I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give approximately the proportion of the whole supply of cordite in the Navy which was manufactured by Kynoch, Limited.

I am informed that no figures are available to enable me to answer this Question with even approximate accuracy.

Will the Government direct the immediate withdrawal of all cordite on board His Majesty's ships which contain mercuric chloride?

I must have notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to abolish the Totland coastguard station in October next.

This station comes within the scope of the pledge which I gave to the House on the 7th March†The Admiralty have no intention of closing it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on Victualling has now been considered; whether it is now proposed to make any, and, if so, what, changes in the naval victualling and canteen system; and whether it is proposed to publish the Report of this Committee.

Navy Vote 2 will be taken first on Tuesday next, and I propose then to make a full statement on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the upholstery work of the new Royal Yacht was supplied by Warings, of London; if a much lower offer was made by a Glasgow firm of upholsterers of high standing; if the higher offer was accepted by the ship builder on pressure of the Admiralty; and, if so, whether in future he will see that the lowest offer, if from a competent firm, will be countenanced by the Admiralty.

The upholstery of the Yacht generally is being carried out by the shipbuilders or their sub-contractors, except in the case of the apartments intended for the personal use of their Majesties, which are being furnished by Warings. They were selected for this part of the work on account of their experience in fitting up the "Victoria and Albert." No tender

† See (4) Debates, clxx., 1089.

Why take (this exceptional course of not putting the work out to tender)

Because of the special experience of this firm.

Have not other firms had similar experience?

No other firm has had the same experience.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether refrigerating machinery has already been ordered sufficient to equip the whole of the magazines of our fifty-one battleships, twenty-eight armoured cruisers, and seventy-six unarmoured cruisers, together with the plant for the ships now building; whether provision was made for all this plant in the Navy Estimates, and, if so, where; and whether he can state the estimated cost of fitting such refrigerating plant in the whole Navy or in the case of one battleship, such as the "Agamemnon."

As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Guildford on Tuesday. No provision has been made in the Estimates, but if the expenditure during the current financial year cannot be met from surpluses, it will be provided for by a Supplementary Estimate in the usual way. As regards the last part of the Question, the cost of the plant alone in the case of the" Agamemnon" is £1,900; the cost of fitting cannot at present be stated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal have yet arranged to relieve the Bengal

‡ See page 470.

I have ascertained from the Government of India that the Bengal Government has submitted to them proposals for improving the administration of the Act and reducing admitted inequalities of taxation. These proposals are under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps are being taken to secure the education of children on tea estates in the Central Provinces and Madras respectively.

There are no tea estates in the Central Provinces. In Madras the area under tea, according to the latest statistics, is only 7,934 acres, and I am not aware that any special measures are necessary to secure the education of children on this area.

:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many ryots have been evicted in the Madras Presidency in default of payment of land revenue during each of the last five years; and what sum has been realised in each year through the sale of land previously in the occupation of the evicted ryots.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if ho will state the nature of the Report made by Captain Kennedy on estate schools for Eastern Bengal and Assam; and the name of the officer deputed to report on Bengal schools.

I have not seen Captain Kennedy's report; I have nothing to add to the Answer given on the 14th March last on the subject, f I do not know the name of the officer (if any) who is inquiring into the matter in Bengal, but nearly all the tea-gardens formerly under the Government of Bengal are now within the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, and have boon dealt with by Captain Kennedy.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many acres of land, the property of evicted ryots, have been put up for auction by Government in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies respectively, in default of payment of land revenues during each of the five years ending 30th June, 1906.

The Madras figures are—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the sub-divisional officer attached to the Bhola district of India is irregular in regard to the holding of courts, and alters arrangements for holding a court without any public notice whatever, much to the inconvenience of suitors and witnesses, he will order an inquiry on the subject, with a view to the adoption of some more satisfactory system of holding courts in this district.

The Secretary of State caused inquiries to be

† See(4) Debates, clxxi, 210.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House what proportion of the cordite now possessed by the Army in India has been manufactured by Messrs. Kynoch, Limited.

There is no in-formation available as to the proportion of cordite, manufactured by Messrs. Kynoch, now in store in India, but it is probably very small. Cordite is now manufactured at the Indian Cordite Factory, Aruvankad.

:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether large sums of money were realised by officers of Government in the Cheerab Colony of the Punjab from the colonists on account of unauthorised fines; and whether it was one of the objects of the disallowed Colonisation Bill to legalise these fines and to deprive the civil courts of all jurisdiction in the matter.

The earlier agreements under which lands were granted in the Cheerab Colony made the tenancy liable to forfeiture if a breach of any condition was committed. In practice the colonisation officers allowed tenants to compound infractions of the conditions by payment of fines, and refrained from resorting to the extreme penalty of forfeiture. The later agreements expressly provide for fines as well as! forfeiture I am not aware that large sums have been thus realised. The Bill provided for the enforcement by means of fines of the conditions of tenancy in the Cheerab and other Colonies, in cases in which forfeiture would be an excessive penalty; it excluded the jurisdiction of

† See(4) Debates, clxix, 1015.

asked if the fines had not mounted up to ten lakhs of rupees?

reply was inaudible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the death of Mr. Edward Howorth, a British subject, who was shot in St. Petersburg last month; and whether the perpetrator of this outrage has been brought to justice.

According to a report received from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, on 23rd May Mr. Edward Howorth, the manager of a private spinning factory at St. Petersburg, owned by Mr. Gerhardt, was shot from behind while examining some machinery in company with two workmen, on whom no suspicion rests. The wound unfortunately proved fatal. The police proceeded to the factory as soon as the news was communicated to them, and arrested a man who had recently had a disagreement with Mr. Howorth, and who was suspected of having fired the shot.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegates at The Hague Conference will have power to adopt, on behalf of the British Government, the principle of the exemption of private property at sea from capture.

I can make no statement on the subject, and would beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on the 20th of March last.

‡ See(4) Debates, clxxi, 818.

Is it equally impossible to assure this House that these matters will not be settled at the Conference?

I should think it is one of the matters which will be discussed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sittings of The Hague Conference will be held in public.

If the precedent of the Conference of 1899 is followed, the sittings will not be held in public. But the matter is one for the Conference itself to settle when it meets.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the oil concessions made to a German syndicate by the Persian Government were adversely criticised by the Persian Parliament; and whether he can inform hon. Members who are interested in Persia what reliable sources of information, if any, are open to them regarding the important events which are understood to be taking place in that country.

His Majesty's Government have no information that any oil concessions have been granted to a German syndicate by the Persian Government, and that they have been adversely criticised by the Persian Parliament. I am unable to suggest any sources of information open to hon. Members who are interested in Persia beyond those which are well known to everyone and at their disposal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the next meeting of the Sugar Convention is to take place; whether an opportunity will then be afforded for His Majesty's Government to withdraw from the Convention in 1908; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the desirability of adopting this course.

The Permanent Commission under the Sugar Convention will meet to-day. His Majesty's Government have intimated to the contracting States, through the Belgian Government, that they consider that the limitation of the sources from which sugar may enter the United Kingdom, whether by prohibition or by the imposition of countervailing duties, is inconsistent with their declared policy and incompatible with the interests of British consumers and sugar using manufacturers, and that consequently it will be impossible for them to continue to give effect to the provisions of the Convention requiring them to penalize sugars declared by the Permanent Commission to be bounty-fed. At the same time we have pointed out that we have no desire to give sugar bounties or to see a revival of such bounties, or to differentiate against beet or foreign sugars. Should the Governments of the contracting States consider that our views can only be met by the complete withdrawal of this country from the Convention, we would be prepared to give the necessary notice on the first possible date. We have, however, intimated that if the other contracting States prefer to exempt the United Kingdom by supplementary protocol from the obligation to enforce the penal provisions of the Convention, this would render it unnecessary for us to give notice of withdrawal.

Are we right in understanding that the view of the Government is they disapprove of bounties, but will do nothing whatever to get rid of them?

If the hon. Member will study the Answer I have just given, I must leave him to draw his own inference.

asked when the despatch would be laid on the Table of the House.

said that he could not say when the despatch would be laid on the Table. The future action of the Government would depend on the view taken by other States of the dispatch; but it would be convenient that the despatch should be laid on the Table after some conclusion was arrived at.

asked whether it was not probable that no decision could be arrived at before the end of next year, and whether, in view of the uncertainty created by the right hon. Gentleman's answer, it was not desirable that the views of the Government should be made public promptly?

said that the whole gist of the despatch was contained in the Answer he had given to the Question. If hon. Members wished to receive fuller information after studying the Answer additional questions might be asked.

