To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amounts expended during the last ten years on the principal items in connection with the upkeep (as distinct from the amounts expended on books, stationery, and other requisites for the various departments) of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office respectively during those years. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The average annual amounts expended from the Vote for Stationery and Printing during the ten years last completed in connection with the upkeep of the London Stationery Office and the Dublin Stationery Office have been respectively £34,220 and £3,058, making a total of £37,278. These figures include the amounts paid for salaries and wages for horses, carts, and incidental expenses, for police, and for printing, paper, etc. I am not in a position to state exactly the amounts spent from other Votes in connection with the upkeep of the two offices; but the following are the estimated amounts taken from Returns printed with the Stationery Office Estimate. The estimated average annual expenses during the ten years for rent, furniture, fuel, and light have been in London £2,957, in Dublin £504. The figures for other items, e.g., rates, telegrams, postage, etc., cannot be stated separately.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount for the past ten years of the Patent Office Vote and Patent Office extra receipts respectively received in Great Britain and amount expended therein, and also state average annual amount of Patent Office extra receipts received from Ireland, and state average annual expenditure in Ireland during the same period. (Answered by Mr. Victor Carendish.) The average annual amount of the Vote for the Patent Office for the past ten years was £63,110, and the average annual amount of the receipt from Patent Stamps was £205,242, of which £969 was from Ireland. The separate figures of expenditure for Ireland cannot be stated.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the average annual amount of the Admiralty Vote for the past ten years, and give the annual average expenditure in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard and the coastguard service in Ireland during those years. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The accounts of the Admiralty are not kept in such a form as to enable the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question to be given. Any statement on the subject is necessarily incomplete and is nothing more then an approximation. The details as to naval expenditure during the past ten years will be found in a statement attached to the Navy Estimates which will be circulated to-night.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that temporary clerks who were certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners and entered the service between the end of the year 1870 and August, 1871, and were afterwards promoted to permanent posts in the service, are allowed to reckon only half of their continuous temporary service for pension, and that temporary registered writers who first came into the service between the same dates and were afterwards promoted to permanent posts are allowed to reckon all their continuous temporary service for pension, although the regulations with regard to pension under which each of the above classes entered the service were identical, he will, under these circumstances, take steps under Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 to allow those who were formerly temporary clerks to reckon in like manner all their continuous service for pension. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The rule which has been in force for the last fifteen years is that copyists or writers placed on the permanent establishment are allowed to count one-half of their previous service for pension. It is true that, under a special concession made twenty years ago, writers employed before 19th August, 1871, and after wards without interruption of service, transferred to the establishment, are allowed to reckon their whole service for pension; but I see no sufficient ground for extending this concession to other cases than those which it was intended to meet.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increase in the work of chief clerks to surveyors of taxes, it is proposed to increase the present annual increment. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The wages of clerks in all grades in the offices of surveyors of taxes were thoroughly revised in 1900, when substantial improvements were made in their rates of pay, and no addition to their increments seems called for.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the total amount of the 1s. per quarter duty on corn repaid by the Treasury last year to those who held stocks of foreign corn in the United Kingdom; and what amount of the remitted tax, if any, was paid to the producer of the imported corn. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The total amount of duty repaid under Section 1, Sub-section 4, of the Finance Act, 1903, to those who held stocks of grain, &c, on which duty had been paid, is £362,342 12s. 7d. The repayments were confined by the terms of the Act to persons proving to the satisfaction of the Customs that they had in their stock or possession on the appointed date grain or articles on which the duty had been paid. This provision obviously could not include any stocks remaining in the possession of the foreign producer at the time.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many brewers and blenders who own tied houses supply them with English spirit which they compel their tenants to sell as old Irish and Scotch whisky, he will in the interests of both commercial morality and the public health, cause instructions to be issued with a view to putting an end to these practices. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There is no evidence before me to support the allegation made in the Question.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that County Court Judges during temporary absence from illness or other cause are compelled to find, and pay out of their own pockets, the deputies who sit for them, whether he will introduce a Bill to relieve them from this burden. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Any legislation by the Government in relation to the County Courts will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, to whom I will communicate the hon. and learned Member's suggestions.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that the conditions of maritime war have produced any material alterations in commercial and shipping transactions between the United Kingdom, British Colonies or Possessions abroad, with either Japan or Russia; and, if so, can he state generally their main features.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any branch of his Department is charged with the duty of observing and recording any important current changes in commercial and shipping operations of Russia and Japan under the varying conditions of maritime war; and, if so, whether current information so obtained, if of importance to British merchants and shippers, is communicated promptly to the trade and shipping centres of the Empire. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The time that has elapsed since the beginning of the war is too short to enable me to make any general statement as to its effect on British commercial and shipping transactions. In reply, however, to this and the following Question of the hon. Member I may assure him that the position is being carefully watched by the Commercial and Marine Departments

