To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the appointment of the Trades Disputes Commission, he will see that a representative of Irish trades unionism is appointed. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) If the Commission were to be a large and representative one, the request of the hon. Member would be a proper matter for consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the practice of employers of labour, particularly in the shipbuilding trade, when paying their pieceworkers, to hand each a sum of money to represent the amount earned, but refuse to give any details of the amount; and will he take steps to remedy this alleged grievance. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Some time ago I received a I representation on the subject from the Boiler Makers' and Iron Shipbuilders' Society, representing the workmen in Glasgow, who ask that the "particulars" section of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, may be applied to the industry. I at once directed an inquiry into the matter, which is one of much difficulty. The inquiry is not yet concluded.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give a Return showing the number of sewage schemes by artificial process alone, the names of the authorities, with the amount of loan in each case. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In consequence of the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal in their Interim Report, the Local Government Board have in some special cases made an exception to their ordinary rule, and have sanctioned loans for schemes of the kind referred to without requiring that the sewage shall be applied to land. The names of the authorities in these cases and the amount of the loans sanctioned are as follows—Easington Rural District Council, £7,000; Gorton Urban District Council, £21,519; Pontefract Town Council, £15,506; Blackwell Rural District Council, £6,840; Heywood Town Council, £21,500; I have of course not included in this statement cases in which the sewage is discharged directly into the sea or into tidal waters.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that two consignments of Army blankets infected with typhoid germs reached the city of Nottingham; that, although the Health Committee of the city took steps to prevent the further distribution of these blankets, some portions of the consignments in question had already been sold and distributed to villages in the neighbourhood; and, if so, will he state what steps he is taking in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have communicated with the town clerk of Nottingham on the subject, who has informed me this morning that, in consequence of the action taken by the medical officer of health in notifying the persons in the villages referred to who purchased the blankets, the whole of these articles have been sent back to the firm in Nottingham who supplied them. The town clerk adds that all the blankets which reached Nottingham, some hundreds in number, are in process of disinfection.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board of Education have given notice that they intend to amend the Anglesey intermediate scheme, he will consider the advisability of inserting provisions in the amended scheme to improve the financial position of the Beaumaris county school. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The amendment of the Anglesey scheme, of which notice has been given, is confined to the extension of the age limit to which scholars may remain in the school, and is urgently required to remove a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the award of county exhibitions on the result of the approaching school examinations. In the circumstances, the Board have decided not to endanger or delay the passing of the amendment by associating with it a question which would undoubtedly give rise to pro-longed discussion, and which, in the opinion of the Board, can only be solved by recourse to funds outside the operation of the county scheme.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that trawling operations are now carried on in Red Wharf Bay, contrary to regulations within the three-mile limit; and, if so, whether he will take such measures as will ensure the discontinuance of the practice. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No, Sir. My attention has not been called to trawling operations in Red Wharf Bay. The Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee have made by-laws for the regulation of trawling within their district, and any breaches of those by-laws should be brought to the notice of the Committee.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether, seeing that the request of the London branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks Association for a personal interview for the purpose of asking for a revision of the scales of pay, and the desire that the claim for operators to receive a maximum salary of £190 per annum should be submitted to arbitration were refused; and that a section of the staff some of them members of this Association, have been promised a personal interview since the announcement of the reference of the whole question to the consideration of five business men, he is now prepared to give the Association the same treatment as the more senior men, and settle the case by receiving the men and inquiring personally into the matters. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) All the facts in relation to the claim of certain operators in the Central Telegraph Office to receive a maximum salary of £190 are well known to me; I have myself personally investigated their case, and have given a decision which, as far as I am concerned, must be considered as final. Under these circumstances, a personal interview upon the subject is unnecessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the quantity and value of foreign tobacco imported into India; and whether, seeing that it is not liable to any duty except the general Customs duty charged on all imported goods, he will consult the Government of India as to the advisability of imposing a duty on foreign and local grown tobacco, with a view to repeal wholly or in part the duty on salt in view of the effect of the restricted use of that article upon the prevalence of leprosy in India. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The imports of foreign tobacco into India during the last two years were:—1901–2, 4,416,688 lbs., value, £300,158; 1902–3, 4,199,403 lbs., value, £297,669. A tobacco excise or State monopoly in India has been frequently considered and rejected as impracticable. Lord Herschell's Indian Currency Committee reported in 1893 that it would involve constant and vexatious interference with the people, and that the cost of collecting and enforcing the tax would be enormous in proportion to the sum realised.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of persons who have died of plague in the Punjab since the 1st January last, and what percentage of these persons were inoculated with plague serum. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The number of persons who have died of plague in the Punjab, whose population is 22,500,000, between the 1st January 1903, and the 2nd May (the latest date for which figures have been received) is 141,789. The returns do not distinguish deaths of inoculated persons from deaths of persons not inoculated.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any agreement with regard to the war now being waged in Somaliland either with Italy or with Abyssinia beyond what has been brought already under the cognisance of this House; and, if so, whether he will state what such agreement or agreements are; and whether the Mad Mullah has ever been informed of the conditions under which he will be left in peace, or any attempts have been made to enter into negotiations with that potentate. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to both Questions is in the negative.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any treaty between this country and Persia, or whether there exists any pledge given by Persia to this country, by which Persia is in any way restrained from dealing with her territories on the Persian Gulf or in any other part of her dominions as she pleases; and, if there does exist any such treaty or pledge which has not already been laid upon the Table of the House, whether it will be so laid. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) There is no treaty of the kind indicated, but in regard to Southern Persia, His Majesty's Government enjoy certain rights admitted by the Persian Government. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is an agreement between this country and Russia for the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Persia.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the propriety of using portion of the equivalent grant for the purpose of improving the heating and other accommodation of primary schools in Ireland; the free grant of books and other requisites for poor children attending such schools; and the creation of a fund for the assistance of children who are too poor to procure higher education otherwise. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have nothing at present to add to the replies already given by me to similar Questions.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to resolutions lately passed by the South Kerry Teachers' Organisation claiming that portion of the equivalent grant should be devoted to the necessities of primary education; and, if so, whether he will take these representations into consideration. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of evicted tenants in the county Waterford included in the Return recently prepared; and whether a list of the names is yet available. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number will be found in the Return which has been laid upon the Table of the House (No. 125 of this session). It is not proposed to publish the names of the evicted tenants.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of I Mr. A. J. Vogan, late sergeant of "A" Squadron, New Zealand (Prince of Wales') Light Horse, who during the late South African War served with distinction as a sergeant of Scouts under the Field Intelligence Department, and captured Commandant Scheepers, for whose capture rewards had been offered; and whether, seeing that Major Bramley, his commanding officer, recommended this man for the Distinguished Service medal, he will explain why Vogan has received neither medal nor reward, and state whether he will take steps to ensure that Vogan's services shall receive recognition. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Sergeant Vogan's claims to reward were fully considered, but owing to the large number of even more deserving cases it was found impracticable to include his name amongst those nominated for reward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiry as to whether, and if so, upon what charge, the minister of Rustenberg, in the Transvaal Colony, was recently arrested and imprisoned by the resident magistrate, and upon whose information; and whether the Attorney-General has taken any steps for the release of the rev. gentleman, and upon what grounds. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have no information as to the incident referred to, but I will make inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Rand Native Labour Association has sent persons to China to inquire into possibilities of procuring Chinese to work in the Transvaal mines under contract; and whether the House will have an opportunity to express an opinion as to such importations being permitted before they are allowed by Lord Milner. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the Question. There is, of course, nothing to prevent the House from discussing the question, but, in my opinion, such discussion at the present time would be entirely premature.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why £150,000 worth of Army rations were recently destroyed by order of the authorities in the Transvaal instead of being sold.

