I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost per week of the forces employed in South Africa.

The total cost of the forces now in South Africa may be taken at £150,000 a week, but the bulk of this would be incurred if the troops were at home. If the hon. Member alludes to the extra cost occasioned by the increased garrison now in South Africa, it may be put at about £60,000 a week, but further economies are in contemplation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report called for in reference to the charges made in the Cape Parliament on the 28th of August has now been received: and, if so, will it be published; are the cases being investigated; and, if so, by whom; and will he make a statement to the House on the subject.

The Report has not yet been received. I cannot give any promise of publication till I receive it, which I expect will be some time this month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the Report of a Select Committee of the Cape House of Assembly in the case of Mr. J. H. Schoeman, a member of that House, with reference to his trial under martial law and to his sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for six months and a fine of £500 on three charges, of which the military court found him guilty of two; and whether, in view of the Report of the Select Committee that Mr. Schoeman was innocent, and the recommendation that the sentence passed upon Mr. Schoeman should be reversed, the Government will take steps to restore the sum of £500 which Mr. Schoeman was fined.

The information at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to reply to the points raised without reference to South Africa. A letter has accordingly been despatched to the General Officer Commanding Cape Colony.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Report of the Special Committee of the Cape Assembly on this matter?

This is not one of the matters reported on by the Commission, and I shall have to make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the course pursued in the prosecution of Major Studdert and his sons; and what steps he proposes to take on account of the refusal of the Grand Jury at the Munster Assizes to find a true Bill, for reasons concerning the evidence of Colonel St. Quentin given by the Grand Jury in writing.

I do not propose to take any further steps in this matter. The other points will be taken up by my right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying to the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Leitrim.

Do I understand that the Government, thinking this man to be guilty, will take no further steps of any kind?

I think the reply of my right hon. friend will deal with that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why Colonel St. Quentin was not produced by the Crown before the Grand Jury at the Munster Winter Assizes in the Studdert Remount Case; and whether it is proposed to grant any compensation to the defendants for being subjected to proceedings.

As I had charge of this prosecution, my right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is almost impossible in reply to a Question to state with such fulness as to be intelligible the several considerations which, in accordance with well established principles of law and unbroken precedent, and the express provisions of the Irish statutes now in force (56 Geo. Ill, ch. 87, 1 and 2 Vic.—37), required that the Crown should not send Colonel St. Quentin before the Grand Jury as a witness in the Studdert case; so far, however, as they can be condensed into an answer, I may state they were as follows: Colonel St. Quentin was a most important, if not the most important, witness for the defence. He had been examined on behalf of the accused at the preliminary magisterial investigations. His evidence, and his evidence alone, was directed to establish an excuse, or kind of plea in confession and avoidance for the accused, to the effect that though the contract under which the accused was employed as purchasing agent was contained in written documents, a secret, not contemporaneous, arrangement or understanding had been come to between him and Colonel St. Quentin, never disclosed to the common principals, whereby Major Studdert was authorised to purchase horses from his sons, under assumed names, and to falsely represent to his principals that these counterfeited persons were independent, bona fide dealers. To have satisfied the desire of the Grand Jury (which apparently was not to confine themselves to their proper functions, but—to use their own words—to thoroughly investigate the case) and send one of the principal witnesses for the defence before them would, in effect, have been to have consented to transfer the hearing of this issue in the cause from the Public Court to the Grand Jury Room, and to have enabled the Grand Jury to decide it upon its merits, in secret, behind the back of the parties, without affording to the Crown any opportunity of cross-examining Colonel St. Quentin, or of pointing out the manifold contradictions, inaccuracies and other defects in his evidence which, according to their contention, rendered it unreliable, or of insisting on its insufficiency in law or fact to sustain the defence sought to be based upon it. Such a course would have been contrary to law, have been inconsistent with every principle of justice, and been of most mischievous example. I shall be only too pleased, should the occasion offer, to call attention in this House to the nature of Colonel St. Quentin's testimony, and to justify the action of the Crown in reference to him in every particular. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

Why were not the English culprits prosecuted?

Has it been considered if a prosecution for conspiracy would lie against the Studderts and Colonel St. Quentin?

. That particular point has not been specifically considered, but I think it right to say, however, that as far as the evidence has been laid before me—and I am thoroughly accquainted with it—I see no reason to suppose that Colonel St. Quentin's action was criminal. I rather think that he was befooled and practised upon.

Has he incurred any civil liability?

I decline to give any answer to that.

Are all proceedings in this case to be abandoned?

There is no precedent, in modern times, for going on with proceedings after a Bill has been thrown out.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that colonels in the Indian Army are on the same list as colonels in the British Army and are promoted major generals under the new Warrant of 1901, he will explain why the latter have been antedated to 1900, thus superseding the former by three years, their promotion having been stopped since October, 1900.

The major-generals of the British service promoted since 1st January, 1902, on which date the new Warrant came into force, have been promoted either for distinguished war service, or on selection for appointments which have been decided upon as carrying major-general's rank. None of the latter promotions have been antedated. The delay in promoting colonels of the Indian service has been caused by the difficulty which has been experienced in settling what appointments in India should carry major-general's rank, so as to give Indian service officers their due share of advancement, but the promotions will shortly be gazetted. It is a mistake to suppose that the promotion of colonels of the Indian service under the old Warrant was stopped before the 1st January, 1901.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of six distinguished Indian officers the fact that the old Warrant ceased to operate before the new one was brought into operation has deprived them of their promotion?

was understood to reply that that was not clearly established.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were required to complete the establishment of the 1st and 2nd Army Corps respectively on 1st November, as shown by the Returns in the office of the Inspector General of Recruiting, as regards regulars—infantry, cavalry, and other branches—militia, and efficient volunteers.

