To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the loss and inconvenience caused to dairy farmers owing to the manner in which urban authorities occasionally use their powers in connection with the milk supply in their respective districts; whether he is aware that a clause enabling a farmer, who can prove unfair treatment by an urban authority, to recover compensation has been introduced into several local Acts, among others into the Leeds Corporation Act, 1901, and The Brighton Corporation Act, 1901; and, seeing that a similar clause dealing with infectious diseases has been introduced into the London County Council Bill of this session, whether he will, in conjunction with the Local Government Board, endeavour to secure the insertion of similar clauses into all future Bills promoted by focal authorities. (Answer.) My answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.—(Board of Agriculture.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proposed incorporation of certain portions of the Transvaal Colony with the self-governing Colony of Natal, he can state whether it is proposed to take steps to ensure the representation of the white population of the acquired territory in the Natal Legislature; and, further, whether he can state the date at which the transfer of territory will take place.

A Rill providing for the annexation of the new territory has, I understand, been just passed by the Natal Legislature. A clause of the Bill provides for franchise rights equal to those accorded to the present inhabitants of Natal. As to the date at which the transfer of territory will actually take place, I can give no information at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all letters and other documents passing in the mails to and from South Africa, and all telegraphic messages sent to or from that country, are subject to military censorship in South Africa; who is the chief official of the censorship department; who are his principal assistants, and in what ports or places do they perform their functions; and are the mail steamers arriving at or leaving British South African ports boarded by military officials for the purpose of examining and searching passengers and their luggage.

All private letters and telegrams passing into and out of South Africa are subject to censorship. The chief censor is Major Trench, R. A.; the names of his present assistants have not been communicated to us. Major Trench is at Army head-quarters; other censors are at the coast towns and all important inland places. Mail steamers are boarded by the staff of the Embarkation Staff Officer. It is not known how far they examine passengers' luggage, but we have had no complaints.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which I have given him private notice. There is a printed answer in the Votes, † which states in reply to the Question whether there is any distinction in the treatment in convict and local prisons between soldiers sentenced to penal servitude for military offences and criminals sentenced by a civil Court for the worst offences—that "the rules for carrying out of sentences of penal servitude do not differentiate between different classes of convicts, except in so far as a convict may be placed in the star class." I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether this answer refers to all soldiers, no matter what the nature of their offence may be. We have had repeated assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by the Secretary for War, that soldiers convicted of offences against military law of the war should be kept separate.

The hon. Member's Question is altogether contrary to the spirit of the new Rules. The hon. Member is referring to a Question which has been answered in print. He may-put down a Question on the subject in the ordinary way, but cannot ask a supplementary Question upon the printed answer.

I respectfully submit that I have only done so because the answer indicates an entire reversal of the policy repeatedly announced by the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for War.

Perhaps the House will permit me to answer the Question, because this is a matter of some importance. I think the answer on the printed paper is, perhaps, somewhat short, and might have been more explanatory. As regards the second part of the Question, the assurances given have referred entirely to soldiers not sentenced to be discharged the Army, and who are to return to the colours; such soldiers are kept separate from the ordinary criminal, and wear a different dress. It is not the offence but the sentence of discharge which places the prisoner in the same category as regards treatment in prison as the criminal, and all sentences of penal servitude carry discharge.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can say whether a contractor named Louis Silberston, who was imprisoned in 1899 for attempting to bribe the police officials in connection with a contract for the supply by him of police helmets, is, notwithstanding, now supplying helmets to the officers of certain infantry battalions, and is, moreover, still indirectly connected with the War Office contracts for helmets and caps.

Officers are not supplied with helmets by the War Department. Silberston was removed from the War Office list of contractors, and there is no information to show that the Department is dealing with any firm in which he has interest, pecuniary or otherwise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that officers commanding regiments usually give instructions to officers as to where they shall purchase their helmets, and is it not the fact that in many battalions the officers are now getting helmets from this man?

I am not responsible for any suggestion which may be made by commanding officers to the other officers, nor am I responsible as to where an officer chooses to purchase any portion of his uniform.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a correspondence between the secretary of the Galashiels Textile Factory Workers' Union and the Director of Army Contracts on the subject of the rate of wages paid by Messrs. William Brown and Sons, Wilderband Mills, Galashiels, to workers employed on Army contract goods; whether he is aware that this firm have reduced the wages on Government work by about 12½ per cent.; and whether the Department proposes to take any steps to rectify this alleged contravention of the conditions applicable to Government orders, and to put a stop to the injury done to the workmen by such a contravention.

This matter has been carefully considered, and it is held that the contract conditions have not; been infringed by the firm.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that the Finance Bill as circulated does not contain in the Schedule a complete list of articles upon which the new corn and grain duties are being levied, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an exact copy of the official list as circulated by the Customs authorities.

