I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the result of his communications with the Treasury as to the compensation to be made to Professor England, late of the Queen's College, Cork, for the injury sustained by that gentleman in having been compulsorily retired under the 65 rule, which was afterwards in Dr. Moffatt's case decided to have no application to such appointments?

The case of Mr. England has been submitted to the Treasury, and the conclusion arrived at by them, after the fullest consideration, is that Parliament cannot reasonably be asked to grant him a special gratuity in addition to his pension. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of extending temporary promotion to the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major, which has recently been accorded to Staff Corps Officers serving as Commandants and seconds in command of Native regiments, to Staff Corps Officers serving in the Military departments under the Government of India, with a view to placing them on an equal footing as regards temporary promotion with their comrades in regimental employment?

The position of officers serving in the military departments under the Government of India is not analogous to that of the Commandants and seconds in command of Native regiments, and I do not consider it necessary to extend to them temporary promotion to the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major recently granted to the latter class of officers. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Government had taken all the time of the House on Tuesday 12th May, for which day a Motion in regard to the grievances of the officers of the General List had the first place, he will consent to the appointment of a small Select Committee to inquire into the injustice of which these officers complain?

I understand my hon. Friend's Question to relate only to the officers now on the General List; but in my opinion it would be quite impossible to confine any inquiry to these officers alone. It must necessarily be extended to all those who have already retired, accepting as final the repeated decisions of the Secretary of State on this subject. Every officer's case would have to be reconsidered. The case of the officers of the General List was discussed in this House in 1888, and has been repeatedly considered by successive Secretaries of State, who have always held that these officers had no claim whatever to the concession granted in 1866 to the Staff Corps and the officers who formerly belonged to the East India Company's army. Concurring, as I do, in this view, I am afraid that I cannot consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the case. ["Hear, hear,!"]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when the Report under Section 29 of The Companies Winding-up Act, 1890, will be laid before Parliament; and, whether he would give directions that in future the Report be presented to Parliament not later than the month of March in each year?

The Report is in the course of preparation and will be laid before Parliament with the least possible delay. It must be borne in mind that although the Report deals with all the Companies ordered to be wound up during the year ending the 31st December, the information supplied with regard to such Companies has to do with proceedings subsequent to that date, while the financial portion of the Report is brought down to the following 31st March. It would therefore be impracticable to collect the requisite materials and prepare the Report so early as the date suggested by the hon. Member, without greatly curtailing the amount of the information supplied, and thereby impairing its value.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will grant as an unopposed Return the copy of the Correspondence between Messrs. Thomas Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, Hull, and the Board of Trade, from October 1895 to date, with regard to the subsidising by the Norwegian Government of steamers running between Norwegian and British Ports, asked for in the Motion standing on this day's Paper?

also asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would grant as an unopposed Return the Copy of the Correspondence between Messrs. Thomas Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, Hull, and the Foreign Office, from October 1895 to date, with regard to the subsidising by the Norwegian Government of steamers running between Norwegian and British Ports, asked for in the Motion standing on this day's Paper?

Yes, Sir; We shall be happy to give them both Returns.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether there are any Official Returns of the quantities of butter, bacon, lard, and eggs, with their approximate value, exported from Ireland to Great Britain annually; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to obtain such Returns for publication?

No such Returns are now collected, the trade between Great Britain and Ireland being treated as part of our general coasting trade between the various ports of the United Kingdom. These Returns could not be collected without considerable expense and causing delay and trouble to those engaged in the trade.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is true that in the case of the convict, William Kearsley, who is now lying in prison under sentence of penal servitude for life for the alleged part he took in connection with the murder of Detective Kidd at Wigan some months ago, a petition, was presented to the Home Office on the 19th February 1896, signed by eight of the jurymen who tried the case, in addition to the foreman of the jury; and that in such petition the jurymen state that had they known the full facts of the case before they gave their verdict they would have found a verdict of not guilty against the prisoner Kearsley; and, whether it is a fact that Elijah Winstanley stated hefore his execution that Kearsley had nothing whatever to do with the crime; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State can see his way to re-consider the circumstances of this case?

It is true that a petition signed by the foreman and eight members of the jury was presented to me on the date mentioned through the prisoner's solicitor, but the grounds of the petition are not quite accurately stated in the question. The petition laid stress on the statement made by Winstanley immediately after the verdict and also on what he is reported to have said on the day before his execution. The conclusion I came to after carefully considering these statements and all the circumstances of the case, and after consulting the learned Judge who tried the prisoners, was that Kearsley had been rightly convicted; and although there were circumstances which justified me in advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, I see no ground for reconsideration of the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state on what grounds Her Majesty's Government have selected two Professors of Natural History to proceed to the Behring Sea to study fur seal life; whether this step has been taken at the invitation of Canada or of the United States; whether the recommendations of the British Commission, which at great cost visited Behring Sea in 1891–2, have been carried into effect; and, if so, whether they have been found inadequate; and, from what funds the expenses will be paid of the two Professors now appointed?

This step has been taken in co-operation with the Canadian Government, in conseqnence of the repeated representations of the United States Government as to the inadequacy of the present regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the seals. The recommendations of the British Commission were not adopted by the Arbitration Tribunal which framed the regulations which are now in force, and the object of the mission is to inquire into the complaints made of their inadequacy. The expense of their mission will be borne by Her Majesty's Government.

asked how it could be ascertained that the recommendations were inadequate if they had never been carried into effect?

asked what other Members would the present Commission consist of besides the two Professors of Natural History?

The Canadian Government are, I think, sending representatives on their own behalf.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the names of the two Professors?

No. I do not remember them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?

The Question is of a speculative character, and I am afraid I cannot answer it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the regulations now in force of the Fur Seal Fishery in British Columbia are, in their main points, directly contrary to the recommendations of the recent British Commission; whether, so far as this is the case, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to revise the existing regulations in accordance with the said recommendations and with the express wishes of the sealers themselves; and whether, generally, the Government contemplate any further, and what, action for the proper and equitable protection of this important maritime industry in British Columbia?

The regulations of the Fur Seal Fishery in British Columbia in force are, in some respects, contrary to the recommendations of the British Commissioners, but they were enacted by the Award of the Arbitration Tribunal, by which Her Majesty's Government are bound. The regulations can only be revised by the joint consent of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. Steps are being taken to inquire into the working and adequacy of the regulations.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the fact that the authorities have had to dispense with the training of the 3rd and 4th battalions of the Gloucester Regiment this year, in consequence of the prevalence of smallpox in the city of Gloucester, the Secretary of State will give his favourable consideration to the exceptional circumstances of the case, and authorise the payment of ordinary and reserve bounty to such men as would usually be entitled to receive it?