This information cannot at present be given, for the reasons stated in the reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire on the 25th ultimo, to which the hon. Member is requested to refer.†

But surely the recruiting officers could supply that?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why 2s. a day is charged to Sandhurst cadets for extra messing in addition to 3s. day allowed by the public, seeing that the total cost of messing for Naval cadets is 2s. 3d. a day; and whether he can arrange that Sandhurst cadets shall not be left without food from 1 p. m. to 8 p. m.

The first part of the Question has already been fully dealt with in my reply to the Question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the

† See preceding volume, page 379.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that ex-Sergeant Leonard was not called as a witness at the recent inquiry in York, he will consider the propriety of instituting a further inquiry into the circumstances of this case, and the allegations contained in his letter to the Secretary of State for War, at which inquiry ex-Sergeant Leonard will have the opportunity of giving evidence.

The military authorities are anxious to make full inquiry into all cases were a grievance is established, and as I have already stated to the House, the general officer commanding made a very full inquiry into the circumstances of the Provisional Cavalry Regiment. Had Sergeant Leonard appealed to the General, which he failed to do, he would no doubt have been called, but the statements made by him were brought to the General's notice, and the Commander-in-Chief has tully satisfied himself as to the position.

Will the Government consider the propriety of calling this man before the Royal Commission now sitting?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet decided to introduce an improved scale of pay for officers in His Majesty's Army; and, if so, will he say when the new regulations on the subject are likely to be issued.

There is no intention of introducing an improved scale of pay for officers. As I have already explained to the House, efforts are being

† See preceding volume, page 917.

Will the right hon. gentleman consider the question of the payment of band and mess expenses?

That is being considered with a view to some relief.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the number of workpeople that have been dismissed through slackness of work, and the number of discharges that are imminent in certain Government Departments, he will consider the advisability of putting the men in certain trades on short time, of suspending overtime wherever worked, and generally to adapt Government work to spreading employment, as far as is consistent with public necessity and efficiency, over the largest number in public employment.

The whole question is being dealt with so as to give the least inconvenience possible. But, I fear, to put a number of men on short time, unless there was a reasonable chance of their returning to full time, would merely spread the hardship over a larger number of men than would otherwise be affected. Further, the departments would run a great risk of losing the best men. who could find full time work elsewhere. As regards suspending overtime, will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a question put on this subject by the hon Member for Woolwich on the 26th ultimo.†

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the contractors that it would be advisable, in case of public necessity, to do the same?

I do not know whether I can do anything in that direction, but I shall be only too glad to take any occasion to make the suggestion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious advisability of adopting the suggestion contained in the question of the hon. Member for Battersea during the winter months? The custom has been adopted in the North of England yards, without any loss of the best workmen following.

I have given careful consideration to it, and, as far as I can ascertain, the cases in which a large number of men has been put on short time are usually those in which there is an expectation that full time will be resumed. A large number of men has been taken on for the war, and it would be a cruel kindness to put them on short time when there is no hope of bringing them back on full time.

Is not the scarcity of employment aggravated by the wholesale importation of pauper aliens?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange that the discharges at Woolwich Arsenal, in order to reduce the complement to the normal number employed before the war, can be made at the end of the financial year, so as to avoid a large number of men being unemployed during the winter months.

It has already been decided that notice will be given that the discharges necessary will be effected on the 1st April, and that notice will be given to the men concerned as early as possible. Every facility will be given them to obtain employment elsewhere.

Will there be no discharges until the 1st April?

I cannot say there will be none, but the main discharges will not take place till the beginning of the new financial year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that an officer whose service up to within a recent date has been confined to infantry is appointed to command the 2nd Pro-visional Regiment of Hussars, and that an officer now on the strength of an infantry regiment has been appointed, or is about to be appointed, adjutant of the same provisional regiment, he will say whether there is any deficiency of cavalry officers qualified or eligible to serve as colonels or adjutants of cavalry units.

Lieut.-Colonel de Lisle, who commanded a cavalry brigade in South Africa, under the immediate orders of Major-General Elliot, Inspector-General of Cavalry in India, with marked distinction and success, was on the 22nd October promoted to a majority in the 5th Dragoon Guards, and he has since been selected by the Commander-in-Chief for the 2nd Provisional Regiment of Hussars at Hounslow. It is clearly desirable that an officer, of whatever arm of the service, who has proved competent to command a cavalry brigade in the field, should continue in the cavalry arm. The adjutant of the provisional regiment is a riding-master of long cavalry service. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Is it the intention of the Government to continue the practice of appointing officers from foot regiments to the command of mounted troops, especially in time of war?

The Commander-in-Chief will make any appointments he may consider necessary for the good of the service. I do not suppose it will become the usual practice to remove officers from one branch of the service to another, but I am sure the House will desire that the advantage of the public service shall stand first in these matters.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has approved of new regulations as to the instruction of naval officers; and, if so, whether a copy will be laid upon the Tabic of the House.

Yes, Sir; new regulations with respect to the instruction of naval officers are in preparation, and will be shortly approved. A statement with regard to the changes contemplated will be issued at a very early date, and a copy will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of buying chargers for officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others is greater in India than in this country, and that, owing to the strain placed on horses in India by the manoeuvres and by the climate, the risks of death and injury to horses in India are greater than at home; and whether, in view of the fact that officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others serving in this country will, under a recent Army Order, be provided with two chargers free of cost, the Government of India will take steps to grant a similar benefit to officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others serving in India.

I am informed that no Army Order has yet been issued on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. If and when such an Order is issued it will be communicated in ordinary course to the Government of India, with whom it will rest to make whatever recommendation they may consider desirable in consequence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the duty on herrings into Russia is 13s. 6d. a barrel, against 3s. 6d. into Germany, he would take advantage of the presence of Prince Scherbatoff in London to bring the subject under the notice of the Russian Government.