All the articles on which the duties are being levied are included in the Schedule.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that motor cars in and around London frequently travel at rates of speed in excess of that allowed by regulation; and whether he will instruct the police to put the law strictly into operation against such offenders; and whether he will also order every motor car to be distinctly numbered so as to secure prompt and effective identification.

Strict orders have been given to the police in respect to the infringement of the law by motor-cars, and prosecution will follow in all cases where possible; but doubtless the hon. Member is aware of the very great difficulty that exists in estimating correctly—or even approximately—the pace at which a motor-car is travelling. As regards the numbering of the cars the matter is one in which I have no authority to make any order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say under whose jurisdiction this particular question of the numbering is placed?

If any one has any power in the matter it would be the President of the Local Government Board, but I doubt very much whether, under the existing legislation, he has any power.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of any option or contract existing giving the American Combine the right to take over the shares or fleet of the Cunard Company; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ascertain the facts of the case.

I have reason to believe that no such option or contract exists.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the telegraphic and postal service the boys' brigades were, upon their formation, provided with imitation guns; whether they are now armed with real guns; and, if so, whether the Board of Education or the War Office supplies the guns and pays the drill sergeant for his services; how many hours per week the boys are engaged in military drill; and whether they receive any extra pay for the time they are so engaged.

The telegraph messengers attached to the larger post offices are regularly trained in simple drill and physical exercises, but they are not formed into Brigades. It does not appear that imitation guns have ever been used in this training. The older boys carry disused carbines, of which the strikers have been removed, lent by the War Office. The younger boys use sticks when performing physical exercises. As a rule, the instruction is given by the Post Office Inspectors of Messengers, or other Post Office servants. Occasionally, Military Instructors are employed, but they are paid by the Post Office. Each boy is drilled for an hour once a week, or at rather longer intervals, during the drill season, from the 1st of March to the 30th of November. The boys are paid for the time occupied by their attendance at drill.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the joint circular recently issued by the Board of Education and the War Office in regard to the teaching of military drill in public elementary schools; and if he will state what authority these departments possess to act in concert upon the subject.

A copy of the model course of military training for use in the upper departments of Public Elementary Schools was yesterday presented to Parliament. It is, as appears on its face, issued by the Board of Education only, under their general powers.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can arrange with the Commissioner of Police that Members of Parliament living west of Westminster Abbey shall be allowed on the 26th and 27th June to drive by Chelsea Embankment, Grosvenor Road, and Abingdon Street to the public entrance of the House of Commons; those going to the Abbey to walk through the path between St. Margaret's and the Abbey, and those going to the House of Commons stand, on showing their tickets, to pass through Westminster Hall and New Palace Yard to the corner gate and be allowed by the police to cross to the stand opposite up to some named hour; and will he also arrange that the carriages of Members of Parliament should be parked in New Palace Yard.

I shall be happy to do what I can for the convenience of hon. Members, and have entered into communication with the Commissioner of Police on the subject, and have asked him to consider these suggestions in due course.

Can the time be extended to half-past nine?

I do not think that is possible. But it does not rest with me.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the number of hours on duty per week of the warders in the local prisons in Ireland, such as Sligo, Galway, and Castlebar; and in the case of unmarried warders can he state how many hours are they obliged to remain within the precincts of the prison each week.

Under ordinary circumstances the number of hours for duty in the prisons named varies from sixty-five to seventy per week in summer, and somewhat less during the remainder of the year. Unmarried warders are required to remain within the precincts of the prison for the same number of hours, and also every night. It is not obligatory to remain on the premises during the interval between day and night duty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in framing the new prison rules it is proposed to make arrangements by which prisoners convicted under the operations of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will be treated in a different manner from prisoners convicted under the ordinary law; and whether copies of the altered prison rules have been supplied to the prisoners at present serving their sentences.

All prisoners in Ireland are being classified as in England; but prisoners cannot be treated as a separate class on the ground that they have been convicted under a particular statute. Prisoners are not entitled to copies of the rules, but an abstract of the regulations relating to the treatment of prisoners is posted up in each cell. The hon. Member for East Mayo having recently made inquiries on the subject, I find that he was allowed to exercise by himself in Dundalk prison in 1888. This was done on medical grounds; he was in hospital. It is within the discretion of the governor to allow any prisoner of any class to exercise by himself or to allow several prisoners of the same class to exercise with each other and apart from the rest of the class.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that there was a general regulation applying to all prisoners convicted under the Coercion Act that they should wear their own clothes and not be exercised with other prisoners?

