the time being. The under-sheriff holds office during the will of the high sheriff, and is answerable to him for the discharge of his duties. Under-sheriffs are in no way under the control of the Irish Government. I am not aware of any statutory provision forbidding under sheriffs to act as land agents or auctioneers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the presentation of the Report of the Poor Law Commission; whether the Report has been ready for publication for some time; and if he can state that it will not be held back until after the close of the Parliamentary session.

The Chairman of the Poor Law Reforms Commission informs me that the delay in the presentation of the Report is due in part to unforeseen difficulties in the preparation of statistics, and in part to the fact that he has had to give a good deal of attention recently to another inquiry in which he is concerned by the direction of the Government. The Report of the Poor Law Reform Commission will, he states, be published long before the close of the Parliamentary session. It is at present almost ready for presentation except for some statistics which have yet to be completed, and these may cause some modification in the recommendations of the Commissioners.

Is not the Report already in the hands of the printers?

Yes, but corrections are to be made in the proofs.

Who is responsible for the delay? This is a pressing matter.

All possible despatch is being made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on whom the charges for the additional police hut and policemen at Knockanes, near Headfort, county Kerry, will fall; whether he considers it necessary to retain a force of nine policemen in a small and peaceable district under present conditions; and, if so, what are the grounds on which they are to be continued.

The cost of the four policemen at Knockanes hut is defrayed out of public funds. The force at the permanent station at Headfort also consists of four policemen. The district to be policed by this force is not small, but consists of an area of 180 square miles. The force is considered absolutely necessary for the policing of this large district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday the 13th instant a notice appeared outside the church of Ballinakill, county Galway, signed by the Rev. Martin Larkin, P.P., asking the tenants on a portion of the property of Sir Henry Burke, of Marble Hill, to meet him on the following Tuesday in reference to the purchase of their holdings; whether he induced some of those present to offer twenty-one years purchase, and had the estate bailiff, named Campbell, present to take down the names of those induced to consent to that offer; and whether, seeing that a portion of the tenants are in arrear, he will see that if they are unduly pressed for recovery of same, and thereby coerced to agree to that price, the estate shall be inspected before any public money is advanced.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the particular portion of the estate of Sir Henry Burke which is referred to in the Question have yet come before them, and they have no information as to the matters of fact alleged in the Question. If proceedings for sale should come before the Commissioners, they will take any steps which they may consider necessary and proper in the circumstances, having regard to the powers vested in them.

On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what was the system of promotion in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force while Mr. Jones was Chief Commissioner; has it since been departed from, and, if so, for what reason; whether members of the force qualified for promotion have been passed over, and others having less claims to advancement have been promoted in their places; and whether he will take steps to insure that, in future, promotions in the force shall be based on more equitable principles.

The Chief Commissioner informs me that in the time of his predecessor three-fourths of the promotions were made according to seniority from the list of qualified men, and one-fourth of the promotions were made by competitive examination among qualified men, independent of seniority. The latter method of promotion was somewhat of an innovation, and was deemed to have been not entirely satisfactory in practice, seeing that it opened the way for the promotion, in respect of a competitive examination largely in literary subjects, of men whose capacity for police work was not shown to be superior to that of their comrades. The system in question has been departed from by the present Chief Commissioner, who has adopted the general rule of promoting the senior man who is found eligible, reserving a power to give promotion for special merits outside seniority on the result of a competitive examination. The Chief Commissioner informs me that no members of the force who are qualified for promotion have been passed over, and none having less claims to advancement have been promoted in their places. The Chief Commissioner claims that the present system is entirely equitable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will be able to make a statement as to the equivalent grant of money to be devoted to Irish purposes, in relation to the £1,000,000 to be paid to England and Wales under Clause 12 to the Education Bill.

