In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. H. J. Wilson), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an alleged illegal practice which took place at the polling station at Hathersage in connection with the recent Derbyshire County Council election, held on the 2nd of March; whether he is aware that Charles Eyre Bradshaw Bowles, of Abney, near Hathersage, who is registered as the owner of a certain freehold estate there, applied at the polling station at Hathersage, in contravention of the Ballot and Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, for a ballot paper in the name of Arthur Humphrey Bowles, who is registered and entitled to vote at such election in respect of his occupation of the said estate; that C. E. B. Bowles on the 2nd of March entered the polling station and applied for a ballot paper, and that the officer or clerk in charge of the ballot papers in the station read from the list of persons entitled to vote at such election the name of Arthur Humphrey Bowles, and also his description, to which question C. E. B. Bowles replied that he was the person therein mentioned; that the officer or clerk thereupon supplied C. E. B. Bowles with a ballot paper, which was afterwards spoilt and given up to the presiding officer; and whether C. E. B. Bowles applied for and obtained a second ballot paper, and afterwards placed the same in the ballot box in the usual way; and if he is satisfied that C. E. B. Bowles acted in the manner above mentioned he intends to take any and what steps in connection therewith?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question He has received from the Returning Officer of the Derbyshire County Council the following explanation of the circumstances referred to in the question. Mr. Charles Eyre Bradshaw Bowles, of Abney, is owner of a freehold estate there, and his name is upon the Parliamentary register, but by some oversight his name was omitted from the County Council register. During the polling hours he entered the polling station, and on being asked his name by the presiding officer he replied "Mr. Bowles." The officer appears then to have read the name of Mr. Arthur Humphrey Bowles. Mr. Bowles, who is stated to be rather deaf, made no reply, and the officer states that he thinks Mr. Bowles did not hear his brother's name read. A paper was then handed to Mr. Bowles, who appears accidentally to have spoiled it and to have applied for another, which he placed in the ballot-box. The matter was brought to the attention of the Returning Officer some days after the election, and he then made full inquiry into the matter. He further states that, as Mr. Bowles is well known in the neighbourhood, holding the position he does and knowing himself to be on the Parliamentary register, he naturally assumed his name was on the Council register, or it is not likely that he would have openly acted in the way he did. The Returning Officer, on consideration of the whole matter, did not think it his duty to take any proceedings which he did not think would be successful; and my right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary, after the time which has elapsed, to interfere with his decision.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House, or otherwise supply, a copy of the instructions to collectors of taxes upon their appointment, and subsequently, as to their duties generally, and, in particular, as to their procedure in cases of distress when payment of taxes has to be enforced; if he will state if permission is at any time given by the Inland Revenue Department for the employment of unlicensed brokers by collectors of taxes; whether he is aware that a tax-gatherer, Bird, of the first East Brixton division, took an unlicensed broker with him to No. 10, Zenoria Street, S.E., and told such unlicensed broker to refuse to give his name or address, and that the man thus put in possession replied to the request for his name and address, "I refuse; and what's that got to do with you?" whether Bird was authorised to employ any person to assist him, and whom, in the enforcement of payment of taxes for the premises named; and whether Bird has made any report to the Inland Revenue Department in writing; and, as affidavits are now being made with a view to further proceedings, a copy of any and all reports in this case, made to the Inland Revenue Department or the local Commissioners, will be furnished to the persons aggrieved, so that redress may be obtained; and, if no written report has been made, then will the Department furnish the persons aggrieved with the name refused by Bird, and by the man himself who accompanied him?

I do not think that it would facilitate Public Business to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers relating to this matter. Collectors of taxes are not under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, but of the District Commissioners. It is not required by law that a person employed by a collector in cases of distraint should be a broker. Bird has made no report in writing to the Board of Inland Revenue or the District Commissioners. The Board of Inland Revenue have no knowledge as to the name of the person employed by Bird. Bird was seen by one of the Board Inspectors, and the substance of his answers to the Inspector's inquiries was given by me in reply to a question on the 16th of this month. As I informed the hon. Member who then asked the question, complaints as to the conduct of the collector of taxes should be made to the District Commissioners, and not to me.