The rule as to wearing their own clothes was affected by a general change in the prison regulations which authorised all prisoners, whether convicted under that or any other statute, to wear their own clothes if there was no reason for making them wear prison dress. There was no general regulation that prisoners under the Crimes Act should be treated as a separate class. The hon. Member himself was afforded certain privileges, which it was in the discretion of the governor to confer.

Why were alterations against the Coercion Act prisoners made in the new rules issued the other day?

The rules have been altered to bring them into line with the rules in force in English prisons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has made application to the Admiralty for gunboats to assist in preventing illegal fishing off the coasts of Ireland; if so, what has been the result of such application; whether he is aware that for years the Admiralty have placed gunboats at the disposal of the Scotch fishery authorities for the protection of the Scotch fisheries; and, if so, whether he has pressed that fact on the attention of the Admiralty.

The question of providing additional protection to the Irish fisheries against the depredations of trawlers is engaging attention, and an inter-Departmental correspondence on the subject is in progress. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. Member to defer the Question until after the holidays.

I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that at present the Admiralty does nothing for the Irish fisheries, although they place gunboats at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board. The "Helga" and the "Granuaile," the only vessels in Irish waters, are provided out of Irish funds.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objections to stating how many of the rioters at Annaghmore, county Armagh, have been identified; and whether he will ascertain from the Roman Catholic clergymen and leading Roman Catholic laymen in the district their views as to the urgent necessity for the re-establishment of the police barracks.

I have nothing to add to the replies given to the previous Questions of the 1st and 2nd instant on the same subject. †

Whom has the right hon. Gentleman consulted?

Those who by experience are best qualified to judge.

rose to put another Question.

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Returns of evictions and eviction notices in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March last; and whether, in view of the fact disclosed by these Returns, viz., that 536 eviction notices were filed under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 for the three months named, he will consider the advisability of introducing a clause into the new Bill, repealing or modifying Section 7.

At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, as shown by the Parliamentary Return, 536 tenancies, as well as sub-tenancies depending on them, have been determined during the three months ending 31st March last, by ejectment notices forwarded through the post, under Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, whether, pending the passing

The number of notices under Section 7 was 536, as stated. The number of actual evictions in the same period was 69. The effect of a notice being to determine the tenancy, the tenant must redeem before he can apply to have a fair rent fixed. Such redemptions are, it is believed, frequent, and it is not correct to assume, as is often done, that the tenant is dispossessed of all rights in his holding. It is not proposed to legislate in the direction suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that over 2,000 of these notices were served last year, and that the practical effect is to convert the tenant into a caretaker?

Order, order!

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of the notices served under the Act of 1887 and the number of redemptions?

I think the number served is already within the purview of the House, but I do not see how it is possible to arrive at the number of redemptions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, under the provisions of Section 28 (B) of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of 1884 applied to Irish local governmnent elections under the Act of 1898, the Attorney General for Ireland is bound to be represented at the trial of a municipal election petition by a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years standing, will he state whether the barrister who, at the hearing of the recent election petitions in Arran Quay Ward, Dublin, where corrupt practices were alleged on both sides, represented the Attorney General is a barrister of ten years standing.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Act of Parliament was strictly complied with. The Chief Crown Solicitor, Sir Patrick Coll, a solicitor of much more than ten years standing, appeared for and represented the Attorney General at the hearing of the Petition. Owing to the many demands, however, on Sir Patrick Coil's time, it is sometimes necessary for him to instruct counsel to assist him, and in such cases the selection of the counsel rests with him. To the counsel so selected the provisions as to standing have no application. Nothing, however, will thereby be added to the liability of the County Council, as the proper and usual legal cost and expenses will only be charged against them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that twice within the last few weeks the Solicitor General for Ireland has been absent from Ireland and has failed to discharge the duties of his office in that country owing to his appearance as counsel before Committees of the House of Commons; and, seeing that Law Officers of the Crown in England, having regard to their position as Ministers of the Crown, do not appear before such Committees, even when they do not sit for constituencies in the House of Commons, will steps be taken to assimilate in this respect the practice regulating the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to the practice in England.

The Solicitor General for Ireland, unlike the Solicitor General for England, is permitted to take private practice. I cannot admit that he has failed to discharge his duties, but it is true that on one occasion he, owing to an unforeseen clashing of dates, appeared in England whilst a case for the Crown was proceeding in Ireland. The selection of private cases in which he may elect to appear rests within the discretion of the Solicitor General. I am sure that in exercising that discretion he will in future avoid even the appearance of conflict between his private practice and public duties. It is not proposed to assimilate the conditions of tenure and salary of this office to those of the Solicitor General for England.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of R. v. Lynam, in which an application was made on the part of the Crown to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland that the defendant should give bail to be of good behaviour, and to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland on the absence of both the Law Officers of the Crown; whether he is aware that Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, who, according to practice, represents Mr. Attorney General for Ireland in Crown cases in which that official is unavoidably absent, was, at the time of the hearing of the case mentioned, engaged as counsel in his private capacity before a Committee of the House of Commons; and whether the Irish Government will in future direct that the primary attention of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland should be devoted to the duties of their offices.