The men of these, and other battalions, whose training has been dispensed with, will be paid the ordinary bounty as if the training had taken place, and also the reserve bounty in the case of men entitled to it.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the advisability of excluding horses and carriages from that part of Hyde Park frequented by cyclists between 10 a.m. and 12?

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would also consider the advisability of excluding from this part of the park pedestrians also, so as to leave it to the exclusive enjoyment of the riders on ironmongery? [Laughter.]

I have considered the question, and regret I do not see my way clear to meet the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend. I have, however, been in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, who has undertaken to regulate the traffic, as far as possible, with a view to the safety and comfort of cyclists, as is consistent with the general convenience of the public using the park. Further than this I am not prepared to go.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by Colonel Borrett, of the War Office, to the Post Office Committee, on Thursday last, that the Post Office said they would give the soldiers all the vacancies they did not want themselves, and that the War Office held that meant nothing at all; and, whether he will take steps to obviate this evasion of the Order made by the late Mr. Raikes, and supported by the right hon. Member for Manchester?

The attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to the statement referred to, and he does not understand how the reported opinion of the War Office has been arrived at, seeing that, according to figures furnished by the War Office itself, over 500 soldiers, in addition to those previously employed, were last year given employment in the Post Office service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the scheme drawn up by the corporate body of the Queen's College, Galway, for new statutes for the College after the dissolution of the Queen's University, was laid before the Lord Lieutenant, in compliance with the directions of the Corporation?

No such scheme, so far as I can ascertain, was drawn up by the corporate body of the Queen's College, Galway.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether John Thomas, who pleaded "guilty" to four indictments for larceny at the Middlesex Sessions on Saturday last, was a released convict, subject to police supervision; if so, when was he released from prison; how many monthly reports did he make to the police; and, when did he last report himself prior to his arrest for the larcenies?

Thomas was at large under a licence granted him in pursuance of the Penal Servitude Acts. He was released on the 1st January last, made three monthly reports, and last reported himself on the 9th April.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Robert Wilson, dated the 3rd inst., addressed to the Belfast Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that Mr. Wilson, who was a candidate for the Dock Ward at the late Poor Law election, alleges in his letter that from the time the voting papers were put into the hands of the police who collected them until they were seen at the recount, tampering and manipulating were indulged in to a huge extent; and, whether, considering the very serious nature of the charge laid by Mr. Wilson, he will direct a Local Government Board Inquiry to be held without delay?

It appears that a letter containing allegations to the effect stated in the Question has been addressed to the Belfast Board of Guardians, who, by resolution, ordered that Mr. Wilson should be given every facility to examine the papers he states were tampered with, but I am not aware that he has availed himself of this permission. The returning officer repudiates the charges made in the letter, and denies that any irregularities whatever took place on the occasion, and as Mr. Wilson has not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations, the Local Government Board, in accordance with their usual practice, see no reason for holding an Inquiry into the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he proposes during the present Session to give grants from the Treasury to the local authorities equivalent to the rating value of public buildings in their respective localities, or what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

The Treasury contributions will be to all the rates levied in the districts containing Government property calculated on the rateable value of that property as settled with the valuation and assessment authorities of such districts. The valuations of nearly the whole of the Government property in the metropolis have quite recently been revised up to date, and the Treasury grants will be given on the new valuations from 1st April last. The valuations of the Government property in the provinces have also, in many cases, been revised up to date, and the contributions will be given on the revised valuations in those cases from the same date, and the Treasury are ready to give a careful consideration to the representations any assessment authority may make with a view to the revision of the valuations in other cases.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is proposed by the Germans to double their bounty on the exportation of beetroot sugars from their country?

A Bill considerably increasing the German sugar bounties has passed the Reichstag; but until it has been approved by the Bundesrath, it will not become law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire what has been the cause of the great delay which has occurred in putting the labourers in the Emly district of the Tipperary Union in possession of the plots of ground which have been marked out for them; and, whether the Local Government Board can do anything towards putting the labourers into possession in time to enable them to till the land this season?

The loan for the purposes of the Improvement Scheme in these cases has been sanctioned by the Treasury, and the delay in obtaining possession of the plots has arisen out of the arbitration proceedings. It appears that at the meeting for the preparation of the Arbitrator's award the accuracy of the schedules deposited by the Guardians was questioned, and when these have been corrected the arbitration will proceed. It is hoped the Arbitrator will be able, without serious delay, to make his final draft award.

Can the right hon. Gentleman press upon the Arbitrator the desirability of making an award in time to allow the labourers to cultivate the land for this year's crop?

Yes, sir, if it depends on the Arbitrator I shall be happy to make the representations to him which the hon. Gentleman requests. I do not think it depends entirely on the Arbitrator; however, I will communicate with him on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether he has any information as to the truth of the statement that additional barracks are being erected at Chantabun-Paknam for French soldiers; and, (2) whether he is aware that the Siamese Government has already long since complied with the conditions upon which the French Government agreed, under Article 6 of the Convention of 3rd October, 1893, and the procès-verbal of even date (appended to the Convention), to evacuate Chantabun?

Her Majesty's Government have received no information on the matter mentioned in the first paragraph. It is understood that there are some points arising out of the Convention of 1893, upon which negotiations are still proceeding between the French and Siamese Governments.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) with regard to the fact that the Carlow County Infirmary is provided by law for the treatment of the poor and destitute of that county, and its expenses provided almost entirely from the public funds of the county, whether he is aware that there are grave doubts in the minds of the ratepayers of the county as to whether that institution treats any of the poor and destitute of the county, and whether the law as to the admission of the patients, the area from which such patients should be admitted and the manner of admission, is carried out, and as to whether the funds of the institution are spent to the best advantage; and (2), whether he would, under these circumstances, consider the necessity of directing that this institution be inspected, as directed by Law, by the Local Government Board Inspector, who would also inquire into its general administration, and also that all institutions provided for the treatment of the poor and destitute and paid for out of public funds shall be regularly inspected by a Government official as directed by law.

I am informed that 90 per cent. of the patients relieved in the Carlow Infirmary belong to the poorer classes who are treated gratuitously; that the provisions of the law as regards the admission of patients is habitually complied with; that the Governors believe the funds are expended to the best advantage; and that the accounts are periodically published after audit by a manager of the Bank of Ireland. As regards the second part of the Question, I see no sufficient ground for applying in this particular case a system of inspection which, for more than 50 years, has fallen into disuse.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the Chartered Company's force in South Africa has practically discarded the Lee-Metford rifle for the Martini-Henry, owing to the former being defective in stopping power; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of this circumstance, will take steps to ascertain the practical efficiency or otherwise of the Lee-Metford Government rifle in actual warfare.