A large quantity of tinned rations were found by a Board of Officers to have so much deteriorated as to be unfit for consumption, and, in accordance with the advice of the expert medical officers, were destroyed. Under the regulations, supplies which have been condemned as unfit for issue as food for the troops, owing to deterioration, are not to be sold, but destroyed. The General Officer Commanding South Africa has been instructed to report fully on the matter by mail.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the value of the food destroyed, and by whom it was supplied?

I cannot give the value of the rations until I have received the Report. As regards the firms who provided it, it is the universal custom of those firms not to keep a very large supply, because after a certain time tinned goods of this character deteriorate. But, of course, the amount of rations in South Africa at the close of the war was vastly greater in extent of what would have been supplied if we had known the troops would be so quickly withdrawn.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that fever-infected blankets recently used by the troops in South Africa have been distributed in this country, and that some of the blankets in question are saturated with blood and filth; and, if so, will he explain why these blankets have been allowed to be distributed; what steps he proposes to take to recover them; and whether instructions will be given to prevent any further articles of this nature being despatched from South Africa or distributed to the public; and whether, in view of the danger to public health caused by the distribution of articles used during military operations, he will appoint a Committee to consider the best methods of treating and disposing of them.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to Questions put on this subject on Monday last, to which I have at present nothing to add. †

† See (4) Debxtes, cxxii., 1631.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that 14,000 of the 17,243 men comprising the 1901 batch of Imperial Yeomanry had complained, will he state what percentage of complaints were owing to men not receiving a month's furlough, or pay in lieu thereof, after landing in England and before discharge, as in the case of reservists; what percentage were owing to the stopping of bounties or gratuities; and what percentage were direct claims against officers commanding companies respectively.

In only a small percentage of cases was the question of furlough money raised as a single complaint, but many added it to a composite claim. Bounties or gratuities were only stopped in the cases of men who had been guilty of misconduct, numbering rather less than fifty. The remainder were direct claims against the assessment of officers commanding companies, in most cases to the effect that they had not actually received the amounts entered against them in the pay lists.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state for what offence men of the Scottish Horse were sentenced to terms of imprisonment; how many were undergoing imprisonment at the termination of the war; whether any have since been released; and, if so, how many; and whether any distinction as regards food, housing, and general treatment is made between these men and ordinary criminals; have any of the men of the Scottish Horse who were sentenced been or are employed with convicts on the Capetown breakwater.

Twenty-one men of the Scottish Horse were convicted of mutiny in March, 1902, and twenty were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and one to three years penal servitude. They were all undergoing sentence at the end of the war. All have since been released, except the man sentenced to penal servitude, whose sentence has been commuted to two years imprisonment and the further remission of which will be considered in August. The sentences have all been undergone in military prisons.

But were the men employed with convicts on the Cape-town breakwater?

I am not aware of such employment. My information is that the sentences were carried out in military prisons.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to the effect that a mutinous spirit has been shown by any of the native troops now employed in Somali-land; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.

No such report has been received in the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the portion of the statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty with the Navy Estimates as to the re-adjustment of the relative rank of medical and accountant officers of the Royal Navy, when he expects to be able to give the details which were then in process of being worked out.

The details of the readjustment in question are still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, but an announcement on the subject may be expected shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have been made, or are in contemplation, for giving Lord Milner leave of absence; and in that case for what period, and by whom will the duties of High Commissioner be discharged.

Lord Milner proposes to take a short holiday away from South Africa during the present summer. His duties will be discharged during his absence by Sir Arthur Lawley, in virtue of a dormant Commission which appoints the Officer Administering the Government of the Transvaal to be High Commissioner in such a contingency.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will indicate where can be found the authentic reasons of Generals Botha, Delarey, and Smuts for refusing to join the Transvaal Legislative Council.

The reasons for refusal were given in a correspondence with Lord Milner, which was published in the Transvaal newspapers in February. I have had a copy of this correspondence placed in the Library.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received any official information from Bulgaria showing]that fugitive men, women, and children have reached Burgas, in Eastern Roumelia, from the villages of Karaklisse, Beleirien, Derakeny, etc., in the district of Lozan, to the east of Adrianople, or that these districts have been rebellious or infested by bands; and whether his Majesty's Government will cause some inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which this population is being sent from its home.

No information to the effect stated has been received from His Majesty's representatives, nor have His Majesty's Government been informed that the population of the districts in question is being removed. Inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes any modifications of the Finance Bill to afford preferential duties in the case of colonial products.

No, Sir.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax upon options and future contracts representing fictitious grain, flour, and other commodities, in view of the volume and value of these transactions.

This question has often been considered; but I doubt whether it would be possible to devise a tax which would hit speculative options without falling upon genuine and legitimate transactions at the same time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of laboratories in the Metropolis at which vivisection is practised, and the number of dogs subjected to experiments at these laboratories during the year 1902.

