To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many applications have been made at the Police Court, Stratford, E., during the last twelve months for certificates of exemption from vaccination, and the number of cases in which certificates have been granted. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Doaglas.) I am informed that no record is kept at the Court referred to of the number of applications. The number of certificates granted during the year ended 30th June, 1903, was 159.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the McKinley Tariff Law is still in force in the United States, and if under it preferential or reciprocity agreements exist with any other, and, if so, with what Governments; and if these preferential or reciprocity treaties deprive the United States Government of most-favoured-nation treatment in other countries; and, further, if he has any reports showing their effect upon the export trade of America with the United Kingdom or other foreign nations. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to the first Question is in the negative. The present Customs Law is that of 24th July, 1897, and is known as the Dingley Tariff. Under this law reciprocity agreements have been concluded with France, Germany, Portugal, and Italy. The answer to the fourth Question is, so far as I am aware, in the negative. We have no reports on the point mentioned in the last Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state what stops the Board propose to take to give effect to the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury made on 7th July, 1902, namely, that the Government were of opinion that a student in a University hostel should have the same contribution paid to him on behalf of the Exchequer as a student in a residential training college.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the increased grants which the Board of Education has undertaken to pay to those students of day training colleges who are inmates of hostels will be payable to such students of the Cambridge Day Training College as are members of the colleges of the University. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The increased grants mentioned will be paid to such students of the Cambridge Day Training College as are members of a college of the University.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolutions of certain County Councils whereby it is proposed to contribute nothing but the Government Grants to the maintenance of the voluntary schools within their area, and to apply the produce of the county rate levied for educational purposes over the entire county towards the support of county schools only; and what steps he proposes to take. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) My attention has been called to the resolutions mentioned. It is the duty of every County Council to maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within its area. The rate and the Government Grant together constitute the fund at the disposal of a County Council for this purpose. The standard of efficiency at which all public elementary schools are maintained must be alike, unless special educational reasons can be shown for a distinction. The action proposed in the resolutions would therefore be in contravention of the Act.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that three out of the five vaccinated children under five years of age who have been attacked by smallpox during the present epidemic in Liverpool, and whom the Liverpool medical officer of health alleged at a meeting of the Liverpool Health Committee on the 21st May last had been imperfectly vaccinated, were vaccinated by two of the public vaccinators appointed by the Liverpool Select Vestry; whether the local authority is entitled to recover these fees from the public vaccinators; and whether he will issue a definition of perfect vaccination with a view to a better understanding on this point between the medical officer of health and the Liverpool public vaccinators. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn by the Local Anti-Vaccination League to the three cases referred to in the Question, and I have communicated with the clerk to the Select Vestry of the parish of Liverpool on the subject. As to one of the cases, the clerk informs me that there is no record of it in the vaccination registers or in the workhouse books of the parish. The other two cases appear to have been vaccinated by public vaccinators of the parish, and, according to the vaccination registers, successful vesicles were produced by the operations. In one of the two cases the child is in the hospital. In the other case the parents have removed and their address is at present unknown; but I understand that in both cases further inquiries will, if possible, be made at the instance of the Vestry. Upon the information before me I am not prepared to say that the public vaccinators were not entitled to fees in these cases. The instructions issued by the Local Government Board to public vaccinators direct that in all ordinary cases of primary vaccination the public vaccinator should aim at producing four separate good sized vesicles or groups of vesicles, not less than half an inch from one another. The instructions state further that the total area of vesiculation resulting from the vaccination should not be less than half a square inch. It does not appear to me that I can do anything further with the view of meeting the point referred to in the last part of the Question.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the general desire expressed by local authorities throughout the Kingdom, he will state when he will introduce the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Looking to the period of the session, and to the other legislation proposed by the Government, I fear it will not be practicable to proceed with the measure referred to this year.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and Foreign Countries will be circulated. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Low.) The Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom and the Colonies are usually issued about October and December respectively. Every effort will be made to publish these Abstracts as early as possible, but they cannot be issued until the requisite data are available. The Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries will probably be issued in September or October.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount and total value of our exports to foreign countries of woollen goods, of cotton goods, and of cutlery respectively in 1872; and what were the corresponding figures for 1902 (or for 1901 if 1902 are not available). (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The values of our exports of the groups of

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantity of parchment coffee-husk imported into the United Kingdom in 1902, the country or countries from which imported, and the use to which the material is put. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Low.) The value of the parchment coffee-husk imported into the United Kingdom in 1902 was £1,870, exclusively from Germany. I understand that this material is used for packing purposes.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can say what reduction, if any, was made in the American railway freight on wheat last year; and, if so, by what companies it was made and between which places.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under a notification recently issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, a druggist will not be allowed to sell the smallest quantities of pills, powders, mixtures, or other form of medicine without attaching to every descriptive label, either written or printed, a 1½d. stamp; whether the Board has considered the extra cost to the poor of this additional charge, or the danger of selling drugs unlabelled; and whether, in view of the interests of the poorer classes and of the public safety, the Board will, still in accordance with their former intimation, recognise the necessity for giving to a preparation such a designation or name as shall distinguish it from other medicines and attribute some further meaning to such words as cough mixture, liver pills, lip salve, teething powders, corn paint etc. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The change in the Board's practice has been rendered necessary by the decision of the High Court in the recent case of Ransom v. Sanguinetti, the effect of which is to render liable to the Medicine Stamp Duty any preparation sold under a description which refers only to the ailment which it is intended to remedy e.g., cough mixture. But payment of duty will not be required in respect of a preparation which bears upon the label an indication of its ingredients, such as will bring the article within the scope of the special exemption in favour of known, admitted, and approved remedies, sold by duly qualified persons, as interpreted by the recent decision in the case of Farmer v. Glyn Jones.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Board of Inland Revenue have notified chemists that after 30th September they will be no longer permitted to sell to customers small packages bearing a descriptive title unless a medicine stamp of the value of 1½d. is affixed to each package even though the value of such package, be only 1d. or 2d.; and whether, seeing that the alternative will be for chemists to sell all packages without any descriptive title, he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent, in the one event, so high a tax being placed on chemists and their customers; and, in the other, to guard the public against danger. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to Question 49, of to-day's date, on the same subject.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury to state what steps he intends to take to preserve the ruins of the ancient cathedral at Ardagh, which the local vestry have refused to do anything to preserve, although the Board of Works, the County Council, and the Church representative body have all agreed that these ancient ruins should be preserved. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The ruins are not vested in the Board of Works, but in the representative Church body, and as the local vestry object to their transfer, neither the Treasury nor the Board of Works are in a position to take steps for the preservation of the ruins.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland to state the number of estates for sale under the Ashbourne and other purchase Acts at present pending for sale to the tenants of County Longford. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) There are no applications for purchase pending in the County Longford under the Acts of 1885 and 1888. Under the Acts 1891–1896 there are seventy-two applications still pending in the county, which embrace holdings on ten estates. These are in various stages towards completion.

To ask the Postmaster - General whether he can state the reasons for the delay on telegraph messages from Dublin in connection with the motor race on 2nd July; whether he can also state the amount of money received for Press telegrams on this occasion, and the cost of the special arrangements in connection with the race. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I much regret to find that in spite of the special arrangements that were made serious delay occurred in the transmission of telegrams between Dublin and London on the occasion of the automobile race on 2nd July. I am investigating the cause. Particulars of the receipts and expenditure on the occasion are not at present available.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the paragraph in the last Report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland in which the Board asserts its opinion that Loan Fund legislation upon broad lines is still necessary, as it was in the year 1855, when a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported in favour of legislation having a tendency to secure more regular and business-like attention to their duties on the part of the treasurers and trustees of each society; and whether, seeing that recommendations similar to the above have been repeatedly made by the Loan Fund Board since the year 1855, he will explain why the Government have not made any attempt to legislate in accordance with the recommendations of the Board. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not for me to explain the inaction of previous Governments over a period extending so far back as 1855. But I may be permitted to point out that the present Government a few years ago introduced and passed a Bill, the object of which was to meet the most pressing of the difficulties of the Loan Fund system, That legislation secured satisfactory results. It was stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland on the 15th,^* and again on the 22nd June, † that the

^* See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 953.