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that since the denunciation by Lord Salisbury, in 1897, of the Treaties of 1862 and 1865 with the German Zollverein and Belgium, British goods have been admitted into Canada with a rebate of 25 per cent., which was increased in 1901 to 33⅓ per cent., he will state the total value of exports of British and Irish produce to North American Colonies in 1897, 1898, 1900, and in 1902 after the rebate had been raised to 33⅓ per cent., and in 1903. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The 25 per cent. rebate given by the Dominion of Canada began on 1st August, 1898, and the 33⅓ per cent. rebate on 1st July, 1900. I give below the particulars required for each year since 1897, inclusive.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Education (Scotland) Bill will be introduced before Easter. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) In the absence of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House I am unable to give any undertaking as to the course of business. The Bill, however, will be introduced on the first available opportunity.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the present occupant of the Londonderry Mayoralty has no residential habitation within the city of Londonderry as required by the Charter of Charles II.; and whether, in view of the fact that penalties attach to the holding of the office under such circumstances, he will say what steps, if any, the Government purpose taking in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I am not aware of the provision of the Charter to which the Question refers. The present mayor is a local government elector of the city of Londonderry, and even if the Charter mentioned contains a clause such as is suggested, there is strong ground for contending that it is impliedly repealed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840 and the Local Government Act of 1898, and the Orders adapted thereunder. In these circumstances it is not a case for Government interference. Any person aggrieved can take proceedings in the King's Bench Division to determine the question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any negotiations for the purchase of the O'Grady Estate, consisting of the town lands of Cam and Garry cam, have yet been entered into with the Estate Commissioners; and, if so, will he direct that no time be lost in giving effect to the sale. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No application has been made to the Commissioners in respect of the sale of this property.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of insufficient sinking, the River Riffey, which flows through the townlands of Clonwhelan and Cam, in county Longford, constantly floods these town lands in time of rain; whether he is aware that, on 11th September in last year, two men were drowned in consequence of the floods caused by this river; and will he direct the attention of the Board of Works to the immediate necessity of providing funds for the proper sinking and embanking of this river. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that two men were drowned on the date mentioned in the flood on the public road near Clonwhelan. The town lands referred to are not comprised in a drainage district, and in the absence of a properly constituted drainage board the Board of Works have no power to advance money for the purposes of arterial drainage. I am making further inquiry, however, with a view to ascertain to what causes the floods complained of are due.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the proposed works (under the Marine Act) at Cape Clear will be commenced; and whether, in view of the present, condition of the harbour, he will have them expedited. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Tenders are about to be invited for these works. If a satisfactory tender be received and the weather be favourable they will be undertaken forthwith.

TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee of this House on Land Acts (Ireland) in Session 1894, and of the pending sale to the agricultural tenants, the Government will consider the advisability of reappointing the Committee in order to provide that the capital realised by the sale of the estates will be held in trust for the people of Londonderry and district, and not taken away to London us happened in the case of the sale by the Grocers and other London companies to their Irish tenantry. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member has sent me a newspaper report, from which it appears that the Irish Society proposes to sell its estates under the Act of last year. The purchase money must be applied in the first place in repaying the large loans which have been made to the Society by the Board of Works and raised on debentures issued under Parliamentary authority for public improvements in Derry and Coleraine, and in discharging other charges on the Society's estates. Any surplus that may remain will be expended by the Society, as in the past, for the benefit of Londonderry and Coleraine, and adjoining districts.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £920 has been levied on the districts of Castlebar and Wexford for extra police; and whether, considering the condition of those districts and the difficulty experienced by the inhabitants in meeting their liabilities, he will see that this sum is refunded. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no power to refund any portion of the charge levied pursuant to statutory authority in respect of the cost of employment of extra forces of police.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that in Bermuda the permanent barracks are not sufficient to accommodate the troops there, and that both officers and men have to live in bell tents, whether he would provide them with more convenient and suitable tents; and whether, seeing that three-fifths of the married men on the strength at Bermuda have to leave their families behind, contrary to the terms of engagement, he will consider the advisability of removing this cause of dissatisfaction. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The point raised concerning the nature of the tents provided for the officers and men will be referred to the General Officer Commanding for his consideration. Practically the whole of the accommodation at the station is under reconstruction at the present time, and additional married quarters are being provided as fast as possible under the Military Works Loan. In the meantime the families who are separated from the troops are drawing separation allowance. It must be pointed out that the provision of quarters for families on the married strength does not form part of the terms of engagement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state on what terms the Imperial Military Railways of South Africa have been transferred to the civil Governments of the Transvaal and Orange River States; what claim these Governments have as against the expenditure of £900,000 by the British Government on those railways, and what the claim of £1,250,000 by the British Government against the civil Governments of these States represents; and why the Imperial Military Railways were transferred to the civil Governments before these claims were investigated and settled.

As the railways in the Orange Free State and Transvaal were conquered they were taken over and worked by the Army. At the termination of the war they were handed over to the civil Governments of those Colonies without payment. The claim of £1,250,000 (which includes the sum of £900,000 referred to) represents approximately the amount expended out of Army funds on the construction of new lines, and the provision of additional rolling stock which was admitted to be beneficial to the new Colonies on taking over the railways, and so recoverable from them. The Colonies have admitted the correctness of the above claim, but preferred a counter-claim for the deterioration to the lines and rolling stock, while in military use, on the ground that very large expenditure would have to be incurred from colonial revenues to make this good. This counter-claim would, though not expressed in figures, in the opinion of the civil Government, extinguish the War Office claim. His Majesty's Government have declined to admit this counter-claim on the ground that these railways, which were held and maintained by the Army, did not become an asset of the Colonies until handed over by the military authorities on the termination of hostilities. It was obviously necessary to hand over the lines at the termination of the war to the civil Administration, subject so the reservation of the claim in question.

Are we to understand that in addition to the£900,000 and £1,250,000 a further claim has been made by the local Governments against the Imperial Government?

There is a counter-claim by the civil Government.

For how much?

Practically the same amount as our claim against them. It is in respect of the deterioration of the line.

asked how soon these claims would be settled.

said he could not tell. The matter was out of the hands of the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant the Return relating to the rate of mortality in the South African mines standing on to-day's Paper.

I will endeavour to obtain such a Return as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provision has been made in the regulations attached to the Chinese Labour Ordinance of the Transvaal for limiting the number of hours in each day, and the number of days in each week, during which indentured labourers may be required to work underground; and, if so, whether he will state that limit; also whether he has arranged that one day in seven shall be given them as a day of rest corresponding to our Sunday.

I am not in a position to make a definite statement at present as to the number. This is one of the matters which is being provided for in the regulations which are under consideration. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that in the mines ten hours shifts are the general rule. Practically no work is done in the mines from 5 a.m. on Sundays till 7 a.m. on Monday as the result of the Sunday Labour Law.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put the existing law into force with regard to the Chinese who are imported.

The existing law will apply.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the regulations are under consideration. Are the House to understand that they

†See page 834

They will not he settled completely for five or six years; but the substantial pledges which I have given to the House with regard to the regulations are now actually under consideration and will, I think, be settled in a very short time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conveyance of labourers from China to Africa, under the Transvaal Labourers' Ordinance, is to be conducted in all cases subject to the provisions of the China Passenger Ships Act of 1855.