I stated on Thursday last that the time has not yet arrived for making a statement on this subject. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently informed the hon. Member for North Londonderry that as the financial arrangements under the Education Bill will not come into force during the present financial year it would be premature to come to a decision in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the practice of appointing ex-Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners to the Irish Prison Service; and whether he will consider the advisability of not employing, as a prison warder, a constable who may have been in conflict with political offenders and with the criminal classes.

Pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for appointment as prison warders, but as a matter of fact very few have been appointed, the reason being that the majority of pensioners are physically unfit for the work. The Chairman of the Prisons Board informs me that out of a total of 380 warders, at no time have there been more than ten or twelve who have served in the Constabulary. Pensioners, however, who have been appointed have proved satisfactory officers, and so far as experience goes it would not appear that the consideration mentioned in the Question has shown any ground why the practice of occasionally appointing eligible pensioners should not be continued.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Estates Commissioners from a number of tenants occupying uneconomic holdings in Ard, near Killeigh, in the King's County, praying the Commissioners to purchase (for the purpose of the redistribution and enlargement of their holdings) 500 acres of untenanted land on the estate of Mrs. Guise, at Aughanvilla, Geashill; and whether he can say what steps the Commissioners propose to take in the matter.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received the memorial in question, and made inquiries from the owner with the object of considering the question of purchase. The Commissioners were informed, in reply, that the owner had already sold the lands in question to a private purchaser. This sale did not take place through the Commissioners.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to advise the Estates Commissioners to make a special list of applications for the sale of untenanted land where no legal question arose, and where there were no disputed rights, so as to grant the necessary relief under the Land Purchase Acts.

said he believed the Commissioners were doing that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the passing of the Land Act of 1903, many large grazing farms in the West of Ireland have been purchased by non-residential graziers; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take in order to put an end to this practice, which means the sale to individuals of lands which should be utilised for the relief of congestion in Connaught.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that in any case in which a grazier holds on the eleven months system, they make no advance to enable him to purchase the holding, as he is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. In any case in which a grazier is a tenant within the meaning of the Act, the Commissioners will exercise the discretion given to them by the Act, as to whether such a tenancy should be included in the estate for the purposes of purchase, and, if included, whether the advance prescribed by the Land Purchase Amendment Act of 1888, namely £3,000, should be exceeded. In cases in which new tenancies are created by letting lands to graziers or others in a Congested Districts county, the Estates Commissioners, under Section 53 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, can only advance a maximum of £500 in each case. If a landlord creates new tenancies on untenanted land, whether in congested or non-congested districts, by putting the untenanted land up for auction in parcels and then selling to the buyers under the Land Purchase Acts, thus depriving the Commissioners of the opportunity of disposing of such parcels to the classes of persons contemplated by the Act, the Commissioners refuse to allow such parcels to be included in an estate for the purposes of the Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been received from James Somerville, an evicted tenant on the Darcy Irvine estate, county Fermanagh, for re-instatement in his former holding; and whether, in case, as appears to be the fact, his former holding is now relet to another person, the Commissioners will allot him another holding on the untenanted lands of this or some other estate in the county.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from James Somerville, whose former holding is stated to be in the occupation of a judicial tenant. In the event of the Estates Commissioners acquiring untenanted land in the district, his application and the applications of all local evicted tenants will be considered and dealt with.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the representations from fishermen of Portrush, Portstewart, and Magilligan districts as to the losses sustained by them owing to the operations of steam trawlers, an inquiry was held by one of the Fishery Board's officials in Portrush in September last, and that as a result of this inquiry the Fishery Board recommended to the Lord-lieutenant that steam trawling be prohibited within a line drawn between Donagree, county Donegal, and Bengore Head, county Antrim; and will he explain why this recommendation has not so far been given effect to, as at present steam trawlers are still inflicting loss upon the local fishermen.

A by-law embodying the prohibition in question was approved by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council on the 24th instant, and was published in the Dublin Gazette of the following day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what amounts were paid out of the Irish Equivalent Grant during the year 1905, and to what purposes they were applied: also what amount of the same grant was applied during the same period towards primary education in Ireland.