I do not know if there is any representative of the War Department on the Treasury Bench, but I desire to ask if there is any truth in the statement which has appeared in the Press that trials have demonstrated that the Brennan torpedo is a failure and the money expended upon it has been practically thrown away?

The Attorney General is not present, but perhaps, as it is a question of law as regards polling, the Lord Advocate can answer the question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace), namely, whether the practice of refusing to accept the votes of persons who have been admitted into the polling places before 8 p.m. but have not completed voting before 8 p.m. is in accordance with the Ballot Act; and, if not, will Returning Officers be informed that they ought to allow the voters admitted before 8 p.m. to the polling place to fill their paper and place it in the ballot box?

That is a question I could not undertake to answer without notice.

I have a telegram from the Liberal election agent at Birkenhead, in which he states that the solicitors to the Municipal Corporation have been informed on inquiry at the Writ Office the Writs are not likely to issue until Wednesday; and I wish to ask does the arrangement still hold good under which it was understood that the Writs would issue on Tuesday? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give me an answer?

I have not heard of any change in the programme.

May I take it, then, that the Writs will issue on Tuesday?

I have not heard of any change.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be likely to have heard of any change in the arrangements?

I think it is highly probable I should have heard.

I shall be glad to have any information that the Government may be able to give as to the position of the Witnesses Protection Bill. I understand that on Saturday a Motion to go into Committee on the Bill was rejected in the House of Lords by nineteen to ten, but I understand Lord Herschell, after the vote had been taken, expressed an intention to raise the question again today, some informality having attended the Division. Can the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade give us any information as to what has been done in reference to this important matter?

I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade can answer the question I desire to ask in reference to the death of the detective who was shot a few days ago in London while making an arrest? It appears that the family of this officer will derive no benefit from the pension fund, to which the deceased officer had not sufficiently subscribed, and that a public subscription has been started on their behalf. I wish to ask is there no fund from which the family could receive assistance, or is there no alternative between destitution and public charity?

Before the right hon. Gentleman rises to answer, may I again press on his attention the question I asked just now? I hope, with his usual courtesy, he will at least say if he has any information to give the House.

I should have risen if I had had anything to say in answer to the hon. Member's question, but I have no information whatever. An hon. Friend informs me—and I believe it has been so stated in the Press—that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will endeavour to proceed with it to-day. As to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Caithness, I am afraid I am quite unable to answer it.

This Bill has been passed very rapidly through its stages in this House. In some respects it affects the powers of the London County Council, but the Council have had no opportunity of considering it. The Parliamentary Committee, however, objects to the measure; but I feel that at the present time it is useless to do more than offer a protest, and to express a hope that in future any measure affecting London shall be introduced at an earlier period, so as to allow full time for its consideration.

I have only just received a copy of the Bill from the Public Bill Office, and thus have not been able to read the Amendments. In the old form there were no such words, but an Amendment was introduced by myself to disqualify one class of officials. That Amendment was adopted by the Lord Advocate, but has since been taken out. I do not think these clerks ought to be agents to any candidates.

This is another Amendment regarding which I think we might have some explanation from the Lord Advocate. On the Committee stage he adopted an Amendment of mine, and on the Report stage certain words modifying the Amendment were inserted. I then pointed out that it would be hard if the present Medical Officers of Health were compelled to get registered qualification. As far as I can understand the Amendment, it appears that a medical officer might not be qualified at all if appointed before 15th May, 1894. I should like to know whether this Amendment will compel qualification in medicine and also in public health. For the latter, I think, medical officers should have at least twelve months' time to qualify. Changes of this kind ought to conserve the rights of the present holders, and in their favour I want a restriction.

This Amendment has been framed on the lines which the hon. Member himself approved, although in the details it perhaps goes a little further. I do not myself see that any objection can be taken to the limit which the House of Lords have suggested in this clause.