The Chinese Passengers Act of 1855 and the Ordinance of Hong-Kong No. 1 of 1889 apply to every ship carrying from any port in Hong-Kong and every British ship carrying from any port in China. If in any case embarkation should take place from any ports of ships not within the ambit of those Acts (which is not contemplated) regulations not less protective to the emigrant will be framed.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman gives a promise that the provisions of this Act will apply to labourers imported from China?

I have answered the Question accurately. I think the hon. Member's Question did not quite recapitulate the effect of my answer. The Act applies to Hong-Kong as regards all ships, and it applies to every British ship carrying from any port in China. It would be practically impossible to get outside the ambit of that Act, but if by any chance that was done regulations would be framed to meet the case.

The other night the right hon. Gentleman quoted this Act and laid stress upon his promise.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say on what fund the salary of the Protector of Chinese will be charged.

The salary of the Protector of Chinese, who in the Ordinance is designated Superintendent of Labourers, will be paid from Transvaal Funds.

What opportunity will the House have of criticising the conduct of these officials?

Order, Order! That does not arise on this Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet received the proposals of the officers entrusted with the task of drawing up a scheme for the reorganisation of the gendarmerie in Macedonia; and, if so, will he state to the House the substance of their proposals.

The proposals for the reorganisation of the Macedonian gendarmerie are still under discussion at Constantinople and have not yet been finally settled. I hope shortly to be in a position to give the House further information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether there is any foundation for the report that His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai associated himself with the demand that the Russian cruiser, "Mandjur," should leave that port.

No, Sir. His Majesty's Consul-General took no part whatever in the demand for the withdrawal of the "Mandjur."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that inconvenience is experienced in the Metropolitan Police Courts owing to there being an insufficient number of stipendiary magistrates to cope with the work, and will he consider the expediency of adding to their number.

The matter is one which has been constantly under consideration; but I do not see my way at the present time to ask the Treasury to increase the charge on Imperial Funds for the Police Court service of the Metropolis. I think any inconvenience there may be arises from the difficulty of arranging the sittings of the magistrates rather than from the insufficiency of numbers.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, pending the. Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, he will take steps to prevent the insertion in Private Bills, promoted by local authorities, of clauses affecting the sale of milk applicable only to particular districts.

The clauses referred to have been included in a number of Local Acts since the Royal Commission was appointed. Whether they be inserted in any particular Bill is a matter for the consideration of the Committee on that Bill, but I could not undertake to interfere in the manner desired by my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a communication from the Rochford Rural District Council pointing out that, notwithstanding the adoption by local authorities of the model bye-laws of the Local Government Board with respect to tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures, and the fact that prosecutions and fines have followed their adoption, the nuisance caused by gipsies tends to increase; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will revise the model bye-laws with a view to their being made more stringent in the interests of public health.

I have seen the communication referred to. The model series of bye-laws issued by my Department are intended as a general guide to local authorities in preparing bye-laws for their districts, and I am not aware that local authorities have usually found the particular series in question to be insufficient. It is, however, competent for the Rochford Rural District Council, subject to the provisions of the enactment relating to the matter, to make bye-laws in addition to those included in the model series. If they submit any such bye-laws to me I shall be happy to give consideration to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state if coastguards in Ireland are required to take any, and, if so, what steps to prevent fishing boats from illegally trawling in their districts: and whether any change has been made in the coastguard regulations in this respect.

It is not the duty of the coastguard to take any active steps to prevent fishing boats from illegally trawling in their districts, but they are ordered to telegraph direct to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Dublin, intelligence of any cases of illegal trawling which ma)' come under their observation. No change has been made in the coastguard regulations in this respect.

Is it not the fact that the trawling plant when seized is resold at a nominal figure? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to secure its destruction in future cases?

I have no information as to that.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman it is the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the managers of military canteens supply civilians, particularly in county towns in Ireland, with goods; and, if so, will he state whether this is in accordance with military rules; and whether, with a view of preventing interference with the interests of local traders, he will take steps to secure the discontinuance of this practice.

The King's Regulations in paragraph 1015, which deals with purchases at canteens, lays down that "No Civilians are to be allowed to purchase articles in any of the establishments at any time." There is no reason to believe that this regulation is infringed and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with any particulars giving grounds for the statement contained in the Question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this practice?