Yes, Sir. That is the case to which I referred in reply to the previous Question. I cannot accept the version given of the Lord Chief Justice's remark. There is no occasion for, or need of, the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by whose direction, and under what authority, a police sergeant called on the proprietor of the Hibernian Hotel, Mallow, last Wednesday, prior to the holding of a public meeting to be addressed from the windows of the hotel in connection with the forthcoming election for district councillors, and warned him that if any speeches were so delivered the renewal of his licence would be opposed; will he state whether it is intended to institute proceedings against any one of the speakers for language used at the meeting; and, seeing that it is the ordinary practice to address public meetings of electors from hotel windows during contested elections, will instructions be given to the police in Mallow not to interfere with the holding of such meetings during the further progress of this election.

There has been no interference with meetings addressed from the windows of this hotel, nor is it intended to take proceedings against any of the speakers. Language of a reprehensible kind was used by some of the speakers, directed against local magistrates. The police merely gave notice to the owner lest he might be unwittingly betrayed into allowing licensed premises so to be used that they would feel justified in opposing, the renewal of his licence.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the effect of the Atlantic Shipping Combination, he has considered the desirability of re-enacting the navigation laws.

I cannot say that the subject of the Question has not been considered by the Government, but we certainly have no proposals to make at present to the House in the direction of re-enacting the navigation laws.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state how many vessels included in the recent North Atlantic Shipping Combine have been employed directly or indirectly for the transport of troops, stores, horses, or mules by the English Government or by any of the Colonial Governments during the present war; and, in the event of these ships or any of them passing under the direct control of a Foreign Power, what steps the Government propose to take to obtain transports that would be available by this country under similar circumstances in the future.

I understand that twenty-one transports on time have been chartered, besides eleven freight ships for conveyance of troops and horses and stores exclusively employed for a specified voyage from companies which have joined the combination.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now make any statement as to the reappointment of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies.

I think it will be desirable that an evening sitting, early in the week after we return should be devoted to the appointment of this Committee and of two other Committees which have been promised by the Government, and the reference to which I will put down before the holidays. One has regard to Private Bill Procedure. The other question is to consider whether any scheme is practicable for improving the machinery for looking into the details of Estimates, apart from policy. I will put down the references for the Tuesday or Wednesday evening after we return, putting steamship subsidies first.

In what order will they be proposed?

The Steamship Subsidies Committee first.

Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the original terms of reference, or will he enlarge the scope of the inquiry?

I have considered that question. On the whole I am disposed to think it is much better to leave the reference where it is, and to get the information which the Committee are in a position to give us as soon as possible. To alter the reference would necessarily increase the time the Committee must sit.

With regard to the Committee on Private Bill Procedure, will the right hon. Gentleman await its Report before making the sessional Orders Standing Orders? What will be the reference to it?

I propose that the reference to the Committee on Private Bill Procedure shall not include any power of altering the arrangements we have made to take private business at the beginning of the evening sitting. I consider that is fundamental; the House has decided the matter, and I do not intend to refer it to the Committee.

I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business after Whitsuntide.

I propose to take Supply on the Monday on which the House meets. At the afternoon sitting the Supply will be Class 4, the Education Estimates; and in the evening Class 5, the Consular and Diplomatic Votes. On Tuesday, the 27th, we shall begin the discussion in Committee on the Finance Bill, and continue that from day to day. One of the evening sittings, on Tuesday or Wednesday, as I have already said, will be devoted, among other things, to the discussion of the three Committees, the references to which will be put on the Paper.

When is it proposed to again take the Loan Bill?

I take it that the Committee stage of the Bill will be quite uncontroversial; as at present advised, I shall not take the Third Reading until we have disposed of the Committee on the Budget.

I should like it to be quite clear whether other Votes in Class 5 as well as the Consular and Diplomatic Vote will be taken at the evening sitting of Monday week.

Yes, I do not think there is any objection to that.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the measures which have been adopted by the Government for the relief of the people of Martinique and St. Vincent, and whether his attention has been called to the precedent of the earthquake of Lisbon, on 24th November, 1755, when this House, on a message from the King, voted £100,000 to the relief of the sufferers by that disaster.