† See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 52.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the circumstances under which three persons named Stapleton, Delany, and Carroll, were arrested at Borrisoleigh, in the County Tipperary, what is the charge against them, and at what hour of the night the arrests were effected, and by whom; and whether, seeing that the Crown have since obtained an order from the King's Bench Division changing the venue in the trial of these men to the County of the City of Cork, and that this order was obtained under the provisions of the 4th section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that the Crown afterwards obtained an order that the trial should take place before a special jury, he will state whether any notice of these motions was given to the accused, and when this part of the county was proclaimed under the 5th section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act to enable this course to be adopted, and if he can state what Judge of the High Court will try the accused at the forthcoming commission in Cork. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The case is pending for trial. I cannot therefore enter into the question of the circumstances which led to the arrests, as these may be contested on the hearing. The arrests were made at four o'clock on the morning of the 17th April last. The orders for a special jury and change of venue were obtained in strict compliance with the provisions of the statute. No notice was given of the applications for the order, as none is required to be given; but copies of the orders were served on the prisoners on the 30th May. The 3rd and 4th sections of the statute were put in force in this part of the County Tipperary by proclamation dated the 16th April, 1902. The Judges who will preside at the ensuing Cork Assizes are the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Barton, either of whom may try the case.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the case of James Griffin, Private 4th Battalion Royal Garrison Regiment, Keg. No. 4,172, discharged on the 12th May, 1903, as medically unfit for further service, his character on discharge being good; and whether, seeing that this man served fourteen years in the regular Army and nine in the militia, and in view of his health and circumstances, some pension will be given him. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) This man served with the Colours for less than nine years, and was discharged for dementia, medically certified as not the result of service or climate, and as having been aggravated by intemperance and misconduct. It was also stated that if he did not have a relapse he would shortly be able to earn a full livelihood. His case has been fully considered, but it is not one in which a pension could be granted.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he can state the number and value of Canadian cattle imported into the United States from Canada, and the rate of duty charged by the United States thereon; whether the Canadian Government has addressed to the Home Government any remonstrances of recent date on the obstacles placed on the importation of Canadian cattle into this country; and, if so, what reply has been made to such remonstrances. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) During the year ended 30th June, 1902, Canada exported to the United States cattle one year old or less to the number of 10,124, and the value of 124,497 dollars, and cattle over one year old to the number of 21,619, and the value of 663,367 dollars. The United States duty on cattle less than a year old is 2 dollars per head, and on all other cattle, if valued at not more than 14 dollars per head, 3·75 dollars per head; if valued at more than 14 dollars per head, 27½ per cent. ad valorem. The Canadian Ministers made personal representations to the late President of the Board of Agriculture last year on the subject of the restrictions imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle, but I understand that no hope was held out to them that His Majesty's Government would propose any modification of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, which prohibits the importation of live cattle except for slaughter at the port of landing.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the importance of securing a commercial and strategic waterway connecting the West of Scotland with the new naval base on the Firth of Forth, any steps have now been taken to examine the possibility of enlarging the existing Forth and Clyde Canal on the lines of the recently executed Kiel Canal; and, if not, if the question could be examined and a report made as to the cost and time required for the execution of such a work.

No steps have been taken of the nature referred to in the Question, and there is no intention of expending naval funds in the manner suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to say whether a training vessel will visit Loch-broom, Ross-shire, this summer.

I am not yet able to give a definite reply to the hon. Member, as the programmes for the coming cruises will not be drawn up until the middle of next month, but the undertaking given by my hon. friend that the question of a visit to Lochbroom shall receive consideration will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any, and, if so, how many, Boer prisoners of war in Ceylon; and what is the intention of the Government with reference to the return of these men to their homes in South Africa.

I understand that there are at present six prisoners of war in Ceylon. They will not be allowed to return to the Transvaal or Orange River Colony unless they take the oath or make the declaration of allegiance to His Majesty.

Are these men actually detained in prison, or are they allowed personal liberty in Ceylon?

I should say a qualified liberty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a land settlement scheme in the Transvaal initiated or proposed by the Government or a Mr. W. Carlis, whereby Mr. Carlis is to obtain half profits of the labour of certain white settlers now in a helpless condition for want of funds, who are to be handed over to him on terms of forced labourers; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Government of the Transvaal is pledged to a philanthropic treatment of these indigent whites, why is an undertaking of land settlement not carried out departmentally instead of being entrusted to a commercial gentleman for the purposes of profit. And what arrangements, if any, have been made by the Transvaal Government for the supervision of the treatment of the indigent settlers placed under the control of Mr. Carlis.

I have no knowledge of the scheme to which the hon. Member refers. Full information with regard to the schemes of Burgher settlement which appear to be referred to will be found at pages 65 and following of Cd. 1551 and pages 14 and following of Cd. 1553.

That answer does not give me much information.

But the Papers will.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress has been made with the establishment of a system of electric traction on the Metropolitan District Railway.

The Metropolitan District Railway Company inform me that the railway between Mill Hill Park and South Harrow—a distance of about six miles—has been regularly worked by electric traction since Sunday, June 26th. The Company add that the working of the main line by electric traction depends upon the date of the completion of the Power House at Lots Road, Chelsea, which is being pressed forward with the greatest possible speed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made further inquiry regarding the closing of mills in manufacturing districts, owing to the operations of the cotton trust; if so, whether he can state how many hands are partially disemployed and the wages value of such disemploy-ment; and whether he will make inquiry as to the precautions taken in other countries to prevent gambling in produce.

I have no information to give to the hon. Member beyond that contained in my answer to his Question on the 1st instant.^* As I

^* See (4) Debates; cxxiv., 1026.

I beg, there being no Minister directly in charge of the fishing interest in this House, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that about 50 tons of good and wholesome fish were destroyed at Billingsgate during the first three days of last week, and that on one day recently 30 tons were similarly lost for human food at a Scottish port; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps in the matter; and can he also state the total quantities of fish so destroyed during 1902 in England and Scotland, respectively, specifying out of the total the amount condemned as unfit for food.

I am informed that owing to the sudden heat a large amount of fish had to be destroyed at Billingsgate on the 27th June, and that owing to the impossibility of disposing of it in any other way about 40 tons had to be sold for manure at Aberdeen on the same day. The Board of Trade have no power to prevent such destruction, and I have no information as to the total amount of fish destroyed in England and Scotland.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman cannot provide greater facilities for distribution to the markets in order to prevent similar waste.

The waste at Billingsgate was due to the fish not being wholesome; that at Aberdeen to fish arriving on Saturday night in such large quantities that it could not be sold.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a Return showing the yearly total value of imports and exports during the last severity years; and whether he can give coals separately in tonnage and value.

So far as the figures are available the hon. Member will find the particulars he requires for the years from 1830 to 1840 inclusive in Parts VIII. and X. of the "Tables of the Revenue, Population, Commerce, etc., of the United Kingdom," and for subsequent years in the "Reprint of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom" for 1840 to 1854, issued in 1870, and in the 17th, 19th, 34th and 49th issues of the same publication. The values of imports before 1854 cannot be compared with those after that date owing to a change in the mode of valuation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant the Returns appearing on to-day's Notice Paper regarding cotton, woollen, and iron goods.

The information which the hon. Member desires will involve great labour on the part of the Department, and I must ask him to be good enough to give sufficient notice to enable the matter to be properly considered in connection with other requests for information of a kindred nature. If the hon. Member will communicate with me in a week's time, I shall then be able to give him a definite reply. Appended are the notices referred to in the Question:—1. Mr. Matthew Ridley—Cotton—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total consumption of cotton in the United Kingdom, with particulars of the chief sources of supply; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures from the United Kingdom to foreign countries, to self-governing colonies, to India, and to other British Possessions; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures into the United Kingdom; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total consumption of cotton; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures, giving separately the amount of such imports from the United Kingdom. 2. Mr. Matthew Kidley—Woollen Goods—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of woollen manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures to foreign countries, self-governing colonies, India, and other British Possessions; (3) total imports of woollen manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of woollen manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures, giving separately the quantities and values of such imports from the United Kingdom. 3. Mr. Matthew Ridley—Iron and Steel—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures to foreign countries, to self-governing colonies, to India, and to other British Possessions; (3) total imports of iron and steel manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures, giving separately the quantities and values of such imports from the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, is he aware that in 1901 sea fish of British take was landed in the United Kingdom of the value of £9,046,554, and that in 1902 diamonds to the value of £5,380,390 were exported from the Cape of Good Hope to the United Kingdom, and that neither of these two sums is included in the total value of all imports given in any published official statistics, and will he explain why this is. Are there any other articles imported into the United Kingdom the value whereof is omitted from the total value of all imports published in the statistics in question; and, if so, what are they?