I beg to ask the (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the claim of the relatives of the late Police Constable Morrow, who was shot dead, in the execution of his duty, at Shanghai, on or about 11th March, by armed Chinese robbers, who ran away into the country; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador at Pekin to approach the Chinese Government so that adequate compensation may be granted to the family of Mr. Morrow, who are in necessitous circumstances.

I regret that I can add nothing to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on the 13th ultimo on this subject. † And much as His Majesty's Government regret the facts disclosed in the Question, they cannot found a claim for compensation on a case which took place in a district policed, not by Chinese, but by the European municipality, and in which it does not appear that any Chinese official was in any way responsible.

Is it not the case that the mob came from Chinese territory outside the European municipality, and retreated into Chinese

† See(4) Debates, clxxiv, 696.

In this case I think the disturbance was caused by people residing in municipal territory. They were Chinese.

pressed the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry.

If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any answer has been received from the Turkish Government in reference to the repayment of the ransom for Mr. Abbott, who was captured by brigands near Salonica.

No answer has yet been received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press for an answer?

It will be settled in time. These claims always take a certain time to settle.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any information as to disquiet among the warlike population of the Upper Congo, and whether he can say to what the disquiet and opposition to the Government are due; if he can say whether the natives are well armed; and whether he has information which will enable him to estimate the number of rifles possessed by the 200,000 warriors of the Upper Congo.

His Majesty's Government have no information as to the alleged state of disquiet in the Upper Congo regions beyond what is contained in a Belgian newspaper. Our attention has been called to the existence of traffic in arms and ammunition, but it is impossible to state with accuracy the number or quality of the weapons which have been imported, or in whose possession they are now.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the particulars of any claims of British shipowners, in respect of ships sunk, damaged, or delayed by the Russian Fleet or volunteer cruisers during the recent Russo-Japanese War, which are still outstanding; and if he will give the names of the ships involved.

The following are the vessels in respect of which compensation has been claimed from the Russian Government:—"Knight Commander," "Hipsang," "St. Kilda," "Ikhona," "Oldhamia." All the above vessels were sunk during the war. "Calchas," "Ardova," "Malacca," "Formosa," "Hsiping," "Chingping," "Fuping." The above seven steamers were seized and detained during hostilities, and subsequently released. Claims for compensation are now pending as regards all these vessels. I cannot without communication with the owners state the exact amounts.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what portion of the £35,000,000 Transvaal Loan, whether allocated by the late or the present Government, has been exclusively devoted to the British population and what portion exclusively to the Boer population.

I would refer the hon. Baronet to my written reply to him of the 16th May last, and also to my reply on 30th of May, † to which I am not able to add anything.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the special circumstances which distinguish the Trans-

† See(4) Debates, clxxiv, 1080–2, clxxv., 68.

The special circumstances which distinguish the Transvaal from other responsible self-governing Colonies are to a large extent matters of history, but when the proper time comes to introduce the necessary Loan Bill in this House they will be fully examined and explained by the Minister responsible for that measure. For the second part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my Answer of Tuesday last and to the conversation which arose upon it. ‡

At what date will the Bill be introduced?

No such Bill can be introduced until a similar measure has passed through both Houses of the Transvaal Legislature.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the course of the negotiations with General Botha that led up to the promise that His Majesty's Government would ask Parliament to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal Government, any attempt was made to secure from General Botha an undertaking that His Majesty's Indian subjects would be treated at least as well as immigrant aliens from Southern and Central Europe.

The question of the position of British Indians in the Transvaal was one of the matters which were discussed with General Botha; but the discussion had no connection with the promise given by His Majesty's Government that they would invite Parliament to guarantee the Transvaal Loan.

Before the Government pledged themselves to give this

† See pp 483–4.

No representations of a special character that I am aware of were made, other than the statements which have been freely made during the last two years.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by representations of a special character? Were representations made in writing, or by deputations or otherwise, by Members of this House?

No, Sir. I have no knowledge of anything that affords the slightest foundation for such a suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will lot us know the evidence on which he has thought it right to make the suggestion.

This is an Indian question after all. May I ask again whether General Botha gave any assurances in the course of conversation with the Government?