So far as I am aware, Prince Scherbatoff holds no official position in Russia. I am afraid that no useful purpose would be served by making a further representation to the Russian Government on the subject to which my hon. friend refers. I shall be happy to show him the latest correspondence on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, are such of the British self-governing colonies as grant bounties on the production or export of sugar or sugar products entitled, under the Brussels Sugar Convention, to have their sugar and sugar products admitted at the lowest rate of import duty into Germany and the other countries parties to the Convention, or are they liable to have a countervailing duty imposed by such countries on their sugar and sugar products.

In the opinion of His Majesty's Government there is nothing in the Convention entitling such of the British self-governing colonies as grant bounties on the production or export of sugar or sugar products to have their sugar and sugar products admitted at the lowest rate of import duty into Germany and the other countries parties to the Convention, or to exempt them from liability to have a countervailing duty imposed by such countries on their sugar and sugar products

What about the other countries?

Do the Government hold that they are not bound to impose countervailing duties in these cases?

I have already told the House the Government considers that there is no obligation on them in any circumstances to impose countervailing duties against their own colonies.

Is there any such exemption in the Convention? I can find none.

I can only refer my hon. friend to other Questions which have been answered on the subject. If further information is wanted I must ask for notice of the Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have had an official notification that any other Power except Belgium has ratified the Brussels Sugar Convention; and whether any communications have been received from non-signatory Powers, apart from Russia, with regard to the right of this country to impose countervailing duties against them in the face of existing treaties, or on any other matters connected with the Convention.

The answer to both Questions is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British garrison is ordered to leave Shanghai on 20th December; and whether, in order that no step should be taken to the prejudice of British interests in the Far East, he can make arrangements to secure that the German garrison shall leave at the same time; and, if not, will he state at what date the German garrison are to take their departure.

May I at the same time ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that Germany has fixed no date for the removal of her garrison from Shanghai, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of countermanding the withdrawal of British troops until the determination of the German Government has been announced.

I will answer these Questions together. The British garrison is under orders to leave Shanghai on the 20th instant. His Majesty's Government have been informed by the German Government that the German force will be withdrawn from Shanghai on December 20th, or failing that, early in January. Under these circumstances we see no reason for countermanding the orders already given to our troops.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the present position of affairs in Somaliland; and whether it is intended to place the conduct of the forthcoming campaign in the hands of the War Office.

Since Colonel Swayne's withdrawal to Bohotle General Manning has been engaged in improving and strengthening the lines of communication between that place and Berbera. Small parties of the Mullah's horsemen have been observed near Bohotle, but no attempt at interference has been made by them, nor have any reports been received of an intended advance by the Mullah. His Majesty's Government are in close communication with the Italian Government on the general situation. The conduct of the military operations has been transferred to the War Office.

Can the noble Lord say why the conduct of the affair has been transferred to the War Office?

That is a matter which rests with my right hon. friend at the head of the Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any apology with reference to the arrest of an hon. Member of this House by the Belgian Authorities has passed through the Foreign Office; and, if not, will he take steps to point out to the Belgian Government the propriety of such action.

His Majesty's Minister at Brussels was informed by the Belgian Government that the hon. Member referred to did not at the time of the occurrence declare himself to be an English Member of Parliament. On doing so, ultimately, regret was at once expressed that he had not in the first instance indicated his position and thus spared himself inconvenience.

May I say that the information supplied to the noble Lord is not correct, as I informed the authorities at the beginning that I was a Member of this House. No expression of regret was made to me at the time or has since been made in connexion with the arrest.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that there are no official statistics of the extent to which crime is the consequence of drunkenness, he will request the judges and magistrates throughout England to notify all cases in which a sentence is passed for a crime which, in the opinion of the Bench, is partly or mainly the result of drunkenness; and whether, if this be found impracticable, he will obtain similar information through the police authorities for publication in the Annual Return of Judicial Statistics.

I am afraid that it is not possible to adopt either of the suggestions of the hon. Member. To ask magistrates and judges to make the Return indicated would be to ask them in every case that came before them to try an issue not in most cases included in the charge, and often very difficult to determine. As regards the police, I do not think that any such Return would be of much value. The experience of the Home Department in collecting the material for the Judicial Statistics is that on points of fact, e. g., the number of convictions, apprehensions, etc., the Police Returns, which are prepared with great care, are trustworthy; but when points of opinion are involved—as would be the case on the point under discussion—it is practically impossible to obtain satisfactory or uniform returns from the 200 separate police forces in England and Wales. I may add that whenever trustworthy information on any point of this sort comes before the Home Office it is always dealt with in the Annual Return of Criminal Statistics.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any correspondence has recently taken place with the representatives of countries comprised in the Postal Union for the purpose of securing a reduction in the rate of postage from the United Kingdom to the Continent; and, if not, having regard to the effect of the rate of 2 ½d. the half-ounce, more especially on merchants and others having business relations with the Continent, will the British delegates to the next Congress of the Postal Union be instructed to endeavour to obtain the assent of the Union to its reduction.

No such correspondence has taken place; and I do not propose, as at present advised, to instruct the British delegates to raise the question at the next Congress, though I should of course be prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals made by foreign Administrations upon the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that during the last month 1,000 letters were posted at the General Post Office, London, inviting individuals to participate in the German Money Lottery, organised by Friedrich Fricke, banker, Bremen; whether any steps have been taken to trace the parties who posted these letters in London; and whether it is proposed to institute any prosecution.