If the hon. Member can give me any evidence of irregularity I will do my best to stop it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the seven magis-

The fact is, I believe, as stated in the first part of the Question. Recommendations for the appointment of gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lord Chancellor or the Lieutenant of the county. Any such recommendations, if made, will be duly considered.

What are the necessary qualifications for a magistrate?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return standing on to-day's Paper dealing with the Department of Agriculture, Dublin.

The hon. Member for West Cavan has already been granted a Return containing all the information indicated, with the exception of that suggested in the last column of the further Return proposed. There is no record of the nationality of officials.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say it is impossible to state the nationality of these officials? Is that not absurd?

It would not be impossible to obtain the information. But all the rest of the information asked for is already embodied in Returns which have been given, and I did not think it of sufficient importance to get another Return for that one purpose.

Rut will you get it now?

I will consider the point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficulty of landlords and evicted tenants agreeing upon the future rent of the holdings from which the tenants were evicted, and the consequent delay in the reinstatement of such tenants, and further, having regard to the fact that in many cases the evicted tenants cannot be provided for until a sale of the estate on which the evicted lands are situate takes place, he will introduce a clause in the amending Land Bill providing for their more speedy reinstatement and settlement.

Such difficulties, in so far as they exist, have been surmounted on the Coolgreany Estate, and I have no reason to believe that they will prove intractable elsewhere. I am not prepared to depart from the provisions embodied in the Act of last year by consent, after full debate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make an effort to bring about the reinstatement In county Kerry of evicted tenants on estates which are not at present for sale, and where the holdings are still vacant?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what date the Department of Agriculture for Ireland expect to be able to publish the statistics of the shipments of butter from Ireland to this country, and will he explain why the Department have failed to do this.

Some of the local bodies concerned are not yet in a position to furnish complete returns. When these have been received the Department will lose no time in publishing the statistics referred to.

In view of the probable early introduction of the Butter Bill can we have the Return at once? It is important.

I will represent that to the Department.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get statistics as to the importation into Ireland of foreign butter. We believe there is some mixing locally.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the late Sergeant Straghan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Belfast, passed through all the offices of the Donegore True Blue Masonic Lodge, No. 92, including that of worshipful master, was in high rank as a Companion of Royal Arch Chapter, 97, and was one of the founders and first secretary of Symon's Masonic Lodge, No. 278; whether he can state if any of his superior officers who recommended the late sergeant for promotion were members of any of these Lodges, or whether any constables who served under him were members; and whether, in view of the fact that membership of this society may be subversive of discipline in the Force and is repugnant to the majority of the Irish people, he will issue instructions to the Royal Irish Constabulary on the subject.

The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report of the death of this member of the Force. The report eulogises the late sergeant, who is stated to have enjoyed the highest reputation as a peace officer for the honourable and independent discharge of his duties. The suggestion that he secured special privileges because he was a Mason is without foundation. Members of the Constabulary are allowed to attend Masonic meetings provided their absence does not interfere with the performance of their public duties. It is not proposed to issue instructions such as are suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state where Head Constable Moore, whom he stated last session to have been transferred to Greencastle, county Antrim, on temporary duty, is now stationed, and whether he is in receipt of extra remuneration for temporary duty.

This head constable is still at Greencastle. He is not in receipt of extra remuneration.

When will he be removed?

I do not interfere in such minor matters.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Police Constable Walsh, of Rostrevor, county Down, has been censured for attending in uniform an open air sectarian meeting in that town; whether he is aware that, on a previous occasion, this constable distributed copies of a sectarian newspaper to workmen employed in the town; that he made a collection of money in Rostrevor in 1900 at the instance of the Church Mission Society; that complaints have been made as to his molesting a lady visitor to the town: and, if so, will he say whether this lady has been afforded an opportunity of identifying Walsh; and whether, in view of complaints against him for provoking religions controversies, it is proposed to retain this policeman in a Roman Catholic district.

