To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Secretary for Scotland has publicly stated that some of the larger School Boards in Scotland are conducting a medical examination of the children on a scientific basis, and that it would be the desire of the Scottish Education Department to encourage other School Boards to follow the example; and whether he is prepared to give similar encouragement to English and Welsh local education authorities. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The question of the medical examination of the children of their area by a local authority is one which the Board consider must be left to that authority to decide; but the Board will, of course, gladly welcome any such step as this which is likely to contribute to the improvement of the health and well-being of the children. I may remind the hon. Member that the Board issued in October, 1901, a circular to the managers and teachers of schools in large towns as to the great importance of proper attention being paid to the eyesight of the children.

To ask the Lord Advocate, considering that no statutory provision exists in Scotland for the grant of superannuation allowances to officers and servants of district and parochial lunatic asylums, while such provision has been made in respect of county and borough asylums in England, of district asylums in Ireland, and of chartered asylums in Scotland, as well as in other departments of the public service, and that the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy in Scotland have repeatedly in their Reports pointed out that the absence of such provision is prejudicial to the interests of patients in the asylums, the Secretary for Scotland will consider the propriety of introducing a measure to place Scottish public asylum officials on a footing similar to those in English, Irish, and chartered Scottish asylums. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The point will be considered in the event of its being found possible and expedient to propose legislation for the Amendment of the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, but the Secretary for Scotland is unable to come under any definite obligation on the subject at present.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch Education Department have yet arrived at any decision as to carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland) to add a number of medical and sanitary experts to the inspecting staff under the Department. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Department has been in communication with some of the larger School Boards on the matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question, but they are not as yet in a position to make any proposals to the Treasury.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will issue regulations as to the pace at which motor mails may be driven in the public streets; and if he will consider the advisability of adopting some mechanical apparatus which will show the speed at which such cars have been driven during the day. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The regulations as to the speed of motor vans, to which motors used for the mail service as well as other motors must conform, are laid down by the Local Government Board, and in drawing up the time tables for motor mail vans regard is paid to the authorised speed. I do not think it is necessary to adopt a mechanical apparatus for registering the speed of motor mail vans. We do not use any high speed motors.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what is the amount of costs in the case of Inland Revenue v. McDonnell, in which judgment has been marked in the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, for £5 5s.; and whether he will say why proceedings were not taken in the County Court. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The costs claimed in this case amount to £4 11s. 4d., and have been taxed. The tax due is £5 5s. Judgment has been marked for the sum of £9 16s. 4d. It has never been the practice to proceed in the County Court for recovery of income tax under Schedule D. The present procedure is authorised by The Taxes Management Act, 1880, Section 111(1).

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that judgment under a writ in the High Courts has been obtained against Michael McDonnell of Abbeyleix, for the sum of £5 5s. and costs at the suit of the Inland Revenue for income tax; and whether, seeing that Mr. McDonnell occupies a small house rented at £15 a year, and that he possesses no income from any source except what he derives from the calling of poultry and egg dealer, which he pursues on a small scale, he will state upon what grounds the assessment was made. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The assessment was fixed by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, who, after hearing a personal appeal from Mr. McDonnell, were satisfied that the business carried on by him was of such a nature as to justify the charge.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether steamers are allowed to run along the coasts of the United Kingdom without any certificated officers on board, with the result that, in the event of collisions occurring leading to loss of life, the Board of Trade have no power of dealing with such officers; also, if there is any intention of applying a remedy for the loss of life and property arising from the carelessness of unqualified masters and mates in coasting vessels. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act as to carrying certificated officers on board British ships apply only to foreign-going ships and to home trade passenger ships. British vessels not belonging to those classes of ships are not required by law to carry certificated officers. It is, however, possible for a Court holding a formal investigation into a casualty to any British vessel to punish the officers involved by ordering them to pay the costs of the investigation. The question of legislating referred to by the hon. Member is a matter that would require consideration, and I am not at present prepared to express an opinion upon it.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that a boat sunk in the fairway at Baltasound is dangerous to navigation, and if steps will be taken to have the same removed. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no information respecting the casualty beyond that conveyed to me by the hon. Member. I will call the attention of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses to the matter, and they will do doubt take such steps as are necessary for the protection of navigation.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called to the disadvantages under which fishermen labour where no Board of Trade surveyor is available owing to the adoption of rules now in force for ascertaining tonnage of fishing boats; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) In consequence of complaints received as to the difficulty of applying the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to Scottish fishing boats, the Board of Trade, having regard to all the circumstances, propose to revert to the old method of measurement known as the Test Rule. Under this Rule the tonnage measurement of fishing boats can be determined by Coastguard, Customs, or Scottish Fishery Board officers, and consequently the attendance of a Board of Trade surveyor will not be necessary.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any public authority has power to regulate the width of tyres of motor-cars between one and three tons in weight, and if any such regulations have been made; and, if not, if he will see that any necessary power to make such regulations shall be included in the proposed legislation on motor-cars. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) By Section 6 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, the Local Government Board are empowered to make regulations with respect to the use of these vehicles on highways, and their construction and the conditions under which they may be used; and by an Order, dated 9th November, 1896, the following regulations were made as regards the width of the tyres:—If the weight of the vehicle unladen is more than 15 cwt., and does not exceed 1 ton, the width of the tyre is to be not less than 2½ inches; if such weight is more than 1 ton, and does not exceed 2 tons, the width is to be not less than 3 inches; if such weight exceeds 2 tons, the width is to be not less than 4 inches.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the vaccination officers for the Gainsborough Union carry out the orders of the Local Government Board and take proceedings in opposition to the wishes of the guardians; and whether the Local Government Board will uphold the officers in their action, as they are threatened with dismissal or to be called upon to resign by the guardians. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is the duty of a vaccination officer to take proceedings against defaulters under the Vaccination Acts, and I understand that the vaccination officers of this union have recently taken proceedings of this kind, although the guardians have been opposed to this course. As regards the last part of the Question, the consent of the Local Government Board is necessary before a vaccination officer can be dismissed. I should not be prepared to give that consent where the ground of the proposed dismissal was that the officer had performed his duty in this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will be consulted before any final step is taken in regard to continuing or discontinuing the Royal Indian Engineering College, Cooper's Hill. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The answer is in the affirmative.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any and what provision has been made in the event of the London Education Bill becoming an Act of Parliament in its present form for avoiding the necessity of a new London School Board being elected at the usual time next autumn and continuing the powers of the present School Board until the Act comes into operation; and, if not, whether any and what steps will be taken for this purpose. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) After the passing of the Act, Schedule II. (10) of the principal Act will apply.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will give the places at which the eighteen schools above the ordinary limits of accommodation have been sanctioned; the number of children in each; and the special reason for which sanction was given in each case. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Of the schools in question two were actually sanctioned and the sites of ten others before the right hon. Member left office. For the remaining six the facts are as follows:—