I think I must refer the hon. Member to the annual Return under the Act of 1896 for the year 1902, which will be presented immediately, and will soon, I hope, be issued to Members. This will give him the information he desires except that experiments on cats and dogs are not distinguished in the Reports made to the Secretary of State and embodied in the Return.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal motor accident at the Bristol Post Office Sports, on Saturday, by which three lives were lost, and other persons were seriously injured; and, if so, in view of the fatal accidents which have occurred through motor racing, will he consider the question of introducing legislation to regulate the same.

My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. My attention has been drawn to the sad accident to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the suggestion in the last part of the Question the matter will receive consideration, but it would seem to me that the question of regulating the racing at Sports and similar meetings is hardly one to be dealt with in a Bill relating to the use of motor-cars on highways.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this accident, which we all deplore, was on a prepared track and not on a public road, and that it was a motor cycle and not a motor-car accident?

Yes, that is exactly what I pointed out.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to two recent fatal motor-car accidents, one at Kew Bridge on Sunday the 24th instant, when a gentleman who was waiting for a tramcar was knocked down and killed, the other at Edinburgh on Saturday, the 23rd instant; and, in view of recent motor-car accidents, will he say when he proposes to bring in a Bill to deal with the speed and identification of motor-cars.

I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the expediency of taking steps to require drivers of motor - cars to secure certificates of competency.

I have seen newspaper paragraphs relating to the accidents referred to. I hope to introduce a Bill as to motor-cars shortly after Whitsuntide. The points referred to in the questions will receive consideration in connection with this measure; but of course I cannot say what the provisions of the Bill will be.

If the right hon. Gentleman will bring in the Bill to-morrow he may rest assured that it will have all the assistance possible.

asked whether the Bill would be first introduced in the Lords or in the Commons?

The other House has been suggested, but the matter is not yet decided.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can give the mortality amongst cattle and sheep shipped from Ireland to English and Scotch ports during the year 1902, and also during what has transpired of the year 1903.

One hundred and thirty-seven cattle were reported to have been lost on the voyage from Ireland to English or Scotch ports during the year 1902 out of a total shipment of 959,000. The losses amongst sheep were reported to have been 152 out of a total of 1,056,000. During the present year the losses reported have been eighty-two out of a total shipment of 275,000 cattle and fifty-seven out of a total shipment of 98,000 sheep.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1895, he will state whether cattle shipped from Irish to English and Scotch ports are carried in pens of the prescribed dimensions and construction, with battens to prevent slipping and to protect from collision against ships' fittings, etc., in rough weather; how many inspectors report on this traffic; and at what ports are they stationed.

All cattle shipped from Ireland to Great Britain must be carried in pens, and in the case of vessels not regularly employed in the trade prior to May, 1895, these pens must be of certain prescribed dimensions and construction. In every case the floor of the pens must be fitted with battens or other footholds to prevent slipping, and ships' fittings likely to cause injury and unnecessary suffering must be fenced off. Forty-seven ship inspectors are stationed at the eighteen Irish ports from which cattle are shipped, whose duty it is to examine vessels and to see that the different requirements of the Transit Orders are complied with. The Irish Veterinary Inspection Staff, to the number of twenty-four, also exercise supervision in the matter. On this side of the Channel the oversight of the trade forms part of the regular duties of the four Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture within whose Divisions Irish cattle are landed, and these inspectors from time to time make journeys in vessels carrying live-stock in order to satisfy themselves that the trade is properly carried on. It is also the duty of the various local authorities to execute and enforce the provisions of our Order, and some of these authorities have appointed inspectors for this special purpose.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of placing fishermen on the same footing as other seamen in the Mercantile Marine by remitting the fee of 6d. charged to them for signing the ship's log book at the offices of the Board of Trade when they join or leave their ships, in view of the effect of this charge upon the working of Sir Edward Fry's award in the fishery dispute of 1901.

The arrangement made by the Board of Trade in connection with Sir Edward Fry's award is a purely voluntary one, and was agreed to on the express condition that the additional expense incurred should be met by the imposition of a small fee on each engagement or discharge. The Board of Trade will consider whether it is possible to make any reduction in the fees charged without imposing an obligation on public funds.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners propose to carry out the scheme for lighting the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire, which has already been sanctioned.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that they hope to carry out the scheme for lighting the channel off Avoch during the coming autumn.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will consider the expediency of arranging for an exhibit of Highland homespun tweeds at the St. Louis Exhibition.

The initiative in this matter must be left to enterprise of a private nature, but in the event of any proposition of the kind suggested by the hon. Member being made on behalf of the Scottish Home Industries Association or other similar Society to the Congested Districts Board, the matter would be open to consideration.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derby, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a bust of Oliver Cromwell, presented by a private individual, will be removed from its present position until a proper site has been found for the statues of statesmen erected by the desire or at the cost of the nation; and, if he will say by whose authority the bust, being the gift of a private individual not being a Member of this House, was placed in its present position.

The statues of statesmen in the Central Lobby were the gifts of private individuals, and are upon precisely the same footing in that respect as the bust of Cromwell is. This bust was presented to the House of Commons and accepted on its behalf by the Leader of the House; and it was placed in its present position by arrangement with the donor, under the instructions of the First Commissioner of Works. It is not proposed to remove it to another site.

Who was the donor of this bust?

I believe it is generally known who it was.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return will be presented to the House of Grants to Voluntary Schools from Departments other than the Board of Education.

The Return has been presented and is now with the printers. It will be issued, I hope, before Parliament reassembles after Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Commissioner of Valuation has held conferences with the appellants against the new valuation of Belfast in April and May, as promised last December; and, if not, when will this engagement be carried out.

No, Sir; but the Commissioner hopes to arrange to hold the conferences next month.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the sub-office at O'Callagan's Mills, County Clare, is to be closed; and, if so, will he state why this course is to be taken.

The office is not closed. Business has merely been removed to temporary premises pending the rebuilding of the Post Office premises, which were in bad condition.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will cause a survey to be made of the harbour of Wicklow in pursuance of Section 39 of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Act, 1861, to ascertain whether the harbour or channel of Wicklow has been damaged or the depth therein lowered to less than the standard depth ascertained in last certificate of survey, by reason of the abstraction of the waters of the River Vartry; and, if so, will he cause the Dublin Corporation to maintain such standard depth of water, or enforce the penalty provided as a debt due to the Harbour Commissioners of Wicklow.

The matter is one for the Board of Trade, as the powers possessed by the Admiralty under the Act referred to by the hon. Member were transferred to the Board of Trade by the Harbours Transfer Act, 1862, (25 and 26 Victoria, Cap. 69).