I am not aware of the facts of this case. I presume, however, that the invitations referred to were posted in closed covers, and in such case the Post Office would not know that they were being forwarded. If lottery circulars were observed in open covers they would be stopped. The sending of lottery circulars through the post is not an offence against Post Office regulations but against the Lottery Act. The Postmaster General is not the proper person to enforce the provisions of the Lottery Act, but I shall, of course, be happy to assist the Secretary of State for the Home Department in any action which he may think it necessary to take.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, with reference to the power of the local education authority to abolish fees, if he can inform the House where that power is now given as regards non-provided schools; whether, within the limitation of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, managers may continue to charge fees; and, under Section 4, the Education Department may sanction the imposition of new fees.

The Sections of the Act of 1891 referred to by the right hon. Baronet are not repealed. The managers of non-provided schools must follow the directions of the local education authority in respect of secular instruction, as a condition of maintenance. It therefore rests with the local educational authority to forbid the charge of fees, or to allow them subject to the limitations referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is intended that the managers of provided and non-provided schools, or either of them, shall have the management of the funds which, under the Education Bill, are to be provided for them by the local education authority for such purposes as maintenance, the payment of teachers' salaries, and other current obligations, or whether these payments will have to be made by the local authority at some central office; and whether any discretion will be left to the local authority in this matter.

It is intended that the local education authority should have full discretion as to the mode in which the funds at their disposal are to be used for the maintenance and efficiency of public elementary schools. They can make the payments themselves if they please, or they can entrust the managers with the duty of making payments. I will refer the hon. Member to Clause 7 (1) and to Clause 19 (5) of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many officials of the United Irish League hold grazing or evicted farms in Ireland.

The latest information on this subject, carefully compiled last month, shows that there were then 184 officials of the organisation named holding grazing and evicted farms. These figures represent an increase of fifteen on the January returns. The expression "officials" includes presidents, and vice-presidents, secretaries, treasurers, and members of branch committees. There were last month thirty-five presidents and vice-presidents holding grazing farms, and five holding evicted farms; twenty-three secretaries holding grazing farms and three evicted farms; twenty-six treasurers holding grazing farms and three evicted farms and eighty-one committee members holding grazing farms and eight evicted farms—the totals of 165 and nineteen comparing with 146 and twenty-three in January of this year.

Has there been no prosecution for boycotting against these hideous hypocrites, or their worthy leader, the Member for Cork?

Order, order !

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount of the salary of the Under Secretary for Ireland, Sir Antony M' Donnell, and the yearly salary paid his predecessor in office, Sir David Harrel.

There has been no alteration in the salary, the amount of which is shown in the published Estimate for the Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 29th November two Roman Catholics, named Gorman, residing within three miles of Keady, county Armagh, were assaulted at the Keady post office by a rural postman, named Wilson, and two Orangemen; will he say what steps have the police taken to institute a prosecution in this case; and whether the conduct of this postman will be brought under the notice of the Postmaster General.

Proceedings for assault are pending in this case. The question of bringing the matter under the notice of the Postal Authorities must await the result of the magisterial investigation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the meeting of medical men at the Whitworth Hall, Drogheda, on the 27th November, when it was agreed not to accept the vacant Drumconrath dispensary at a less salary than £200 a year, and to the fact that the county Galway medical men at a meeting on the 26th November passed a similar resolution regarding vacant dispensary appointments in their county; and whether steps will be taken by the Local Government Board to secure the payment of larger salaries to Irish poor law doctors.

The reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. In answer to the last inquiry, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar question of the 6th November.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the technical instruction grants have been limited on account of the equivalent grant under the Education Bill; and if he can state the approximate amount of the equivalent grant under that Bill to which Ireland will become entitled for educational purposes.

In respect of the first inquiry, I must refer to my published letter of the 1st instant to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, to which I have, at present, nothing to add. In reply to the second inquiry, I refer to the Prime Minister's statement of the 25th November.‡

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate idea of the amount of the equivalent grant?

† See (4) Debates, cxvi., 275.

‡ See preceding volume, page 386.

The hon. Member may take it from me that the time has not come for discussing that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board can explain the disappearance of the challenge cup given by the Board at the Royal Dublin Society's Shows for the encouragement of hackney breeding; and what steps have been taken to recover it.

I am making inquiries into this matter and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the land purchase operations of the Congested Districts Board are being impeded by want of funds for improvement works; and if so, what steps will be taken to relieve the difficulty.

A sum of £10,000 was recently added to the amount voted in the present year as a special grant-in-aid of the expenses of the Congested Districts Board. With the funds now available it is anticipated that the execution of necessary improvement works will not he delayed on estates purchased with a view to resale to tenants.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. The first is whether he can inform the House as to the position of affairs in Venezuela; as to the presence of His Majesty's ships of war in that neighbourhood; and whether he can lay Papers on the Table explaining the situation.

For the past two years His Majesty's Government have had grave cause of complaint on various occasions of the unjustifiable interference by the Venezuelan Government with the liberty and the property of British subjects. No efforts have been spared to obtain amicable settlement of these cases. In none of them has a satisfactory explanation been forth coming, and latterly the representations of His Majesty's Minister have been practically unnoticed. There are also cases in which British subjects and companies have large claims against the Venezuelan Government. We have been acting in conjunction with the German Government, who have also large claims against Venezuela, and a final communication has now been made to the Venezuelan Government by His Majesty's Minister and by the German Charge d'Affaires. If no satisfactory reply is received from the Venezuelan Government the two Governments have decided to take such measures as may be necessary to enforce their demands. As regards the laying of Papers, none are ready for presentation; but I will consult my noble friend at the Foreign Office as to what steps can be taken in the matter.

May I ask whether the communication sent to the Venezuelan Government by the Governments of Great Britain and Germany was a joint communication or a separate and identic communication.

I think that notice should be given of these supplementary Questions. But I believe I am right in saying it was neither a joint communication nor an identic communication.