I am well aware of the precedent. I think it was in 1755. That is not a very recent date, nor has it any very special relevance to the present subject. With regard to St. Vincent, the hon. Member will have noted that the Lord Mayor has consented to open a relief fund at the Mansion House. Canada, Jamaica, the neighbouring West India islands, and Mauritius have already given or promised help in money or in kind, and I do not doubt but that other colonics will be equally generous. In addition, the, Governor has already been authorised to spend what he considers to be necessary, and His Majesty's Government, without naming at this moment any definite sum, are prepared to supplement the contributions from other sources to whatever extent may be deemed necessary, and to augment to that extent the small West India deficit grant which is annually voted by this House. I ought to add that in the above I have not taken account of the most sympathetic manner in which the United States Government have—to use their own language—

"Expressed their desire to share in the work of aid and rescue."

"It would give His Majesty's Government pleasure to afford assistance in any manner which might be found convenient to the sufferers by the Martinique calamity. If we can do this by the loan of medical officers, or by gift of such supplies or medical comforts as can be provided from British possessions in the neighbourhood, we are prepared to act at once."

Do I understand that the Governor of the Windward Islands has been authorised to expend public money to any extent he may think necessary? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman also to state whether that expenditure will apply both to Martinique and St. Vincent. I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if a distinction were drawn.

In the nature of the case there must be a distinction drawn between our own colonies and the colonies of other countries. We are prepared, as I have said, to give assistance by the loan of medical officers, and the gift of medical comforts and of provisions, to the sufferers at Martinique. As regards the first question, the hon. Gentleman has accurately interpreted the answer I gave.

then rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.—

"The refusal of the Government to take adequate steps to relieve the surviving inhabitants of Martinique."

said that perhaps he might be permitted to say, on the first occasion on which the Chairman of Committees had taken the Chair since his recent illness, that every. Member of the Committee entertained a feeling of gratitude at his restoration to health, and on his being enabled to preside in his courteous manner over the Committee once again. On the Vote before the Committee, he desired to move that it be postponed, for reasons which the Committee would at once see if they turned to page 6 of the Estimates. They were asked, in the form in which the Vote was presented, to vote a blank page which had always been accustomed to contain details of the salaries, wages, and allowances. They had heard from the hon. Member for Oldham and the hon. Member for Exeter during the week about the lack of control which the House exercised over public money; and the presentation to the Committee of a blank page, with the request to vote public money, was remarkable evidence of that. He had taken the trouble to look up the Estimates for previous years, and he found that last year, for the first occasion for as many years as he had been able to look back, the Estimate was also presented in blank. No attention was called to it last year, as hon. Members considered that, owing to the recent decease of her late Majesty Queen Victoria, there might be reasons, as to which it was not desirable to inquire, why the Estimate was presented in that form. But the Estimate was now again presented in blank, and if the Committee did not refuse to pass it in that form, it might become a precedent, which might extend in many other directions. There were two funds voted by the Committee without particulars being supplied as to the manner in which the money was spent. One was the Civil List which was granted to His Majesty, and no details were required as to that, as it was for the King to spend it when and how he pleased. The second fund was what was called the Secret. Service Fund, and for many years the House had been extremely jealous as to the amount of money allowed for that purpose, and it was one of the great principles of the House of Commons to watch it very carefully and jealously in order that the amount of secret service money should not increase too much. The Committee gladly passed those two Votes without any account being required, but it was entirely a novel proceeding, and he submitted a very dangerous one, to present a Vote to the House in the form of a complete blank. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would support him in his Motion that the Vote be adjourned until the particulars had been placed on the Paper. He moved his Motion, in the first place, on pure principle, because he thought it was a matter in which the Committee should stand on its rights; and in the second place, because the Vote had increased during the last few years to a very serious extent. The total of the Vote before the Committee was 60 per cent. higher than the Vote for the same Department four years ago, and surely, therefore, it was a case in which particulars should be supplied before the Committee proceeded to consider it. Lastly, he claimed that if the Government agreed to postpone the Vote, they should undertake that it would not be guillotined at the end of the session, but that it should be brought up when there would be a proper opportunity for considering it. He moved that the consideration of the Vote be adjourned.

I cannot put the motion in these terms, as it would be a quite unusual thing to do in Committee. I could put the question that I report progress and ask leave to sit again, but then the debate would be confined to that Motion. Perhaps the better way would be for the Minister in charge to reply, and then if the hon. Member is not satisfied, he can remove to report progress.

said the hon. Member desired to postpone the Vote on two grounds. One was that full details of expenditure had not been given either in the present year or last year with regard to the items of expenditure, and the other was that there was a large increase in the Vote over what it was four years ago. The Estimate was presented in a slightly different form from that of last year, but there was no objection taken to it by the Public Accounts Committee. He could assure the hon. Member that every detail which had been previously given appeared on the Estimate. If the hon. Member would turn to pages 4 and 5 he would see all the details of expenditure under the various heads. The particulars as to the new works were contained in page 5.

said he referred to item A—salaries, wages, and allowances.