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Department of Agriculture will take steps to have a special exhibit of Irish industries at the St. Louis Exhibition.

The Department understands that should it undertake the organisation of a special Irish Exhibit a pavilion for the purpose of such an exhibit would be provided from American sources. With the approval and co-operation of the Royal Commission, the Department is prepared to organise such an exhibit on the condition mentioned, and is at present in correspondence with the Royal Commission on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to the effects of the periodical flooding in the city of Belfast; and whether, seeing that the flooding is due to the defective drainage scheme at present in operation, it is intended to hold a sworn inquiry into the causes and required remedies of the evil.

The Board has been in correspondence with the Belfast Corporation in this matter. It has engaged the attention of the Works and Improvement Committees of the Corporation for some time past, but definite action has been deferred pending the appointment of a new city surveyor.

Has the attention of the Local Government Board been drawn to the fact that these floods have gone on for many years while the vacancy in the City Surveyorship has existed for only a few weeks?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain why a Mr. Casey, a journalist, was removed from Court by the police at the last assizes in Ennis.

Mr. Casey was not removed from Court. He attempted to force his way into the Court at a time when it was crowded to excess and the police told him there was no room.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what precautions are being taken for the preservation of the life of the motorists and of the population during the forthcoming races in Ireland?

An order has been made by the Local Government Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Light Locomotives (Ireland) Act of this session, closing the course upon which the race will take place to all persons and traffic other than persons appointed by the Automobile Club as stewards, members of the constabulary and military on duty, locomotives engaged in the race, and persons in charge of the same. To give effect to this order a large force of police and military, supplemented by stewards supplied by the club, will be employed.

Is it not the fact that the motor races in Ireland will be held under totally different circumstances from the Paris-Madrid race?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the train service on the Great Northern Railway between Belfast and Rathfriland, and to the shunting appliances used, and the fares charged; whether they are aware that this journey of thirty-four miles occupies nearly three hours, and that passengers, cattle, and merchandise are conveyed by the same train, and that for the last three days of every week there is no train after 2 p.m.; and whether steps will be taken to compel the company to provide an efficient service at reasonable rates.

The attention of the Department has not been directed to the matters mentioned. But if definite representations are made to it on the subject by aggrieved persons, inquiry will be instituted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number and amount of advances applied for under the Land Purchase Acts and sanction to which was withheld by the Land Commission on the ground that the security was inadequate.

The number of applications for advances under the Acts of 1885–1888 which were finally refused on the ground stated was 1,286; the amount applied for was £467,872. Fresh applications were subsequently made in respect of a number of these cases under the Acts of 1891–1896, but no separate record of these has been kept The number of applications finally refused under the latter Acts is 789 for £175,154.

Do these figures include pending cases?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury will he consider the advisability of having the answers to starred Questions printed and circulated with the Votes.

I do not think such a change would be desirable. Hon. Members already have the alternative of saying whether or not these Questions should be answered orally, and some difficulty might arise as to supplementary Questions if the suggestion were carried out. On the whole, I think the present system the best.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Perthshire, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Military Works Bill and the Naval Works Bill will be introduced.

I hope these Bills will be ready shortly after we reassemble.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury now say anything positive as to his arrangements for the business of the House?

With reference to the adjournment for the Whitsun holiday. I believe the arrangement most convenient to the House will be that I move to-morrow that the House, at its rising at 7.30, do adjourn till Monday week, 8th June. That, at any rate, will be the substance of the Motion.

Will Supply be taken on the Monday and Tuesday after we reassemble?

On the Monday. On Tuesday we begin with the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

What Supply?

Perhaps the hon. Gentle man will put that question to me to-morrow. It is quite light the House should know before the holidays.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the 3rd Section of Vote 8 (Navy) to afford the Committee an opportunity of discussing the subsidies to merchant cruisers?

I will consider that; but one strong reason against it is that there is no chance whatever of the President of the Board of Trade being in his place on that date. On Tuesday I propose to begin the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

When will the Irish Land Bill be taken?

After the Finance Bill. It is my earnest desire to begin at once the consideration of the Irish land Bill. That will be the next important business, and I shall desire to take that measure continuously for some considerable period. I propose to take, under the ten minutes rule, the Sugar Convention Bill to-morrow.

I may point out that the subsidies I referred to are Admiralty subsidies.

Those to the Cunard and other companiies.

moved the committal of the Port of London Bill to a Select Committee of five members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection to be joined with a Committee of Lords.

expressed his regret at the absence of the President of the Board of Trade and the cause of it. This Committee, he pointed out, was to have a very important Bill referred to it, and he was glad it was to be a Joint Committee, because that, he believed, would facilitate the progress of the measure. He was pleased, also, that the nominations of members were to be made by the Committee of Selection. He was not a member of that Committee, but he looked on its nominations with great confidence. One advantage of that system of nomination was that it was entirely free from the usual machinery of a Party character. He held that Committees which dealt with such Bills as these should partake of a judicial rather than Party character. This particular Bill needed and would of course receive most earnest attention. He did not apprehend that the inquiry would be of a prolonged character, but this Bill did not stand on the same footing as an ordinary private Bill. It was introduced by the Government and it came before the House as embodying practically all the recommendations of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission which sat on the subject. Its Second Reading was unanimously agreed to, and there was universal assent to the proposal that some new Port authority should be created. That was the backbone of the Bill. There was one point of procedure in connection with these joint Committees to which he would like to refer, and they had an illustration of it in connection with the Joint Committee on the Water Bill last year. There was a precedent—he did not think it was universal—that the Chairman should be a Member of the other House. There were instances to the contrary, and he was one of those who thought that the Chairman of the Joint Committee should be selected indifferently from whichever House he came, and that he should be the man most fitted to occupy the Chair. He was sorry to say that in the case of the Water Bill there was what he held to be a very grave irregularity, viz., the Chairman took upon himself to put a question in a way to secure a result known to himself beforehand. One could hardly contemplate such a thing being done by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees; as to put a question deliberately in the way to secure a certain result. He thought such conduct amounted to a very high kind of Parliamentary misdemeanour, and he hoped nothing of the kind would occur on this Joint Committee. He trusted too that the Committee would be able to report at an early date.

moved on the consideration of the Lords' Message of 5th May, relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Municipal Trading, that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed 33 to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction.

inquired whether the selection had been made by the Committee of Selection or by some other means?