Fresh fish of British taking imported in British ships are exempt from report and entry under the Customs Statutes, and consequently the Board of Customs have no data for compiling-statistics on the subject. I understand that particulars are prepared and published by the Board of Trade. I doubt if freshly caught fish could properly be described as imports either from a foreign country or a British possession. The Returns of the importation of diamonds are very imperfect, but the figure which my hon. friend quotes as regards imports from Capo Colony is already given in a note on page 39 of Volume I. of the Annual Statement of Trade. Whether this figure should be included in the total of imports is worth considering, and I will see that it receives attention; but the information would in any case be incomplete. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the Abstract Tables at the commencement of the Annual Statement exclude bullion and specie, and also foreign merchandise transhipped under bond.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, is he aware that up to 1853 a general Customs duty was levied in the United Kingdom of 5s. per cwt. on turbot and on soles of foreign take, while soles of British take were admitted free; and do His Majesty's Government, as part of the inquiry now being conducted, propose to inquire into the advisability of giving to British fishermen the advantages of a preferential tariff by re-imposing the fish duties.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph I cannot add anything to the statements which have been made on the question by the Prime Minister.

Notwithstanding the view which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward it seems that fish is regarded as an import. In the previous answer he denied that it is chargeable.

What I said was that freshly caught fish could hardly be called imports from foreign countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great exception is taken to foreign fish coming here free whilst our cargoes are subject to heavy imposts abroad?

I have heard that statement with regard to all other kinds of goods.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the inquiry which it is understood the Cabinet is now making into the fiscal policy of the Empire, any questions will be put to Colonial Governments suggesting the desirableness of proportionate contribution to the cost of Imperial defence; and if not, whether, having regard to the burden of Imperial defence placed upon the taxpayers of the British Isles, he will consider the desirability of submitting the expediency of such contribution as part of the inquiry now being prosecuted.

It seems entirely premature to make any statement as to what suggestion should or should not be made to our self-governing colonies.

Do I understand that the suggestion in the first part of my Question is accurate?

I will read the answer again. (Answer again read.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system will embrace the conditions of tenure under which British tenant farmers hold their farms and the possibility of their position being worsened by their rents being raised against them in consequence of the proposed increase in the price of corn: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system the question will be considered of the effect on the agricultural industry if permanent pasture in this country be broken up in consequence of an increase in the price of corn, and if ultimately such land should fail to be profitable for corn-growing purposes owing to the development of corn-growing areas in the Colonies.

I am afraid I have no information to give to the hon. Gentleman in reply to his Questions. They appear to be purely hypothetical, and the hypotheses on which the hon. Gentleman has proceeded seem to me, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather fantastic.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to include in the inquiry on fiscal arrangements the present system of preferential rates to imported goods and produce; and whether the Railway Department of the Board of Trade will make inquiries and report upon the matter.

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the proceedings of the conferences between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of self-governing colonies, which took place in June to August, 1902, have hitherto been treated as confidential, and that only the statements made by His Majesty's Government thereat and the various Resolutions passed were made public, will His Majesty's Government publish the full report of the proceedings of these conferences, setting forth the special difficulties and considerations which affected the members of the conference in the practical consideration of the different subjects, before inviting public discussion of the proposals embodied in certain Resolutions therein agreed to relative to preferential trade within the Empire.

Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to refer him to an answer given by my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to the hon. Member for Dundee on June 19th. It is to the effect that the matter was fully considered at the time, and that the Government are not aware of any circumstances which have arisen likely to induce the gentlemen who objected to publication to modify their views.

was understood to ask if some such course was not desirable in view of the discussion now going on in the country.

This is not a new subject at all. The Blue-book has long been in the hands of Members, and having been published and circulated, is of course open to discussion.

May I ask whether the unpublished account of the proceedings will be laid before the Cabinet in the course of the inquiry which it is undertaking?

There are no secrets of this kind kept from the Cabinet.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make inquiry and consider the advisability of simplifying the form of income tax returns to be filled by traders, and of modifying the present practice of calculating future hypothetical profits as a basis of income tax assessments.

I shall be glad to consider any practical suggestions on this point, but the present Form has been very carefully revised within the last two years, and I doubt if it is possible to simplify it further than has already been done. An explanatory Memorandum is now issued with it, which I hope may be an aid to the reading and the understanding of the Form. If the hon. Member would look at this Memorandum he would see that traders are not required to make a calculation of future hypothetical profits, but are directed to base their return on their ascertained profits for the three years immediately preceding the year of assessment.

Is it not the fact that traders are still required in the month of November or December to furnish a return of their profits for the year ending the following 31st March?

I do not see how that could be.

If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the information will he inquire?

Certainly.

I can do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. J. C. Compton, the presiding magistrate at the Police Court, Stratford, E., recently refused to grant to Charles Crossley, of Byrom Avenue, East Ham, a certificate of exemption from vaccination, notwithstanding the fact that Crossley asserted that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child; and will he have some inquiry made with a view to ascertain why applicants at the Stratford Police Court are unable to obtain certificates of exemption from vaccination.

I am informed that the application for a certificate of exemption was carefully considered, but that the applicant did not satisfy the Court, as required by the Act, of his conscientious belief that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child. The fact that 159 certificates were granted during the past year at this Court shows that it is not the case that certificates are systematically refused.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Railway Companies' Conference have refused to allow a patented humane cattle car to run over their systems in Great Britain; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to enable and encourage a more humane system of live stock laud transit to be introduced in the three kingdoms.

The Board of Agriculture have not recently received any information as to the views entertained by the railway companies as to the merits of the car to which the hon. Member refers, which I think we are right in assuming is the car patented by Mr. John Rooth in 1894 and 1895 and now the property of the Humane Cattle Car and Ship Fittings Co., Ltd. We are always very glad to receive any suggestions for the protection of animals from suffering during inland transit, but we have no power to prescribe the use of a particular wagon. I may add that in 1901 the car in question was examined independently by the carriage and wagon superintendents of the railway companies represented on the Cheshire Lines Committee, who found themselves unable to recommend its adoption.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will arrange that a police ambulance shall be stationed at the west end of Rotten Row, and thus obviate the delay incurred in obtaining the police ambulance from Hyde Park Police Station; and whether he will arrange for the St. John's ambulances to be removed from their present positions in Hyde Park and for the police ambulances to be substituted.

In answer to the first paragraph I am to say that there is already an ambulance stationed at the Alexandra Gate near the west end of Rotten Row, in order to obviate the delay of sending to the Hyde Park Police Station. The First Commissioner is making arrangements for an inspection of both types of ambulance by a medical expert, who will advise whether it is desirable to adopt the police ambulance in place of those now in use.

Why not consider the desirability of obviating the necessity for ambulances by improving the state of the roads?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet received a report as to the extent of damage sustained by the breakwater at Port of Ness, Island of Lewis, through the storm of the 28th February last; and will he say whether any decision has yet been arrived at in regard to its repair.

The Secretary for Scotland has received a report as to the damage sustained by the breakwater. The question as to repairs of breakwater and pier must be considered together, and in connection with other expenditure which may be suggested in the Island of Lewis.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the use of humanised vaccine lymph has been discontinued in England on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that during the year 1902 the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland supplied on application from parochial vaccinators in various parts of Scotland 312 tubes of humanised lymph, will he consider the expediency of issuing a circular to parochial vaccinators throughout Scotland recommending the use of glycerinated calf lymph.

The proportion of calf lymph issued by the Vaccine Institution in Scotland shows that the use of that lymph is increasing, and the Secretary for Scotland after consulting the Local Government Board is of opinion that under all the circumstances it is not at present necessary to issue any circular on the subject. Parochial vaccinators have complete discretion in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Judge Carton received white gloves at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the County Clare, the proclamation of certain districts under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will now be withdrawn.

It is somewhat irregular to make a statement in anticipation of a more official announcement. But since the hon. Member postponed his Question at my request, perhaps I may say that action is contemplated in the direction which he favours.

That is a very satisfactory announcement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the report issued by the county surveyor for County Mayo, at the request of the Mayo County Council, on the condition of certain piers and harbours along the coast, notably those at Glare Island, Louisburgh, and Mallaranny; and whether, seeing that, in order to render them of use to the public, the county surveyor recommended that certain improvements be effected, he will see that those improvements are carried out.

No, Sir. The report has not been forwarded to the Government. Until this has been done I cannot make any observations upon it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board can state how many houses have been built, and how many farms have been formed out of the grazing lands in the neighbourhood of Lung, adjacent to the Dillon Estate; what has been the cost of this transaction; what was the tine required from prospective tenants; and how many tenants have been put into occupation of these houses and lands.

Fourteen houses and fourteen holdings. The cost of the buildings was £1,472. No tenants are yet in occupation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would lay upon the Table the notes of evidence taken by the Local Government inspector at the recent inquiry into the nursing question at Granard Union.

The notes of evidence taken at this inquiry form a very voluminous document extending to 200 pages. The cost of printing the notes would be considerable, and there does not appear to be any special reason for incurring the expense, the more especially as the notes have already been forwarded by the Local Government Board to the local authority. If, however, the hon. Member desires a copy of the notes I will direct that one be forwarded him.