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that dissatisfaction exists owing to the delay in building labourers' cottages in Cavan Union, and that it is over eighteen months since the inquiry was held; and, if so, can he state the cause of the delay, and what is the present state of the scheme. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The inquiry was held, as stated, more than eighteen months ago. The Board issued an Order in confirmation of portion of the council's improvement scheme on the 17th July last, the unopposed portion of which became absolute on the 30th September, whilst the opposed portion was amended and confirmed by the Order in Council of the 4th March. The cause of the delay in carrying the scheme into execution is the failure of the Rural District Council to furnish the Local Government Board, in correct form and detail, with all the documents which are requisite to enable it to appoint an arbitrator to determine the amounts of purchase money to be paid for the lands authorised to be acquired compulsorily. The Board has repeatedly pressed the council to settle this matter, the last occasion on which it addressed the local authority on the subject being the 6th instant. The execution of the authorised scheme is a duty which devolves upon the Rural District Council.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary authorities are aware of the fact that a farmer, Mr. Daniel Buckley, Cloverhill, was summoned at Mallow Petty Sessions, on 29th June last, for neglecting to have his name on a market cart, and fined, together with costs placed on him; and whether, in view of the custom of the police to caution an individual before proceeding with a summons, he will state whether the requirement of marking all carts and vehicles is enforced by the constabulary irrespective of class or position. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The prosecution referred to was one of a number instituted at the same petty sessions for the same breach of the law. The Inspector-General has no reason to believe that the requirements of the law in this respect are not impartially carried out by the police.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the experiments on sterilisation of water for troops in the field, referred to in his answer of 31st July, 1902,† have led to any scheme of sterilisation being put to the test at manœuvres or otherwise; and, if so, with what results. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Experimental tests have been made with various forms of heat sterilising apparatus and sterilising filters, and on the results of these further tests are being made in Somaliland, and will be made at the forthcoming manœuvres. The sterilisation of water in standing camps can be arranged, but in the case of moving

† See (4) Debates, cxii., 275.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that expense is incurred by officers and soldiers of the Army serving on foreign stations when cable communication is necessary with their relatives at home, or vice versâ, for want of a recognised telegraphic cable code; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made for every commanding officer stationed abroad to have a word registered as his code address, and for such commanding officer to be supplied with a code of the cable company which serves his station, or of a new code prepared expressly, with a view to lessen the cost of private messages to and from officers and soldiers serving abroad. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As regards code addresses, a large number of official code addresses are already registered by the Post Office, and I will inquire whether these can be extended in the direction suggested. As regards the messages, it should be remembered that there are several code books, as the Unicode and A B C, of which officers can avail themselves by arrangement with their relatives.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of majors in cavalry and infantry serving away from their particular regiments, specifying the number serving respectively in provisional regiments and in Staff or other appointments. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of cavalry majors holding Staff and other appointments away from their regiments is eighteen, and the number of infantry majors is 175. The majors, for whom extra captains are given, serving with provisional regiments are included in the above eighteen.

To ask the Secretary of State for War can he state the approximate loss of British and native life respectively in Somaliland up to 1st July, 1903, in operations against the Mullah,

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the actual strength of the Army Veterinary Department compared with the establishment. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The establishment of officers of the Army Veterinary Department is 169, and the present strength, including three supernumeraries, is 134.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the material sent out in 1885 for the construction of the Suakin-Berber Railway is now stored in this country, he will consider the advisability of returning this material to Suakin and commencing the construction of this railway forthwith, with a view to providing cheap transit for cotton and other materials to the coast.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated expenditure per week in connection with the forces now maintained in South Africa.

The total expenditure in connection with the forces now in South Africa may be taken at about £110,000 per week, being about £45,000 per week in excess of the sum which would be incurred if the troops were at home.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that some new buildings at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, in which explosives are dealt with, are in such close proximity to the firing ground that the discharge of the guns is a source of danger to the men working in such buildings; and, if so, will he give the name of the official who is responsible for selecting the site of these buildings; and what steps, if any, are being taken to secure the safety of the men who work in them.