I think that question would properly arise on the names. It would then be competent to move to strike out the name of any hon. Member, and on that to give reasons.

said he was not prepared to attack any names, but he wished to know what method had been adopted in the choosing of the Committee.

I cannot understand what the hon. Member's point is. If the hon. Member considers that some other method should have been followed, he would be in order in objecting to the first name, making objections to the general method of choosing the Committee.

said that his objection was to the general complexion of the Committee. He wished to ask the Government to explain the method followed in the formation of the Committee. There were only two opponents of the Government upon it out of a total of seven Members; and, as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had now to be considered as supporters of the Government, this fact affected the complexion of the Committee.

wished to say a word or two on the general aspect of this matter. He had not opposed, and did not propose to oppose, the appointment of the Committee, but he was bound to say that he distrusted the necessity for this Committee or the advantage likely to arise from its work; and he did not accept the specious arguments advanced in favour of its appointment. The object of the Motion was that the Committee should consider and report as to the principles which should govern the powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipalities and other local authorities. The prospect, probably the intentional prospect, and the ultimate result would be the placing of some restriction on that municipal action which had taken place with such great advantage to the country. The word "govern" in the Motion almost implied restriction. That was not the way in which local government had grown up in this country. In the past communities had suggested a course of action, which had generally been embodied in Private Bills, and after it had been tested by experience it found its way into general Acts. Local government, dependent on local experience and knowledge, would become gradually better if it was placed under no restrictions whatever, because the very essence of local government was variety of experience. The question whether there should be any other limitations on local industrial enterprise or not obviously depended on the circumstances of the particular locality and upon the judgment of the local Council and ratepayers; also on whether private enterprise supplied the necessity or not. With regard to the constitution of this Committee, he must say he thought it most undesirable and inexpedient to submit to any tribunal which had no considerable experience or knowledge of local government a question of this kind, affecting the local government of the whole country. So far as he could see, not more than two of the members had any practical knowledge of municipal government.

Who are they?

It would be more convenient to discuss this on the names of members.

said he intended to refrain from discussing names in any way. He only wished to point out that a Committee dealing with the important questions of local government should be in some of its elements specially qualified by knowledge and experience of local government. He did not think that the Report of a body constituted as this was would have the authority and respect paid to it which it ought to receive. He hoped, indeed, that his fears as to the effect of this inquiry would not be realised, for he would be very sorry that anything should be done to interfere with the development of local government. But they were entitled at that stage to guard themselves against any presumption that the Report when presented would be accepted. He thought the indications were rather to the contrary.

thought the advocates of municipal enterprise were somewhat over-nervous, and that these protests had been overdone. The Committee would not have to deal with the principle which should govern the powers, but with the principle which should govern the granting of powers—a very different thing indeed. Surely it was desirable to adopt some principle in that respect. Was it wise to give powers for municipal trading equally to all corporations, small or large? Large corporations, no doubt, could command a considerable amount of business talent, but small bodies naturally could not. The members of the Committee might be trusted to exercise common sense in the method of their inquiry. His experience on a similar Committee three years ago convinced him of the impartiality with which the Members of both Houses approached these great questions; and he was sure that if that Committee could have reported at the time, its report would have commanded the respect even of those who now sought, before the Committee was properly appointed, to detract from its influence and importance in a most unjustifiable manner.

said that for the first time Parliament was being asked to appoint a Committee to ascertain "principles." That was the duty of Parliament itself, and it could not be delegated to another body. In these circumstances the deliberations of the Committee must be useless, for it would be dictating to Parliament or to some other body whom it was powerless to coerce. The function of a Committee was to ascertain facts and to make practical recommendations. Parliament would certainly say—"We do not want your advice as to principles; that is our business. You look after the facts and practical recommendations; that is all we want you for." He agreed with his hon. friend behind him as to the want of grammar in the Resolution.

said he felt sorry that the grammar of the Resolution should be inaccurate, but he was not responsible, for he had adopted the words from a Resolution passed in 1890. The hon. Member for Halifax asked him as to the manner in which the Committee had been appointed. He consulted with the hon. Member for Leeds, and his suggestion was that the number should be five; and then the hon. Member for East Cork asked that a representative from Ireland should be on it. In 1900 the Committee consisted of three Members from the Government side and two Members of the Opposition—Ireland not being represented at all. Since that time municipal trading had very much increased in Ireland, and therefore Ireland should be represented on the Committee. The hon. Member for Leeds thought it would be very hard for the Liberal Party to be represented only by one Member, therefore the number of the Committee was fixed at seven—four from the Government Benches, two from the Liberal Party and one from the Irish Party. He thought that two out of seven was as fair a proportion as one out of five; or to put it the other way three out of seven was as fair a proportion as two out of five. He had done the best he could to please all parties in the House, and it was not his business to say whether the different representatives were good or bad.

said they all thought it fair that a Member from Ireland should be on the Committee, but under the circumstances that Member should come from that side of the House.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is really discussing the next question to be put. The only way of dealing with that point is to move to strike out a name in order to put in another name.

said that the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to make it easier for local authorities, who had a heavy burden cast upon them by the Education Act of last year, to bring that Act into working order. There was no disguising the fact that the financial conditions in connection with the bringing into operation of that Act were very unpopular and somewhat burdensome. The right hon. Member for Somersetshire had complained at the Second Reading of the Bill that to bring the Act into operation in his county would add 4d. in the £ to the rates. His county, might he say, was in the lap of luxury compared with the principal borough in his constituency. That borough had carried on its educational affairs for years in an excellent manner. It had never had other than voluntary schools, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Church of England, and British, and all the buildings, with one exception, were first-class. The inhabitants naturally asked why they should have been disturbed in their educational proceedings? The answer to that question was that they were being treated in the same manner as all other boroughs. It nevertheless seemed to them very hard indeed that this burden should be placed upon them. The financial year of all their schools ended on 31st March, and the result of the first year's working of the new Education Act was that they had not got a single sixpence of the block grant and only three-fourths of the fee grant; and, left without assistance, they would have to raise a rate of 9d. in the £ over the normal one to carry on the work. What they wanted was that the Government should do something to enable them to tide over the difficulty in the easiest way. The Bill before the Committee would only enable the Local Government Board to sanction a loan for a definite amount for a definite time; but the borough could do its work a great deal cheaper than that. In the early part of the year there were considerable funds in the hands of the education authority and they could get on well enough for four or five months. But as he understood the section of the Bill they must take up the loan—which in the case of the borough he referred to would amount to something approaching £3,000—at once and pay interest on it for the whole year. As hon. Members knew municipal authorities had various accounts and by arrangement with their bankers these were taken en bloc, and no charge for interest was made for an overdraft on one should others be in sufficient credit. In that case it was quite conceivable no interest might be charged to an education authority, and a saving might be effected in his borough of from £500 to £600 over the whole term of borrowing. His Amendment to the first clause of the Bill would, he believed, make the working of the Education Act as easy as possible in the circumstances, and he hoped it would be accepted by the Government on the grounds both of policy and justice. He begged to move.