said he believed that these items were given in detail in no other Votes, but he would be glad to give the hon. Member any details he required as to them. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no desire whatever, on the part of the Government or of his Department, to keep any details from the criticism of the House of Commons. He thought he would have the Committee with him when he stated that the Estimates in Class 1 were more detailed than the Estimates of any other Department. He also wished to point out that the Votes for which he was responsible instead of being given in one Estimate, as was the case in many other Departments, were given under no less than eight Estimates. For instance the Vote for the Local Government Board, which was a very large service compared with the relatively small amount of money for which he was responsible, only appeared in one Estimate. Certainly, there was no intention on his part, or on the part of the Government, to withhold any information from the Committee. Then with regard to the increase in the Vote, the hon. Member had taken the Committee to a period four years ago. A great deal had taken place during the last two years, and the expenditure was undoubtedly higher than it was four years ago, but it was owing to one reason, and one reason only, and that was the accession to the Throne last year, and the large amount of money that had to be spent in connection with it. The amount of money taken last year, including Supplementary Estimates, was £104,600; this year there was a decrease of £31,800, and although the Vote for £72,800 was higher than the normal Vote for the service, it was entirely accounted for by the extra expenditure necessary in consequence of the change of occupancy of the Throne and the accession of His present Majesty. Those, extra sums would disappear from the Estimates in future years. They were foreshawdowed last year, he thought, by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a statement to the House, and his right hon. friend then said that they would cover a period of two years, because it was quite impossible to carry out the necessary work in one financial year. The hon. Member might accept his assurance that the expenditure was abnormal, and that it was only connected with the accession of His present Majesty to the Throne. He looked forward to the normal expenditure of £50,000 or £60,000 a year as likely to prevail in the future. Any hon. Member who had followed the Estimates for many years would admit that there was less variation in the amount of the Estimates in his Department than in any other Department. Naturally, there were public improvements to be carried out; but in a time of great stress it was natural that the Department connected with buildings, parks, and public spaces should go to the wall. But so far as the Votes for which he was personally responsible went, there had been during the last few years very little variation in them. The variation in the Vote before the Committee was, as he had already said, accounted for by the accession of His present Majesty and the necessary preparations which had to be made in the Royal Palaces. If the hon. Member withdrew his Motion, he would be quite prepared to give him full details of the extra expenditure. There was no desire to conceal anything in the Vote from the cognisance of the Committee; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the explanation he had given and allow the discussion to proceed.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not realised the point which he had endeavoured to make. He did not question the amount of the Vote in any way. His complaint was that Item A, both this year and last, was presented in blank, which was not according to precedent. He had expected the right hon. Gentleman to have said that that was due to an error on the part of the printers or somebody. This item was for salaries, wages, and allowances, and two years ago these Estimates contained a complete list of the officers who received the money; now it was presented in blank, and the Vote certainly ought not to be allowed to proceed until the particulars were before the House. He was not in any way protesting against the increase as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to Item A being presented in blank. In order to raise the question he moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

pointed out that it would be more convenient if the hon. Gentleman moved a reduction, which would enable the whole matter to be discussed, rather than to report progress, which would restrict the discussion to this particular point.

accepted the suggestion, and moved to reduce the Vote by £500 in respect of Item A.

thought the hon. Gentleman had moved the reduction under a misapprehension. He had said there were no details under this head, whereas, as a matter of fact, the old details were there in a different form. Instead of being carried out horizontally, they were put in vertically. That was almost the only change. But then came the question of whether the details were sufficient. It was perfectly true that the details were not so rich in this as in other Votes. He thought the particulars were sufficient, but that, of course, did not prejudice the right of the hon. Member to criticise and examine them. The hon. Gentleman was pressing for further information, and the right hon. Gentleman had rather put the responsibility on the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee was not in the least responsible for the form of this Estimate. It must be clearly understood that this was a form adopted by the Treasury, and for which the Public Accounts Committee was in no way-responsible.

said the explanation given by the hon. Member for King's Lynn did not quite dispose of the point. It was not a fact that all the information given in the Estimates two years ago was given in this Estimate. All the information given by the vertical columns was that this sum was divided between the various palaces. They did not give, as in former Estimates, the number of officers employed. No doubt the information could be obtained by constantly pestering the right hon. Gentleman until they got what they wanted, but that was not so satisfactory as the old method of having the information set out in the Estimates. In the old form, instead of this blank page there were full details showing how this money was expended. There might be certain officers employed with regard to whom some criticism might be necessary, but that could not be ascertained until the Vote was brought up in the House, and then the information could only be obtained by questions, and in the event of the Vote not coming on, but being guillotined, there would be no information at all. The Public Accounts Committee had not taken any notice of this change because they were engaged in seeing that the money voted was properly expended, rather than looking after the form of the account, and attention had not been called to the alteration. He thought his hon. friend was quite right in moving the reduction, and unless the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that in future the old form of the Estimate should be reverted to, he should support the Motion.