No information has been received as to the discarding at Bulawayo of the Lee-Metford rifle. As already stated in this House, the question of the bullet is being fully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has sanctioned the Orders contained in the Reso- lution of the Government of India, dated 22nd June 1895, under which in future only half the service of certain Indian uncovenanted officers before a certain date 11th December 1893) will be allowed to count towards furlough, though formerly all such service was counted; whether he is aware that the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and subsequent authoritative statements, have encouraged these officers to expect concessions instead of restrictions in regard to their furlough rules; and, whether the Correspondence on the subject of the grievances of the Indian uncovenanted Civil Services can be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Orders to which the hon. Member refers did not require the sanction of the Secretary of State, but were reported for information. Having regard to the circumstances, I see no reason for disapproving them. The new Rules must be regarded as a whole, and no officer need come under these unless he chooses to do so. The correspondence is voluminous and not quite complete, but I shall offer no objection to a Motion for a Return, in continuation of No. 168 of 1892, as soon as the Dispatch, now under consideration, shall have reached the Government of India.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can inform the House who is responsible for the care and custody of Westminster Hall; and, having regard to what took place there during the afternoon of Tuesday last, whether he can assure the House that steps have been taken which will effectually prevent any similar occurrence?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, by whom, and in virtue of what authority, permission was given to certain persons to set up tables in Westminster Hall and to array thereupon papers of the nature of Petitions or appeals; and whether any direction was given to the Commissioners of Police to refrain in this instance from carrying out the Order of this House to prevent all disorder in Westminster Hall, and all annoyance therein or thereabouts?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Questions, I should like to ask him to state whether Westminster Hall will be open to all people who desire to present monster petitions and to canvass Members of this House in their support?

With the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn I propose to answer his Question at the same time. The permission alluded to was given by the Secretary to the Office of Works, in virtue of a Treasury Minute dated May 9, 1884. Directions were given by the Home Office to the police to admit a limited number of ladies to whom signed orders had been given. The custody of Westminster Hall was vested by Letters Patent, in 1843, in Mr. Charles Gore, the then Junior Commissioner of Woods and Works, and held by him up to 1884. By Treasury Minute dated May 9, 1884, the Office of Works was informed that by Her Majesty's pleasure the keepership was vested in the Office of Works, and that the Secretary for the time being of that Department was appointed to perform the duties in question. It has been the practice since for the Secretary for the time being, in the exercise of his functions and at his discretion, to grant all permission for the use of the hall. I have arranged that in future all requests for the use of Westminster Hall shall be submitted to and decided by the First Commissioner.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my Question? Will the same permission be given to other bodies who desire to present monster petitions?

I thought my answer covered the Question of the hon. Member. ["Hear, hear!"] As the hon. Member is aware, I refused the responsibility of the admission of these ladies the other day, and I cannot say, until an application of that sort is presented to me, what action I shall take.

I venture to repeat the Question, because it would be a very serious thing if Members of the Government should discriminate—

Order, order! I would further point out that the Question of the hon. Member does not distinctly arise out of the Questions which are upon the Paper.

May I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether we may understand that his discretion will be exercised either for or against everything?

was understood to say that he had already answered a similar Question.

asked whether care would be taken hereafter that the power would be vested in the hands of a person responsible to Parliament?

That was the gist of my answer.

asked whether the Sessional Order of the House would be respected?

That is not for me to answer, rather the Home Office; but, of course, it will be.

gave notice that he would call attention to the matter in Supply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is now any reason why Westminster Hall should not be thrown open to the public as formerly?

The hall was closed to the public at the request of the Home Office in 1884. In 1894 the restrictions were modified, and the public admitted on Saturdays between the hours of 10 and 4 o'clock. I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether further facilities to the public can now be granted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, with regard to the fact that the importation of store pigs from Ireland, a non-infected area, into Lancashire has been prohibited since 1894, whether he can state about what time the Ulster pig dealers may hope to be allowed to carry on without restriction their trade with Lancashire; and what has been the alleged cause of the prohibition.

The regulations which prohibit the movement of Swine from Ireland into Lancashire except for slaughter and under licence were imposed by the Local Authority in order to prevent the introduction of Swine Fever into the county, and it rests with that Authority and not with myself to say whether, and if so at what date, the regulations may properly be withdrawn. It is, however, unfortunately not the case that Ireland is a "non-infected area," 371 outbreaks of Swine-Fever having occurred during the first 18 weeks of the present year

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, on 13th April 1772, a motion was made and was carried without a division for a Select Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of 31 Members, to inquire into the nature and state of the East India Company and other affairs of the East Indies, and the oppression and arbitrary conduct of the Company's servants; and, whether he will consider the propriety of inviting the House of Commons, in the case of the South African Chartered Company, to follow the precedent unanimously adopted in 1772 in the similar case of the East India Company.

My attention had been called to the precedent of more than a century ago referred to in the hon. and learned Member's Question; but if a Parliamentary Inquiry is decided upon I prefer the later precedent of the proposal for a Joint Committee in 1886.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give the House any information with respect to the alleged breaches of the Burial Acts in the village of Swanscombe, in Kent; whether he is aware that Edith Laura Hodge, who died on 26th March 1893, is registered as buried on 1st April 1894; that the entry in the register of the burial of James Godwin, who was buried on 1st August 1895, has been so altered as to be illegible; that Robert M'Intosh and Ann Hoadley, not being members of the same family, are registered as having been buried in the same grave on consecutive days; and that William Brown, who was buried on 29th December 1894, is entered in the register as bured in the wrong grave, and the actual place of burial registered as unused, and that an inspection of the burial ground has been made under the direction of the Burials Department of the Home Office in February last, and whether the above statements were brought before the Inspector at such Inquiry; whether a Report has been presented to the Home Office by their Inspector; and, whether the Report will be furnished to the Parish Council for Swanscombe, being the authority charged with the rectifying the mistakes in the burial books of the parish.

The Inspector was directed by me to report on the state and condition of the burial ground, and whether the regulations of the Secretary of State have been observed and complied with; and I have received a preliminary report from him which shows that serious irregularities have occurred. The inspector's detailed report, however, has not yet reached me, nor have I had an opportunity of consulting him since the hon. Member gave notice of his Question. Until I have that report before me, I am unable to give the hon. Member an answer with regard to the several points raised in the Question, or to say whether it will be for me to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to a case of surcharge, recently made by the auditor against certain guardians of the Youghal (county Cork) Union, for the amount of relief granted to a widow named Eliza M'Namara, and to the correspondence which has passed between the Board of Guardians and the Local Government Board on the subject; and, (2) whether, in view of the letter from the latter Board, dated 22nd May 1895, practically authorising such relief, he will recommend that this surcharge be remitted.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The letter of the Local Government Board dated 22nd May, 1895, only authorised the Guardians to give relief in this case on their obtaining a Report from the relieving officer that the woman was destitute. The auditor states he has seen no Report to this effect, on the contrary the relieving officer's statement to him at the audit shows that he did not consider her destitute. Under these circumstances, and as the woman was the owner of the house in which she resides, and which, if sold, would realise a substantial sum, the auditor disallowed the relief given to her, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere with his discretion.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought a woman and three children could be supported in the workhouse on 5s. a week.