I shall be much obliged for them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works can state when they received from the Local Government Board their sanction of a loan to the Boyle No. 1 District Council for the construction of waterworks in Boyle; and can he explain the delay that has arisen in the issuing of this loan.

The delay was caused by the fact that the Rural Council did not reply till the 16th June to a letter from the Board of Works of the 18th May making inquiry on an essential point. So far as the Board of Works is concerned the case has been exceptionally hastened, having been specially submitted for Treasury sanction.

Who is the Chairman of the Rural District Council?

I cannot say without notice.

Is he removable?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in several cases of appeals last year at the Custom House, Dublin, to the Income Tax Commissioners in Ireland, they refused to go into cases in which the Returns had not been previously furnished, but confirmed the assessment without inquiry; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions to ensure that appeals shall be heard in the absence of previous Returns in future in Ireland as well as in Great Britain.

The meaning of the hon. Member's Question is not clear. If by "Returns," he means "Returns for Assessment" (Form No. 11), the Special Commissioners never refuse to go into cases on appeal, on the ground that such "Return" had not been made by an appellant. If by "Returns," he means the Accounts necessary to enable the Special Commissioners to ascertain the correct liability, those accounts should be supplied prior to the hearing of the appeal at the date and in the form required by the precept issued to the appellants in such cases. The law and the practice in regard to these points are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that it took four hours to send a telegram from the scene of the automobile race to London; and, if so, will he state whether any special arrangements had been made by the Dublin office to provide extra clerks for despatches, Press and otherwise, on this occasion; whether there is any breakdown in the cable connecting the two countries; and what steps he intends taking to prevent such delay.

Special arrangements were made for dealing with the telegraphic traffic on the occasion of the automobile race, but I much regret to find that serious delay occurred in the transmission of telegrams between Ballyshannon and London. I am investigating the cause.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to explain the cause of delay in the delivery of telegrams between London and Dublin, and Loudon and parts of rural Ireland; whether he can explain how it was that on Tuesday, 30th June, a telegram sent from Churton Street, London, to Long ford at 11 a.m. was not delivered till 3 p.m., whereas a later telegram sent from Fleet Street at 1.30 p.m. was delivered to same address half-an-hour before the other wire was received there; will he state is the delay due to mechanical difficulties or breakdowns, or due to atmospheric conditions, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I am having special inquiry made with regard to the transmission of telegrams between Ireland and London, but I may say at once that there does not appear to be anything like the delay which the Question of the hon. Member implies. The only telegram answering his description which can be traced as having been handed in at Churton Street on the 30th ultimo was handed in at 11.26, and reached Longford at 12.8. If the hon. Member is satisfied that its delivery was delayed for three hours at Longford, I shall be glad if he will supply me with all the information in his possession, so that I may make full inquiry into the circumstances.

I will do so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will state how the case stands in the matter of the Irish cold ornaments, and whether they are likely soon to be transferred to Ireland.

I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of Mr. Justice Farwell's declaration that the Celtic ornaments in the British Museum are the property of the Crown, arrangements will now be made to have them placed in the Dublin Museum.

These gold ornaments have been declared by the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell to be treasure trove, and therefore the property of the Crown. In these circumstances, His Majesty has been graciously pleased to express the wish that they should be presented as a free gift to the treasurer of the Irish Academy, and His Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury have accordingly given instructions that His Majesty's wishes should be carried out.

The First Lord has made an extremely satisfactory announcement, which will be received with much pleasure in Ireland. I take the opportunity of conveying to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Chief Secretary our thanks for the attitude which they have taken up. I am sure their action will be regarded with much satisfaction by the Irish representatives. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will arrange that these ornaments shall be brought down to the tea-room of the House, so that hon. Members who have no other opportunity may be enabled to see them?

I will consider the point, but I am not sure that the policy which the hon. Baronet recommends is not rather a condemnation of that which I have tried to promote. He apparently thinks that if these ornaments once go to Ireland they would be buried from public sight.

We want some of you to see them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his gratifying statement, whether the transference of these ornaments to Ireland does not fulfil the object of the Bill which I introduced six years ago, and whether, in view of that, the Government will, in order to save time and the expense of lawsuits, treat my future Bills with more consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it has cost the Treasury to decide to whom these ornaments belonged?

No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without notice. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for East Clare, I am afraid that I cannot carry in my mind all the legislative projects with which he has been associated, but I will give the matter my close attention.

It will be useful to the Government if the right hon. Gentleman does so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, and, if so, when, the Government will afford facilities for the introduction and passage through this House of a Bill to amend the law relating to contempt of Court in Ireland.

May I at the same time ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether his attention has been directed to the condition of the law regarding imprisonment for contempt of Court; and whether the Government will consider the necessity of bringing in a Bill to regulate and define the powers to be exercised by a Judge in such cases.

I do not make any assertions as to the law on this subject being perfect in its present state, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation on the subject in the course of the present session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to afford an opportunity for the discussion of a measure proposing to remedy the defects and powers existing under the present terminable leasehold system of tenure if a Bill dealing with this subject is introduced by a private Member.

I regret I cannot encourage the idea of opportunity being found for the discussion of a private Member's Bill at this period of the session, and even if I were not barred by that consideration I could not give an answer in respect of a Bill which I have not yet had the advantage of seeing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a Bill dealing with this subject has been introduced for the last ten years?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix the date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes.

I cannot fix a date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes, but my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will very shortly bring the measure in.

As there have been several changes during the last two days perhaps the Leader of the House will say now what business will be taken in the next few days.

The Education Estimates will be taken to-morrow, and the Scottish Licensing Bill on Friday. On Monday the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill will be taken, followed by the Scottish Licensing Bill, if that measure is not concluded on Friday. On Tuesday, the London Education Bill will be taken.

May I point out that the Scottish Licensing Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, has only been delivered to hon. Members this morning. It is an elaborate Bill, or rather an amalgamation of two Bills that have been greatly changed, and the public of Scotland will have no opportunity of informing Members of the views held in that country upon it, if the measure is taken on Friday. I do not wish to put any impediment in the way of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman will see it can only go down to Scotland to-night.

Will the Sugar Convention Bill be taken next week?

I think it is very improbable that the Sugar Convention Bill will be taken next week; in any case not in the earlier part of the week. As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate his point, but it is extremely difficult, I am afraid, in the general position of business to say what we can substitute for the Scottish Bill on Friday. I am quite willing, however, to consider the matter.

The Bill is exciting great interest in Scotland, and it is only fair that the Scottish people should have a chance of seeing it in its amended form before we further deal with it. What will be taken after the Education Vote on Thursday?

Civil Service Estimates, Class 2, Scotch Votes.

Will the South African Loan and War Contribution Bill be taken to night?

No, Sir.

May I ask whether in the event of the Irish Land Bill passing through Committee to-night, the right hon. Gentleman can say when the Report stage will be taken? We all recognise that a reasonable interval is necessary, but it is right to say that there is a very strong feeling on the Irish benches that there ought to be no long delay, and that the Report stage ought to be taken as soon as possible, so that the measure can go to the House of Lords at the earliest possible date.

I cannot give any pledge to the hon. Member, but of course I will bear in mind any considerations which he may bring before me.

I will repeat my Question in a couple of days.

said that since he had put down this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had brought forward a new clause which went far in the direction of helping the labourers. What he desired to secure was that when an estate was for sale the Land Commissioners should among other things inquire as to the necessity for housing the labourers. Under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.

said that with regard to the next Amendment standing in his name, the object was to ascertain if there was power to build cottages for labourers in towns which were not urban districts, and for labourers living on the outskirts of towns. This was a matter of some importance. In some cases the free grant from the Exchequer had been accumulating for some years. In Roscommon, the annual grant was £837, in Leitrim, £445, in Longford, £276, in Sligo, £657, and in Mayo, £944. His contention was, that the labourers living on the outskirts of these towns should not be deprived of the right of getting cottages.

said the Acts did not apply to urban districts.

said there was nothing in this Bill which would make anything like a settlement of the labourers question.

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the clause as a whole.

said it was not his intention to do that. All he wished to do was to ask whether it was intended under the circumstances to go on with the labourers' clauses in the Bill?

said he had at an earlier stage of the discussion, made a statement on this very important question. He did not say that these clauses were a satisfactory settlement of the labourers question, which must hereafter be dealt with. Not only was it a large and complicated question, dependent on finance, local government and other questions, but alternative methods of dealing with it were recommended by different sections of the House. He had therefore come, with the greatest regret, to the conclusion that it would not be possible to deal with the subject, as it should be dealt with, in this Bill. It was, however, desirable to retain the labourers' clauses, as they were of some value.

said that in asking leave to withdraw his three Amendments he must point out that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board took a different view of the law from that stated by the Attorney-General.

moved to leave out two restrictions in the clause—namely, that the term "agricultural labourer" should not include any person working for hire whose wages did not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, and who was in occupation of land exceeding one quarter of an acre. He believed that no fewer than 15,000 houses had been built under these Acts, and of these 4,000 at least were held by persons who occupied more than a quarter of an acre of land. If this restriction were insisted upon the District Councils would have to remove a large number of labourers from the occupation of the cottages.

said the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that this was a complete definition. It was only a supplementary one and would not affect those now held to be entitled to the benefits of the Act.