The question whether the firing of guns at the proof butts is a source of danger to the danger buildings or the men in them is now being carefully considered. Pending the conclusion of the inquiry heavy proof is not fired while men are working in these buildings.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War has the 3rd Division of the 1st Army Corps been formed; if so, what is its strength; and, if not, when is it proposed to form it; and can he explain why this is not done before proceeding with the formation of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps; is it intended to continue the formation of the 5th and 6th Army Corps; and, if so, will their formation be initiated by the appointment of their commanders and staff.

One brigade of the 3rd Division of the 1st Army Corps is already quartered in the Command. Its strength is 3,320. The barracks for the 2nd brigade are not at present available, and the troops are quartered elsewhere in Great Britain. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Army Corps which have been formed are far advanced to completion, as shown in the Returns recently laid before Parliament. The formation of the 5th and 6th Corps will not take place till a considerable number of the units are available in the districts affected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state after what intervals under the Army Regulations an officer on the Staff is required to return to regimental duty; whether this regulation has been disregarded at home; and if so, why, and in how many, and in what cases.

Officers are required to rejoin their regiments for a tour of regimental duty on the termination of each staff appointment, but there is no published regulation on the subject. For obvious reasons during the late war compliance with this rule was not always found practicable, but it is now being strictly enforced.

, on behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to a communication from the Dublin Master Tailors' Association in April last complaining of the new arrangement for sending in estimates; and if so whether in future facilities will be afforded and opportunity given to enable Irish tailors to obtain as formerly a proportion of the orders.

The communication in question dealt chiefly with kit for the Imperial Yeomanry, the supply of which does not concern the War Department. As regards the supply to officers on joining the Regular Forces, estimates have been received from Irish firms and the lists containing them will be circulated to officers, but the selection of a tailor is left entirely to the discretion of the officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether orders have recently been received by a Glasgow firm for locomotives for Canada; and, if so, whether these orders have been secured by this country on account of the Canadian preferential tariff.

I am aware that orders have been recently placed in Glasgow for locomotives for Canada and I am informed by the managing director of the company which obtained the order that they could not have secured it but for the operation of the preferential tariff.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that shortly before his visit to Johannesburg the editorial staff of the Johannesburg Leader were dismissed summarily at the request of Lord Milner for attacking his administration in the Transvaal; and, if so, will he state why did the High Commissioner of South Africa interfere with the editorial management of a Johannesburg newspaper. This, I may say, is not a "put up" question.

I have no information on the subject, but I have no doubt that the hon. Member is misinformed as to the action which he attributes to Lord Milner.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of Lord Milner—will he "bother him?"

No, Sir, I do not think it is necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the amounts received respectively by our colonies from duties on imports from Great Britain and Ireland in the years 1882–1892 and 1902; and also from duties on all imports during those years.

The information cannot be given, as the colonial trade returns do not, in the majority of cases, distinguish the amounts of duty collected on imported goods according to the countries from which the imports were received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when I can put a further Question?

Is not the information published in the Board of Trade Returns?

I think not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India contemplate the despatch of a Commissioner to Tibet with a view to arrange for improved trade facilities between the two countries.

A proposal was made last year by the Chinese Government for the despatch of a Chinese Commissioner to discuss on the spot certain questions relating to the frontier and to trade between Tibet and India. The Government of India contemplate, and are making arrangements for, the despatch of British Commissioners to meet the Chinese Commissioner and a representative of the Dalai Lama of Tibet to discuss the pending questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many miles of road have been surveyed and how many constructed between Darjeeling and the Tibetan frontier.

I have no information that any new roads have been surveyed or constructed between Darjeeling and the Tibetan frontier, but steps have been taken to improve the sections of the existing trade routes nearest to Siliguri. In answer to a further Question, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON said the trade roads in course of development were east of Darjeeling. He could not say whether arrangements had been made for an extension in the direction of Botham.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the date on which Russia undertook to evacuate the second section of Manchuria and the treaty port of Newchwang, and what is being done with the Customs revenue collected at the port.

By Article II. of the Russo-Chinese Convention of 8th April, 1902, Russia undertook to evacuate the second section of Manchuria, which includes Newchwang, by 8th April, 1903. As I stated on the 30th April,† we have been informed that the duties collected by the Imperial Maritime Customs at Newchwang are paid into the Russo-Chinese Bank, to the credit of the Chinese Government minus the monthly amount required for the support of the Customs Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will state how many pilgrims left Egypt for Mecca on the occasion of the last pilgrimage and the last but one; and will he say by what line of steamers they were required to travel.

I am afraid I am not able to give the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks. But on this subject I would venture to refer him to Lord Cromer's Report on the subject in "Egypt No. 1 (1903)." The pilgrims are required to travel by any line of steamers complying with certain conditions laid down by the Egyptian Government.

With the result that the number of pilgrims has been reduced by thousands.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether any negotiations, understandings, or arrangements have recently been entered into with the European Powers in regard to Egypt; and, if so, will he state briefly their character.

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the promised Papers in connection with the denunciation of the Commercial Treaty with Germany have not been presented.

† See (4) Debates, cxxi., 952.

The Papers have already been laid, and will be distributed as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will see that they were kept back in order to include a despatch from the German Government, which was received a few days ago, and the reply of His Majesty's Government.