The constable attended, in uniform, an out-door religious meeting; he was not censured for having done so. He gave away a few copies of the British Workman newspaper about three years ago. He made a collection in 1900 for the Indian Famine Fund and holds a receipt for the sum collected. He made no other collection. Complaint was made that a policeman spoke on religious matters to a lady visitor; it was not alleged that Walsh was the constable. He holds a high record for good police service, and his superior officers have no reason to believe that he will not continue to perform his duties without offence to any section of the inhabitants. It is not intended to transfer him to another district.

Is it not the fact that this man has been twice censured by the Inspector-General for interference in religious questions. Will he be continued in a Catholic district?

My information does not bear that out.

I have a letter to that effect from the Inspector-General.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he received from the Macroom Urban Council a resolution, passed on the 11th December, 1903, to the effect that the members considered the clause or section in the Local Government Act of 1898 defective, which makes the occupants of weekly tenements liable for rates and which relieves the owners who were hitherto liable; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of such an amendment of the existing Act as would secure that, as formerly, the owners of property of a valuation of £4 and under should be made liable for the rates.

The Act of 1898 was based on the principle that the occupier should be rated, and the Agricultural Grant was fixed upon this understanding. The fundamental change suggested is neither practicable nor desirable.

Is it not the fact that in consequence of this provision in the Irish Local Government Act, tenants of these tenements have to pay more rates than formerly?

I must ask for notice.

Have you not received many representations from public bodies in Ireland on this point?

I have answered the Question on the Paper. I do not propose to suggest any amendment of the law.

thought the explanation he had to give would satisfy the hon. Member. Last year several Members complained of the manner in which this item was treated in the Estimates, Osborne House being used as a convalescent home for naval and military officers. It had accordingly been arranged that in the forthcoming Estimates Osborne House should appear still in Class I, but as a separate Vote. It was, however, necessary that the Supplementary Estimate of this year should be framed in correspondence with the original Estimate.

did not think that the explanation of the noble Lord met the case, as it was still proposed to keep in the Civil Service Estimates a Vote which was essentially an Army and Navy Vote. That was not giving effect to the undertaking entered into last year. He should therefore give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

thought the hon. Member for King's Lynn was a little bit unreasonable. The explanation of the noble Lord was perfectly satisfactory, and had any other course been adopted the hon. Member would have been one of the first to complain had the Supplementary Vote been put under a distinct heading which had no correlative in the year's Estimates.

reminded the Committee that the expenditure of this Vote was controlled by the Office of Works under a statute passed by the House two or three years ago. It was therefore impossible to include it in the Army and Navy Estimates.

Will my noble friend submit that point to the Public Accounts Committee and abide by its decision?

said he could not answer that question off-hand. The matter of Osborne House was governed by statute.

, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, could not recollect ever having had a question of that kind to consider. Their duty was to see that money was applied to the purposes for which it was voted by the House of Commons.

also did not think it came within the province of the Committee to decide under what head a Vote should appear.

It has been done before.

said he could not remember any instance of that having been done. Could the hon. Member cite one?

Yes, but is this in order?

The hon. Member started it himself?

Then I can assure the hon. Member that before his time and mine the question as to what Estimate a Vote should appear under was referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

said his hon. friend evidently could not cite a concrete case. He seemed rather to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Osborne House was given by the King to the nation. It was a Royal palace, and to all intents and purposes continued as such. What object would be gained by shifting the Vote from its present place to the Army and Navy Estimates? It would only tend to deprive it of its historic character—it would be removing a small landmark for the mere sake of altering the accounts. The real duty of the Public Accounts Committee was to see that the nation got value for the money which was expended, and nothing in the shape of efficiency could possibly be gained by merely transferring the Vote from one Estimate to another.

supported the view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Part of the functions of the Public Accounts Committee was to give recommendations to the House as to the way in which the Estimates should be brought forward.

said the argument that this was a Royal palace, which in fact it never was, overlooked the statute which fixed the status of Osborne House. It was obviously desirable that a Vote applicable to the Army and Navy should appear in its proper class, so that the total Vote for the Services might be known and correct, and although it was perhaps necessary that this Vote should appear, for this session only, where it now did, because it had its correlative in the original Estimate, he hoped the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee would be taken as to the position it should occupy in the future. But he rose in order to enter his protest against the great difference between the original and the revised Estimate. In this case the revised Estimate was practically double the original Estimate.