Time should not be taken up with absurdities of this kind.

retorted that a good deal of time was wasted the other day by the absurd speeches of the hon. and learned Member, and again last night as to whether £500 should be given to a certain Commissioner, and as to the procedure in a Court in which he practised, but of which he appeared to be ignorant. Was he to take it that labourers now entitled to the benefits of the Act would not be excluded by reason of this definition?

They will not.

hoped it would be made perfectly clear. The clause did not to his mind state that with sufficient clearness. He thought that it ought to be made perfectly clear that this was an addition and not an exclusion in the case of any labourer who had obtained, or would be entitled to obtain, a cottage and land under the Labourers Acts as they now are. The incorporation of the amount of wages he thought was a mistake. As a matter of fact, he did not know whether the 2s. 6d. mentioned meant 2s. 6d. for every day in the year, or whether it meant an average daily wage of 2s. 6d.; if it did not mean that they would certainly have many men excluded from the operation of this clause, because although in harvest time many men earned more than 2s. 6d. a day, in other times they did not earn so much.

said words would be introduced to show that it was the average daily wage that was intended.

said that would satisfy him so far as the agricultural labourers were concerned, but the case of rural tradesmen was not met by this provision, and he therefore thought that the limit should be extended so far as they were concerned to 3s. 6d. a day; that would cover the case of the rural tradesmen, and unless that were done he should suggest that the whole of the restriction should be left out.

said the position of those who, like himself, had a large number of labourers in their constituencies was most unsatisfactory, and he would like to know how the Chief Secretary intended to deal with this matter. He did not wish to waste the time of the Committee by discussing an Amendment which would not be accepted, but it was important that the labourers question should be settled, and he asked whether the subject would be dealt with by further legislation, and whether the Chief Secretary would give an undertaking to introduce such legislation early next session.

said he was of opinion that a Labourers Bill must be passed, and he would devote part of the autumn to considering this subject. It would be a mistake to deal piecemeal with the question. He therefore asked that this Amendment should be postponed.

said the labourers had been expecting that their case would be dealt with in any Bill relating to the distribution of land in Ireland. He felt that certain clauses which would carry out the views of the labourers ought to be proposed, but, after the Chief Secretary's statement, he supposed it would be useless to propose these clauses.

said it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that a Labourers' Bill would be brought forward and pressed through the House next session. In many cases the labourers were a defenceless class. Their position in the North was probably worse than in the South. If a labourer, living in a hovel not fit for a pig, petitioned to have a house built, he would be instantly turned off the farm; consequently, however much the Irish tenants disliked the Irish landlords, the labourers disliked the tenants more.

expressed his gratification that these clauses were in no way to be regarded as a settlement of the question. It was well to remember that this question was of tremendous importance for the future peace of Ireland, and an hour or two was by no means wasted if spent in coming to some sort of understanding with regard to it. He joined in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that a separate Labourers Bill would form the principal part of the Irish business of next session if he was then in office. The new clause was excellent so far as it went, but the frightful stream of emigration of agricultural labourers would never be stopped until the labourers were placed in the same favourable position as the small holders of the West hoped to be in under the present Bill. The two classes were really one, and deserved the same treatment. They both lived principally by wages, and the labourers once possessed land from which they were driven into the present wretched hovels by eviction or famine. Except for a few weeks in spring and harvest-time, the wages were not sufficient to counteract the temptation of a passage across the Atlantic, and the result was that practically the whole of the vigorous young labouring population of the South was emigrating. If that emigration was to be checked the promised Labourers Bill would have to go much further than any of the existing Labourers Acts. These men would have to be given some opening on the land, so that they could many and settle down with better prospects than they had at present. It always seemed to be one of the little ironies of life that, whereas in England a premium would almost be given to people to live on the land, it was rendered almost impossible for the small farmer or labourer in Ireland, whose predominant passion was to possess some land, to do so. He hoped that as soon as the pressure of the present Bill was over the Chief Secretary would apply himself to this question with as much success as he had undoubtedly done in regard to the Western question, and that he would see whether something could not be done in the direction he had indicated in order to keep the labouring population at home. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would find the difficulty was not want of land, because in all the southern and central counties there could be bought, without inflicting injustice upon anybody, plenty of land which would afford comfortable homes for double the present population.

urged that the limit of 2s. 6d. should be increased to 3s. Many labourers got as much as 4s. per day for two or three weeks, while their average for the whole year would be only 2s. If the right hon. Gentleman would make the amount 3s. he would go a long way towards meeting the views of the Irish Members on the point.

, while appreciating the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Labourers Bill next year, thought it would be a misfortune if the present measure were allowed to pass without dealing with the question to as large an extent as possible. Great dissatisfaction would be felt among the labouring classes if their moderate and just claims were not in some way considered, and he urged that, at any rate, the 2s. 6d. limit should be increased to 3s. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make an explicit statement as to when he intended to introduce the Labourers Bill.

was greatly disappointed at the announcement that no scheme for dealing with this question was to be included in the present Bill. A measure was promised for next year, but, with all his good intentions, the right hon. Gentleman might not then be in the position he now occupied. A bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and a future Chief Secretary might not feel himself bound by the pledges of his predecessor. It would have been extremely easy for the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers to have drafted a clause enlarging the powers of the local bodies, and facilitating the operation by which a labourer could get a decent cottage, and he was very sorry that nothing of the sort had been done.

said he understood that the 2s. 6d. limit applied to country workers and men who were not really agricultural workers. He could not accept the view taken by the Member for Cork when he said that the average earnings of an agricultural labourer amounted to 3s. a day, for he never came across such a specimen. The question was not a very large one, but it was, nevertheless, important, because, if they excluded these men from all chance of getting better houses, they would be simply compelling them to live in hovels in towns and wretched little villages where accommodation for them was bad, and where they would have to walk great distances to their work. The limit should be raised to some reasonable point, or else done away with altogether.

contended that if they maintained this limit many of those men who desired to reside in country districts would be prevented from doing so. The village rate of wages for carpenters or masons was considerably more than this limit, and therefore they would be excluded. Upon these grounds he pressed upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of at least raising the limit to 3s. 6d. or 4s. per day. By doing that he would be in eluding to a larger extent the very class that he was endeavouring to bring under the Labourers Acts who were now excluded by the definition of "labourer" in the Labourers Acts. He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for West Waterford. He hoped that if the Chief Secretary could not agree to exclude the limit altogether he would at least consent to raise it to 3s. 6d. or 4s.

said that as one who had had a good deal of experience of the working of the Labourers Acts he must say that this limitation would be very detrimental. Instead of imposing more restrictions they ought to give more latitude to encourage the authorities to be more generous upon this question. In many districts they had a great number of artisans who were not able to get employment the whole year round. Those men were earning more than 2s. 6d. a day, and if they meant to bring them under the scope of the Labourers Acts they should increase the 2s. 6d. limit to at least 4s. He strongly urged the Chief Secretary to accept the general view expressed by hon. Members from Ireland upon this subject.

assured the Committee that he was quite aware of the importance of this question, but he was not prepared to make any change in regard to this problem at present, which involved many fiscal elements. He was not prepared to accept Amendments without examination as to the ultimate fiscal bearing of such proposals, and it was not in his power to do so. He was not in a position at the present time to deal with this question on a larger scale than that which now appeared in the Bill. In this clause he had only tried to do what could be done whilst they were passing the Land Bill, and he had not attempted to deal with the labourers' question because time did not permit. There was not time this session either for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or for himself to take up another great question. He agreed that it was an important subject, but he was not in a position to deal with it now. He would undertake to give the matter his consideration during the autumn.

said there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Cork which would not take the Committee one minute to adopt. There was no objection taken to it, and why on earth the Government could not agree to it he could not understand.