He did give an assurance that, in regard to the regulations to be framed under the Asiatic Ordinance, he and his Government would endeavour to remove from the regulations some of the points on which they have been criticised. But any such changes had better be examined when they are made the subject of public statement in the Transvaal Legislature.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the exceptional course proposed to be taken with regard to the Transvaal loan; and why that Colony, which possesses such wealth and resources, should be favoured more than the other relatively poorer Colonies of South Africa, which are equally suffering from the depression consequent on the cessation of the expenditure of the war.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for York on Tuesday.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if any official record was kept of the discussions and negotiations which took place between the Government and the Premier of the Transvaal relative to the proposed guarantee of the Transvaal loan; and, if so, whether a summary of them will be presented to the House.

The Answer is in the negative.

Are we to understand that before the introduction of this Loan Bill the House is to have no information as to the special reasons which induced the Government to advance, on the credit of the nation, a further £5,000,000 to the Transvaal?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that when a Loan Bill is introduced into the House of Commons substantial arguments must be adduced by the Minister making that proposal, and no doubt the foundation for such an argument would be the publication of Papers. I expect Papers will be laid on the Table before the Bill can be introduced; but in any case the House alone can be the judge.

A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman said that Papers would not be laid.

I stated to the House that no summary of the discussions and negotiations would be laid on the Table; but it is quite possible that, when the Transvaal Government have passed the Loan Bill through both Houses of their Legislature, there will be correspondence between the two Governments of an official character which I should think would very likely be entirely suited for publication.

When will the Loan Bill be introduced in the Transvaal Legislature?

I am not always able to predict the course of business in this House, and still less in the Transvaal Legislature.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the Customs Union of the South African Colonies, the Premiers of Cape Colony and of Natal wore consulted in the negotiations which took place with regard to the proposed guarantee of the Transvaal loan.

The Answer is in the negative. The proposed loan has nothing to do with the South African Customs Union.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any statistics are published by the Transvaal Government showing the amount of criminality in proportion to numbers among the different races inhabiting the Transvaal; and whether the British-Indian community has more or less criminality than other communities.

A Return was prepared by the Transvaal Government showing the number of persons of different nationalities confined in Transvaal prisons on 30th June, 1906. According to this Return the proportions per 1,000 of the population were: European, 2.75; Native, 2.37; Indian, 3.30; Chinese, 18.50. No later figures are available.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether General Botha, when expressing a desire on behalf of his Government that the Imperial forces in the Transvaal should be maintained at proper strength, also expressed any desire to pay for those forces out of the revenues of the Transvaal in the same way that the Imperial forces maintained in India are paid for out of the revenues of India.

My hon. friend will, no doubt, be surprised to learn that the Answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to send a party of Zulu prisoners to St. Helena for detention; whether it is intended to make this island a penal settlement; and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure the peace and safety of the island.

Twenty-five Zulu, prisoners have been sent from Natal to St. Helena under the provisions of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. There is no intention of making the island into a penal settlement. Warders accompany the prisoners from Natal, and there is no reason to anticipate that the presence of the prisoners will in any way endanger the peace or safety of the island.

How many I warders will be sent?

I have no know-' ledge as to that.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to lay upon the Table a copy of the contracts under which Trinidad labourers have been recruited to work on the Panama Canal.

I will lay the Paper very shortly.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of the Transvaal have abolished the system of allowing leave to accumulate, by which Englishmen in the Civil Service of the Transvaal may be able to visit England once in three or four years.

No information has reached the Secretary of State of any recent alteration in the Transvaal Leave Regulations.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the terms of reference to the Anglo-French Commission which has been considering subjects connected with the New Hebrides Convention; who the members of this Commission were; and when the Report will be published.

I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answers given yesterday, on behalf of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. †

† See page 669.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether nations other than France and England are entitled to recruit natives of the Now Hebrides to serve outside the islands.

So far as I am aware there is at the present moment no power to control persons belonging to any nationality recruiting natives in the New Hebrides for service outside the group. If, however, as seems probable, the hon. Member is inquiring whether nations other than France or Great Britain will be entitled to recruit when the Anglo-French Convention of 20th October, 1906, comes into force, I would point out that under Article 31 the two High Commissioners will have the power to refuse a licence to recruit to any vessel not sailing under the flag of one of the signatory Powers.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Bill amending The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1872, will be introduced.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North West Lanark. †

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average rate of income-tax paid by persons having incomes of £160 to £700 each.