The particulars for the year ending March 31st, 1906, will be found in the Report of proceedings under the Ireland Development Grant which has been laid on the Table of the House (Cd. 2937, of the present year).

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the matter of Moses Glenn, of Ruskey, Convoy, East Donegal, who was evicted from his farm on the Gledstane estate, for which he paid an annual rent of £30; whether he is aware that the farm has since been let to a planter for £15 per annum; and whether, now that the estate is in the hands of the Commissioners, he will direct them to inquire into Glenn's case, with a view to reinstating him in his farm or to see that the planter will not be allowed to purchase under the Land Act 1903, unless Glenn is compensated for the loss of his holding.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from Moses Glenn, whoso former holding is stated to be in the occupation of a judicial tenant at a rent of £16 per annum. The Commissioners will have enquiry made into the case, but until their inspector's report has been received, they have no knowledge of the facts of the case, and are unable to say what action they may take.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the revaluation of Dublin was directed by an Act promoted by the Corporation of Dublin itself; if that Corporation has sinee endeavoured to retard the revaluation, or made any representations to him with that view, either directly or through any of the Dublin Members of Parliament; and whether attempts to delay the revaluation have taken place after it was found that the Commissioner of Valuation in revaluing Belfast had put valuations on public-house licences hitherto not taken into account in the valuation of property in Ireland.

The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. As to the third, the Commissioner of Valuation informs me that he is not aware of any attempt to delay the work of revaluation beyond the fact that, as reported to the public Press, a Motion to ask the Commissioner to proceed at once with the re-valuation was on two occasions defeated at meetings of the corporation. The matter does not rest with the Irish Government, the Commissioner of Valuation being an officer of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the instructions issued to some inspectors of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to make cases against licensed traders, whether he has seen those instructions, and whether he has sanctioned them, if he does not, whether he has caused or will cause his opinion to be conveyed to the Dublin police authorities; and whether he will givn to the House the terms of the instructions in question.

I have neither sanctioned nor seen the document referred to. What the Question described as instructions was contained in a confidential memorandum sent more than a year ago by a superintendent in the Dublin Metropolitan Police to three inspectors under him. The Chief Commissioner informs me that he is satisfied that the issue of this memorandum was an honest attempt on the part of the superintendent to rouse his men to a faithful discharge of their duties under the licensing laws, and in no way intended to suggest to them to take any unfair action. It would be contrary to practice to lay on the Table a confidential memorandum issued by a police superintendent.

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would get a copy of the memorandum and read it himself; he would then be able to answer the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can inform the House what is the valuation upon which the brewery of Arthur Guinness, Son, and Company, Dublin, is assessed, and how that valuation compares with the brewery of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton at Burton; whether he is aware that public-houses in Dublin are valued under the present valuation without reference to the value of their licences; and if he will represent to the Commissioner of Valuation the need for proceeding with the revaluation of Dublin.

I regret that I have been unable to obtain the information necessary to answer this Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that P. Tyrrel, of Arklow, aged twenty-two years, was drowned at Merchants' Quay, Kilrush, on March 16th, 1890, and that the coroner's jury added a rider to its finding expressing their deepest censure on whoever is responsible for the lighting and better protection of Merchants' Quay, Kilrush, and drawing attention to the number of deaths that have occurred in the past few years from the negligence referred to; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the quay being kept in such a neglected condition, without light or protection for those who have to do business on it at night.