I should say that they could not not be supported for 5s. a week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the privilege of sending telegrams at press rates is accorded to weekly trade journals and refused to monthly trade journals of a similar character; and, whether, as this has been found a hardship, particularly to the journals of the smaller trades, he will consider whether the privilege can be equally extended?

The Postmaster General is not aware that the privilege of sending telegrams at the press rates has been granted to any trade journals other than those which are public newspapers. As to the journals published monthly, I may say that the Acts of Parliament do not recognize as a newspaper any publication which is issued at intervals of more than seven days. I doubt whether Parliament would be prepared to extend a privilege which already subjects the telegraph service to a considerable loss.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been drawn to the successful experiments of the Irish Government for the prevention of potato disease by spraying the crop; whether the process of spraying the potato crop has been carried out to any extent, and by a similar process, in this country; and, whether he will take similar steps as the Irish Government to disseminate information to the small potato growers the benefits accruing from this system?

The attention of the Board of Agriculture has for some time past been directed not only to the particular experiments to which the hon. Member refers but to the subject of the prevention of potato disease generally, and we have reason to believe that the process of spraying with suitable solutions is now followed to a great extent by agriculturists in Great Britain. We have on several occasions given publicity to information on the subject. In 1890, a paper was published in the Annual Report of our Intelligence Division. In 1891, several thousands of a pamphlet on the subject were issued. In 1892 and 1893, reports respecting it were published and presented to Parliament, and in 1894 and 1895 another leaflet was widely circulated. Articles have also appeared in our quarterly Journal. I have given instructions that copies of all these publications shall be supplied to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will lay upon the Table the latest reports of the Inspectors of Prisons and Prison Governors respecting those Court Houses in which the accommodation provided for prisoners continues to be defective.

I think it would be undesirable to lay these reports, which are of a confidential character, on the Table.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names?

I object to give the names.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state when Mr. Fitzmaurice's Report relating to the Massacres at Urfa will be laid before Parliament?

The full text of Mr. Fitzmaurice's Report will not be received until to-morrow. It will be printed and laid before Parliament without delay.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the magistrates of the town of Oldham are in the habit of committing householders who are unable to pay their rates to prison in Manchester, where many have to wear prison dress, and are supplied with bare prison diet; (2) whether he is further aware that the principal cause of this state of things is the refusal of the local authorities in Oldham to allow landlords to compound for the rates; and (3), whether he can bring any influence to bear on the authorities of Oldham to cause them to remove this disability?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to this matter. Persons committed to prison for non-payment of rates are treated as debtors, and as such are allowed to provide themselves with food and clothing; if unable sufficiently so to provide themselves, they are fed and clothed under the regulations affecting debtor prisoners. With regard to the second part of the Question, I understand that some difficulty in their local Acts has prevented the Corporation from allowing the composition of rates, but that they are now applying to the Local Government Board to amend the Acts by Provisional Order to enable them to do so. I have no authority myself to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Foreign Office will undertake to furnish to the provincial press at the same time as to the London press such Blue-books and such information as it is in the interests of the public service to publish?

I have made careful inquiries with a desire to meet the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but I find that, owing to the great increase in the number of the provincial press represented in London, it would be impossible to undertake a comprehensive distribution of Blue-books among them, and invidious to make a distinction. I believe, however, that, if my hon. Friend would make an application to Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, the Queen's Printers, he might find it possible to arrange with them for the paid supply of such Parliamentary Papers as he may desire simultaneously with their supply from this office.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Bill will impose any disqualification upon the master of a Board School who is a member of a county governing body, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and also chairman of the urban district council for the place in which the school is situate; and, whether it will be still possible for such school teacher to continue to fill these offices?

The Committee of Council do not consider that the position of teachers in these respects will be affected by the Bill.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, under Clause 15, Sub-section (3), of the Education Bill now before the House, the Education Department could make an order transferring an industrial school from the London School Board to the new educational authority without the consent of the London School Board?

The Sub-clause will not affect industrial schools in so far as they are of an elementary character. A transfer of the non-elementary parts of such schools could not, by Sub-clause (4), be effected without the consent of the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can inform the House how much money has up to the present been expended by the Congested Districts Board on the purchase and keeping of stallions; and (2) will he recommend the total abolition or substantial reduction of expenditure under this head?

The total expenditure of the Congested Districts Board upon horses up to the present date may be said to amount to about £30,000. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works—(1) whether the Treasury were consulted before the recent abolition of the office of deerkeeper in Greenwich Park was carried out, and whether they approved of it; (2) whether the Treasury have since found themselves prevented by law from extending to Mr. Jordan, the late deerkeeper, special abolition terms of pension; (3) whether there is any precedent for abolishing an office without giving a special pension to the holder except in cases where such a holder has been accused of some misconduct; and (4) whether the First Commissioner can give any relief to Mr. Jordan from the hardship of his compulsory and uncompensated retirement?

The answer to the first two paragraphs of my noble Friend's Question is in the affirmative. Mr. Jordan has been granted a compensa- tion allowance of £29 3s. 4d. per annum but the Treasury inform me that they are precluded from making any addition to the ordinary rate of pension, in view of the fact that Mr. Jordan's retirement cannot be shown to result in any direct saving. I regret that I have no power to alter this decision.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received any confirmation of the sentences reported to have been passed on the Reform leaders by the Transvaal Government; whether, in the event of no such confirmation having been received the Government will address a protest to the Transvaal Government, with a view of inducing them to put an end to the present suspense and uncertainty regarding the fate of these British subjects; and, whether the Government has addressed, or intends to address, any remonstrance to President Kruger regarding the severity and hardships which now attend imprisonment, even of unconvicted prisoners, in Transvaal gaols, severity which it is alleged has caused the insanity and suicide of one British subject, so that, if possible, similar tragedies may in future be avoided?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is in a position to state the nature of the sentences passed on the five "Reform Committee" prisoners in commutation of the death sentences?

I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the official telegrams which are published in this morning's papers, to which I have nothing to add by way of information. As regards the last paragraph of his Question, I have not seen any suggestion that the unhappy insanity and suicide of one of the prisoners were due to the severity and hardships of imprisonment. ["Hear,hear!"] I have received a telegram since I came to the House from the British Agent in the South African Republic to the following effect:—

"President of the South African Republic has just promised me that special gaol rules and regulations applicable to the prisoners will be immediately framed, also that the housing accommodation will be vastly improved and sanitary arrangements also attended to, and, if it is not wholly impossible, prisoners will not be separated and removed to other gaols where we cannot have proper supervision over them. This is the result of representations which the High Commissioner directed the British Agent to make. Mr. Howard, having signed the petition, has been released."