It is roughly estimated that the average rate of income-tax now paid by persons having incomes of £160 to £700 is 6d. in the £.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed guarantee by the Home Government of the Transvaal loan for £5,000,000 will entail the creation of a further issue of stock returning to the purchaser a higher

† See page 694.

The manner of raising the proposed loan is still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to say what precise form the security will take, or what rate of interest it will bear.

Will not the issue of the loan have the effect of prejudicing the increase of the Sinking Fund arranged for this year?

That is a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act will be followed by the establishment of a combined tariff by the insurance offices concerned; and if, in view of the amount of increased premium demanded and the absence of competition, he will consider the possibility of action by the Government.

I have no official information on the subject, but the matter is one of importance, which shall be carefully watched. The question whether the Post Office should undertake insurance against liability arising under the Act is being considered by a Departmental Committee, whose report has not yet been presented.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the proceedings against Messrs. Kynoch were taken under Section 74 of the Explosives Act, whereby a charge of breaking a highly technical regulation had to be heard by a local bench of magistrates; is he aware that Section 56 of the same Act gives the alternative of proceeding before a tribunal competent to decide a case involving chemical questions of great difficulty, viz., a legal umpire and two expert arbitrators; whether the Home Office inspectors have admitted, in regard to Messrs. Kynoch's Arklow explosive, the purity of the explosive, that the admitted percentage of mercury would have an antiseptic effect, that it did not alter the character of the explosive as an explosive, the use of mercury with nitro-cotton in Germany and elsewhere, and that it had no deleterious effect upon the explosive; whether, in view of these admissions, he will state why exceptional treatment has been given to Messrs. Kynoch; and will he give instructions that in cases of this kind the special tribunal contemplated by the Act will in future be resorted to.

I laid the whole of the papers in this case before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the proceedings were taken by him under Section 9 of the Explosives Act, which provides that in the manufacture of explosives the terms of the licence shall be duly observed. The explosive was seized by the inspectors under Section 74. Arbitration, even if admissible in view of the terms of Section 56 of the Act, does not, as I have already pointed out, carry the necessary power to seize, and, if need be, obtain the forfeiture of explosives which may be a source of danger. The inspectors have not admitted the purity of the explosive seized, but have repeatedly stated that this cannot be determined owing to the presence of mercury. The fact that there has occurred a spontaneous ignition of some of Messrs. Kynoch's explosive containing mercury does not bear out the contention as to purity. The inspectors consider it unnecessary and absurd to add antiseptics to gelatinised explosives, and they consider, further, that mercuric chloride is likely to have a detrimental effect upon the explosive. Messrs. Kynoch have not received exceptional treatment; as I have already explained, proceedings were taken against them because it was their explosive which, by spontaneous ignition, first drew attention to the matter. I should like to point out, further, that there is no foundation whatever for the charge of hostility to Ireland and Irish industries which has been freely made against myself and my Department. Messrs. Kynoch have three factories in Great Britain and one in Ireland, and they employ many more people in the former country than in the latter. Proceedings were taken against the firm without regard to the locality of their different factories, and as a matter of fact no seizure has been made and no proceedings taken at Arklow. Nothing whatever has been done or will be done to interfere with the manufacture by Messrs. Kynoch's at Arklow of lawful explosives.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of his Question.

I think I have. I have already pointed out that the arbitration clause does not give the necessary power of seizing explosives made illegally.

asked whether it was not the fact that the explosives which were seized were explosives which were manufactured at Arklow, and was it, therefore, correct to say that there had been no interference with Messrs. Kynoch's works; also, how was it, if the inspectors of the Department seized the explosives on the ground that they were dangerous to the public, the case was taken before a tribunal which had only authority to decide whether a technical breach of a Home Office licence had been committed?

The technical breach obviously involves the question of public danger. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the explosive seized was an explosive which contained an unauthorised ingredient, and any such explosive, whoever makes it and wherever it is found, will be so dealt with by the officials of my Department.

Are we to understand that manufacturers in England who were manufacturing explosives containing the same ingredients as were those of Messrs. Kynoch had their manufactures passed by the Home Office inspectors, and that they only stopped passing thorn when Messrs. Kynoch's explosives had been seized?