Are the Papers now in the hands of the printers?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the amount of income tax, inhabited house duty, and land tax outstanding at 28th February, 1901, for that financial year amounted in England to £14,28,000, and in Scotland to £220,375, representing 46 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively of the total charge, the time and method of collection of income tax will be considered by the Committee to whom the matter of income tax has been remitted; and whether, pending the result of inquiry England and Scotland will be put in a position of equality as to the time and method of collection of income tax.

I cannot admit that there is any inequality, nor do I think that Scotland has any grievance, any more than the persons in England who pay taxes punctually have a grievance as compared with those who pay unpunctually.

May I point out that although the law is the same, it is enforced quite differently in the two countries?

It would be highly dangerous for me to stop the zealous manner in which those in Scotland responsible for the collection of the Revenue act.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that under the Finance Act, 1903, Section 1 (4), a rebate of 10s. a ton has been allowed on glucose imported into this country and in stock on 30th June ultimo, and that a similar allowance has been refused by His Majesty's Customs to the manufacturers of glucose in this country, the reason given being that the article in question is not in the same condition as the raw material from which it is manufactured, and which had paid duty having undergone transformation, although malt, the analogous transformation product of barley, has received such allowance, he will take steps to place British manufacturers on the same footing as foreigners.

Malt is one of the articles specifically dutied under Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1902, therefore rebate of duty on a duty-paid stock of it could not be refused under Section 1 (4) (a) of the Finance Act, 1903. Apart, however, from this fact, I cannot agree that the malting of barley involves a chemical transformation analogous to that which takes place when starch is converted into glucose. Importers of glucose might in any case, by warehousing it in bond, have avoided payment of the duty. On the other hand, makers of glucose in this country had more than two months notice given them to enable them to dispose of their stocks of glucose made from dutiable materials before the duty ceased. The stock of home-made glucose I am informed is very small, so that a remission of the duty does not involve any considerable sum of money, but the principle is highly important, and I do not consider that I should be justified in extending the concession already made. I would again point out that the exceptional treatment given to grain was with the view of preventing disturbance in the grain trade and a consequent rise in prices. The circumstances in connection with the manufacture of glucose are in no way comparable.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is just that the home producers who pay rates and taxes should be treated less favourably than foreigners?

I have explained that imports of glucose would, in any case, have escaped the duty. As a matter of consideration to the home makers we gave them two months in which to get rid of their stocks, and I am sure the House will consider that this was ample.

I shall draw attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state where the breakages occurred during the gale in Scotland on Monday, 6th July, in the telegraphic communication, and for what length of time messages were delayed in transmission before communication was renewed.

On the 6th instant a large tree was blown across the telegraph line between Chester and Eccleston, breaking twenty-two wires, and a similar accident happened to the line between Lichfield and Stafford. There were minor interruptions all along the lines caused by branches of trees in full foliage being blown across the wires. The maximum delay to messages was at about 2.30 p.m.: it was then 130 minutes to Dundee, 110 minutes to Glasgow and Aberdeen, and 105 minutes to Edinburgh. By 6.30 the delay was reduced to half-an-hour.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford if he will state how many meetings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were held in the years 1901 and 1902; what was the number of attendances at these meetings of each Church Estates Commissioner; was the business of the Commission delayed on any and how many occasions owing to the fact that two Church Estates Commissioners were not present.

The numbers of meetings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in 1901 twenty-one, and in 1902 twenty-two; of the Estates Committee in 1901 thirty-five, and in 1902 thirty-four. The attendances of the Church Estates Commissioners at these meetings were: of the First Church Estates Commissioner in 1901 fifty-three, and in 1902 fifty-four; of the Second Church Estates Commissioner in 1901 forty-one, and in 1902 fifty; of the Church Estates Commissioner appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1901 fifty-four, and in 1902 fifty-five. There has not during the period in question been any failure of a meeting by reason of the non-attendance of the minimum number of two Church Estates Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government will consider the advisability of recommending the County Councils to instruct their clerks, who are salaried by ratepayers holding various political opinions, to abstain from interference in politics, whether in a paid capacity as election agent, or not.

I am unable to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 9th instant.†

If the practice is not discontinued I shall draw attention to it next year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a man named John McElligott has been lying in Dundalk Gaol for two years for contempt of Court; whether he can state what is the nature of the charge against him; and whether he can take any steps with a view to securing the release of McElligott.

The committal was for contempt on a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls. The Executive has no power to intervene in the matter. The Master of the Rolls has on several occasions informed

† See page 156.

Suppose evidence is laid before the right hon. Gentleman that this prisoner is in danger of losing his mind what steps can be taken to procure his release from prison?

was understood to say that the medical officers would have to report on the case to the Prisons Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a vacancy exists on the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, seeing that the Province of Munster is unrepresented on it, will he consider the advisability of giving it representation.

There is no vacancy at present.

When a vacancy arises will the claims of Munster be considered?

The whole facts will be considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numerous public boards in the south of Ireland have passed resolutions calling attention to the fact that Munster is not represented on the Board?

Kerry has very effective representation in this House.

And I hope to make it more effective.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether steps will be taken to enable small farmers in Ireland to obtain loans at 3½ per cent., principal and interest repayable in fifty years, for the erection of dwellings on their holdings.

Legislation would be necessary to vary the conditions under which these loans are at present made. If legislation should hereafter be proposed dealing with the question of Land Improvement Loans the suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered.

Is not 6 per cent. now charged?

6½ per cent., principal and interest.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on what grounds the executive applied for a special jury and change of venue under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in the case against Stapleton, Delany, and Carroll, of Borrisaleigh.