Am I to understand that the fate of the four leaders is still in suspense?

It is stated that the final sentences will he considered next week.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will extend to Irish political prisoners in English goals—[Cries of "Order!"]

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Reform Committee of Johannesburg and their followers laid down their arms on 9th January under pressure from Her Majesty's Representatives, and on promise of protection, Her Majesty's Government will use their utmost efforts to secure fair treatment for the Reform leaders now under sentence at Pretoria?

No "promise of protection" was made by Her Majesty's Government or by their representatives to the leaders of the agitation at Johannesburg. According to my information the prisoners at Pretoria are not unfairly treated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory accommodation provided for Members of this House at the Trooping of the Colour on Her Majesty's Birthday on the Horse Guards' Parade; and, whether better arrangements will be made next year?

I regret to say that we have no means of making better provision for Members of this House on the Queen's Birthday, except by erecting stands, for which no funds are voted. Nor is there any convenient space for such stands. As my hon. Friend is aware, a large number of tickets admitting within the line of sentries were made available for Members of the House.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what further contribution from Imperial Funds would be required if the reduction in the assessment of agricultural land proposed by the Rating Bill were extended to farm buildings other than farm houses or dwellings; and, whether any information exists which is accessible to the public, and which shows the annual value of such buildings apart from the agricultural land with which they are let and used?

I am not in a position to give any definite figures, but no doubt the amount would be considerable. There are no sources available from which I could get the information desired by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is in a position to state what decision the Judges have arrived at regarding their consideration of the system by which election petitions are now tried?

said, he was not in a position to state the final results of the recommendations of the Judges in regard to the system by which election petitions were tried, but the whole matter would be inquired into by a Committee. In these circumstances it was not desirable to make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General—(1) whether his attention has been called to the comments on the conduct of Mr. S. P. Gilbert, made by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Aaron's Reefs (Limited) v. Turis (House of Lords, 30th April 1896) (2) whether he is aware that Mr. S. P. Gilbert is the same person as Mr. T. Gilbert, who has recently been appointed to the Commission of the Peace of the county of Essex (Colchester Bench); and, (3) what action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take in the matter?

I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has already been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant of the county upon the matter, and, should it turn out that the person named T. Gilbert is the same person as S. P. Gilbert referred to in the first paragraph of the Question, his name will be removed from the Commission of the Peace.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state, for the convenience of Irish Members, on what day the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill will be taken; and, whether the Government will move to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee?

Perhaps it would be convenient that, in answering this Question, I should state what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the business after the holidays. On the supposition, of course, that we get through the Committee stage of the Rating Bill before the holidays, we should propose to take on Monday week the Light Railways Bill as the first Order, and the Finance Bill as the second Order. On the Tuesday we should propose to take the Second Reading of the Diseases of Animals Bill as the first Order, and the Finance Bill as the second Order. On the Thursday we should propose to take the Resolution with regard to the Indian troops. The Friday will be devoted to Supply. The Monday following will be devoted to the Irish Land Bill, and the Friday to Irish Supply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the intentions of the Government are with reference to the later stages of the Rating Bill—whether he proposes to take that before the Education Bill or afterwards? With reference to the Finance Bill, I think the right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday that his intention was to take that Bill only on the Monday. There are Amendments of considerable importance to the Finance Bill, and therefore I ask him whether he will not put the Bill down for a later day than the Monday?

I would like to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury, that he did not take any notice of the second portion of my question—whether the Government will move to refer the Irish Land Bill to a Grand Committee?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is imperative that the Conciliation (Trades Disputes) Bill be taken to-morrow? I think there should be some Debate upon that Bill, and many Members have made engagements for to-morrow, not expecting that the Bill would be taken to-morrow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to take the Wednesday after the holidays for Government business?

With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, I have to say I am anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen as much as possible; but, of course, it is impossible to meet everybody's convenience. I hope the House will permit the Conciliation (Trades Disputes) Bill to be taken tomorrow. I propose that the House should meet at 12 o'clock, so that there will be time for a brief discussion without putting the mass of the House to great inconvenience. As to the Wednesday after the Holidays, the hon. Member for South Molton is doubtless aware that the practice of the House is that the first two or three Wednesdays after Whitsuntide are devoted to the consideration of private Members' Bills which have made some advance during the early portion of the Session. I do not propose to break through that precedent. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I think it would be better I should answer it, and give my reasons at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. As to the Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that the two controversial parts of the Bill—namely, the Estate Duty and the Land Tax parts—should not be taken on Monday. Perhaps, if those portions are deferred there will be no objection to the Bill being proceeded with. The Report stage of the Rating Bill will be taken after the Committee Stage of the Education Bill.

Is it the intention of the Government to press the Military Manœuvres Bill?

My heart has been broken over the Military Manœuvres Bill—[a laugh]—it is almost too painful a subject to allude to. I confess I do not see my way to put the Bill down as the first Order on the Monday or Tuesday, because the result of so doing might be that other Measures would not make progress.

What will be the Bills for the Monday after the holidays?

The first Order will be the Light Railways Bill, and the second Order the Finance Bill, the two parts I have mentioned not being taken. We might advance a stage the Cabs Bill and the Naval Reserve Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government intend to support the Motion for the adjournment for the Derby?

No, Sir; the Government take no part in that matter. Hon. Gentlemen on this occasion, as on previous occasions, will vote according to their tastes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state on what plan there will be allotted to Scotland a grant from the Exchequer which shall secure to that country a sum of money applicable for its benefit equivalent to the contribution which Scottish taxpayers will be required to make to the expenses of education in England under the Education Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, that Bill not proposing to confer any educational or other benefit upon Scotland; and, in what form it is intended to bring before the House such equivalent grant?

I am sorry again to have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, who has, I readily admit, some reason to complain of the long delay which has taken place in answering the Question on the Paper. But I regret to say that I am not yet prepared to make a statement on the subject, and am not even in a position to fix with certainty the date on which I shall be able to make it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will exempt the Land Tax Commission Bill from the list of uncontroversial Bills to be taken on Friday, and of which he has given notice, having regard to the fact that there is already an Amendment on the Paper to that Bill?