I dealt with that question fully yesterday, and I repeat that, whenever it comes to the notice and knowledge of the inspectors that explosives are being manufactured with this ingredient, they will take action similar to the action which has been taken against Messrs. Kynoch.

asked whether it was not within the right hon. Gentleman's own knowledge that the inspectors of his Department had passed explosives containing this ingredient which were manufactured by English manufacturers, and only stopped doing so when Messrs. Kynoch were attacked?

I give to that the most emphatic negative in my power.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that in certain circumstances there was a likelihood of the Arklow works of Messrs. Kynoch being closed; whether if that should take place, it must result in the throwing out of employment of several hundreds of men and of causing considerable distress there; and whether, having regard to the great necessity there was of employment, particularly in a place like Arklow, the Government would take steps to prevent any necessity arising for the closing of these works?

I should be extremely sorry if any unnecessary action on the part of my Department led to any interference with the works at Arklow. I can give that assurance to the hon. Member quite cordially. But I cannot see why the prosperity of the works at Arklow should depend upon the manufacture of an explosive which contains an unauthorised ingredient and which constitutes a public danger.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the very evasive Answers they had received from the Home Secretary in connection with this matter, he would consider the advisability of putting down the Home Office Vote for an early date, so that the matter might be fully discussed.

No, Sir, certainly not. The Answers given by the Home Secretary, so far from being evasive, have been explicit in the extreme.

asked the Home Secretary whether samples of this dangerous explosive were discovered at the recent convention in Dublin.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to state the name of the English firm against which he was proceeding.

The National.

asked whether the policy of destroying Irish industries was one of the new policies of the Liberal Imperialists in the Cabinet?

It is because Chamberlain's in it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in addition to the two inspectors, Dr. Thane and Sir James Russell, and the Association for Research mentioned in the Appendix to the First Report of the Royal Commission now sitting, he has any other expert advisers in the matter of vivisection licences; and, if so, whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1876 (top of page 17 of Report) to the effect that the names of these advisors should be made known to the public, he will inform the House of the names of these other expert advisers. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if his export advisers in the matter of vivisection licences consist solely of the Association for Research and the two inspectors, he will, in view of the opinions and advice tendered by the Royal Commission of 1876 in pages 16 and 17 of their Report, add to his advisers some independent persons whose interests are not bound up with those of the vivisectors.

As I said in reply to a previous Question put by my hon. friend on the 15th May, the usual procedure in applications made to me for licences to perform experiments on living animals is set out in the Appendix to the first Report of the Royal Commission now sitting. Occasionally, where questions of great importance have arisen, upon which it was thought advisable to obtain the opinion of the highest authorities, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Pharmaceutical Society have been consulted. I do not propose to make any change in the existing practice, pending the Report of the Royal Commission now sitting. The Commission of 1876 said that the advisers of the Secretary of State ought to be persons of competent knowledge and experience, and the inspectors satisfy this description. I may add that no licence or certificate is granted without the recommendation of the eminent authorities mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1876.

If the Commission recommend additional expert advisers is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint them?

I will wait and see what they recommend.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether the presiding magistrate in the Edalji case took notes of the proceedings; if so, whether such notes have been for some time at the disposal of the Home Office; and whether the Committee which reported upon the verdict had the advantage of having the notes before them.

The Deputy Chairman took rough pencil notes of the proceedings in the Edalji case, which were sent up to the Home Office in December, 1903. They were returned to the magistrate at his request in January, 1904. The Committee did not have the notes before them nor did they ask for them. They had before them the two letters from the Deputy Chairman reporting on the case, printed copies of the depositions taken before the committing magistrates; and the newspaper reports of the proceedings in court.

I beg ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what cases, and to what amounts, compensation has been recommended by the Home Office in the last twenty years in cases where persons have been convicted of criminal offences, and it has been demonstrated that such convictions were unsatisfactory.

Within the last twenty years there have been twelve cases in which compensation has been recommended on account of the conviction having been found to be unsatisfactory or wrong. In two of such cases the consequences entailed by the conviction were so serious as to justify the payment of substantial sums. In one case the sum of £5,000 was paid, and in the other the sum of £1,600 was divided between two persons. In the remaining ton eases the compensation paid varied from £1 to £40.

Were free pardons granted in these cases?

I am not sure.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Irish Trades Congress requesting the Government to appoint a Departmental Committee to sit in Ireland and to inquire into the question of printing and all other Imperial and Local Government contracts in Ireland, and to report on same; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

No such resolution has been brought to my notice.