said he could not help thinking that his hon. friend had moved his Amendment under a misapprehension. In the first, place he had stated on behalf of the local authority he represented, that they would be compelled to take up the whole of the loan at once and consequently would have to pay interest upon it, though they would not require all the money for immediate purposes. His hon. friend was in error. It would only be necessary for the local education authority to take up the loan in such proportion as they required the money for expenditure. If the estimate of the deficit in the borough referred to was £3,000 it would not be necessary for the authority to raise that sum all at once. They could make application as they thought fit for various parts of the loan as they needed them. This would avoid the difficulty to which his hon. friend referred. The other contention of his hon. friend was that the local authority, having various accounts at the bank, some of which were in credit, might be able to borrow the money from the bank without paying any interest on the overdraft. There was nothing to prevent that under the Bill as it stood. They were prepared to make the work of the local authority as easy as they could. He was ready to grant reasonable and fair terms and to consider applications for loans, but the cardinal principle was that of a distinct loan for a definite purpose under the ordinary law, and to adopt the principle of legalising overdrafts was a very unwise step to take. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

said there was a very strong feeling among the boroughs with regard to this question, and as they had supported the principle of making the best of the Bill and the most of the Act, any representations coming from them were entitled to very great respect. The fact of having to make a rate was based upon very sound principles. Financially his hon. friend might say there could be no objection to it, but educationally it would be most prejudicial. It would create prejudice against the operation of the Act, and would have a tendency to alienate the sympathy and interest of the people of the locality in putting the Act into operation. The only effective remedy against borrowing would be the possibility of a surcharge. If a surcharge was the penalty the process of borrowing was open to objection on principle. He thought his right hon. friend rightly asked in this case, which was an exceptional one, that there should be elasticity given to avoid the necessity of laying a rate in the first instance. He thought there was ample protection in the Bill. Having regard to the prejudice which might arise against education owing to a temporary want of means, he thought that borrowing legitimately by a provision in this statute for a temporary purpose, would be amply justified. He supported the feeling expressed by the boroughs.

said that in his constituency there was a School Board which had a large balance in hand raised from the rates in an agricultural district, and naturally they very much objected to being rated by a precept when they already had a balance in hand. What redress had those ratepayers? He wished to know whether, in the event of this Amendment being carried, the borrowing powers could be limited to the area of the county.

said the School Board parish would get the benefit of any balance when the next rate came to be levied, parishes which had funds in hand would be dealt with by the County Councils. He had heard his right hon. friend's answer with some surprise. He understood from the answer given to the County Councils Association that the Government were willing to assist the County Councils in any reasonable way, and among those reasonable ways was that they might be permitted to overdraw their accounts. He could not see why the Local Government Board should throw any obstacle in the way, because his right hon. friend must remember that this position was created by the Government, and therefore they were entitled to all possible consideration, especially remembering the fact that they had to levy an extra rate in consequence. Surely it was not unreasonable that during the last few months of the last financial year they should be allowed to overdraw their accounts when necessary. Under the circumstances, it would be only reasonable for the Local Government Board to sanction this; otherwise they would be at the mercy of the auditors.

said he wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of behaving as well as possible under the circumstances. The circumstances in one case he knew of were, that the County Council was called upon to raise £7,000 for extra expenses incurred under this Act. The County Council had done its best, but it now found itself face to face with the possibility of having to find the money immediately; it would only be reasonable, in granting a loan, that the right hon. Gentleman should do his very best to make the terms as easy as possible for the County Council to obtain the money. Of course they would have to borrow the money by degrees, and they should have as much time as possible given to them to make the payments easy. The money should be provided by the Government at once. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would act wisely if he would grant time, and give County Councils an opportunity of obtaining the money in the most reasonable way.

pointed out that the necessity for raising these sums arose from the way the schools had been treated. Instead of finding them capital, the managers had had to find the money, and would not receive any assistance until the year was over; therefore they would have to wait for their money for a considerable time. The maxim of the right hon. Gentleman was a very sound one, and he agreed that the local authorities ought not to be encouraged to overdraw their banking accounts. This, however, was a very special case, and the local authority had no business to throw upon a subsequent year the cost of services rendered in the existing year. That was a reasonable principle, but in this case the expenditure was entirely unexpected, and it was not for the benefit of the ratepayers of the present year, but had to be spread over a number of years. Therefore, in a case of that kind, it seemed to him that the simple method of allowing the local authorities to overdraw their accounts would be quite sufficient means of enabling them to meet this unexpected and extraordinary expenditure, and he should be very glad if the President of the Local Government Board would consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment.

said it was most unwise to apply the strict rules of finance to matters of this kind. What the counties wanted was not so much a funded debt as a floating debt. But a floating debt was not the way to meet these emergencies. It ought not to be necessary for local authorities to have to take this course. The proper method of dealing with the matter would have been for the Government to have made a special grant to tide over these emergencies, and such a grant might easily have been made by the schools being given their grants at the commencement, instead of the end, of the year. Now a Government Department declined to concur with the local authority in a matter of local government, and at the same time they had neglected to do what they might have done with regard to this matter in the Act of 1902. One of the great acts of omission in that Act was the omission of the question of finance, and now the Government denied to the local authorities the privilege of having an overdraft without being surcharged. If he had regarded this matter from a purely partisan point of view he should not regret the position, because it would only tend to make the Government unpopular, but what he feared was that it would also tend to make the provision of the schools, and the schools themselves, unpopular. What they were applying for now was an aid to the Act of last year, a smoothing of the path, a slight, enabling action to make it possible for the Act and the schools to come more rapidly and smoothly into work than would otherwise be the case. He heartily supported the Amendment.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the advice which had been offered from both sides of the House, and give the local authorities the freedom they all desired. The difficulty in the way of getting this money to start the scheme would act prejudicially to the Bill in rural districts, because this process fell heaviest on the districts in which there were most non-provided schools. The process suggested by his hon. friend was a simpler one than that suggested in the Bill. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give way in this matter.