said he was glad the Chief Secretary had not complained that the debate on this point had taken up some time, and he was glad also that he had recognised the importance of this question. There would be the most widespread disappointment at this Bill going through without valuable clauses dealing with the labourers' question. While he admitted that there was a difficulty in dealing with the question at this period of the session, he must express his deep regret that this Bill was not brought on earlier, in which case it would have been possible to have devoted sufficient time to the consideration of the labourers question to have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to make some valuable improvements in the law. He admitted that under existing circumstances it was difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to afford sufficient time to deal thoroughly with this question. The only satisfaction they had was that the right hon. Gentleman had most candidly admitted that these clauses did not attempt a settlement of the labourers' question, and he had promised to devote himself to the matter during the autumn; and he took that to include a promise to introduce next session a Bill to give effect to the result of his consideration of the subject during the autumn. Mere inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman without the assurance that he would legislate at the earliest possible moment would be of very little value. There would certainly be the gravest dissatisfaction and disappointment amongst the labourers all through the country who had been looking forward to this Bill to obtain some of their rights. Of course, they could not press the right hon. Gentleman to turn this Bill into a comprehensive Labourers Bill, and they must be satisfied with the assurance he had given and press upon him the necessity of accepting one or two of the Amendments which had been alluded to. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had alluded to one Amendment, and there were others on the Paper of a similar character. Without embarrassing himself or occupying too much time the Chief Secretary might at least make the clauses he was proposing as workable as possible. They admitted that he could not turn this into a complete Labourers Bill, but if he would meet the points raised in the Amendments they would accept the inevitable and trust to the right hon. Gentleman, after consideration, introducing a comprehensive and satisfactory Bill doing full justice to the labourers.

said the effect of the Amendment upon which they were now engaged would be to alter the money standard. That would bring in a number of other persons—he did not know how many—but he could not do that because the Labourers Acts rested upon the financial foundations of the rest of the Bill. It was not within his power as a Minister to embark upon an extension of policy which involved unmeasured fiscal burdens. He was willing to accept small Amendments here and there which would not add to the fiscal charges of the Bill. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Louth asked him to accept would change the character of the Bill considerably.

said Clause 82 would really impose restrictions which did not exist at present under the Labourers Acts. From that point of view would not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford? The whole prospects of the labourers were rather damnified than otherwise by the proposals in the Bill. While he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would propose a Bill in the next session of Parliament dealing with the question of the labourers he felt bound to enter his strongest protest against the refusal of the small and reasonable Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that under the law as it stood the labourers were being dealt with at the rate of hundreds per month. That was not the case, for it took years to get a small scheme through. The acceptance of this Amendment would not interfere with the financial arrangements of the Bill, and the whole question would be left open to be dealt with next year.

said that all interested in the labourers must feel grievously disappointed He could not understand why in dealing with the land question they should not at the same time deal with the agricultural labourers. The land agitation was due primarily to the condition of the congested districts and the condition of the agricultural labourers, and now they found that the Chief Secretary stated that he bad not had time to deal with the question of the labourers in a full and efficient manner. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider the question. He hoped hon. Members would not think that any promise had been made to bring in a Bill next year. Even if there was such a promise he felt a difficulty in relying upon it in view of what might happen in the meantime. The Chief Secretary might be Prime Minister, or the extraordinary trade wind which was blowing might waft him and his Party on to the Opposition side of the House. He could not understand why reasonable provision should not be made for the labourers now. One of the difficulties hitherto in dealing with them was that the Acts were administered by the Local Government Board. There were substantial sums remaining to the credit of many counties at present, and, as the hon. Member for Louth had pointed out, there was not the least possible chance that houses would be built in six weeks or six months. He should like to see a provision inserted in the Bill giving to every honest working man in the country an oportunity of securing a house if he had not already a suitable one. If they allowed the limit in the Bill to stand at 2s. 6d. the result would be that practically every labourer in County Kerry would be excluded, because during the harvest season their wages were 3s. a day. He thought they should have a definite promise from the Chief Secretary that provisions would be introduced dealing with the question of the labourers. They ought also to have a promise from the right hon. Gentleman that his inspectors would not impede the progress of schemes which were at present being carried out.

said the clause provided—

"The expression 'agricultural labourer' in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and this Act shall include any person (other than a domestic or a menial servant) working for hire in a rural district whose wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, and who is not, in occupation of land exceeding one quarter of an acre.'"

said this was not a question in which only one part of Ireland was interested. He did not think any part was more interested in it than the North of Ireland Very great disappointment would be felt among the labourers in that part of the country if nothing adequate was done for them in this measure. He had received resolutions passed by associations of working men asking him to support their views, and therefore he was compelled to enter his protest on their behalf that their position had not been adequately recognised. He could only hope that performance would follow the promise, and that something adequate would be done next year.

said the Chief Secretary had referred to the financial burden which this proposal would involve. He did not think there would be any greater financial burden because they had the security that the union rate should not exceed 1s. in the £.

suggested that the clause should provide that the average daily wage of 2s. 6d. should be reckoned over the twelve months preceding the application. They would have troublesome inquiries on this point unless they fixed some definite time to which this standard was to apply.

said he would consider that matter before the Report stage.

asked whether the Attorney-General would also consider the advisability of inserting the words "cash wages." The invariable practice of farmers was to employ a carpenter or mason for a certain wage and to provide him with food. Unless some definition more strict was introduced on this point there would be a good deal of friction. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether a fairly large class of agricultural labourers, who were being excluded in consequence of small towns of over 1,500 inhabitants being converted into urban districts, would now have the benefit of the Labourers Acts. He wanted to know whether the clause as it stood, would cover the case of that class. Although the men lived in the town, they continually went into the rural districts adjoining to work.

said he would consider the point.

asked the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on the point he had raised.

said he did not think it was necessary to deal with that point.

said he would not withdraw the Amendment as it involved a question of principle.

said that after the very satisfactory assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment, which would have increased the wages of an agricultural labourer as defined in the clause from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day.

said he wanted to endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Cork City as to the same basis of treatment being given to the agricultural labourers as to the cottier tenants in the congested districts. In the South of Ireland the great question at present was not the amendment of the Labourers Acts, under which a great deal of good had been done, and almost as much as could be expected under the existing costly and tedious procedure, but as to whether the labourers were to get allotments of land.

said that this was a very great concession, not only in principle, but, what was of more importance, because it would remove many impediments in the way of land purchase.

said he did not want to say a single word in regard to the first two new clauses he wished to submit to the Committee. He moved:—

said that he did not disguise from himself that the new clause be now proposed was of a most contentious character. He feared that even in respect of its objects it might be held to be contentious in some, although not in all, quarters; but when he considered the source from which the expenditure which must be involved was to be defrayed, then his fear was greater that in no quarter would it find ready acceptance except possibly from the hon. Member for South Molton. He feared that he should have some difficulty in convincing the Committee that this was a proper suggestion at all. He regretted that at this stage of the proceedings he found himself bound to introduce a contentions subject into the debate, and he felt he owed an apology to many members of the Committee who had made suggestions not of a contentious character and whom he had asked to withdraw them on the score that it was not possible to make alterations in the character of the Bill at this date of July. But a Land Bill must be practical if it was to succeed. Facts were facts, and they must be faced; and after long and anxious consideration of the problem of Trinity College head-rents he had come to the conclusion that unless this new clause was added to the Bill land purchase would be hampered over a great part of Ireland. In fact he was not quite confident that even this additional aid would succeed in solving the question, because money alone was not what was required. Trinity College tenure was elaborate and complicated almost beyond belief, and its unfortunate influence, through no fault of Trinity College, had spread in a sporadic way all over Ireland. His reason, on practical grounds, for asking the Committee to pass this clause was that, in his deliberate opinion, if it were not adopted some 9,000 or 10,000 tenant occupiers would be debarred from taking any advantage of this Act, and would not be able to purchase the farms which they now held. He would pass to the technical justification for making this proposal,—viz., that Trinity College head-rents had been dealt with by this House under three, four, and even more special statutes. Therefore there was, in his judgment, a technical justification for taking the Trinity College head-rents out of the ordinary character of superior interests. He did not know whether the Committee would assent to that proposition, but even if they did, they might say—"Very well, but why should you put this burden on I the Irish Development Grant? Why not provide for this purpose out of the moneys voted by Parliament?" Well, that would have boon a far more agreeable course for himself to take than that which he invited the Committee to take. But this charge had to be taken into consideration with other charges, and he thought they had not altogether failed to meet the money difficulty of the situation. He would not refer to the £12,000,000 Aid Grant, but there were other proposals in the Bill enabling the appointment of a trustee. On that question it was urged that, even at the last hour, he should recede from the proposals of the Bill and pay that officer by fees instead of by salary. That would have placed a burden on land purchase as a whole. Take again the stamp duty. The Government went very far in regard to the stamp duty in the Bill. It had been urged upon him repeatedly that he had pressed his colleagues too far; that his proposal involved too grate departure from what had been done in the past, and that he ought to be content with taking off the stamp duty from one transaction, and not from both. Again, on that matter, he over-persuaded his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept; the Bill as it stood. That was half a million of money given in aid of land purchase in Ireland. The other point outstanding was whether the Crown should be asked to waive its rights in respect of these reversionary interests. On that he only succeeded in getting a favourable reply from his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the eleventh hour. Indeed it was not he that succeeded. The success was to be attributed to his hon. friend, and to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who; pressed the point so assiduously for many hours that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was convinced that the retention of this reversionary interest would place a great barrier on land purchase in Ireland. It was when they were in that situation that he pressed for some aid in connection with the difficulty regarding statutory head-rents, that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose opinion was that they could not have more money on these side issues, said that if this thing was a practical necessity it must be met out of some Irish money, and that the proper fund was the Irish Development Grant embodied in the Bill already presented to Parliament. As he had said, he was very doubtful of convincing hon. Members opposite that this was the best or the proper course, but it was the only course; and, that being so, he had to consider how this question could be met by casting the least possible burden upon that fund. According to their estimate, £9,000 a year would be needed to completely solve this difficulty; and unless some provision were made to indemnify Trinity College purchase would not go through. The middleman would suffer, and it would be in his interest not to sell unless some such provision were inserted in the Bill. To put, however, a possible expenditure of £9,000 on the Irish Development Grant would burden it unnecessarily. Nine thousand pounds of that Grant would, in that case, be always earmarked, and would not be available for other purposes. They could not finance other projects with that Grant without the reservation that £9,000 of it would not be available. Therefore, he thought it better to put, from the first, a definite charge on the Grant, which would accumulate, and might be hold to be sufficient in the long run for dealing with the question of the redemption of Trinity College head-rents. His proposal was to put a charge of £5,000 a year on the Equivalent Grant from the very start. Of course, the whole question of the redemption of the head-rents would not be developed to its full proportions until the land under Trinity College had been sold, and he supposed that that would take about as long as the whole operation of land purchase in Ireland. Those who would speak for Trinity College would make more clear to the Committee the technical difficulties of this subject. He would not say that the friends of Trinity College were overjoyed at his solution, but they were satisfied with it, and were prepared to accept it as a definite conclusion of the whole matter. It was a technical question, but it was also a practical question, as it concerned 220,000 acres of land, and some 9,000 tenants. Why should those tenants be impeded in availing themselves of the Act, not through any fault of Trinity College, but because of the elaborate and complex system of finance which had been imposed on Trinity College by previous legislation? He submitted the proposal to the Committee as a necessary provision in order that land purchase should not be hung up over a considerable area in Ireland.