Is this action being taken to enforce the claims of private individuals against the Venezuelan Government?

Order, order ! The right hon. Gentleman has said he must have notice of further Questions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, under Schedule 2 (15 and 16), of the Education Bill teachers in board schools will become officers of the Council, while teachers in voluntary schools will not be placed on the same footing or enjoy the same advantages.

May I at the same time ask whether if, as the result of the passing of the Bill, the office of a voluntary school teacher be abolished or his position be in any way worsened, such teacher will be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the second schedule of the Bill.

Under Section 35 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, School Board teachers are technically officers of the School Board, and will therefore become officers of the local education authority. It is this fact that brings School Board teachers within the ordinary provisions as to compensation on abolition of office. I do not imagine that, as a matter of fact, many cases of abolition of office will arise. Voluntary school teachers, it being observed, are underthe present system appointed by the managers of the school; they will continue to be so appointed. There is no change of employment, though there is a change of masters, and they will remain employees of the managers, subject to the powers of the local education authority underthe Bill. To place these voluntary school teachers on the same footing as School Board teachers, to make them Technically officers, would of course be inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. I do not see how the error has arisen which assumes that the provisions of the Bill are unfavourable to voluntary school teachers. On the contrary, there is no doubt whatever that voluntary school teachers are the very class who will most benefit by the passing of the measure. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether, if this Bill has some indirect effect on the position of some voluntary school teacher, that school teacher will obtain compensation. No, Sir; nor will the Board School teacher under like circumstances. I do not think it possible to consider indirect and collateral results. All that can be said is that on the whole, and probably in every case, the indirect result is enormously to the advantage of the voluntary school teacher.

The point is this: that in the case of the School Board teacher whose office is abolished or whose position is worsened he is to have compensation. I want to know whether, if the office of the voluntary school teacher is abolished or his position worsened in any way directly, he will be eligible for compensation.

I have not the text of the Act with me, and I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to put the Question on the Paper.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the business of the House. Somewhat to my surprise I find on the Notice Paper a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, apparently with the intention of concluding the Committee stage of the London Water Bill tonight. May I say that the attendance in the House on Friday was somewhat slack. In that slackness I include myself. But I was present while an arrangement was made as to the provisions of the Bill with respect to the Water Board. I was not, however, aware of the intention to finish the Committee stage tonight; and as there is considerable feeling that if such a course were adopted, adequate time will not be given for the discussion of the Amendments, which are substantial and not at all obstructive, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, and give a little more time for the Committee stage of the Bill.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the extreme difficulty of the position of the Leader of the House in attempting to arrange business if this kind of appeal is made to him from the Front Opposition Bench on Monday, against an arrangement made with the Front Opposition Bench on Friday.

I knew nothing about it.

The hon. Member is not yet on the Front Bench. There was one of those friendly, and, I think, most useful arrangements made, which included two things with regard to today, namely, that the Twelve o'clock Rule should besuspended by the general consent of both sides, and that the Committee stage of the Water Bill should be concluded before the House rose, and for that arrangement, if I may use the phrase, there was "value received."

No.

I think it is generally admitted, notwithstanding the dissent of the hon. Member for West Islington.

I said nothing, but still I think it.

My right hon. friend in charge of the Bill said that if a friendly understanding of that character could be assented to, he was prepared to agree to certain changes in the measure.

He never said it openly.

I think it would be deplorable if any arrangement with my hon. friend, come to under these circumstances should be departed from a few hours after it was made. Now that I have had an opportunity of acquainting the right hon. Gentleman with the facts, I hope he will not press his demand.

I desire to make a personal explanation, as I was in a sense responsible for the arrangement. As my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, the attendance on Friday was slack, and necessarily so, with the result that in coming to the arrangement I was, to a certain extent, left to my own resources. I believe that, with the exception of an hon. friend who represents a London constituency, every Member on the Opposition side who has taken an active part in the discussion of the Bill endorsed my action—indeed, I did not take it without their endorsement. My desire was to get the Bill improved, and as we had been met in the most friendly way by the Minister in charge of the Bill, I thought I was justified in coming to some arrangement. But I am bound to say that I owe an apology to my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in not having consulted him before making that arrangement, and for that error of judgment I heartily apologise. My object at the moment was to improve the Bill, but I quite agree that I did not take a proper view of the position.

Hear, hear.

I am not going to apologise to my hon. friend who has interrupted. I hope that, in the circumstances, the Leader of the House will see his way to postpone the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, and allot the Morning Sitting tomorrow also to the Bill.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury say whether the arrangement includes the subsequent stages of the Bill?

Yes, it does.

I know nothing about it.

The hon. Gentleman should seek for information from his own Front Bench. In addition to the finishing of the Committee Stage tonight, it was arranged that the Report Stage and Third Reading should be taken tomorrow.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to stick to any such arrangement? It is physically absolutely impossible.

Yes, I propose to stick to the arrangement made between the two sides of the House.

What other business will be taken during the week?

I think the House is bound to stick to the substance of the arrangement with respect to the London Water Bill. But if it will mitigate feeling, I will consent to the postponement of the Report stage and Third Reading from Tuesday to Wednesday. In that event, I shall take the Militia and Yeomanry Bill tomorrow at the Morning Sitting, and at the Evening Sitting the Committee stage of the Uganda Railway Resolution. I may venture to suggest, perhaps, that the discussion of the general principle of the Railway Bill should be postponed to the Report stage on Thursday, and in that event I will put down the Militia and Yeomanry Bill as the second Order at the Evening Sitting on Tuesday. On Wednesday the Report stage of the London Water Bill and the Third Reading will be the business. As to Friday, perhaps I may be allowed to defer my statement till tomorrow.