I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I have seen a copy of the finding of the coroner's jury and of the rider in the case referred to, and I have, as I promised in my reply to the hon. Member on March 27th,† obtained a further report on the place. As the result of representations made by His Majesty's Inspector the dangerous parts of the quay have been fenced, and steps are

† See (4) Debates, cliv., 1083–4.

being taken to provide life-buoys, to erect lamps to light the quay and the road leading to it and to put a chain along the dock-wall. I am informed, however, that only two drowning fatalities have occurred at this place since 1846.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the apparent inability of hon. Members representing the localities concerned to agree on the proper allocation of the sum of £93,000 which the Treasury had promised to grant towards railway development in the South of Ireland, he will consider the advisability of diverting this money to help in the drainage of Lough Neagh and the river Bann, and thus relieve the people in that district from the suffering and distress under which they are at present labouring.

I fear that I can hold out no prospect of meeting the hon. Member's wishes in this respect.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the necessary financial arrangements will be made to enable the revaluation of the city of Dublin to be commenced; whether he is aware that for now almost six years this revaluation is overdue, and rates are being levied on an obsolete basis; whether he is aware that under the existing valuation no account is taken of business goodwill or the existence of publicans' licences; and whether action will be taken to enable this system of taxation to be set right by revaluation.

I am not able to state when it will be possible to commence revaluation. It is true that application for it was made some six years ago, but although it has not yet been carried out the valuation lists are kept up to date by annual revision. The Answer to the third part of the Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the revaluation of Belfast was commenced and when concluded; whether the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland was supplied with a suitable staff to enable him to make the revaluation; whether the revaluation of Dublin was already overdue before the completion of the Belfast revaluation; will he say why the Commissioner did not at once begin the revaluation of Dublin when he finished that of Belfast; and would the staff which enabled him to revalue Belfast have been adequate for revaluation of Dublin.

The revaluation of Belfast was commenced in December, 1899, and the final lists were issued on June 1st, 1905, but the revision intended to bring these up to date was not issued till March last, and the 975 appeals which arose out of it have not yet been settled. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, but I am informed that very few of the staff were available for the revaluation of Dublin. I may add that there is no time limit under which the valuation is to be made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the representation of India at the Conference in 1907 will extend to the different provinces of the Empire, in view of their widely differing character as regards population, wealth, trade, revenue, and other circumstances.

As I have already stated, invitations to the Conference of 1907 have been issued only to the Premiers of the various self-governing Colonies. The practice adopted at the previous Conferences provides for the presence of representatives of different Departments of the Government, and under this arrangement the representation of India will be secured. It is not intended that the Indian Provinces should be separately represented before the Conference, any more than the Australian and Canadian Provinces.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in consideration of the increase in the number of religious houses in this country, recently augmented by the immigration of conventual communities from France, and of the fact that factories, workshops, and laundries are conducted in connection with these establishments, whether he will order a Statistical Return of all Monastic and Conventual Residences in Great Britain and Ireland, and arrange for the periodical and efficient inspection of all such institutions, enabling all the members of these communities to share the rights and liberties of British citizens under the protection of the Law, and regulating all business undertakings, whether of paid or unpaid labour, in accordance with the rules enforced in other centres of industry.

I do not think that any such Return is wanted at present, nor do I think that any system of general conventual inspection is required or desirable. I understand that my right hon. friend the Home Secretary contemplates legislation next session, if possible, dealing with convent laundries; and I hope that this will make good any existing deficiencies in the way of public supervision.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember this Question is put by a follower of a Government which negatived any such legislation.

Will the Bill be similar to one intended to be introduced by the late Government?

said he had no knowledge what the provisions of the Bill would be; nor was it certain that a Bill would be introduced.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by will be introtroduced next session "if possible"?

If it is found to be within the competence and necessities of the Government to introduce it.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered or will consider the propriety of introducing legislation to enable Election Judges to be nominated each year by the Speaker of the House of Commons, instead of as at present left to a rota; and whether he will consider the propriety of amending the law so as to insure more clearly than the laws as at present laid down appear to do the purity of elections.

When the Election Petitions of this year have been finished His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider whether an amendment of the law is needed. The nomination of the Election Judges by the Speaker would be to impose on him a somewhat anomalous duty, and this course does not seem practicable.