said he rose to oppose as vigorously as he could the clause of the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to him that the apology which ran right through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was in itself a sufficient condemnation of this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had been cogitating over this Bill for two years or more, and the result of his consideration had been put into this Bill. When proposals were made of a very moderate and admittedly reasonable character, from various quarters of the House, which involved new matter, the right hon. Gentleman met them by saying that he could not, almost at the end of the session, ask the House to take up and seriously consider new and contentious questions. Every proposal which introduced new matter was brushed aside in that manner; yet on the very last day of the Committee stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman springs on the House of Commons a proposal of a most intensely contentious character. He did not know who the right hon. Gentleman had taken into his confidence, except the Members for Trinity College. As far as he knew, the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted any Irish Member in the matter; and the first he himself knew of the clause was when he saw it on the Amendment Paper yesterday. He did not think that was a businesslike way of conducting a Bill, especially at that stage, and almost at the end of the session. The nature of the proposal was such that it was impossible for the Irish Members to abstain from the most vigorous opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman himself said he knew he was making an unpopular proposal, and he also said that the only hon. Member of whose support he was assured was the hon. Member for South Molton, who, however, voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.

said he was speaking of the source from which the money-was to be taken.

said even with that limitation that was the only support of which the right hon. Gentleman was assured.

said he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause would be supported in other quarters of the House.

said no doubt the hon. Gentleman would develop his support later on. He was dealing not with the speech which the hon. Gentleman had not delivered, but with the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered. The right hon. Gentleman said that Trinity College was in a peculiar position; that it had leased out its land at long leases; that the middlemen had re-let to other tenants; and that the land could not be sold under this Bill without inflicting a loss on Trinity College. But Trinity College was not the only landlord in that position. Other landlords had leased their property in the same way, and they would lose just as Trinity College would lose. It was impossible to give the absolute figures as to the number of such cases, but it was undoubtedly true that there were a considerable number of proprietors in the same position as Trinity College. Yet there was to be no provision made for dealing with them; and Trinity College was to be specially selected to receive this compensation. As to the source, the Irish Development Grant would provide the money. Did anyone ever hear such a satire? That fund, which was entirely an Irish Development Fund, was to be drawn upon for the purpose of giving £5,000 a year as compensation to Trinity College. What was that fund? It was a sum of money which was Ireland's equivalent for the education grant given It England under the Act of last year foreland was entitled, as a matter of right, to a sum of about £185,000 a year as the equivalent to the English education grant; which meant that it was to be devoted generally to education in Ireland. Under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman was suspending the application of any portion of the grant for educational purposes in Ireland. He was drawing temporarily in one respect, and permanently in another respect, on that fund for the purpose of facilitating land purchase. But he now proposed to devote £5,000 a year from that fund to Trinity College for ever. That was to say that, while he did not propose to devote a single farthing to general educational purposes in Ireland, he picked out a State endowed educational establishment, the richest in the country, one against which, personally, he did not desire to say anything, but against which there was undoubtedly a strong feeling in the country among all classes of the population, and proposed to devote this sum permanently to it. If he had spent the last two years in trying to find out what was the most contentious subject which he could introduce he could not possibly have succeeded better than by selecting this subject. It was one of the most contentious questions that could be raised. Every question connected with education in Ireland was raised by it. The Catholic University question was raised by it; and it was impossible to conceive any course that could be taken by the right hon. Gentleman that would be more certain to lead to excitement of feeling, bitterness, and prolonged discussions and he was afraid acrimonious discussion—both in this House and out of it. He deeply regretted the right hon. Gentleman had introduced this proposal. It would have been bad enough if he had put a clause in the Bill as originally drafted in order that they might be able to deal with it on the Second Reading. But to spring the question on the Committee in the middle of July, without consulting a single Irish Member, was a course which, in his opinion, was quite unjustifiable and one which he was intensely surprised the right hon. Gentleman had taken. He would at once admit that the right hon. Gentleman throughout the conduct of the Bill had shown a conciliatory spirit. He knew the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties perfectly well; and he knew how he was hemmed in and fettered. On the whole, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had exhibited a conciliatory spirit, and the greatest skill in the management of the Bill. But he confessed that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman entirely belied his record. He could not conceive a more fatal thing than, at the last moment, to throw down this bone of contention; and he felt sure that the view he had expressed was entertained strongly by every Member in that quarter of the House. He was afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his proposal he would have to make up his mind to very considerable opposition, the very greatest dissatisfaction, and the very gravest acrimonious discussion in Ireland. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. As for himself, he wished to enter his protest against the clause, and would offer it the most vigorous opposition.

said as he understood it, this was a proposal to preserve Trinity College and therefore proceeded on the lines of the Land Conference Report signed by the hon. Member for Waterford. On Second Reading he was urged by a large number of the Trinity College tenants to bring forward their case, which they regarded as a hopeless one under this Bill. He knew how the two law officers would resist any attack on Trinity College, and he had deliberately abstained from raising the question of Trinity College. He disliked this clause as much as did the hon. Member for Waterford, but were the Irish Members prepared to tell the 10,000 men who sat as tenants of Trinity College, they were to be denied relief, and that they would have no chance of becoming proprietors because of the tangle into which Trinity tenures had got. This was a "take it or leave it" clause, because he was certain that if it was opposed the Chief Secretary would drop it at once, and that was the alternative in which they were placed. They would either be misrepresented as having agreed to give Trinity College £5,000 a year or they must be prepared to stand by and see 10,000 tenants sacrificed. When he yesterday saw the clause for the first time he was startled, because it seemed to be an irony of fate that this development grant, which was the equivalent grant to which Ireland was entitled in respect of the grant for education, should go not to the unfortunate national schools of the country but should go in relief of the one exclusive university in the country which had distinguished itself in the bite election by pledging the Solicitor-General to oppose anything in the nature of a Catholic University. He did the hon. Gentleman the justice to say that he adopted a different attitude in the matter. He rose for the purpose of making a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman would never get this clause with the goodwill of the Nationalist Party, and if they voted against it they would be in the position of cutting oft their nose to spite their face, because they would prevent the tenants of Trinity College becoming proprietors. Could not they appoint a small Commission to inquire into what rentals Trinity College got and what the middle landlords got from the tenants; to inquire into all the tenures which affected the right or probability of the tenants becoming proprietors of their holdings, and enter into the whole question with a well informed mind next session. He did not believe the clause itself was sufficiently drastic to carry out the object of the Government; it would not, he believed, work if passed into law, because in his view the middle landlords would not sell the holdings. His suggestion, therefore, was that the right hon. Gentleman should appoint a small Commission with power to report, and whose report when published should be binding on the Estates Commissioners, and that the whole of this matter should then be left to the Estate Commissioners to deal with.