I am informed that the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one which in reality raises no points that can properly be described as controversial.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention was drawn to the fact that when the Government was formed many Members of it were directors of public companies; and whether any of these directorships are now held; if so, will he state what companies are so directed, and by what Members of the Government?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that full answers were given by me to the question on the Paper in August and September last, and I have nothing now to add to what I them stated.

asked the Home Secretary, whether he would cause a special inquiry to be made into the conduct of the local authority at Newlyn, with a view to ascertain whether they had used their powers to protect the East Coast fishermen with promptness and effect; and whether he could give an assurance that effective measures would be taken to insure the conviction and punishment of the ringleaders in the recent riots?

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was in a position to give the House any information as to the restoration of order in Cornwall; whether any inquiry was to be made as to the origin of the disorder, and as to the recovery of the damage sustained by boat-owners and fishermen; and whether it was proposed to take any steps to prevent a recurrence of the rioting, and to insure that the East Coast fishermen should be allowed to peacefully pursue their lawful calling.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are prepared to introduce for Cornwall a Measure on the lines of the Irish Coercion Act?

The last information which has reached me is that matters are quieting down. It is premature at present to say anything as to the necessity for any inquiry. I am in communication with the Admiralty and the local authorities as to the necessary steps to be taken to preserve the peace.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that no contentious Bills would be taken before Whitsuntide, and that there were still some points in the Manœuvres Bill to be disposed of, he would consider whether any modification of the Bill could be made to enable it to pass as a non-contentious Measure?

I have carefully examined the Amendments to the Manœuvres Bill still undisposed of, and find that, with two or three exceptions, they can practically be met by the Government. The Bill is in no sense a Party one, and, seeing its urgency, I have offered, on any disputed points in the Bill, to accept such provisions as the Leaders of the Opposition may consider sufficient for the protection of the localities in which the manœuvres are held, provided the Bill is treated as non-contentious and allowed to pass at once. Hon. Members will see that we are placing ourselves in the hands of the House solely in order to obtain for the troops the training which the military authorities consider essential for them, and I cannot help hoping that some agreement may be arrived at, and the money already voted by Parliament for manœuvres utilised. [Cheers.]

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was in a position to state that the telegram published in the morning newspapers announcing that the two Ansahs had been found guilty on every count of the indictment was correct?

I have seen two telegrams, but I have received no official confirmation. The first said that they had been acquitted on the count of forgery and would be tried on some other count. The second telegram said they had been set free altogether

moved:—

"That the Proceedings of the Committee on the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House."

moved:—"That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the Clock."

said, that if he was not in order in moving an Amendment he should challenge a Division against the Motion. The course pursued by the Government in calling upon the House to meet at noon on the day of the adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess was certainly an exceptional one; indeed, he believed it to be absolutely without precedent, except in the case of great congestion of business. He failed to see what necessity there was for pressing the particular Bills named by the First Lord of the Treasury, for not one of which was there any urgency claimed. There was the Conciliation Bill. That was a very important Bill, surely, which ought to be discussed when Members, especially those representing labour interests, were present. It was unfair to put pressure on the House of Commons in this way. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that they were in for a period of rest; that they were going to have a Parliament where the wicked Radicals would cease from troubling and the weary legislator would be at rest. Instead of that they had been legislating at high pressure, almost in a panic. They had had Motions, once a week or once a fortnight, for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule; they had had Motions to meet at 12 instead of Three; and they had had exceptional Standing Orders brought into force. It was, he thought, high time the House of Commons entered a most emphatic protest against this course of conduct. What it really meant was that the First Lord wanted to screw this Rating Bill through. But what was the urgency for it, even assuming it to be a good Bill? There was plenty of time before August. It was really unfair to visit on the Opposition what was really the fault of the Government themselves in not calling Parliament together earlier and in their mismanagement of public business. He moved to insert "Twelve" instead of "Three."

That is quite unnecessary, because the effect of negativing the Motion will be that the House will meet at Three.

said, that he regarded the proposal made by the Government as entirely unnecessary. There was on great demand for the Bills which were to be put down for to-morrow, and the Motion was quite unusual and unnecessary. He agreed that they were legislating under very great pressure, and the Twelve o'clock Rule bade fairly to become a Standing Order, which was passed simply to be suspended.

The question before the House is not the question of the Twelve o'clock Rule.

said, he was complaining of the business being pressed on by the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, and then for the First Lord to ask them to meet again at Twelve o'clock the same day was a demand on the physical resources of Members which was altogether unreasonable. The Government made no apology and gave no explanation or reason for the course they were taking, and yet the First Lord expected that side to be as complacent as his followers on the other side. The Conciliation Bill, he agreed, was one which ought to be thoroughly discussed, and he would warn the Leader of the House that if he was not careful in this matter there was a possibility of his doing more injury to the Conciliation cause by legislating in haste than the Bill could ever possibly do good. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some more reasonable and agreeable arrangement with regard to the business for to-morrow.

said, he should not have intervened but for the reference of the hon. Members to the Conciliation Bill. It was quite true that this was a Bill that deserved discussion, but he would remind the hon. Members that it had been discussed at considerable length in the House. They had a whole Wednesday's discussion at the beginning of the Session on the Bill, which was introduced by the London Chamber of Commerce, and practically the Bill of the Government only differed in certain minor details from that Bill, which was passed by an unanimous vote of the House. It was very important that the Bill should be got through as soon as possible, in order that it might become law this year, and if they could get the Second Reading to-morrow, they might be able to go into Committee and make progress with it immediately after the House re-assembled.

rose for the purpose of moving, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert "at its rising do adjourn until Monday the 1st of June."

The hon. Member will not be in order in moving that. It is not relevant to the Motion before the House.

said, he was sorry he would not be able to move it. He entirely objected to the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury, largely on the ground of the nature of the business put down for to-morrow. It seemed now to have become a settled custom of the right hon. Gentleman to place all Irish business after 12 o'clock at night. If he had put down for to-morrow the Irish Light Railways Bill or the Irish Labourers' Bill, or had given the Irish Members some bait to induce them to come here at 12 o'clock to-morrow, they might have been disposed to have agreed to the Motion, but he would not give them even an hour or two in daylight. He entered his protest, in the only shape in which he could do it, against the arrangement of business which had been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