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Militia and Yeomanry Bill has not been read a second time, and that tie Notice Paper contains three hostile Motions—two being from his own side. It does not look, therefore, as if the Bill can be carried through in a hasty manner between the 8th and 19th December.

How long does the light hon. Gentleman intend to go on with the Water Bill tonight, I hope that if the President of the Local Government Board satisfies the right hon. Gentleman that we have done everything we can to expedite the Bill, he will still consent to give us the Morning Sitting tomorrow.

I am surprised that, after the manifestation of feeling on both sides of the House, and after a specific arrangement has been made, the hon. Gentleman should still press me on that point. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to press me further. I will put it to the hon. Gentleman whether business can be smoothly and expeditiously conducted when a member of a Party allows himself licence to throw over his Leader and the whole of his Party.

On the contrary—

Order, order ! There is no question before the House. The hon. Member is persisting in treating this as if it were matter for discussion. It is not.

I did not mean to say anything disorderly. The right hon. Gentleman had said that I refused to accept the decision of my Leader. On the contrary, my Leader has explained that he was not aware of this arrangement—

I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to a matter which arose in debate last week. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford University, in the course of the debate on the Third Reading of the Education Bill, stated that a leaflet was issued during the recent Cleveland election containing a gross misstatement with regard to the Education Bill. I challenged that assertion at the time, and I have today received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he says that he very much regrets to find that he was inaccurate in stating that any such leaflet was circulated, and that he unreservedly withdraws the assertion and expresses sincere regret at having made it. I think this ought to be made known in justice to those who conducted the election, and at the same time I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his frank and courteous letter of exoneration.

moved to leave out "compensation and insert "money or stock" in page 3, line 19. He thought the grammar of the Clause almost required this change. This Clause was devoted to the distribution of the money or stock to be handed over to the Company, and it was in this form that the Bill went up to the Committee upstairs. It must have been by mistake that the word "compensation" was put in here. The Clause, as it stood, had no definite meaning. How could "compensation" he "paid or satisfied? "It was money that was paid for a certain consideration. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment.

said the word "compensation" ran through the whole Bill. In many different Clauses it was used to describe the same thing, and he was advised that if another word were used here it might lead to misapprehension afterwards. He adhered to the word "compensation"

said the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not a good one. In the other parts of the Bill the word had not the meaning which it had in the Clause under discussion. In this particular Clause it was absolutely restricted to money or stock.

said he would accept the Amendment.

said if the Amendment was accepted there must be a consequential Amendment in line 21, for the word "satisfied" there would not apply. He suggested that the word "issued" should be substituted. The Amendment was agreed to. It was also agreed to substitute, in line 21, "issued" for "satisfied," and in line 25 to leave out "compensation" and insert "money or stock."