said he had always held that two classes would be hit by this Land Bill, the first of which was Trinity College. The position of Trinity College was not that which the hon. Member for Louth supposed. The landlords of these holdings according to the Land Conference were the middle landlords to whom Trinity College leased these lands years ago, and it must be remembered that under the Bill the middle landlord could sell. Every Land Act had passed over Trinity College without touching it, but from what he had heard the middle men were in such a bad way they would gladly go out with the bonus. He had no desire to say a word against Trinity College, but his point was that this was a part of the educational settlement of Ireland, and if the Government were proposing to come to the relief of Trinity College in this way, at this time they might depend upon it that before next session they would have appeals, which they could not withstand, from the Irish Church Representative Body, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and Maynooth College. They would say—"You compensated Trinity College under this Act and you must also give us a grant to make our losses up." He was prepared to vote for this grant to Trinity College as part of an educational settlement, but only as a part of the settlement and not as a grant in aid.

said he could only repeat the question put by the hon. Member for Waterford—Why had the Government introduced so contentious a matter in this Bill at so short a notice? Over and over again they had been appealed to by the Chief Secretary to withdraw Amendments because of the danger of introducing controversial matter, and even on the question of Irish labourers, which had been brought to the attention of the Government at the earliest stage of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to them to drop the subject because it was too late in the session to take up so difficult a question. Within a few moments of that appeal the right hon. Gentleman himself came forward with a clause raising the whole question of Irish education—one of the most contentious and troublesome matters that could be conceived. But even supposing it were granted that the position of the tenants of Trinity College ought to be dealt with in some special way, why could not the right hon. Gentleman deal with it in a separate Bill next session, as he proposed to deal with the labourers' question? Did he contend that the grievance of the tenants of Trinity College was more pressing than that of the Irish labourers? This most contentious and objectionable clause would be opposed now, on the Report stage and on the Third Reading; and yet, although so much time was to be spent in the discussions therein involved, there was no time to settle the labourers' question, in reference to which there was practically no difference of opinion whatever. Was it to be understood that the question of the labourers and their grievance was shunted in order to make way for this extraordinary proposal? It was idle to say that Trinity College was in a special and peculiar position. There was hardly a charitable institution in Ireland, not to speak of Maynooth College and the Church Body, which was not in a similar position. In all Irish land legislation the owners of superior interests had been treated somewhat summarily. Since 1881 it had been the practice to give the owner of the middle interest the right to expropriate or buy out the owner of the superior interest at a very moderate figure. That was exactly the fate which had now overtaken Trinity College, but it was proposed to treat them exceptionally, and do them a special favour. It was all very well to make fine-drawn distinctions between the losses which would be inflicted by this land legislation on Trinity College and Maynooth which stood to lose heavily. If this proposal were carried, on what ground would the Government resist the claim which would undoubtedly be made by the trustees of Maynooth next year to be put on an equality with Trinity College? Never in the history of the House of Commons had a proposal so far-reaching in its effect been brought forward in so frivolous a manner as this. It was a serious matter to attempt to draw a distinction between the losses inflicted by this legislation on public institutions which had mortgages, and those inflicted on the owners of superior interests. In the past no such distinction had been drawn; both classes had suffered more or less by land legislation, but no claim had been made for compensation to either. This proposal was, in reality, under the cloak of the Land Bill, and in a manner which was exceedingly mean, an attempt to grab for Trinity College a perpetual endowment of £5,000 a year, it being expected that for fear of risking the Bill the Irish representatives would abstain from opposing it on its merits. It was an outrageous attempt to force down the throats of the Irish people a proposal for which the right hon. Gentleman would be unable to get half-a-dozen Irish Members to vote if it were put on its merits in a separate Bill. He strongly appealed to the Chief Secretary to postpone so contentious a matter. In the meantime information could be gathered as to the bearing of this clause, and the House could be informed as to the special difficulties of Trinity College, of the true nature of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman had declared it would take fifteen years to carry out this work of settlement. Suppose it took ten years, would it be any tremendous grievance to Trinity College, even if this difficulty really existed, to wait until next year? The proposal was absolutely contrary to the traditions and practice of the House of Commons, and if persevered with might lead to the grossest possible abuse. For the House to tolerate, at the end of a great measure of 82 clauses, the introduction, practically without notice, of a proposal of this character, by which a public body would be endowed with a large annual sum, without the general public having any knowledge of the fact, was an outrageous innovation. Moreover, it was not fair to many Members of the House. The official opposition, having adopted a certain attitude towards the Bill, were absent, having been under the impression that they had before them all the important financial proposals of the Bill. He contended that fuller notice ought to have been given, so that Members could have made arrangements to be present if necessary. On purely financial grounds it was a thoroughly objectionable and vicious proposal. A further consideration was the effect it would have on Irish opinion with regard to the whole policy of the development grant. Personally, he had always felt great uneasiness in reference to that policy. This policy of taking money and leaving it at the disposal of the Executive Government was a policy which would lead to corruption and jobbery unless closely watched, because it was a policy of withdrawal from all the elaborate financial precautions of the House of Commons. If it had not been for the existence of the Irish development grant the Chief Secretary would not have made such a proposal, but would have had to put this charge upon the Estimates. It would have been impossible, under the ordinary procedure of Parliament, to defeat all Parliamentary precautions, and evade that criticism which was necessary in all financial proposals. In his opinion this proposal was disorderly, and it most certainly was a gross innovation of the practice of the House of Commons. Even if it were not disorderly it was a warning to those who wished business conducted in accordance with the practice of the House. This proposal was opposed by the solid opposition of representatives from Ireland who sat upon the Nationalist Benches. He considered this was a most unfortunate element to introduce into these discussions. This proposal was certain to create bitterness, and there was no urgency for introducing such a clause this session, more especially when the Chief Secretary had asked them to postpone the labourers question. The honest way to deal with the matter was to bring in a separate Bill, and then the Chief Secretary could state the grounds on which he proposed to deal with Trinity College separately from any individual or other corporation in Ireland which would lose under this Act. The right hon. Gentleman would do very little service to the promotion of good feeling or to the reception which this Bill would receive in Ireland if he persisted in this proposal. He wished to know if it was in order to introduce a clause seeking to appropriate a perpetual endowment to a particular corporation in Ireland from a fund which had not been appropriated by the House of Commons.

The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that the House of Commons had already passed a Resolution setting up the Irish development grant. The House has already agreed to that, and therefore it is in order to move that any of that money shall be applied to certain purposes.

pointed out that Clause 35 provided that—

"If by any Act passed in the present session provision is made for an Ireland development grant the following provisions shall have effect."

If the Irish Development Grant Bill does not go through then this proposal obviously falls.

said it might be held that by passing a clause appropriating a portion of that grant they were interfering with the discretion of the House in setting up the rules and regulations under which that grant might be appropriated.

Of course it will be necessary, in dealing with the Irish Development Grant Bill to bear in mind that an appropriation to the amount of £5,000 has already taken place. Possibly this Irish Development Grant Bill which I have in my hand may require a proviso inserted to that effect. I do not think, from the point of view of order, that it is disorderly to allocate a portion of a grant which the House has already agreed to by Resolution, although it has not actually passed the Bill.

contended that the provision of £5,000 for a special purpose not directly connected with land could not be introduced according to the Resolution which the House had adopted. His proposition was that this special allocation of £5,000 was not within the terms of that Resolution. Amendments coming from the opposite side of the House which dealt with the allocation of sums which did not actually come within the terms of the Resolution had been excluded. This grant was for a sum of money not included within the purview of the Bill itself, and it contravened the usages and practices of the House of Commons. He submitted that there was no precedent whatever for proposing a grant which could not by any construction be brought within the main purposes for which the money Resolution of this Bill was passed.

The hon. Member has apparently forgotten Clause 35 of this Bill.

No, Sir, I have not.

If the hon. Member will refresh his memory he will see that £20,000 has already been appropriated for one purpose, namely, the Congested Districts Board. Surely the Committee can appropriate further sums for another purpose.

said his point was that this proposal could not be introduced because it did not come within the purview of the Resolution on which this Bill was founded.

Nor does Clause 35, which has already allocated portions, of the money to certain other objects.

said that whereas Clause 35 took a portion of the Irish development grant for land purchase in Ireland it was now proposed to take a portion for a purpose which was not within the four corners of the Resolution upon which this Bill rested. Therefore, this proposal had no reference to Clause 35.

It is covered by the Resolution of the House, and I think that is sufficient.