said the desire of the countryside was to make this Bill a great measure, and to make it work for the benefit of the children. He hoped nothing would be done by the Government to make that more difficult.

thought there must be some misunderstanding with regard to the matter. What was intended by the supporters of this Amendment was that there should be power in the local authority to contract a temporary loan for immediate and pressing purposes. In his reply to the Amendment he thought the object of the Amendment was to substitute a perpetual overdraft for the loan, which would be contrary to the principles of sound finance, and that being so he had intended to resist it. But if he now understood that the object of the Amendment was that there should merely be power in the local authority to meet a pressing necessity by means of a temporary overdraft he would withdraw his opposition.

said the discussion to-day illustrated the great danger of passing Bills without discussing them. The financial part of the Act of 1902 was never discussed, and this was the result. They were starting the local authorities with a great deficit, and that was not a proper thing to do. It was not fair to call upon these local authorities to borrow money and charge themselves with loans and interest and compel them to start with a large deficit when they ought to have started square. He thought the Government should consider the advisability of making some grant in this matter. To enable a local authority to overdraw at the bank was not good finance and might give rise to considerable difficulty. The present position was due to an oversight on the part of the Government, and under the circumstances it was not fair that the County Councils should be made to pay the penalty.

congratulated the Government on having accepted the Amendment in the interest of the County Councils. The operation of the Act was most unequal. The county he represented would get through their difficulties fairly easily owing to the Act having come into operation last October, and to their having already made some arrangements, but with regard to the neighbouring counties it was quite a different matter. The proposal before the Committee would do something to ease the difficulty. If the Councils were allowed to overdraw when necessity arose the difficulty would be largely got over. In principle it might be said to resemble giving the County Councils power to issue bills. Of late years Committees upstairs had been gradually introducing the system of allowing large boroughs to issue bills similar to Treasury bills in the place of the old practice of overdrawing their accounts, which was an objectionable practice to go on permanegtly. The power of temporarily overdrawing was really a somewhat unsatisfactory form of allowing the Councils to do for a limited period for a special purpose that which Parliament was gradually giving large boroughs the power to do, under certain safeguards, in regard to local government finance generally. That being so, he thought they ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment.

said that when the County Councils came to levy these extremely heavy rates they would make the Act very unpopular, hamper education, and aggravate the difficulties which already existed. In his own county the amount required would represent about 4s. in the £ as compared with an average county rate of 8d. He therefore hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be able even now to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter.

joined in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to obtain, if possible, a grant for this particular purpose. The facilities given by the Amendment would relieve certain County Councils to some extent, but, after all, the difficulty in which they were placed was not of their own making. It was important that they should begin with a working balance, and whether they obtained the money on loan account or by an overdraft on their bankers, they would have to pay interest. It was hardly fair that, for a reason which could not be laid at their door, they should be called upon to burden the ratepayers with that additional expense, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to their relief.

joined in reminding the Government of the existence of a very strong feeling in the country that they ought to have found money for the starting of the Act. At the instance of his constituents, who felt very strongly on this matter, he approached the Board of Education some weeks ago, and in reply he received a certain amount of genuine sympathy, but at the same time an intimation that, owing to the great financial embarrassments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Budget, it was impossible to find any more money this year. Of course he accepted the situation, and felt great sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his difficulties, and did his best to quieten his constituents. The Committee would therefore understand his feelings when, only a few weeks afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed them that he was so full of money that he was able, not only to take fourpence off the Income Tax, but also to remit the registration duty on corn. In connection with this he would like to suggest to His Majesty's Government, not only that the money ought to be found for the purpose of financing the Act, but also the source from which it might be derived. The suggestion he wished to make was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should retain the duty on corn for a year and use the money for the purpose of giving the Act a fair start. Then in a year's time, if the Government were still in the same mind with regard to the tax, a contingency which could not be counted on with certainty, there would be plenty of time to remit the tax to obtain any electioneering benefit that might accrue from it. Seriously he pressed upon the Government the desirability of finding the money for the fair starting of the Act of last year, and of removing the great prejudice existing against it in consequence of the financial difficulty that had arisen.

said he had not much sympathy with the appeals that were being made. Hon. Members opposite last year demanded that the County Councils should undertake this work, and they ought now to be prepared to meet the liabilities thereby involved. It had been frankly stated that the main difficulty was caused by so many denominational schools having to be taken over. But the Associations of Voluntary Schools had about £250,000 in hand, and if their schools were to be taken over, why should not the balances be handed over with them? If that were done the difficulty would be entirely met.

said the first of the above Amendments was out of order because it really supposed the local authorities might do things which they certainly could not do. The local education authorities were not responsible for debts contracted by managers, and could not apply money towards their payment. With regard to the second Amendment, the local authority had not to repair the schoolhouses; that was the duty of the managers.

submitted that the Amendment was in order, as the local authorities were liable for wear and tear repairs.

Perhaps the hon. Member will elucidate his Amendment.

said that when he placed the Amendment on the Paper he really meant it to cover all repairs. But, as his hon. friend had pointed out, under the Act of 1902, there was a possibility of the county authority applying money for the wear and tear of the schools, many of which had not been kept up to a proper standard, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might consent to introduce the words he suggested.

said that the local authority would not be able to spend the money in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The only wear and tear the local authority could spend money on was the wear and tear caused by their own use of the schools. It would be very inconvenient if the local authorities were not able to apply the money for a purpose for which they were legally responsible.

said that this section was extremely vague. Was the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman accepted by the Government?

Certainly.

said he would suggest instead of the words "to the purposes of repairing" the words "for the purpose of paying for such repairs in any school-house as may be effected or paid for by the local education authority." That would enable the local authority to pay for repairs for which they were legally responsible.

said that the interpretation of his right hon. friend was the interpretation which the Government placed on the Act of 1902. He hoped that the local authorities would not be hampered in what was undoubtedly a very difficult task. He had been appealed to to endeavour to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help the local authorities in their difficulties; and now it was proposed to limit their powers. The only cost of wear and tear the local authorities would defray would be the wear and tear consequent upon their own occupation and use of the schools. He, therefore, submitted that, while the matter no doubt was not very serious, it would, be undesirable to hamper the local authorities in the manner suggested. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

said he did not know what this meant, and he objected to give a blank cheque of this nature to any Government Department. So far as he was aware there had been no explanation given to the House regarding this matter.