said in his opinion the hon. Member had made out a good case. This change was the thin end of the wedge, and would supply for future years a precedent for inserting blank pages in other Votes. He trusted the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division. The House when voting public money was entitled to know how it was spent.

contended that not only the salaries but also the number of persons to whom those salaries were paid should be set out. How were the Committee to know whether the £1,400 put down to Hampton Court Palace went to one man or twenty men? Members were deprived of that information by the absence of this page of details, and he should certainly press his Amendment to a division.

thought that if an assurance were given that the details required would be given next year the Amendment might be withdrawn. There was no suspicion that anything was wrong this year, but the omission of these particulars opened the way to things which might be important in the future.

thought the particulars would not be of very great convenience to the Committee. Most of the persons concerned, though most excellent servants, were in extremely humble positions. There was not a single case in which the salary exceeded 30s. a week, and the men included turncocks, night watchmen, coal porters, stokers, and, he believed, a rat catcher. Surely it was not desirable that the time of the Committee should be wasted by discussing such details, when the excess of the present Estimate over that of four years ago was only about £50.

contended that the same proportion of money should be spent upon Holyrood Palace as upon the other Royal Palaces in England. Her late Majesty occasionally made Holyrood Palace her residence. This palace ought to be kept in a reasonable state of efficiency, but only £470 was being expended upon new works. Amongst other small items was one of £150 for an addition to a greenhouse in the palace gardens at Holyrood, and £120 for improvement of fire appliances. How far would that go for additional greenhouses? The amount was ridiculous. The sum of £200 for the renewal of kitchen apparatus was certainly very economical, and practically nothing was being done to keep the buildings in an efficient state of repair, or to prepare them even for a temporary Royal residence. He thought they had a right to complain of the great need for expenditure in preserving the national buildings. If the First Commissioner of Works would compare the expenditure upon these buildings in Scotland with other places, he would find that Scotland did not get its fair share. He hoped the House would receive some assurance that Holyrood Palace would be kept in an efficient state.

said that he did not feel inclined to quarrel with the argument that a larger amount should be spent at Holyrood. He would like to see more money spent on all the public gardens in Scotland, but he had to do the best he could with the sum at his disposal. He thought the hon. Member opposite would admit that some progress had been made in the direction he desired in the course of the last year or two. This year the sum asked for was higher than in the past, and one reason it was not larger was that it was not necessary to include proposals for structural alterations necessary at Holyrood for making it suitable for a residence for the Royal family. The hon. Member opposite had often brought forward the wishes of his Scotch friends with regard to Holyrood Palace, but he thought the hon. Member would admit that since he had been First Commissioner of Works they had succeeded in making the palace at Holyrood and the gardens far more popular than they had hitherto been. A request which had often been made in the House had just been granted, namely, that in future the gardens at Holyrood would be open to the public at certain hours of the day; and further, if found possible to make arrangements, His Majesty would be pleased to allow bands to play in the gardens at Holyrood. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark might rest assured that Holyrood would not be forgotten.

expressed his satisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

drew attention to an item of £150 for the construction of a new outside larder at Kensington Palace. The occupants of Kensington Palace were as a rule pensioners, and got their quarters free. It was often the practice of these people to put up such things as washhouses and outside larders, and the fine old building was being completely spoiled simply to please tenants who were having a good time of it at the nation's expense. These people ought not to be allowed to vandalise the nation's property, and he objected to Kensington Palace being spoiled by the construction of outside larders. Near to Kensington Palace was a beautiful building known as the Orangery, and near it were being erected a number of temporary buildings. He knew very well what temporary buildings became when they were erected near palaces occupied by free tenants. It might at first be a temporary iron building, then later on lath and plaster, and subsequently brickwork, until it assumed the shape of a permanent building out of keeping altogether with the original building. He trusted that Kensington Palace would be left intact as bequeathed by her late Majesty the Queen, and that it would not be allowed to be spoiled by the erection of outside larders. In past years he thought the right hon. Gentleman deserved the thanks of everybody for the steps he had taken to keep Hampton Court Palace, as it should be kept, as an old building, without having grafted upon it those brick and mortar excrescences which had been dabbed on in the past. The right hon. Gentleman this year appeared to be departing from that artistic taste, for there was on the Estimate an item of £200 for the enlargement of the stud groom's house. He did not wish to see Hampton Court Palace destroyed by the erection of such buildings. The question whether Hampton Court or Fontainebleau was the more beautiful was one on which art critics were divided, but it was certain that no French Government would allow a stud-groom's house to be grafted on to the original building of Fontainebleau. He asked the Chief Commissioner of Works to save this£200. It was wanted for war and many other things. If the stud groom wanted a larger house, he should get one elsewhere. During the past four or five years the First Commissioner of Works had really improved Hampton Court, not by spending money on new erections, but by pulling down a number of so-called improvements which were carried out by his predecessors at the express wish of the tenants. It was now proposed to erect a brick and mortar excrescence which would offend the esthetic sense of the Bank holiday makers. He objected to the Palace being treated according to the ideals of the South African plutocrats who were erecting monstrosities in stone and iron in Park Lane.