moved to leave out from "as" in line 10, to "debenture" in line 11, and insert "in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income as the," He said although this was the form in which the Amendment was moved, it was really to secure for this new Water Trust, and for the public, in some form or other, a right which, according, he thought he might say, to the universal precedent of Parliament, had always been accorded to a public authority purchasing any private property. The principle upon which the compulsory purchase of private property had always been carried out was a very clear and definite one. They could not respect the actual private rights. One could easily understand that, but for the power of compulsory purchase, there might be in the possession of a single person a field that might render it practically impossible for a railway to join two towns. On countless occasions the Legislature had made provisions whereby private property could be taken, but it made such provisions equitable by providing in all cases that the owner of the private property should have the full value in money of his property, and that, in the case of there being a dispute, it should be settled by an impartial tribunal—an arbitration or a jury. One thing was always characteristic of those provisions. They gave to the purchasing authority the right to extinguish all interests in the property taken. The owner received the equivalent in money for everything the purchasing authority acquired, but that authority was always permitted to acquire every interest. It was the ordinary experience for those who had to deal with compensation cases to find that a property that had been taken over was in the hands of an occupier, who probably paid the rent to a person who was in the position of an intermediate landlord; up to them there were one, two, or three intermediate landlords: and after them came the ground landlord, to whom the ground rent was paid. As soon as Parliament had permitted a public body to take that property, the public body had the right to—and did—take over every one of those interests. It purchased the occupier's interest, very often including trade rights; it purchased the intermediate landlord's interests; it purchased the ground landlord's interest; and it became the soleand absolute owner of the property. But what it had to do was to pay the full money value of all it had taken. That having been the consistent practice of Parliament, he claimed, on behalf of the public, that it should not be departed from on this occasion. What were the rights and interests which they claimed that the new trust should be allowed to purchase? There were the undertakings of the companies, and the stock. It was to be allowed to purchase the undertakings with their burdens, just in the same way as a railway company purchased a house with its mortgages upon it, but with the right to pay those mortgages off. With regard to the question of debentures, some of them were redeemable, and about those no great difficulty arose. Some of them were irredeemable: there was some such provision as a Scotch feu-rent or an English perpetual ground rent. According to the universal practice of Parliament the purchasing authority would have the power of purchasing that feu, turning it into money, and becoming the absolute possessor of the property. He claimed for this Water Trust that it should be able to pay its irredeemable debentures at their market value, whatever that might be. The Committee must not for one moment imagine that lie was advocating that [they should take these irredeemable debentures as though they were redeemable, and that the trust ought to be allowed to pay the capital value in satisfaction of the debentures themselves. He was standing upon this—that they ought to allow the purchasing authority to buy up these de bentures at a price which the arbitrators said was fair. He was going to show to the House that the present provisions of the Bill were an inequitable departure from the equitable practice of Parliament. What did the Bill propose? The Bill proposed that those who held irredeemable debentures should receive of Metropolitan water stock an amount which would produce an income equal to that which they would get from those debentures. Now, no man of business could possibly defend that as fair. [Cries of "Oh," from the Ministerial Benches.] He was going to prove it. He did not attach weight to mere assertion. Just let him give a parallel instance. Suppose there was a man with a grouud rent of some property which was required by a railway company for a station. Could it be said that that man would be receiving a fair value for what he was giving up if it were said to the Railway Company that that man must have an equal revenue charge on the station. The probability was that the rent which was worth twenty or twenty-two years' purchase would instantly spring up to a rent equal to thirty or thirty-three years' purchase, and he would be receiving what was a capital value, 50 per cent, more than he was giving up. Everybody knew that certain property would be valued to return 5 per cent., but freeholds were valued at a much smaller rate. Consols yielding 2½ per cent, were worth £100. "[An Hon. Member on the Ministerial Benches: 92½.] He was not taking the particular value of Consols at this moment. A safe investment of a different type could be found which returned a higher interest and he said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that no business man would say that the capital value of an investment could be measured by the return which it gave. If that were true, there could be no question that his method was equally fair. What he said was that a fair capital value ought to be obtained for what was given up, and no more. If it was said on the other side that the capital value and the income value would lead to the same result, then why depart from the universal practice of Parliament and take the value from income and not from capital'? That he was light was evident, for looking at the stocks of the water companies themselves, they found that the irredeemable debentures of some of the water companies stood at a higher figure than those which had the same amount of income. Could it be fair that the owners of these two stocks should receive the same sum of money? it was not fair, even between the owners of the stocks belonging to the different companies; still less was it fair between the owners of the stocks and the metropolitan consumers. What was the case in regard to them? There was no question that metropolitan water stock, secured on the rating value over the whole of its enormous area, would stand exceedingly high in the market. That was to say, the capital value as compared with the income value would stand very high —far higher than these water stocks. If it was said that it would not, then surely this Amendment would be accepted. But it was nonsense to say that the credit of the area from which the rates were derived to pay the income on the water stock would not be such as not to give them a very high capital value in the market. If a person who held the present irredeemable debentures was to get an equal income, ho would be given a considerably higher value than that at which the stock was bought and sold in the market at the time this Bill was brought in. and it would be departing from Parliamentary practice for eighty years. And in whose interest would they be departing thus from Parliamentary practice? The interest of the body of people holding these particular stocks. And what would be the interpretation put on it? Only one. Nobody could say that it was not fair to give them the capita] value which their holders had in the market; but if a special mode of compensating them were adopted, which gave them in this case, he believed, half-a-million more than they would get by the ordinary Parliamentary practice, the only interpretation that would be put on it would be that the Government had not held even the scales of justice between the buyer and the seller: that it had been influenced by some power; that it had been affected by the financial interests of the owners of this stock: and that it had allowed itself—because these persons were very powerful—to leave that position which had always been considered to be the equitable position of allowing purchase at a fair va'ue to be determined by the arbitrators —making only such allowance as was necessary to prevent loss on re-investment. Now, what he proposed was that the arbitrators should fix the value of that interest. In other words the Water Trust should be treated like every other purchaser of property for public purposes up till now had been treated. He was curious to know what answer would be given to his argument. In the first place, it could not be said that what he proposed was unfair. It could not be said that if the holders of the water companies, stock got a fair capital value for what they held, they were being treated inequitably. It could not be said that it was a matter of indifference as to the form the Clause should take in going through the Committee. There was no question that these water stocks—certainly in the case of many of the companies—did not stand at such a high capital value per cent, as the Metropolitan Consolidated Stock, for instance. It could not be said that his proposal was a violation of any compact between the companies and the holders of these debentures. It was simply compulsory purchase; it was a violation of no arrangement; it did not pretend to redeem the irredeemable, but simply insisted on the power of purchase at a fair market value. He suggested that the Committee would be showing that it was not influenced by the pressure of a wealthy body of people to depart from the well-known equitable lines which had guided its conduct for the last cighty years by adopting his Amendment.

said he gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that he maintained the debenture holders of the Water Companies were under the present Clause of the Bill to receive more than they were entitled to, and he proposed by his Amendment that they should be paid in something which would be of equivalent value to an equally good security producing the same income. Now, lie thought that if the honi and learned Gentleman's Amendment were carried, it would give to the debenture holders a larger capital value for their stock than they would receive under the Bill as it stood. He would endeavour to show to the Committee why that should be. The debenture stocks of the London Water Companies were trustee securities—the only trustee securities which were not Corporation or Government stock, or the debentures of English railways. Now, 3 per cent, debenture stock of English railways stood at the present moment at 101. They varied from 100 to 101½, at which latter figure the London and North Western debentures now stood. If the Amendment were carried they would have to give more than the par value to the owners of the present water stock, because they would have to give something which would produce the same income. The circular which had been issued by the London County Council assumed that the water stock would be at par. What was the basis for such an assumption? The only stock to which the new water stock could be compared was the 3 per cent, stock of the London County Council. It would not be contended that that stock, which was secured on the rates, would be worth less than the 3 per cent, stock of the Water Board, which was also secured on the rates. Yet the County Council stock stood at from 98 ½ to 98 ½; and, therefore, it could not be assumed that the new stock would be at par.

said that the debentures could be purchased at their value.