May I interrupt the hon. Member; I think he is under a misapprehension. This is simply a necessary part of a Bill which has already passed the Second Reading. The Bill itself will come before the House in the ordinary way.

thought the Minister in charge should get up and explain a Resolution when it was put forward. This was to authorise expenditure under a Bill which was in the future. Surely the Committee ought to have some estimate of the probable cost.

repeated that this was a necessary part of a Bill which had already passed the Second Reading.

said he recollected that the Bill passed the Second Reading some weeks ago, almost without any attention being given to it. Could the hon. Gentleman state to the Committee what was the estimated cost of the working of the Bill to which the Resolution referred? It was only by getting figures to show what the cost of the Bill was expected to be that they would be able to check expenditure on the Estimates. If on the Estimates the Department was charged with extravagance, the hon. Gentleman would say that the Committee passed this Resolution authorising the expenditure of anything they liked.

said the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Trade had told the Committee that this was a formal matter. It was nothing of the kind. It was a Resolution authorising the Board of Trade to appoint any number of persons they liked. The clause in the Bill was as follows—

"The Board of Trade may (with the concurrence of the Treasury as to number and remuneration) appoint or employ such persons as appear to them to be required for carrying this Act into effect, and the remuneration of such persona, and any other expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."

Consequently, what the Committee was called upon to do was to authorise the Board of Trade to appoint any number of persons they thought might be required, and to declare that the expenses should be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The Committee ought to have some information as to the amount of money involved. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading they were told that the matter of expense could be discussed on the Committee stage, and now on the Committee stage they were told there was to be no consideration at all. His objection to the clause was that it enabled the Board of Trade to do what was tantamount to this—to appoint another whole army of inspectors to see that the alterations which the railway companies made, were done according to the notions of some person at the Board of Trade. It was an addition to the accursed army of inspectors which was treading under its heel the people of this country. He expected that we should have inspectors to see that we all went to bed at ten o'clock, and that we did not play bridge or cast lots. He thought the Government were not treating the Committee with proper respect when they did not even give an estimate of the amount they were going to spend under this Resolution. He hoped the Committee would insist upon a statement from the hon. Gentleman.

said he had another grievance as to the nature of the work expected to be done.

The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill. This is purely a formal matter in order to enable the Committee to discuss this particular clause of the Bill. Supposing this Resolution were not accepted by the Committee, the Committee would not be able to discuss Clause 5 of the Bill. When that clause is reached, that will be the proper time to discuss the number of appointments proposed to be made, and the remuneration of the persons proposed to be appointed, and until this Resolution is passed the Committee is not entitled to consider that at all.

said his grievance was that the Bill was not made applicable to canal companies.

That has nothing to do with this Resolution whatever.

said he was a supporter of the Bill, but he thought the position the Committee was placed in by the Resolution was exceedingly unreasonable. He did not share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for King's Lynn with regard to the possibility of there being a large army of inspectors. He did not think they ought to authorise an unlimited expenditure. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade ought to inform the Committee what he thought was the probable amount of money which would be required under the Bill for the first year.

said that this was a purely formal stage of the Bill, and it was very unreasonable to ask for an estimate of the expense that would be involved. It was not absolutely necessary for the Board of Trade to take any steps. Their action would altogether depend on what was done by the Railway Companies; on the number of Railway Companies which availed themselves of the Act. If no Railway Company applied for the benefit of the Act there would be no expense, and even if one or two applied, he believed that the present staff of the Board of Trade would be quite sufficient to deal with the necessary work which would be thrown upon them by the Act.

said that the restrictions and delays which occurred in the introduction of electric lighting into this country had led to most unfortunate consequences, and he certainly hoped they would not repeat the error in regard to the introduction of electric traction. We were very greatly behind the United States and our own colonies in the matter of electric traction, and the sooner we adopted it the better. That form of energy would be universally applied in a very few years and would be more economical than the present system of traction.

said that he objected to any Resolution being passed in Committee of Ways and Means without having any explanation from the Minister in Charge. This procedure in Committee of Ways and Means was one of the few remaining protections which private Members had against the extravagance of the Government. However, from what the hon. Gentleman had said there was evidently no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to engage a large number of new inspectors without putting the expenditure on the Estimates, and with that assurance he was quite satisfied.

said that in the absence of his hon. friend the Member for East Somerset he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 3 of Clause 1. This was a very valuable Bill in connection with local self government, but he thought that the sub-section which he wished to see deleted was likely to cause very considerable difficulty in the administration of the Act. In fact he thought it would really render the Act nugatory. The relations between the minor and the superior local authorities were very frequently of a somewhat delicate character, and there was apt to be undue jealousy on the part of the minor local authorities at any increase of power being given to the County Councils. The sub-section provided that—

"Where the Local Government Board propose to make a Provisional Order under this section transferring any power, duty, or liability to the Council of the County or county borough, the Board shall give notice to all local authorities who, in the opinion of the Board, are likely to be affected by the transfer, and if within such time as the Board prescribes the majority of those authorities notify to the Board that they object to any such proposed transfer, the Order shall not be proceeded with so far as relates to that transfer, but without prejudice to the power of the Board to propose a new Order."

It seemed to him that where the Local Government Board and the County Council were agreed that the transference of any power was expedient it should not be in the power of the minor local authorities to obstruct it. He begged to move.

said he would point out to his hon. friend that all that the sub-section provided for was that there must be inquiry before the transfer of the powers, and that the minor authorities should have an opportunity of being heard for or against. It was perfectly well known that, in the past, there had been a great deal of friction between the minor and the superior local authorities, and also between them and the central authority. If an attempt was made by the superior local authority to co-operate with the central authority for the transfer of powers to the former without full inquiry, a blow would be struck at minor local government.

expressed the strong hope that the Government would retain this sub-section. It was arrived at by a compromise in the Grand Committee. The Bill enabled powers of the great State Departments to be transferred by Provisional Order to a single County Council and thus affected the claims and interests of the urban councils, boroughs, and other minor authorities. He had himself considered whether some better Amendment could not be devised to secure their interests than the clause, but must confess that he had failed. The clause would prevent any serious hardships and tend to eliminate friction between the County Council and the minor authorities.