The Attorney-General applied for a change of venue and for a special jury, on the ground that a more fair and impartial trial could thus be obtained. The accused did not make any objection to the change of venue as they were entitled by law to do.

Was any notice of the motion given to the accused? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the desire of the Government to get a fair and impartial jury, is it proposed to pack a jury in Cork?

Does the right hon. Gentleman say a fair jury could not have been obtained at the Nenagh Assizes?

I must ask for notice of further Questions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Bill introduced and passed by the Government in 1900, dealing with the Loan Fund system, contained no provision tending to secure more regular and business-like attention to their duties on the part of the treasurers and trustees of the Loan Fund Societies, he will say whether the Bill now drafted by the Attorney-General contains any such provisions.

It is not proposed at this period of the session to introduce a Bill providing for a reform and reconstruction of the Loan Fund system, desirable as that may be, but only to remedy an error into which Loan Fund Societies have fallen through a mistaken view of the existing law.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why in the last few years no effort has been made to introduce a Bill to carry out the continuously made recommendations of the Local Loan Board?

The hon. Member's own experience of the business of this House will, I think, supply an answer to the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the nature of the inquiries he is making in connection with the steamer service between Belmullet and Mallaranny; and whether there is any intention to drop the scheme.

I am engaged in negotiations with the Midland and Great Western Railway Company in this matter, and no conclusion has yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why Pat Cournane, Castlemaine, County Kerry, has been refused a licence for a gun by the resident magistrate; and will he take steps to secure that resident magistrates shall not withhold gun licences without reasonable cause.

On the 7th May I explained to the hon. Member the reasons which induced the resident magistrate to withhold a gun licence in this instance.† The suggestion at the end of the Question indicates the existing practice. Of 6,708 applications for arms licences throughout Ireland in 1902, only 619, or 9 per cent., were refused.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the case of James Quigley, labourer, for whom the Nenagh Rural District Council applied for a cottage and an acre of ground in their Provisional Order for 1902; whether he is aware that the proposed site was thrown out by the Local Government Inspector at the inquiry held in April of that year on the ground of want of water; that, subsequently, the labourer having got permission from a neighbouring farmer to make use of his water supply, the Council again brought the matter under the consideration of the Local Government Board urging Quigley's claim, his house having been condemned as unsanitary and unfit for human habitation; that the Board refused to make the order, alleging that the owner of the land might have other grounds of objection though none was raised by him on the inquiry except the absence of water; and, if so, will he, under the circumstances, have Quigley's case reconsidered.

The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The Local Government Board informed the District Council that the case would be sanctioned provided the written consents were obtained from the owner and occupier of the adjoining holding, to the water supply on which it was stated Quigley would have access. These consents have not yet been furnished.

And if the consent is obtained will the matter be reconsidered?

† See (4) Debates, cxxii., 19.

Yes, I understand that all difficulty will then have disappeared.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any provision in the Irish Land Bill, as amended, which proposes to deal with the question of those grazing farms situated in congested districts counties which within the last two years have been purchased by money advanced by the Land Commission to non-residents of these districts, who use them exclusively for grazing purposes; and, if so, what is the nature of such provision.

The reply to this Question is in the negative. It is not proposed to disturb past transactions entered into according to law.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, seeing that a permanent audit office staff is established at Devonport, any public inconvenience results there from in the way of exercising direct supervision of the work performed, and of personal conference between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the officers engaged upon it; and, if not, seeing that Devonport is nearly as far from London as Dublin, whether he is prepared to make arrangements to have a similar permanent audit office staff in Dublin.

Public inconvenience undoubtedly results from the impossibility of exercising direct supervision of the audit work performed at Devonport and other dockyards, and from the absence of opportunity for personal conference between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the officers engaged upon it. But it would be still more inconvenient to the public service to remove the books from the dockyards to London.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that less than £500 of the Exchequer and Audit Vote is expended in Ireland, and that it is found to be in the interests of the public service to have an audit office staff permanently employed at Devonport Dockyard, a long distance away from headquarters in London, he is prepared to make arrangements to have a proportionate share of this Vote spent in Ireland by establishing a similar permanent audit office staff in Dublin.

For the reasons stated in reply to similar Questions on the 29th June last,† it is not proposed to establish a permanent audit staff in Dublin.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would state in what way it is more economical and convenient to keep the Irish Savings Bank accounts in London, considering the time it takes for Irish depositors to communicate with London and receive replies there from.

It is not possible to go fully into this matter in reply to a Question; but I think it must be obvious that, by keeping all the Savings Bank accounts of the United Kingdom at one central institution, the administration is made more convenient and economical. The delay to the business of Irish depositors involved in communication with London as compared with Dublin is very slight.

On behalf of the hon. Member for S. E. Cork, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will establish a daily service for the delivery of letters in the townlands of Dromovane, Scraghan, Killowen and Tullyglass, Enniskeane, R.S.O., county Cork, as the present system causes much inconvenience, letters being delivered only on three days in the week.

† See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 797.

I will make inquiry on the subject, and communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the importance of securing a commercial and strategic waterway connecting the West of Scotland with the new naval base of the Firth of Forth, and of the fact that it is not at present intended to devote naval funds for that purpose, he will consider the desirability of examining the possibility of enlarging the existing Forth and Clyde Canal on the lines of the recently executed Kiel Canal, and of publishing a report as to the cost and time required for the execution of such a work.