observed that the hon. Member for East Mayo began by offering the suggestion that they should take no business to-morrow, and then proceeded to complain that the Government had not put down Irish business. [Laughter.] He felt quite sure that had they done so they would have been told that nothing was so inconvenient as putting down Irish business the day before or the day after the holidays, because Irish Members had long distances to travel. Mr. DILLON: "I spoke of non-contentious business."] The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate appeared to think there was some dark design at the bottom of the scheme of the Government. There was no design at all, except to allow the House to get through stages of Bills the general utility of which was admitted by both sides, and enable hon. Members to get away at a reasonable hour. It was surely no conspiracy against the comfort of hon. Members, or against the liberties of the House as a whole, that he should ask them on the day the holidays commenced to meet at 12 o'clock, so that hon. Members who had a distance to travel might catch the afternoon trains. ["Hear, hear!"] If they were to meet at Three o'clock, the time of an ordinary sitting, many hon. Members would not be able to get away until Saturday. This Motion was put down for the convenience of the House; he believed it was for the convenience of the House, and it was no violation of precedent. ["Hear, hear!"] Everybody must admit there was an immense advantage in having a day devoted to those small matters which were not allowed to come on after midnight because one individual objected, which, nevertheless, were non-party Measures that both sides of the House desired to see passed, but which had little chance of passing at the extreme end of a Session, unless such opportunities were taken of passing them as would be afforded by the sitting to-morrow. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was his intention, having secured the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, to continue the Debate on the Agricultural Rating Bill until the small hours of the morning with a view to getting it passed, or did he mean that the Debate was to terminate at midnight? The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that there was no urgency for the Rating Bill, because he had told them that he did not intend to take the Report Stage until after the Committee Stage of the Education Bill.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to include the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill among the Measures to be taken to-morrow, as, so far from being non-contentious, it contained some very controversial propositions.

supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Eye, pointing out that the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill was a strongly contentious Measure, which was opposed on the Second Reading.

suggested that the words in the first line of the clause did not carry out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He wished to know what was the meaning of the word "deficiency?"

On a point of order, I wish to ask you, Sir, what is the question before the House?

There is no question before the House at present, but no doubt the hon. Member will conclude with a Motion.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had raised the point, he should be compelled to move the Amendment which he had prepared, and he should move it in this form:—To omit the words after "deficiency" down to "define," in order to insert "difference between the amount which the rates to which this Act applies would, but for Section 1 of this Act, produce, and the amount which after the passing of this Act such rate actually produces." He maintained that this was not a question of a deficiency. It was a difference. Supposing under the old law a rate of half-a-crown in a parish produced £1,500. If this Bill passed in its present form it would produce only £1,000; but there was no deficiency. There was simply a difference between what would have been produced but for this Bill and what was actually produced. He therefore moved the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. The clause was perfectly clear as it stood, and there would be no difficulty. It merely stated that, a deficiency having arisen, it was to be made up by a payment out of the local taxation account.

said, that the Amendment was no Amendment at all. It was clear that there would be a deficiency in the produce, and it seemed to him that the words proposed only put in a different and rather worse way what the clause meant.

pointed out that a rate did not ever produce the actual amount it ought to produce. In a parish assessed at £10,000 the produce of a rate of 2s. in the pound ought to be £1,000. Was it intended that the State should pay £500 or only half of what was actually produced by the rate? As a matter of fact a rate of 2s. in the pound did not produce £1,000, and the occupiers instead of paying £500 only paid say, £450, the produce of the rate. What became of the deficiency in the produce? The clause did not provide for any deficiency in the amount of the rates paid as compared with the rates payable. Under the terms of the clause as it stood, a court of law would hold that the State would only have to pay £450 if the deficiency was £100 on a,£1,000 rate. It must be remembered that there was a deficiency in the amount of the rates paid in every union throughout the country.

said, that in his opinion the necessity for this Amendment could not be questioned. The clause did not define with clearness what meaning was to be attached to the word deficiency. There might be a difference between the amount of the rate made and the amount paid without there being a deficiency, because the amount paid might be sufficient to cover all the expenditure, and in that case there would be no deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill ought certainly to give the Committee some explanation of this point, because the clause was undoubtedly ambiguous with regard to it, before they went any further. By Clause 4 it was proposed that—

"The Local Government Board shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act certify the amount (a) of the annual grant to be paid to the Local Taxation Account, and (b) of the share of such grant to be paid annually to each spending authority under this Act, and for that purpose shall determine in the prescribed manner the amount which for the purposes of this Act is to be taken as having been raised during the last year before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies for the expenditure of each spending authority."

said, that the Bill was retrospective as regarded the amount to be fixed which depended upon the amount which had been raised "during the last year before the passing of this Act."

asked the hon. Member to take the words of Clause 4.

said, that the words of Clause 4 were—

"The amount which for the purposes of the Act as having been raised during the last year before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies."

"That a sum equal to the total amount of the deficiencies thus estimated for all the spending authorities in England shall be the amount of the annual grant, and a sum equal to the deficiency thus estimated in the case of each spending authority shall be the share of the spending authority in the annual grant, and the Local Government Board shall certify the same accordingly."

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Captain Pretyman) had undoubtedly thrown some light upon the subject, but he had also opened up other points of great interest. It was evident that the Government intended to fix the sum to be paid in the form of this grant in aid for the next five years.

said, that was so.

said, in that case, if the amount of the rate received was reduced, who was to make up the difference? Was it to be made up by a fresh rate?

It would encourage economy.

said, the hon. Member said it would encourage economy, but would it have that effect when three-fourths of the rate was paid by the State? The fact was that the Government had let the cat out of the bag. They were going to pay a given sum year by year for five years, whether the amount of the rates received rose or fell. The local authorities, if they were far-seeing men, would make the rate as high as they could last year and would then reduce it as low as possible for the next five years.

said, that if the rate produced £1,000 one year and fell to £800 the next year there would be a deficiency of £200, and he wanted to know who was to make up that deficiency. In such a case would the State pay £400, the half of the amount received, £500 the half of the £1,000, or £600, so as to make good the deficiency.

said, he had stated half-a-dozen times already that if there was any decrease in the rates and consequently a surplus in the amount of the fixed grant, that surplus would go in the relief of the rates generally, and to that extent the houses and buildings would benefit in proportion.

said, that explanation did not meet his point. The words of the first clause were that the occupier of agricultural land would be liable to pay one-half of the rate payable. But it was the universal fact that the rate payable was not the rate paid. Take the case of a purely agricultural district where there were no residents except farmers. Supposing there was a deficiency in the rate—supposing an occupier did not pay the half of the rate for which he was liable, would the State have to make up the balance?

said, the contribution to be made each year by the Exchequer would be a fixed amount. It would be impossible to work a system by which the contribution from the Exchequer would vary year by year according to the rate imposed. Accordingly it was provided that the amount should be based on one-half the rate payable in respect of agricultural land the year before the passing of the Act.

said, the subvention was to be a lump sum which depended upon the rate of last year, and for every future year it was to be the same lump sum. Therefore it did not depend upon the rating of agricultural land in the future. There was to be a fixed sum given to each parish calculated upon a certain basis, namely, the rate of last year, which might have no relation whatever to the rate of future years.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now anticipating a discussion that would more properly arise at a later stage.

said, he would not pursue the point further than to ask where was the adjustment of rating under the Bill, and what was the character of the subvention under the circumstances he had stated?