said that as far as he could judge there was no necessity to discuss this matter further because the Government majority had arrived.

said he would try to show that the spirit of vigilant criticism was not wanting on his side of the House. It had been very pertinently pointed out that this item was double the original Estimate. He thought the Leader of the Opposition might have condescended to take notice of this great difference between the original and the revised Estimate. Surely they might have some explanation as to this very extraordinary discrepancy. They would like to know more about this scheme for turning Osborne House into a convalescent home. He remembered that on one occasion the hon. Member for Mid Lanark kept the House for a whole hour before the holidays discussing this item, and it was surprising that a gentleman of his keen critical faculty should be absent. He should be glad to have some information as to the progress of the work there.

asked if it was in order to discuss these matters on the Supplementary Estimate.

I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the question, although he is entitled to ask why that sum is asked for and how it is to be expended.

You have a majority of fifteen now.

said he wished to have some details given as to what steps had been taken to secure proper sanitary arrangements. He should like some medical Member of the House to give his opinion upon this point. This was very necessary in the case of Osborne House, because the Isle of Wight had an extremely relaxing climate. He had some doubts as to whether his noble friend could fully satisfy him on these points, but perhaps he would say as much as he knew, and he would perhaps answer them more fully when the arrangements had been more advanced. They could not scrutinise these items too much, for if they got into the habit of allowing £7,300 to pass without adequate attention they might get into the habit of passing £730,000 or £7,300,000 in the same way.

said the Government majority now stood at twenty.

said the Government ought to give them a sufficient explanation when these points arose. This item ought to be treated as an Army Vote. Osborne House had ceased to be a Royal Palace, for it was a gift by the Sovereign for the purposes of the Army, and it was entirely misleading to treat it as a Royal palace. It was a very unsatisfactory arrangement for the Treasury to put upon the Royal Palaces Vote an expense of this sort, which ought to be put in its proper place on the Army Votes. He wanted to have some explanation as to why the amount had been doubled. That was not a satisfactory way of dealing with the House of Commons. When voting money they wanted to know what they were about. No one could say that the House of Commons would grudge money for a matter of this sort, but how could there be adequate accounting and a proper check on expenditure if they were going to have a Vote doubled in this way. Generous as the House of Commons was they did not like to be asked in the first instance to vote a sum of money for a particular purpose and afterwards to vote twice the original sum when the bill came in.

said the hon. Baronet the Member for South Islington had complained of this Vote being included in the Civil Service Estimates instead of being included in the Army Votes. It might be that, as presented now, the Vote was misleading, but it would be still more misleading if it were put under the Army Votes. It was impossible to allocate this Vote to any single Department which would cover the whole service. Not only did it deal with Army and Navy matters, but it must be remembered that the Vote dealt with certain charges in connection with Osborne House, which, according to His Gracious Majesty's desire, was now thrown open to the public irrespective of Army or Navy purposes. It dealt with the grounds of the estate to which the public would have access; and finally it dealt with certain Royal residences which clearly must come under the Office of Works, and which could not possibly be allocated to the War Office. The hon. Member had asked him as to the progress of the work, and also in regard to the expenditure. He thought he could explain that. Two years ago His Majesty handed over Osborne House with the object of its being devoted to the purpose of a convalescent home, and it was found necessary so to redistribute the rooms as to make them more suitable for receiving patients. That was done at considerable expense, which the House voted last year. After that a very strong committee was appointed to supervise the convalescent home. It included the chief medical officers of the Army and Navy and a number of eminent civilian doctors. These distinguished men visited the building, and came to the conclusion that certain hygienic measures should be adopted in order to make the home of a first-class character. They were displeased with the quality of the water supply. They considered that the system of treating the sewage required certain changes, and finally, the most important recommendation they made was that the whole of the furniture in the patients' rooms should be of the type which was to be found in all the great London hospitals and convalescent homes. That involved a serious outlay. He could assure the hon Member for Partick that it was not owing to any negligence on the part of the Office of Works that this expenditure had to be incurred. No doubt the cost could have been anticipated and placed in a lump sum a year ago, but the distinguished scientific men forming the committee desired to see the house as structurally altered before making their final recommendations. Certain alterations had been carried out in order to make escape in case of fire more easy. The Office of Works had been solely actuated by a desire to see that the place should be a real convalescent home. The staff was about to be appointed, and the Office of Works hoped that in about six weeks from now the house would be ready to receive convalescents.