I ought not to pretend to the hon. Gentleman or to the House that it is within the scope of the Admiralty plan, as at present arranged, to devote public money to such a purpose as the hon. Member suggests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to guarantee interest at 2½ per cent. if the money was raised privately?

That is a Question which should be addressed to my long-suffering colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my Question.

The hon. Gentleman distinctly advocates this expenditure on naval strategical grounds.

And commercial.

But mainly on Admiralty grounds, and the cost would therefore have to be defrayed out of Navy Votes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any instructions have been or are intended to be given by the Government to certain of the public Departments with respect to information to be supplied by them in connection with the inquiry suggested into fiscal policy, and, in that case, to what Departments have such instructions been given; and will he lay their terms before the House.

The public Departments chiefly concerned are, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Board of Trade and the Customs and Inland Revenue. I do not propose to lay on the Table of the House the details of any instructions which may be given to these departments.

May I ask whether any instructions have already been given?

Some instructions have been given and no doubt some instructions remain to be given.

Will the clerks get paid for the extra labour involved?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry into the fiscal proposals of the Colonial Secretary has begun; whether it is expected that it will be concluded before the end of the present session; whether the result of the inquiry will be communicated to Parliament or to the country; and, if so, by what means.

As the hon. Member is well aware, the inquiry has begun; but I do not propose to suggest any answer to the second and third Questions.

I wish to ask whether the Government has come to a decision that the only effective method of causing Germany to restore Canada to the most-favoured-nation treatment is by imposing a retaliatory duty in this country.

No, Sir. I have no Government decision to announce on the subject.

Do the Government then repudiate the Colonial Secretary?

Is there any change in the arrangements for Thursday?

The Army Estimates will be taken on Thursday as the first Order.

Does that mean the salary of the Secretary for War, as I am anxious to discuss him?

Yes.

May I ask whether the Sugar Convention Bill and the South African Loan Bill will be taken this week?

I see no probability, or the least possibility, of their being taken this week.

Will the Colonial Secretary's Vote be put down this week?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Military Works Bill will be taken.

I think it very unlikely that the Bill will come on in the present week, but I must not be precluded taking it if opportunity unexpectedly offers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that on the last two days when Scottish Votes were placed on the Paper only eight minutes before midnight were available for their discussion on one day and only six minutes before midnight on the other, will he state when an opportunity will be afforded for discussing the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland and other Scottish Votes.

If time allows. I shall be glad to put down the Vote in which the hon. Member is interested, but I cannot absolutely promise to find time for the discussion.

said the subject matter of this clause had been dealt with in another clause in the Bill, which left it in the hands of the magistrates, so that he knew there were some objections, and he had consequently put down a clause placing the question in the hands of the sheriffs. He would like to draw the attention of the House to the evils which it was desired to deal with. He had in his hand a letter from the Chief Constable of Dumbarton describing the evils which existed, largely in consequence of a trade that was established solely for the convenience of colonies of navvies engaged in railway construction. The Lord Advocate had described the evil as a small one, but it was likely to grow. So long as it was possible to do so by the establishment of bogus clubs, persons avoided compliance with the ordinary licensing laws of the country. Happily, the Bill would destroy that evil, and these persons were now being driven to seek their undesirable objects by other means, one of which was the utilisation of these Excise licences. Ordinary penalties were not in his opinion sufficient for offences in these cases, and he would therefore like to see the power of forfeiture conferred. That would be one of the most effective means of putting down she beening, and if the clause were read a second time he would move the insertion of words to secure that object.

said he would now move the Amendment he had indicated, and he might explain that he had taken the words from the certificate in the schedule of the Bill which was enforced on holders of licences who came before the magistrates.

I am perfectly willing to insert the words, although I do not believe they are necessary.

, in moving the Second Reading of the new clause which stood in his name, explained that the result of the divisions upon it in Committee was a tie, and but for the absence of one hon. Member who had promised to support it, it would have been carried. It could not, therefore, be suggested that he was pursuing an obstructive policy in this matter. This was one of the few points which both the Majority and Minority Report of the Royal Commission recommended. No doubt there was great difficulty in regulating the opening and closing of licensed premises by reason of the existence of grocers' licences. They could not force a grocer to close his whole shop without inflicting great injustice upon him by preventing him selling provisions, while, if only one department of his premises was closed, the police had no guarantee that the law was strictly observed. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would accept the clause.

said he did not for one moment complain of the action of the hon. Member in bringing this clause forward again, but he could only repeat the arguments which he used successfully—though with a very narrow majority in his favour—before the Committee. There might, of course, be something to be said on the question of the entire separation of the trades, but it should, in his opinion, be brought about by a general enactment. This clause would create a monopoly in favour of existing grocers' licences which would grow in value year by year. It would be a sort of tontine in favour of present licensed grocers, and future licence-holders would be penalised by having to compete in the trade under entirely different conditions. He doubted if public opinion was yet ripe for such a change in the law.

said the right hon. Gentleman had practically admitted that an evil existed by reason of premises not being exclusively used for the sale of excisable liquors—

I admitted the fact, but I do not admit it is an evil.