said he had looked very carefully into what was proposed with regard to the addition at Kensington Palace. The structure referred to was required to take the place of one which was about to be taken down. With regard to the buildings between the Orangery and the Palace to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred, he had to say that they had nothing to do with the occupants of the Palace. He thought all of them were put up before he was Commissioner of Works, and they were very useful for a purpose with which he sympathised a good deal, namely, giving pleasure to the working classes and children. They were sheds used for keeping the small yachts which were so often to be seen racing on the pond. If these were the sheds to which the hon. Member referred, he could assure him that they were not put up for the convenience of the tenants whom His Majesty allowed to occupy the Royal Palace. The proposed building was absolutely necessary, and he could assure the hon. Member that it would not in any way be an eyesore. As to the studgroom's house at Hampton Court, he did not wish any one to go away with the idea that it was for a sinecure. It was a labourer's cottage, and it was found to be insanitary. There were, he thought, only two rooms in the house, and was it consistent with morality to allow a man and his family to live there? They were allowing the erection of another bedroom.

called attention to an item of £450 for the ground rent of two houses at 77 and 78 Pall Mall, which were purchased originally for the purposes of the War Office on the outbreak of the war in 1898, because the War Office was stated to be short of accommodation. The cost of purchasing the leasehold of these houses was £6,700, and they now discovered that the houses had been transferred from the War Office to the use of Prince Christian. These houses now appeared as a "grace and favour" residence. He should like to know whether the sanction of the Treasury was obtained for the transference, and whether the alterations on the houses to make them suitable as a residence were to be paid for out of the War Office Vote, the Civil List, or the Vote the Committee were now dealing with.

said he did not think this came within the Vote now before the Committee, but, as he did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, he would state what the nature of the transfer was. It was perfectly true that the buildings were originally purchased for the War Office and were found to be inadequate for the purpose. At that time there was a great demand for a site for a physical laboratory, and the Royal Society were most anxious to acquire Bushey House for that purpose. The late Queen had allowed the use of Bushey, taking in exchange the use of the houses in Pall Mall as a grace and favour residence. Both properties, however, still remained State properties. He understood that the transfer was appreciated by the Royal Society and by the scientists of the day, as Bushey House afforded, he thought, an extremely useful home for their delicate scientific instruments, and one which it would have been absolutely impossible for them to procure except by the expenditure of a very large sum of money.

asked whether he was to understand that Prince Christian could not be accommodated in Bushey House.

No; the Royal Society will utilise the house for scientific purposes.

I have no ill feeling in this matter——

I do not think that this matter can be properly discussed on this Vote. The Minister in charge of the Vote says it does not come under it.

I would ask an explanation of the £450, which I understand is ground rent for the two houses in Pall Mall.

said that, if there was ground rent charged in the Vote, it could clearly be discussed. He hoped the Committee would receive some information in reply to the question why buildings bought for the War Office had been transferred to a different purpose. In the Civil Service Vote, money, he thought, amounting to £1,200 was voted to be expended on these buildings for the purpose of the War Office. It would be interesting to know whether that expenditure was made by the War Office. Probably it was, and if so was the expenditure on alterations suitable for the purpose to which the property was now applied?

said he was not satisfied with the reply received from the First Commissioner of Works. So far as he could find out, the buildings had never been used by the War Office, so that there had been no opportunity of testing whether they were suitable for the purpose for which they were bought. The Committee had a right to know why the War Office had not occupied them, and why they were transferred to be used as a grace and favour residence. He had no objection to Prince Christian being provided with a good residence, but the objection was to this being provided out of War Office Funds.

said that arrangement was a pure exchange, and that matter had not been dealt with without the consent of the Treasury, who thought the arrangement a very desirable one. He himself believed that it was extremely advantageous to the State.

said they did not object to the exchange, but to the manner in which it had been done; because it was misleading if moneys voted under one Estimate were transferred to another, and entirely different, Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman assured them that all this had been sanctioned by the Treasury, but there was a still higher sanction required, viz., that of the House of Commons.

said that, so far as he could understand this involved business, the transaction appeared to be part of the expenses of the South African War; and, if so, he thought it was very extraordinary.