said it was curious that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have said that, because only the other day he wished to buy £1,500 worth of water debenture stock and could not get it. Then the circular stated that the stocks should be exchanged on the basis of the Stock Exchange prices for December last. In that month the war was still dragging on, and the stocks were lower than they had been for the preceding ten years. Was it right, therefore, to pick out that particular month? In December he himself gave evidence before the Joint Committee on that very point. Moreover, they did not even take the average prices for the month, but the lowest prices recorded. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how it was that one debenture stock stood higher than another. The explanation was simple. There might be stock of one company on the market and no stock of another; and the stock which happened to be on the market stood at a lower price than stock which was not on the market. The water debenture stock stood at from 96 ½ to 97 ½, and the County Council stock s'tood at from 981/4 to 98½. That was the difference: and it seemed to him that the County Council was endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Amendment would give the debenture holders more than they would get under the Bill as it stood, and would add extremely to the cost, trouble, and time that would be involved. Therefore, he trusted that the Government would adhere to their proposal, and give the debenture holders their present incomes. The hon. and learned Member appeared to be under the impression that the capital value had a good deal to do with the matter; but the people who held the debenture stock were trustees, and it was a matter of perfect indifference to the majority of them whether the stock would be worth 97 ½ or 98 ½, as they would only look to the income. For all these reasons he hoped the Government would adhere to their proposal.

said he did not know why the hon. Baronet was opposing the Amendment, because he seemed to think that the debenture holders would not be any worse off, and might be better off under the Amendment.

asked why the public should have to pay more than was required.

said he would be prepared to take the risk of that. The hon. Baronet was a great authority on prices and credit, but he confessed he did not think that the figures the hon. Baronet quoted were really germane. In dealing with such large sums they ought to pay to the holders something equivalent to that which they now had: and that was what was proposed by the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend. At present the various debenture stocks were speculative; they differed in price; and he did not think that the hon. Baronet would contend that they were all of the same value.

said that they varied from 97 to 99 at the present moment.

said that that might be the case at the present moment, but if they looked back a year or two they would find the variation had been a great deal more. At all events, the holders were going to get a better security than the}' had at present, as the new stock would have behind it the rates of London, and would be better as regarded security, stability, and marketability. Then, again, it should be remembered that the debenture stocks varied very much in regard to the amount of debentures issued. Some of the companies had been very provident, and had issued a comparatively small amount of debenture stock, whereas other companies had issued a very considerable portion of their capital in the form of debentures. He did not see why the Government should deal differently with the debentures from the way in which debentures were treated in Clause 2 Under that Clause the Water Board was not to take into account any question of debentures, redeemable or irredeemable, but was to pay over a certain sum to the companies concerned, leaving them to deal with their own debenture stock. That was practically the alternative that was now suggested to the Government. Either they should be given the same value, or a lump sum to deal with their debenture stocks in their own way. He confessed he did not see why the debentures, whether they were of a speculative value or not, should be entitled to a larger sum than they would at present fetch. Their contention was that the proposal of the Government would involve an increased capital charge of between £200,000 and £;300,000 on the ratepayers, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment.

said he did not hold any shares in the Water Companies, but he happened to know that there was great difficulty experienced by trustees in purchasing high class debenture stocks. The Committee could not imagine the enormous trouble that would be caused to the market by the repayment of £10,000,000, 3 per cent, debenture stock of the Water Companies, which would necessitate the purchase of £10,000,000 of the class of stock that was capable of being held by trustees. Even at present an investor had to wait for two or three months before he could invest a comparatively small sum of £100,000 or £200,000; and if £10,000,000 of trustee stock was demanded from the market it could not be supplied for two, three, or five months, and every kind of debenture stock would rise, while the throwing of an extra £10,000,000 of the new Water Stock upon the market would for a time seriously depress that particular stock,

said it was quite true that they could not get £10,000,000 of debentures at present; but, immediately the Bill was passed, every one of the debentures would have to be exchanged, and the whole of the £10,000,000 would be forthcoming. The argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham wras a little closer, because he quoted from the circular of the London County Council, which was a very good authority. The hon. Baronet gave very useful evidence before preceding Committees, and especially helped Lord Llandaff's Committee to the conclusion at which it arrived. The hon. Baronet now contended that the debentures of the companies were equally as good a security as the new water stock. If they were, the acceptance of the Amendment would not do any harm to the vendors. But some of the debentures were not as good as others; the interest was not the same in all cases; and he was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree that the more debentures that were issued the less valuable they were. What he submitted was, that as the stock to be bought varied, whereas the stock to be issued would not vary, it was necessary to accept a provision such as that proposed in the Amendment. Their whole argument turned on the question as to whether the new stock would be, on the whole, better than the present stock. The Water Board would have all the stock that the companies possessed and a great deal more, for they would hare the rates of the area behind them. This would put the security in a different class altogether from that in which the Water Company debentures stood. The hon. Baronet had tried to impugn the authority of the Council's statement by saying that in December the war had not been finished, and the ' stocks and shares were higher now than j then. As a matter of fact, Consols were lower now than they had been at any time during the war. and it was hardly fair to suggest that the Council took an unfavourable date. The reason the water debenture stock was higher now was because of this Bill. This Amendment, would in no way restrict the arbitrators.

said that in his opinion the new stock would be lower in market value, and not higher, than the Water Companies' debenture stock. He had been much impressed by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he personally would be glad if they could, in the arrangement of this Bill, uphold the ordinary procedure of the House in these matters, and if he objected to this Amendment it was solely in the interest of the ratepayers. This was new stock, for which a price had to be created, and it would suffer an; unavoidable amount of depreciation on the market, whereas the stock proposed to be substituted would be appreciated. Let them by all means depreciate as much as possible what they wished to buy, but do not let them rig the market against themselves by appreciating what they wished to purchase

The point which they were anxious to raise was the substitution of such an amount of stock as should be equivalent in value. The question, therefore, was as to how much new water stock should be issued, and there was no need to complicate matters by introducing the consideration of income. The reasons which decided him to vote in favour of the Amendment were two. One was that the capital value of the new water stock would, cent. for cent., £100 for £100, be greater than the value of the old Water Companies' debenture stock. The hon. Baronet, who spoke with such authority on Stock Exchange matters, would not deny that.

I think the difference would be very small—1 per cent, or 1 ½ per cent.