said the right hon. Gentleman suggested there was a good deal to be said in favour of separation, and told them the subject was one which should be dealt with in a general enactment, although he was not prepared himself to take it in hand. Undoubtedly there was an evil which ought to be remedied. He dissented from the view that the acceptance of the Amendment would establish a sort of tontine in favour of existing licence-holders. It would not prevent the grant of fresh licences, however; it would only provide that new licences should be granted under circumstances in which the trade could be more satisfactorily carried on. It was to his mind a great pity—in view of the fact that both the

said he should not have moved this new clause if the Bill stood in the form in which it left the Committee upstairs. Some important Amendments had been made in it, and if the Lord Advocate persisted they would be obliged to press this point home. He should have very much preferred that the Bill should have remained as it stood and that the Lord Advocate should have kept to it. This was a clause to check solicitation. The Lord Advocate claimed a right that the justices should express their own opinion for and against this or that application for a licence. Courts dealing with this question should be left alone, and if they were not left alone they could no longer be Courts. He did not think by his proposal that he was taking an exaggerated view of this matter because it was an acknowledged grievance all over the country. He begged to move.

said he objected to this clause because it was practically unworkable. He thought the law officers of the Crown sitting near him would agree that they would be placed in a terrible quandary if they had to institute prosecutions under a clause like this.

said he was very sorry that the Lord Advocate had refused to accept this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had used upon this point the authority of the Minority and Majority Report, but those Reports did not say that this was a bad clause, and they only expressed the opinion that it might not be workable. They gave no authority on the question of principle, and all they did was to express an opinion as to the practicability of the clause being carried out. He suggested that the difficulty might be met by inserting the word "soliciting" instead of "canvassing." There could be no difficulty if they made it read "any person soliciting any member of a licensing authority for a licence." Common-sense told them that if they used an apt word like "soliciting" there could be no doubt about it. It did not signify whether they regarded the authority of the magistrates as being magisterial or judicial. The fact was that they ought to act impartially and in the interests of the public. To tell him that the scandal of perpetual solicitation on the part of those who wanted licences or on the part of those who wanted to oppose them could not be stopped was really taking a little liberty with one's intelligence. He submitted that it was perfectly easy to do this, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would agree to omit the word "canvassing" and insert "soliciting."

said the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs had stated that it was a scandal that persons should canvas any member of the licensing authority for a licence. The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that if it was wrong to solicit for a licence it was equally wrong to solicit against it. That contention was admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the hon. Member who moved the clause did not admit it, nor did he think of it when he moved the clause.

said he accepted that in Grand Committee.

said that made the case all the worse. If the hon. Member accepted that contention in Grand Committee why did he not put it in the clause on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons? He himself should be very glad to see the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman carried out so that it should be made equally punishable for people to canvass either for or against a licence.

said that in times past he would have had more sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leith. The practice of canvassing had been a very great nuisance. The case would now be considerably altered when the licensing duties were entrusted to a select body composed equally of members of the County Council and of county magistrates. If that body were well selected, and if they felt their personal responsibility, the House might feel more confidence that they would not be open to those private influences to which, in too numerous instances, the county magistrates had been open hitherto. While sympathising very much with the grounds of the proposal he did not think the clause necessary in view of the altered position of affairs.

said he could not forget that this was a Scotch Bill, and that it had nothing to do with the law in England. It might be said if one measure was passed for Scotland, English Members might feel that some day similar legislation would be proposed for England. He was anxious to see some words inserted which would prevent solicitation. It was notorious that a great deal was done in that way—he did not say with what effect on the magistrates. He was perfectly satisfied, from reports which had reached him, that there were persons unhappily to be found in Scotland who would offer inducements to magistrates one way or another, and he therefore appealed to his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate to insert words which would prevent the offering of these inducements. It was a very reasonable suggestion and he was satisfied that it had the support of a large majority of Scotch Members.

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester seemed to think that because the members of the Court were to be reduced the evil which had hitherto existed would not be continued, or, at all events, would not be so badly felt. He feared it would only concentrate on the lesser number what both burgh magistrates and county magistrates had hitherto felt to be an intolerable nuisance. For a week or a fortnight before the Courts were held those who desired to have licences, and those who were afraid of having their licences withdrawn from them, spent their days and nights in canvassing the burgh and county magistrates. It was because this clause was for the suppression of an intolerable nuisance that he would give it his hearty support.

said the practice of canvassing had been for years an unmitigated and intolerable nuisance. He knew a case where the magistrates had been whipped up to oppose the confirmation of a licence. One of the magistrates had expressed his shame and sorrow to him that he allowed himself to be pledged before the case came before the Court, and added that if he had gone into Court unpledged against the licence he would certainly, on the merits, have voted for the confirmation of the licence. In framing new licensing laws it was very necessary that this long continued evil should be stopped once and for all.

said it did seem a remarkable thing if, when both sides of the House were practically at one on this matter, they could not frame a clause to give effect to what they desired. None of them were wedded to the particular words of the Amendment before the House. They did not want a one-sided clause forbidding canvassing for, and allowing it against, licences. His hon. friend was willing to accept such an alteration of the clause as the Lord Advocate might desire to cover both cases, and it would be an extraordinary thing if the House were to reject this clause because of the form in which it stood. He suggested that the Lord Advocate should insert words to carry out the intention which had been indicated by hon. Members. The practice of canvassing was a growing evil and a scandal in Scotland, and now that the licensing bodies were to be more restricted in number than before it would be more easy to canvass.

said this growing evil was one which the Scotch people deprecated, and it ought not to be beyond the power of the House to frame a clause to deal with it. He would gladly leave the Lord Advocate to find words for the purpose. It was not only in the matter of licences, but in other things, that this practice of what he could only call dishonest canvassing and soliciting went on, and every method that could be introduced to suppress the growing impurity ought to be welcomed by such an Assembly as this.