said he rose to offer his sincere sympathy to the Secretary of the Treasury. He was sure it was the desire of all sections in the House that he should long continue to occupy the position he held. What did they find to-day? He had almost said that a malignant attack had been made upon the hon. Gentleman. He had been subjected to criticism of the most drastic description. Of course, the attack was somewhat mitigated in the minds of Members when they knew the peculiar circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman was attacked. When the Rules were altered so as to cause the House to meet at two, instead of three o'clock, it was felt that it would be difficult to get a good and constant attendance of Members so soon after lunch. That had always been apparent, and he thought the result of their experience ought to make them go back to the old system. There was no need to go on with the discussion for the Government had now a good working majority. He had been in the House a long time, and he was a good judge of the course of events from the faces of the Whips. When he was in the Lobby he looked at all the Whips he could see. They were greatly agitated some time ago, but they were now in good humour. The hon. Gentleman could now allow the Vote to be taken, with the certainty that the result of the division would not materially affect the elections. He knew the times in which we lived were harassing, uncertain, and critical. One never knew what was going to occur, but it would be an objectionable thing if anything happened on the initiative of the hon. Gentleman opposite from Scotland, or if the blow should come from Peckham. That would be the irony of fate. Although he was opposed to the Government he sometimes pitied them. In order to give a helping hand to people who looked so dreadfully forlorn, he now announced that there was a Government majority and that there was no need for further anxiety.

said that it would have been just as possible to have included this sum in the Naval Vote as the £40,000 for the naval cadets at Osborne. He had a definite pledge last year that it would not appear in the Royal Palaces Vote. On 21st April, 1903, he complained that this was a naval and military work and not a work on a Royal palace, and Mr. Powell Williams, whose loss they all deplored, said in reply—

"The Motion of his hon. friend placed him in a position of considerable difficulty as a member of the Public Accounts Committee."

"It seemed to him that unless it could be shown that the amount in question applied solely to that portion of Osborne House which was still a Royal palace it had no right to be on the Estimates before the Committee. It was obvious that a service for the Army and Navy should appear on the Army and Navy Estimates."

said he was not going to waste the time of the Committee, but only in a word to show the absolute ineptitude of the Government and their Departments. Osborne House was not a Royal palace at all; it was private property. If it had been a Royal palace it could not have been disposed of as it had been.

said that it was rather indecent wasting the time of the Committee while waiting for a Government majority. It was difficult to see why the Secretary to the Treasury should not be able to throw any light on this question. This convalescent home was not likely to be occupied by naval officers, who were not likely to be injured in any war soon, so that it must be occupied by Army officers. He would like to have some more information as to how this sum was to be spent. They knew that some scientific men had gone down there and had made certain recommendations as to the electric light and all that sort of thing, but it would be far

rose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.

claimed that the original Question be now put.

asked what was the Motion before the Committee?

The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has claimed that the original Question be now put.

said that the hon. Gentleman did not move the closure.

The Committee has decided that the Question be now put.

asked if the Chairman accepted the Motion for closure.

Yes.

asked if the Chairman put the Question for the closure.

Yes; and it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. The hon. Member for Accrington moved the closure. I put the Question and the Committee accepted it; and then I put the Question under discussion at the time, which the Committee has just disposed of. The Secretary to the Treasury now claims that the original Question be put and that is the question to be decided by the Committee.

said as the matter was one affecting the practice of

It does not signify in the least who moves the closure. The question for the Committee to decide was whether the closure should be applied or not. It does not signify whether the Motion comes from an hon. Gentleman on my right hand or on my left. When the Committee has once decided to closure the Motion, the ordinary procedure follows.