asked, what was to happen if the rates went up? The occupier was to be liable for one-half of the rate, and the Government paid a fixed amount. What, then, was to become of the margin between the two?

said, he would take the case of a colliery district, where £1,000 was required in rates. Say £500 were contributed by the agricultural community, and £500 in respect of colliery property. Owing to the price of coal it might be found necessary to close the colliery. In the course of a year or two years the whole of the industrial population might, in the circumstances, have to leave that district, and instead of £1,000 perhaps only £220 would be required in rates. But that district would still receive £500 of half its original rate from the Government. That showed the ridiculousness of the position taken up by the Government. He had one or two districts in mind which were likely to be in the position he had described within the next few years.

pointed out that under the Bill as it stood the local taxation account would be based on an estimated amount of the rate and not upon the actual amount. That was to say, the State would pay not half the actual rate, but half the estimated amount of the rate. Was the Exchequer, then going to be called upon to pay more than half of what was actually raised in the year before the passing of the Act? That had not been made clear in the explanation of the Solicitor General.

said, the point he had raised still remained undecided. The occupier was to pay one-half the rate payable. That was to say, if the rate raised was 3s. in the pound, the occupier paid 1s. 6d. and the State paid 1s. 6d. But if the occupier did not pay his half of the rate, what was to become of the balance?

said the contribution which was to be made by the Treasury was defined by the fourth section, and the words of the second section must be read with reference to the fourth section. The second section spoke of the deficiency which would arise, and the fourth section said that a sum equal to the total amount of the estimated deficiencies for all the spending authorities should be the amount of the annual grant. It was a fixed contribution. In a case in which the State contribution was fixed at £500, if £1,500 in all were required, the local authority would have to raise £1,000. The rates were to be levied in the manner prescribed by Section 1, buildings and hereditaments being assessed at twice the amount of agricultural land. It was a fixed contribution which was given in aid of the local authority, irrespective of the actual amount required.

said, the explanation just offered rested upon the supposition that the rates would go down.

Whether the rates go down or up, the contribution will be the same; the contribution is fixed.

said, the contribution was fixed upon the basis of last year's rates, and the explanation rested upon the assumption that it was perfectly fair to take the rates of last year as the basis. In some instances there was extraordinary expenditure because the District Councils and Parish Councils came into existence, and in some cases the rates were increased in anticipation of an expenditure which had not been incurred, and in these cases there would be a reduction in the rates for next year.

said, the hon. Member was discussing a point which would come up later; this clause dealt only with machinery.

said, the question arose whether they were to refer to Clause 4 as explaining Clause 2. They had to make Clause 2 reconcileable with Clause 1.

said, it might be necessary to refer to Clause 4 without discussing the merits of the particular plan provided for arriving at the rate payable.

said, the words of the Bill did not carry out the intention of the Government. If there was a case in which £500 was contributed, and the additional amount required rose from £1,500 to£1,800, who would pay the extra £300? ["The ratepayers."] But that was not "the deficiency which will arise from the provisions of this Act." The clause was clearly inconsistent with Clause 1 and Clause 4, because the deficiency to be met was not £500, but £800. What had to be described was the difference between the rates paid and the rates payable; and this was done by his Amendment, which expressed the intention of the Government better than did the words of the Bill. They would not pay a difference "which would arise" but they would pay the difference between the rate of one year and the rate of another year.

said, the discussion showed more and more that there ought to be efficient control over local expenditure in the interests of the taxpayer. If the Treasury made calculations, they ought to be able to satisfy themselves that the money was really required and was fairly spent.

, said it appeared to him that what the Attorney General had said proved that the Bill was badly drafted, and that Clause 4 should be before Clause 2. The latter could not be discussed without constant reference to Clause 4, for Clauses 1 and 2 had no meaning without reference to Sub-section 2 of Clause 4, where the word "deficiency" was defined. How was provision to be made for an increase of the rates. The Government subvention or "grant in aid" was to be a fixed sum. If it was necessary to increase the rates, how would that be provided for? The result of the Bill would be not only to let off the owner and occupier of agricultural land one-half of the rate he had been paying, but to compel owners of houses to pay rates which they would not be compelled to pay under the present law. In spite of what the Attorney General had said, it had not been made sufficiently clear why the Government stood by their words in Clause 2, and refused to accept the Amendment.

agreed that the sub-section of Clause 4, which provided the machinery for ascertaining any deficiency, should be inserted before Clause 2. It was clear from what the Solicitor General had said that there would be many cases in which the word "deficiency" would be inapplicable. Wherever a smaller rate was necessary, the fixed contribution of the Government would not only cover the deficiency but provide a surplus.

It is a deficiency in the produce of the rate that is referred to in the clause, not a deficiency in the budget of the parish.

said, he was aware of that. He submitted that the word "difference" would be much more appropriate to describe the state of facts that the clause was intended to deal with.

argued that the intentions of the Bill were amply and accurately carried out in the clause, and suggested that the sense of the Committee should now be taken upon it.

asked whether the Solicitor General meant the produce of the rates last year, or the amount which the rates ought to have produced?

said he thought there was something more to be said and done than merely to divide, as suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. He suggested that the matter should be carefully considered between this and the Report stage, and then there need be no division now. There was not only ambiguity, but such expressions in the clause as would leave local authorities in difficulty, and lead them into litigation, which was most undesirable. Even the tenses in the clause were instances of both grammatical and logical confusion of ideas. [Opposition cheers.]

said, the Government were satisfied that the meaning of the clause was clear and carried out the purposes of the Act. At the same time, if hon. Members thought the clause deserved consideration, it might receive careful consideration before the Report stage. If agricultural land were taken at its full value, and the rate taken upon it in respect of buildings, of course it would produce more than if agricultural land were taken at only half its value, and the deficiency in the produce of the rates was the deficiency which would arise in that way. The matter would be carefully considered before the Report stage.

said, he was glad that the Solicitor General had told them that this matter would be considered, but he would submit that these words which it was proposed to omit were really part of the Preamble, and that the best way of solving the difficulty would be to cut them out and go on to sub-section a. Then the whole ambiguity would disappear. He would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and then he would propose to leave out the words from the beginning of the clause down to the word "defined." That would really get rid of the whole difficulty, and perhaps the Solicitor General would tell them if there was any objection to that.

thought there would be an objection to that.

said, this was a drafting question, and he would not press it as the matter was to be considered. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved after ''shall,'' at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words ''during the continuance of this Act."

said, this raised a rather important question. He had an Amendment to limit the period to three years, and owing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman this question must be discussed now.

said it would not be in order to attempt to reduce that period now, as the Bill had been amended in the first clause so as to fix the period.

submitted with deference that the question of the payment to the Local Taxation Account for five years had not been precluded.

said, there would be no object in continuing the Bill for five years if payment was only going to be made for three years.