said the Lord Advocate must have been impressed by the unanimity on this subject not only of Scotch, but of English, Members who had spoken. It seemed to be a matter which could be easily adjusted by a little alteration of the words of the proposed clause. He suggested that it should be altered to read in this way. "Any person soliciting any member of the licensing authority in respect of any application for a licence shall, on summary conviction before the sheriff, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £100." General words of that kind would cover the whole object expressed by speaker after speaker. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept some such solution.

said he had no right to speak again except by leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert the word "soliciting" instead of "canvassing." One could understand what was meant by soliciting for a licence, but it would be argued on the other side that they could not solicit against a licence. Therefore, while hon. Members on the other side of the House were quite willing, frankly and honestly, to insert words like those proposed, the two sides would not be equal. Many people were actuated—he was not saying a word against the perfect integrity of their views—by the notion that they were fulfilling a high duty when as temperance reformers they were doing their best to prevent particular licences being granted. They did so on general principles and not because they had anything to say against A. or B. Were hon. Members who were anxious to have the clause made applicable to both sides prepared to put under £100 penalty every temperance reformer who did what he could with a licensing authority to prevent them from granting any more licences? [Cries of "Yes."] If so, they were prepared to go a great deal farther than he had ever heard them confess before. Should they make the clause more stringent still and say that every person who spoke to a member of a licensing, authority on the subject of a licence should be liable to £100 penalty? People got information from what was said to them by other people, and if a member of a licensing authority was not to be allowed to commune with anybody at all on the question of what licences should or should not be granted, without making that person liable to a penalty, they ought to have a Licensing Court of Trappists who could not talk to anybody. The matter was fraught with difficulty. It was not that he had no sympathy with the idea which had been expressed, but he honestly thought that the alteration they were making in the Court, in having it a small body who were not like the old body that could be whipped up from all parts of the country, would be the real solution of the difficulty. He would have been perfectly willing to accept a clause on the question of bribery, because, although personally he thought bribery was always an offence, there was a decision that pointed the other way. He should have been glad to make it clear by Act of Parliament. He did think that on the whole it was safer not to accept the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Leith, but to trust to the ordinary amelioration of the position that would take place in there being a small and well-defined Court instead of a large body of justices who could be whipped up.

said he was very sorry at the decision to which the Lord Advocate had come. It appeared to him that a licensing magistrate was in much the same position as a Judge, and that they ought to endeavour to prevent anyone buying up his judgment—for that was what it came to. He thought that the Government should be able to find some words which would express the unanimous wish.

said it was difficult for a layman to contest with the Lord Advocate on a point of law or a definition of terms. Very few of them but had had practical experience of this canvassing, and there seemed to be a unanimous opinion on all sides of the House that something should be done in the matter. If the clause passed its Second Reading he proposed to amend it by inserting the words suggested to the Lord Advocate by his right hon. friend—"Any person soliciting any member of the licensing authority in respect of any application for a licence shall," etc.

said that it would be exceedingly hard to draw the line between what was a perfectly legitimate giving of information and what was soliciting. He thought that any man sitting in a Licensing Court, who respected himself, would be perfectly able to protect himself against private solicitation. When, by the force of logic, hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they were willing to do as much on one side as on the other, was it conceivable to imagine that they were going to make a man pay a penalty of £100 who in any way expressed himself against the granting of a particular licence? He lived in a village where there was no licensed house at all, and he did not want one, and was he not to be free to say to a licensing magistrate, if he happened to meet him—"The village is going on admirably without a licensed house, and I do not want one?" Was he to be open to a penalty of £100 for passing that remark? He should be surprised if the temperance party throughout Scotland accepted that position, and did not use very strong expressions against limiting freedom of conversation outside the Licensing Court.

said that as an employer, having a considerable experience on questions connected with licensing, he had long opposed licences being granted for houses near public works, where they were a very serious source of danger. Two years ago a firm of publicans took him into Court, at an ultimate cost of £200, simply because he had spoken to some of his brother magistrates against granting a licence near his collieries. It was all very well to talk about temperance reformers with biased minds, but that was what happened to an employer who opposed the granting of a licence for the benefit of his workmen, who themselves were all against the licence. He would not be inclined to support the equivalent; though he was quite willing to accept the proposal that a publican who was interested in getting a licence should be punished for soliciting a licensing magistrate. It was the pecuniary interest of a publican to get a licence: it was no interest to an employer to get the licence refused, otherwise than for the benefit of the workmen and their moral welfare.

said he hoped they had not got the last word from the Lord Advocate. This was one of the most important alterations, from a social point of view, that could be made in our licensing system. Anyone who had any experience in the administration of the licensing law could not but be aware of many flagrant cases of influences of the most objectionable kind being brought to bear on the licensing magistrate in favour of an application for a licence. It was no reply to the substance of the Amendment for the Lord Advocate to make of it a reductio ad absurdum. Surely it was not impossible—in fact he knew that it was not—for the skill of the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman at his side to devise a form of words not open to the difficulty the Lord Advocate had suggested.

thought that the Lord Advocate had taken a very wise course in this matter. As a possible member of a licensing authority he looked with great distrust on the clause. He knew that it had been customary in Scotland for applicants for a licence to canvas for votes of magistrates. For his part, if he had the honour of serving in a Licensing Court and a man came to him to ask for his vote he would say to that applicant, "Before you go any further perhaps I